Continuation of thread on that op-ed piece from Eve.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

That thread is just loading ridiculously slow, so I thought I'd start a continuation thread.

RC:

Here's information on which counties use which machines, the counts by county as they stand, and variations on the original count and the machine recount [where they were done]. No doubt several things were considered before deciding which counties to hand recount, but I don't know what.

Voting Machines by County in Florida

Votes by County

Differences between first machine count and automatic recount

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 21, 2000

Answers

Thank you, Anita. Here's a link to the thread that this one is a continuation of.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), November 21, 2000.

Excellent work, Anita!

I'll try to find some time to crunch some numbers - may take a while, if the fact that I'm still here at work at 8:30 is any indication...

Thanks,

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 21, 2000.


I'll help you out a little on this one, RC. With the exception of Volusia, the counties asked to be recounted by the Democrates are all punched-card counties. Volusia uses mark sense machines, but the differences there between the first count and the automatic recount picked up 241 votes for Gore and 143 for Bush. In addition, that was the county that both had the machine show Gore with a minus 16,000 at one point and the poll worker who came into the polling place on the 8th saying, "Geez...I left the ballots in the back seat of my car." The punched-card machine precints show the following:

Broward: Automatic recount indicated errors shorting Gore by 43 and Bush by 44.

Collier: AR indicated errors shorting Gore by 13 and Bush by 7.

Miami-Dade: AR indicated errors shorting Gore by 100 and Bush by 77.

De Soto: AR indicated errors indicating Gore had 2 more than he should, with Bush totals the same.

Dixie: AR showed Gore gaining 1 and Bush losing 1.

Duval: AR indicated errors shorting Gore by 184 and Bush by 16.

Gilchrist: indicated no errors in the automatic recount.

Glades: indicated Gore gaining 2 and Bush gaining 1.

Hardee: indicated Gore losing 2 and Bush gaining 1.

Highlands: indicated Gore gaining 15 and Bush gaining 10.

Hillsboro: indicated Gore gaining 28 and Bush 47.

Indian River: indicated Bush gaining 26 and Gore losing 1.

Jefferson: indicated Bush staying the same, Gore gaining 3.

Lee: indicated Gore gaining 30, Bush gaining 18.

Madison: indicated Gore gaining 3, Bush staying the same.

Marion: indicated Gore gaining 17, Bush gaining 6.

Monroe: indicating no change.

Nassau: indicating Gore LOSING 73 and Bush LOSING 124. How do we explain this one?

Osceola: indicating Gore gaining 4 and Bush losing 4.

Palm Beach: indicating Gore gaining 787 and Bush gaining 105.

Pasco: indicating Gore gaining 14 and Bush gaining 1.

Pinellas: indicating Gore gaining 417 and Bush LOSING 61. I have no idea why this county wasn't chosen for a recount.

Sarasota: indicating Gore losing 1 and Bush staying the same.

Sumter: indicating Gore gaining 3 and Bush gaining 1.

Wakulla: indicating Gore gaining 3 and Bush gaining 1.

It looks to me like decisions were made pretty much on punched-card counties that had a larger error rate than the others. Personally, I would have asked for a recount in Pinellas, so there must be another factor in play that escapes me.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 21, 2000.

Apparently Monroe County,down in the Keys,knows how to vote right the 1st time *and* count,just another virtue of sub-tropical living.Save me a place in the voter rolls,I'll be there asap : )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), November 22, 2000.

Thanks so much, Anita.

You know, it's funny that I've posted lots of political op-eds lately that have bombed, and some that had a moderate response. But none like this --I mean this one just exploded! And thanks to all who've posted here. I'm way behind in keeping up with it, but in general what I've seen is a model of fascinating, instructive, and civil debate.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 22, 2000.



NSP said:

"Wait a minute. My throw-in comment of "Actually, I don't know ..." was a self-deprecation with reference to my perfectionistic tendencies. I meant that I didn't know whether the ratio was 2.2:1, 2.035:1, 1.9997:1, or whatever.

I _did_ say "Okay."

I _did_ say "I'll accept it for purposes of discussion." "

RC sez:

I _did_ say "roughly". I have no perfectionistic tendencies. Just ask my boss.

RC (that's me) blurted out:

>and the point that's entirely missing from from your example above.

NSP responded:

"... because my examples were and are intended to be independent of the actual vote ratios in the current election."

I say:

That's why your examples were not particularly useful - the actual vote ratios for the current election are the crux of the biscuit, as it were, related to the precincts/counties chosen for hand recounting.

I sed:

>We know what the original count and the machine recount said about PBC

NSP sed:

"What did you think they said? Spit it out."

