Hello everyone.

Regarding the claim that those who mistakenly voted for two candidates and want to be allowed to re-vote:

I was at my polling place for 5 hours on Tuesday here in Arizona. I sat next to the person who took the ballots and fed them into the ballot machine. If there were no problems, the machine accepted the ballot, and that was the end of it. If someone mistakenly voted for more candidates than they were supposed to, or voted both "yes" and "no" on a proposition, the machine would make an odd sound, and a receipt would print. The person taking the ballots told the voter exactly which vote was in error, and gave the voter two choices: Either fill out another ballot, or accept the ballot as is, and the mistaken vote would not be counted either way. All the other votes on the ballot would be accepted. The choice was up to the voter.

Therefore, assuming that Florida has the same kind of process, people were given the choice to re-cast a ballot. Their claims after Tuesday that they want another chance to vote is bogus.

In my opinion, this should be over next Thursday. Florida announces the results of its re-count, and includes the out of state ballot count.

To those who complain that they were confused, too bad. You had the opportunity to ask the workers for an explanation. I was there when a blind man voted; the worker spent nearly an hour reading the entire ballot so that the man could vote. I've seen the "butterfly" ballot, and it did not appear confusing. Again, if it was, you should have asked for help.

To ask for a re-vote is ridiculous at this point, since so many things have changed since election day. And the demand for a "hand count" is counter-intuitive as well. Do people actually think that humans count better than machines?

Just my $.02.

-- Dan the Power Man (dgman19938@aol.com), November 10, 2000

Answers

"Therefore, assuming that Florida has the same kind of process"

Don't ASSUME, it makes an ASS out of U and ME!

-- (bwaahaha@you.dummy), November 10, 2000.

Dan,

Computers count faster than humans, not necessarily "better" in this case. How else can you explain how Bush was up by 1784 votes, by computer count, and is now, on computer recount, only up by 215?

-- (@ .), November 10, 2000.

"To those who complain that they were confused, too bad. You had the opportunity to ask the workers for an explanation."

Oh yeah, riiiiiight! When's the last time YOU got a straight or correct answer from anyone involved in a government activity? Even Letterman joked about the way he *couldn't* get his questions answered when he went to vote.

-- xyz (123@456.com), November 10, 2000.

Remember they're counting paper, not electronic votes. Big difference. If the votes were electronic, there would be no errors.

I think the absentee ballot from overseas will help Bush a lot more than Gore. Can't imagine there are very many Clinton/Gore fans in the military.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), November 10, 2000.

Dan,

>Therefore, assuming that Florida has the same kind of process,

Invalid assumption.

And even if the _process_ were the same, you shouldn't assume that it was implemented correctly everywhere.

Tuesday night I heard a radio interview of someone who had punched the wrong hole, and asked a poll worker to verify which candidate she had voted for. The worker told her which candidate the punch indicated. The voter then said she had made a mistake. The worker _took the ballot out of the hand of the voter, told her that it was too late to change, and would not let her have another ballot_.

> people were given the choice to re-cast a ballot. Their claims after Tuesday that they want another chance to vote is bogus.

But some of your assumptions in arriving at this conclusion were faulty.

>To those who complain that they were confused, too bad. You had the opportunity to ask the workers for an explanation. I was there when a blind man voted; the worker spent nearly an hour reading the entire ballot so that the man could vote.

But what about those voters who asked for explanation, but did not receive the satisfaction that blind man did?

Do you presume that all poll workers acted correctly and competently, just because you witnessed one doing so? I've personally witnessed an irregularity by a poll worker -- shall I presume that all poll workers are incompetent?

>I've seen the "butterfly" ballot, and it did not appear confusing.

Did you know that some of those ballots could not be lined up properly in the frames in the voting booths? So they couldn't be punched correctly?

>Again, if it was, you should have asked for help.

... and if they _did_, but did not receive the proper response by poll workers? What about them? Toughies?

>To ask for a re-vote is ridiculous at this point,

... if you assume that all poll operations were carried out perfectly correctly on Tuesday, that is.

>the demand for a "hand count" is counter-intuitive as well. Do people actually think that humans count better than machines?

Do you have much experience with imperfect card sorters, optical character readers, or similar glitchy electro-mechanical devices?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 10, 2000.

Hi Dan,

I not only think your right but I think most of America agrees with you as well.The errant voters in PBC just don't want the rest of the country to think they're stupid,their mistakes were brought to the forefront in this election and if it were so all so important why didn't they raise three kinds of hell in the last election when a proportionate amount of votes were thrown out?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), November 10, 2000.

Tuesday night I heard a radio interview of someone who had punched the wrong hole, and asked a poll worker to verify which candidate she had voted for. The worker told her which candidate the punch indicated. The voter then said she had made a mistake. The worker _took the ballot out of the hand of the voter, told her that it was too late to change, and would not let her have another ballot_.

Uh-huh. Right. And I wonder if she is a Gore voter? One of those ones who want to do it again? She is full of shit. My in-laws work the polls. Each Florida voter is allowed to have up to three replacement ballots if they make a mistake. The folks who work the polls CARE enough about democracy to put in a TWELVE hour day, they are not goons, in fact the ones I dealt with were very nice, well informed, and helpful. What we are seeing in this cry for another chance to vote is SOUR GRAPES of the HIGHEST magnitude.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 10, 2000.

The folks who work the polls CARE enough about democracy

Oh, so you can personally vouch for ALLLLLL the poll workers in the whooooole country? You must have one helluva' Christmas card list!

-- Some (Don'tGiveARat's@Ass.com), November 10, 2000.

Yup and a friend of my brother in law's mechanic who heard it from the hairdresser said Y2K was gonna' be a big deal too.

-- You (JustDon't@Know.com), November 10, 2000.

Oh, sorry. Add excessive whining from Gore supporters to the "sour grapes" comment. Thanks.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 10, 2000.

Uncle Deedah,

You seem to be assuming that because many or most or almost all poll workers are competent and helpful, that means *all* of them are.

I'm not saying that the incompetent poll workers constitute any majority. I'm saying that sometimes, some poll workers goof. In most elections, the vote margins are large enough for this not to make any difference in the outcome. Unfortunately, now we happen to have an election that is _so_ close that small numbers of irregularities could make a difference in the outcome.

>And I wonder if she is a Gore voter?

Yes.

Did you expect a Bush voter to be complaining? One who had the easy lineup of top listing with top punch position?

>One of those ones who want to do it again? She is full of shit.

Why? Because she was not allowed her legal rights and is speaking out about that?

>My in-laws work the polls. Each Florida voter is allowed to have up to three replacement ballots if they make a mistake.

That's what is _supposed_ to happen, right?

What about the cases in which poll workers did not follow the law? Just because a legal procedure is on the books doesn't guarantee 100% compliance. People are imperfect.

>The folks who work the polls CARE enough about democracy to put in a TWELVE hour day,

I'm sure most of them are, and most of them don't make mistakes even when they're tired. But can you guarantee that's true for _every_ poll worker?

>they are not goons, in fact the ones I dealt with were very nice, well informed, and helpful.

And so have been almost every poll worker I've ever encountered. But I did witness one nice, helpful poll worker misbehave in a past election.

Shucks, I've had a very nice, very polite, very well-liked doctor commit malpractice on me. When I first complained, I was told, "But he's so NICE!"

>What we are seeing in this cry for another chance to vote is SOUR GRAPES of the HIGHEST magnitude.

Perhaps it is the refusal to acknowledge the right to have an improperly-conducted election corrected that is the sour grapes here.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 10, 2000.

if it were so all so important why didn't they raise three kinds of hell in the last election when a proportionate amount of votes were thrown out?

Because, in the last election, those votes would have been irrelevant. In this one, they would have determined the winner of the Presidency.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 10, 2000.

hmm:

Yep. We are now setting a precedent for how an extremely close Presidential race is to be decided -- peacefully and gracefully, or after a long, expensive legal battle leaving the eventual victor bloodied and not regarded as legitimate for any number of reasons. No matter who it might be. And possibly establishing that elected or politically appointed judges, rather than the people, properly decide close elections.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 10, 2000.

hmm,

But isn't right,right? Isn't justice,justice? If it matters,it matters, or does it only matter when it happens to suit us?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), November 10, 2000.

And possibly establishing that elected or politically appointed judges, rather than the people, properly decide close elections.

But that's the Democrat's argument, that the people did decide the election, but that their votes didn't reflect their decision. An unusual argument, and perhaps without real merit, but there it is.