I say:

I think they said what I said they said earlier - they said that PBC voted "roughly" 2 to 1 for Gore. Gack.

NSP...

"If you mean fraud, say so, and see my previous comments on election fraud."

Me...

I do not mean fraud.

I said earlier:

>in fact, the sample precincts used for the first sample hand recount were even more slanted. One was more than 10 to 1 in favor of Gore.

NSP said:

"Do you have evidence that that particular precinct did not actually vote for Gore in a ratio of 10:1? I happen to live close to a highly-partisan area which would neither surprise me nor cause me to think of fraud if it went 10:1 or 20:1 for Bush."

I say:

I have no problem believing a particular precinct voted 10:1 or 20:1. That's not the issue.

The issue is the choice of those precincts for a SAMPLE recount - the issue is that folks look at the results of that recount and say "Gore gained a bunch of votes --> there was a problem --> this justifies recounting the whole county" - as opposed to saying "the ratio of votes gained by the two candidates in the sample recount is not out of line with the ratio in the original machine count --> this indicates a physical problem with punch cards which can't be fixed on a local basis without skewing the overall outcome".

I said:

>We KNOW that even the fairest hand recount of this kind of slanted sample of votes distorts the outcome. This is elementary logic.

NSP responded:

"Please define what you mean by "the outcome", in accordance with distinctions I drew in recent examples I have posted."

I say:

"The outcome", as I meant it there, is the number of votes cast and counted for each candidate. As in: changing the "outcome" is different from changing the "winner".

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 22, 2000.


NSP>"Consider the plight of shaky-handed citizens < snip >

RC>But this is an example of the classic "pregnant chad",

NSP>... or the "hanging chad", or the "swinging chad", or any other partially-punched-but-not-completely-separated chad.

NoNoNoNoNo, No.

Yer "pregnant chad" is fundamentally different from the other chad species. Hanging/swinging chads can be produced by any complete punch of the card. You'll have to explain to me how shaky-handedness plays a role in this.

The knocked-up chad is, by definition, not a complete punch.

RC>The other chad problems (hanging, swinging, gay, etc...), the ones which ARE being examined in the ongoing hand recounts,

NSP>... and which also might be produced in larger proportion by shaky-handed voters than by steady-handed voters ...

Like I said - I need some explanation on that. I don't buy it. One could argue that maybe the strident thrust of the hulking bodybuilder's stylus is more likely to leave a dangling chad than the deliberate soft pressure of a little old lady...

RC>So I still maintain that errors found in the hand recounts as they have been done up to this point should be randomly distributed.

NSP>... perhaps because you yourself are steady-handed and did not fully realize the potential consequences of a shaky hand on the voting punch.

Speculate not on my "handedness".

RC>And that Glaeser's point is valid.

NSP>Nope. Try again.

Back atcha.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 22, 2000.


Anita,

Eve has started threads about more than one op-ed piece. It would have been a good idea for this thread's title to have specified which one you meant.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 22, 2000.


Just posting this here, out of my profound sense of fairness. Or logic... I keep getting those two mixed up...

RC

RC,

>I say: That's why your examples were not particularly useful - the actual vote ratios for the current election are the crux of the biscuit, as it were, related to the precincts/counties chosen for hand recounting.

But my examples were not addressing the choice of precincts/counties for hand recounting.

If you want to criticize my examples further, please specify just which examples you are talking about.

>The issue is the choice of those precincts for a SAMPLE recount

So? The choice was legal. Bush had the same rights and opportunity to request recounts as Gore in counties favoring him, and I think county officials could easily have found precincts favoring Bush by 10:1.

>the issue is that folks look at the results of that recount and say "Gore gained a bunch of votes --> there was a problem --> this justifies recounting the whole county" - as opposed to saying "the ratio of votes gained by the two candidates in the sample recount is not out of line with the ratio in the original machine count --> this indicates a physical problem with punch cards which can't be fixed on a local basis without skewing the overall outcome".

The sloppy thinking of folks following that particular train of thought does not constitute a valid objection to a legal procedure.

>We KNOW that even the fairest hand recount of this kind of slanted sample of votes distorts the outcome. This is elementary logic.

By "slanted", do you mean a dishonest count? If so, please say that. By "distorts the outcome", do you mean "portrays other than a correct outcome"? If so, please say just what kind of distortion you mean. Otherwise, I've already posted a numerical example of how the lead in a close race can switch back and forth according to various partial recounts, without "slanting" or "distortion" in a perjorative sense.

>"The outcome", as I meant it there, is the number of votes cast and counted for each candidate. As in: changing the "outcome" is different from changing the "winner".

Well, my previous example shows what happens to numbers of votes cast and counted for each candidate.