But isn't right,right? Isn't justice,justice? If it matters,it matters, or does it only matter when it happens to suit us?

Circumstances always dictate such matters. For example, if we were to say that there was widespread vote fraud in California that only this year caused a change in the outcome of the election, should it be ignored simply because it always has been? Yes, the fraud should have been dealt with before, but the whole system is far from perfect, as we can see. I don't know if legal remedies are a complete answer (I doubt it), but I don't think automatic concessions in the face of voter discrepancies are a solution either.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 10, 2000.

Perhaps it is the refusal to acknowledge the right to have an improperly-conducted election corrected that is the sour grapes here.

Improperly conducted election? Because a few thousand idiots out of 422,000 voters did not take their time filling in their ballot, you sit and classify the entire election as improperly-conducted? Please!

These few thousand voters, because they did not THINK before they acted, are now entitled to try again? On what basis? Fairness? What about fairness to people who used their BRAIN in the voting booth? Should we now check every single district across the USA and let the people who screwed up their vote recast it and thus decide who the next President is? Or is your real agenda to vote until your guy wins?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 10, 2000.

I am glad to see this generate so much discussion. I do find it curious that only those with legitimate e-mail addresses generally seem to agree.

I will be the first to admit that I am no expert on elections and laws related to them.

Bwahahaha wrote:"Therefore, assuming that Florida has the same kind of process" Don't ASSUME, it makes an ASS out of U and ME!

My assumption is that there were election workers in Florida, and that if someone was confused, that those workers would have assisted them. I am also assuming that the ballots were at some point fed into a machine. The part I'm not sure about is whether someone who mistakenly voted for two candidates would have been given another chance...anyone from Florida that can elaborate?

Deano, again, I'm not sure, but I thought the call for a HAND recount implied that someone is questioning the ability of the ballot machines to accurately count votes. In my opinion, a hand calculation will never be as accurate as the machine, unless there is clear evidence that the hole-punching (or whatever else was used) was error-ridden.

No Spam, I do like your logical approach and writing style, though I disagree with you. Of COURSE there are imperfections simply because we're dealing with humans here. I'm saying that statistically it would work out because the errors will cancel each other out.

Regarding my experience with punch cards, etc., yes, I used something like them back in my old FORTRAN computer class days, and I know that errors do happen. But what kinds of errors would be made? Certainly some legitimate ballots were accidentally kicked out. But the odds of one vote going to another are incredibly low.

I think Uncle Deedah sufficiently countered the story of the person who claimed they weren't allowed to fix their ballot.

Finally, your claim that this is an "improperly conducted election" is ridiculous on its face. Would you care to make a wager on how far those lawsuits will go?

I saw on NBC that one of the lawsuits claims that a voter voided their own ballot because they thought they had to vote for both Gore and Lieberman, so they punched two holes. Well, DUH! :) Again, when in doubt, ASK SOMEONE FOR HELP. If a person is that uninformed, and doesn't seek assistance, their vote SHOULD be invalid.

My position on this is not influenced by the apparent outcome; it is quite possible that the overseas ballots could result in a Gore victory. I'd just like the folks who want a "re-vote" to stop and think about what they are asking for.

-- Dan the Power Man (dgman19938@aol.com), November 10, 2000.

hmm:

[An unusual argument, and perhaps without real merit...]

Amen, brother. Something only a lawyer could dream up. I voted, but now I want to take it back and vote again because my guy didn't win, and I might have inadvertently voted for someone else. So I want a judge to decide that everyone who *thinks* they voted for someone other than my guy by mistake be allowed to vote over again, but nobody else. Uh huh.

You seem a bit hard of reading. My whole point was that these suits are "without real merit", they are shortsighted efforts to subvert the elective process. Any election can be closer than the accuracy of our procedures can measure. This is like a 4th down measurement that is within 1/2 inch one way or the other, *knowning* the sticks were placed pretty slapdash arbitrarily the preceding first down. The measurement does NOT measure whether the team went more or less than precisely 10 yards. Yeah, it's pretty close. But at the margin, within the error of measurement, it is an *arbitrary* conflict resolution device that works ONLY because we agree to agree about it. We don't stop the game and initiate a lawsuit (IF and ONLY IF the decision went against us, of course) on the grounds that justice was not served because the system isn't precisely accurate. It's not intended to be precisely accurate, and we understand that it CANNOT EVER be precisely accurate. We must agree to agree with what it produces, imperfections and all. Otherwise, like it or not, we have changed the procedure itself.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 10, 2000.

Dan:

Good to see you back.

There are always problems during elections. Now I don't know enough about Florida or anywhere else to comment on what happened and what should be done. I do know that there was a change in my county [no problems but delays] and I know why.

In the primary this year 30% of the voters cast ballots. In November 91% voted. The poll workers were overwhelmed. They weren't prepared for what hadn't happened in recent memory. I live in a rural area. In the primary, my wife and I voted at 6:30 am and we were the only folks in the room. This time at 6:30 am there was a line which reached outside into the falling sleet. In the urban areas they had even bigger problems.

I suspect that this contributed to problems.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 10, 2000.

Amen, brother. Something only a lawyer could dream up. I voted, but now I want to take it back and vote again because my guy didn't win, and I might have inadvertently voted for someone else. So I want a judge to decide that everyone who *thinks* they voted for someone other than my guy by mistake be allowed to vote over again, but nobody else. Uh huh.

I wasn't aware that the ruling that was requested was for a revote only amongst those who feel they voted incorrectly. Where did you read this?

My whole point was that these suits are "without real merit", they are shortsighted efforts to subvert the elective process. Any election can be closer than the accuracy of our procedures can measure.

Understood. However, it has always been thought that the election represents the will of the people. In this case, it will be painfully clear that the next President will be installed into office partly because of the will of the people, and partly because of an error on the part of the voters. Indeed this is nothing new in elections, but I think it will be a sobering realization for many that an unintentional mistake can put someone in the highest office in the country.

My assumption is that there were election workers in Florida, and that if someone was confused, that those workers would have assisted them. I am also assuming that the ballots were at some point fed into a machine.

Based on the 19,000+ ballots that were discarded, it appears that the machines they may be fed into do not bother to check for errors in voting. I know the scan-type machines do, which is why you don't really hear about this type of problem happening with them. I would think that if the machines in WPB could detect double-votes, this would never be an issue.

Deano, again, I'm not sure, but I thought the call for a HAND recount implied that someone is questioning the ability of the ballot machines to accurately count votes. In my opinion, a hand calculation will never be as accurate as the machine, unless there is clear evidence that the hole-punching (or whatever else was used) was error- ridden.

I believe the hand-counting was proposed to detect ballots in which the hole was only punched half-way through. This would make them unreadable by the machine, but still readable by hand. A sampling of ballots would be examined and if half-punched ballots were detected, they could be counted and further counts would take place. If no such ballots were detected, then they would discontinue any recount.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 10, 2000.

hmm:

Interestingly, I read that this is itself a matter of debate. Should be revoting involve Palm Beach County or all of Florida. Should it encompass ONLY those who voted in this election, or all eligible votors whether they voted or not?

As you might expect, the Democrats want to restrict the revote to Palm Beach County (heavily Democratic) while the Republicans want the revote to involve the whole state (which tends to vote Republican on the whole, and has a Republican governor). Further, the Democrats would prefer that ONLY those who voted in this election be permitted to revote PROVIDED it's restricted to PBC. In general, the revote privileges are being debated, because the demographics of party voting are so clearly defined and well understood.

But this is precisely where things get interesting. Some judge will have to define the scope of any revote. This judge doesn't need to be a rocket scientest to understand that the winner of the national Presidential election rests on the precise definition of WHO gets to vote again. And the demographics being very clear and well understood, whoever gets to define who gets to vote again determines who becomes President.

Now, I can assure you that if *I* got to define who gets to revote, I would *definitely* be looking for the high bidder. Wouldn't you? We're talking BILLIONS of dollars spent on this election here. That's a lot of simoleons, enough to set my family up for generations. Going once, going twice...

Do you see the problem here yet?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 10, 2000.

>> Now, I can assure you that if *I* got to define who gets to revote, I would *definitely* be looking for the high bidder. Wouldn't you? <<

It would be wealth that could not be spent, because spending it would reveal it and revealing it would reveal the crime. Accepting a bribe in exchange for a decision from the bench is a crime, you know. I'm not sure I would be so terribly eager to accept that bribe - even if you would. Once the cat was out of the bag, it would mean prison time, the enmity of half the country, the blackening of the family name for generations, and the reversal of the decision and possible tearing apart of the country.

No big deal for you, perhaps...

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 11, 2000.

Brian:

If the payoff is in straight dollars, you're probably correct. But the corrupt are rarely that naive. Payoffs can take many forms, which cannot be directly considered suspicious. A key promotion, a well paid sinecure somewhere, a nomination to a higher office, special benefits to family members, etc. Hey, *I* wouldn't know, but those in the business certainly do.

Hey, are you *really* claiming that no judge has ever accepted a bribe on the grounds that it cannot be cashed in? Come on. There may be SOME limit to the magnitude of said bribe, but experience suggests that the limit is pretty damn high.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 11, 2000.

As you might expect, the Democrats want to restrict the revote to Palm Beach County (heavily Democratic) while the Republicans want the revote to involve the whole state (which tends to vote Republican on the whole, and has a Republican governor).

It was my understanding that the Republicans don't want a revote at all, under any circumstance. If they did want a revote of the whole state, however, I don't see how the Democrats could sensibly challenge such a suggestion since it would have their desired result of allowing a revote in PBC. In effect, it would be a more than fair compromise if Republicans were actually willing to entertain such an idea. If the Democrats opposed it, I think it would not only put a quick end to any legal challenge they had, but immediately sway public opinion towards the Bush camp.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 11, 2000.

Uncle Deedah,

>Improperly conducted election?

In response to your short "sour grapes" statement that did not seem intended to convey every possible detail and nuance of meaning about its subject, I posted a short statement that did not intend to convey every possible detail and nuance of meaning about its subject.

According to the information I have, there was improper conduct in the polling place of the person interviewed for radio. For at least that person, the election was improperly conducted.

>Because a few thousand idiots out of 422,000 voters did not take their time filling in their ballot,

If you will carefully re-read my posting, you will find that I was commenting with respect to a report of improper conduct by a poll worker, not "idiots" who "did not take their time filling in their ballot."

>you sit and classify the entire election as improperly-conducted?

I have not written that the _entire_ election was improperly conducted. Why do you attribute that exaggeration to me?

>Please!

Yes. _Please_ stop attributing ideas to me that I did not express.

>These few thousand voters, because they did not THINK before they acted, are now entitled to try again?

Depends on the provisions of Florida state election law.

>On what basis?

The law.

>Should we now check every single district across the USA and let the people who screwed up their vote recast it and thus decide who the next President is?

Each district should have conducted its election according to applicable laws. In districts that didn't, people of that district are responsible for initiating the appropriate legal action. You got any problem with that?

>Or is your real agenda to vote until your guy wins?

My agenda is to support the following of applicable legal procedures in the various states.

Does it bother you that some election laws provide for more than one round of recounts?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 12, 2000.

Dan,

>The part I'm not sure about is whether someone who mistakenly voted for two candidates would have been given another chance...anyone from Florida that can elaborate?

I'm not from Florida, but in the radio interview to which I referred earlier, the Floridian interviewee stated that she had read in the voting instructions that voters who made a mistake on a ballot were entitled to receive a replacement ballot, up to three times. (I *do* hope that the meaning of the preceding sentence is clear to everyone else in this forum and there won't be any comments about Florida allowing someone to vote three times.)

>I do like your logical approach and writing style,

Thank you!

>I'm saying that statistically it would work out because the errors will cancel each other out.

Oh? Why should voting errors necessarily be symmetric?

We seem to have an asymmetric example right now: the ballots in Palm Beach County. The first candidate listed on the left, Bush, corresponded to the first punch hole in the column. For _no other candidate_ did the ordinal number of the candidate's position, on either right or left side, match the ordinal number of the punch hole position in the column.

>Regarding my experience with punch cards (* snip *) >But what kinds of errors would be made?

Some that _could_ be made: Misalignment of printing on the card, so that arrows didn't line up with the holes in the ballot frame. Mis-cut cards that didn't fit properly in the ballot frame. Misaligned or misformed frames. Voter doesn't press the punch down enough to cut a hole cleanly.

>But the odds of one vote going to another are incredibly low.

... _IF_ all cards are cut properly and printed correctly and all frames are properly aligned and shaped, and voters always inserted the cards in the frames properly. No skimping on the quality of cards, frames, or punches in order to save taxpayer money.

>I think Uncle Deedah sufficiently countered the story of the person who claimed they weren't allowed to fix their ballot.

So you share Uncle Deedah's assumption that _all_ poll workers are unfailingly competent and helpful? You think it's not possible that any poll worker acted improperly for some reason? Just a few sentences after you wrote "Of COURSE there are imperfections simply because we're dealing with humans here" ???

Please explain to me how Uncle Deedah "sufficiently countered" the story of the person who claimed they weren't allowed to fix their ballot. I don't get that from reading what Uncle Deedah wrote. What did I miss?

>Finally, your claim that this is an "improperly conducted election" is ridiculous on its face.

Please see my comments to Uncle Deedah about that phrase in my preceding posting.

And ... you _did_ read my second November 10 posting carefully enough to notice that I _did not claim_ that this was an improperly conducted election, didn't you?

>Would you care to make a wager on how far those lawsuits will go?

Sure. What stakes? I say they'll go as far as state and federal law allow. ... But I really should ask you to be more specific about *which* lawsuits you meant.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 12, 2000.

Dan,

Clarification (well, elaboration, anyway) of my preceding posting:

In response to your comment:

Dan>Finally, your claim that this is an "improperly conducted election" is ridiculous on its face

I wrote:

NSP>And ... you _did_ read my second November 10 posting carefully enough to notice that I _did not claim_ that this was an improperly conducted election, didn't you?

The phrase "improperly conducted election" could refer to the entire Florida state election, or just some part of it.

At no time have I used "improperly conducted election" to refer to the whole Florida state election.

In my second November 10 posting, I intended the phrase to refer to a theoretical possibility as the subject of "... the right to have ... corrected ..."

In my just-posted note to Uncle Deedah (which was after your posting), I pointed out that there was improper conduct at a particular place, and that "For at least that person, the election was improperly conducted." That doesn't say the election was improperly conducted for all voters. It says that from the perspective of the category of voter who did experience improper conduct, the election was improperly conducted. How large was that category?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 12, 2000.

To whom it may concern:

Tonight I listened to a talk-radio show discussing Bush/Gore supporters going to court for various election-related reasons.

One caller said if Gore went to court, "that would show what kind of man he is." When the radio host asked him whether the same would be true of Bush, the caller replied that "Bush is entitled to go to court if necessary".

Well ... I suppose those are both neutral statements ... they *do* look more neutral when written here than they sounded when I heard them.

I guess ya jest hadda heard 'em. :-)

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 12, 2000.

Spam,

YOU are the one who said "an improperly-conducted election", not I. You did not say "partially improper" or "somewhat improper", or "improper conduct by one worker in one election district", you said "improperly-conducted election". I am not exaggerating what you said, I am attributing ideas to you that you did indeed express. Your words are YOUR words, I have not twisted them.

Now, insofar as recounts go, I have NEVER said that I am against recounts, so, to quote you, _Please_ stop attributing ideas to me that I did not express. Thank you. Recounts are fine with me, re- votes are something else.

And, finally, it is up to the voter to understand his or her voting rights. Since you seem to be so enamored of doing things by the LAW, the law has always held that not knowing the law is NO excuse for not adhering to the law. It does not matter that you did not know the speed limit was 35 and you thought it was 50, you will get a ticket and a fine. Voters in Florida are permitted by LAW to have replacement ballots if the voter makes a mistake and requests a new one. Being told that you cannot have a new ballot is incorrect, but the responsibility for knowing that ultimately lies with the voter, not the poll worker.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 12, 2000.

No Spam: Thanks for continuing the discussion on this thread. I've been gone all weekend celebrating my wedding anniversary, so sorry I couldn't reply sooner.

In the context of how you have explained "improperly conducted election", it makes sense now. I hope you see that because both Deedah and I read into it the same way, that it was confusing.

My statement that "mistakes will balance each other out" is incorrect, in light of what we now know about the ballots. However, I'm with others here that once the official re-count is completed, and the overseas ballots tallied, that this should (IMHO) be the end of it.

Regarding my suggested wager, what I'm saying is that those voters who have filed a lawsuit claiming they want a re-vote based upon the nature of the original ballot, won't get very far. I am not referring to every suit, of course. Let's watch and see what happens.

-- Dan the Power Man (dgman19938@aol.com), November 12, 2000.