NSP>... or the "hanging chad", or the "swinging chad", or any other partially-punched-but-not-completely-separated chad.

RC>NoNoNoNoNo, No.

>Hanging/swinging chads can be produced by any complete punch of the card.

... especially if the voter is not holding the punch straight enough for a clean complete separation of chad from ballot, which could happen because the voter's hand was shaky.

>You'll have to explain to me how shaky-handedness plays a role in this.

Shaky-handedness could contribute to not holding the punch tool within the tolerance of verticality that produces a clean complete separation of chad from ballot. Also, the pressure exerted downward by a shaky voting hand might let up just at the moment when the punch tool has separated some, but not all, of the perforations around a chad.

NSP>... and which also might be produced in larger proportion by shaky-handed voters than by steady-handed voters ...

>Like I said - I need some explanation on that. I don't buy it.

Keeping in mind that the shakiness (i.e., involutary muscle tremors) can produce split-second variations in angle, position, and pressure of the punch tool, imagine an irregular descent of the tool upon the ballot.

>One could argue that maybe the strident thrust of the hulking bodybuilder's stylus is more likely to leave a dangling chad than the deliberate soft pressure of a little old lady...

Well, there you have provided your own example of how different people can get different results. But don't confuse shakiness, which is the result of involuntary muscle tremors, with weakness. I didn't specify weakness.

>So I still maintain that errors found in the hand recounts as they have been done up to this point should be randomly distributed.

When you finally understand what shakiness in using the stylus implies, you'll see where nonrandomness can arise.

RC>And that Glaeser's point is valid.

NSP>Nope. Try again.

RC>Back atcha.

Double backs atcha.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 22, 2000.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 22, 2000.


NSP>"So? The choice was legal. Bush had the same rights and opportunity to request recounts as Gore in counties favoring him, and I think county officials could easily have found precincts favoring Bush by 10:1."

But see, here's the point of all this - you've now fallen back to what's LEGAL! *Not* what makes logical or statistical sense... it's LEGAL for Gore to distort the data in his favor - it would have been LEGAL for Bush to distort the data equally (or maybe a little *more* than equally) in his favor had he chosen to do so...

But at this point we've left Glaeser and his still valid point behind.

"The sloppy thinking of folks following that particular train of thought does not constitute a valid objection to a legal procedure."

Quid pro quo. Ipso facto. Cogito ergo sum. Etc.

NSP>"By "slanted", do you mean a dishonest count? If so, please say that."

I most vehemently do NOT mean dishonest.

NSP> By "distorts the outcome", do you mean "portrays other than a correct outcome"? If so, please say just what kind of distortion you mean.

Yes, pretty much - I mean statistical distortion. Logical distortion. Glaeserian distortion.

NSP>"Otherwise, I've already posted a numerical example of how the lead in a close race can switch back and forth according to various partial recounts, without "slanting" or "distortion" in a perjorative sense."

I grant you that, but your example is still not applicable to the Florida recount situation, where the the partial recounts are clearly slanted in a statistical, non-perjorative sense.

Footnote - I still stand by a statement I made last week that the failure of the Bush folks to request hand recounts will, if he winds up losing the election, be seen as one of the bonehead moves in all of history. And I still think he's gonna lose.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 22, 2000.



"...Shaky-handedness could contribute to not holding the punch tool within the tolerance of verticality that produces a clean complete separation of chad from ballot. Also, the pressure exerted downward by a shaky voting hand might let up just at the moment when the punch tool has separated some, but not all, of the perforations around a chad...

...Keeping in mind that the shakiness (i.e., involutary muscle tremors) can produce split-second variations in angle, position, and pressure of the punch tool, imagine an irregular descent of the tool upon the ballot...

...>One could argue that maybe the strident thrust of the hulking bodybuilder's stylus is more likely to leave a dangling chad than the deliberate soft pressure of a little old lady...

Well, there you have provided your own example of how different people can get different results. But don't confuse shakiness, which is the result of involuntary muscle tremors, with weakness. I didn't specify weakness...

...>So I still maintain that errors found in the hand recounts as they have been done up to this point should be randomly distributed.

When you finally understand what shakiness in using the stylus implies, you'll see where nonrandomness can arise..."

No Spam, I quote all this just to show that, and I'm sure you realise this, that any discussion of the effects of shakiness/weakness/whatever on the likelihood of hanging a chad is pure speculation. Your explanation of this effect is as much guesswork as my goofy bodybuilder example...

Like you said, "Well, there you have provided your own example of how different people can get different results." Except that I refuse to speculate on those different results in the absence of some good industrial test data on punch card ballots.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 22, 2000.


RC and NSP, I say re-do. Let's start over.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 22, 2000.

Would that be a machine re-do, or a manual re-do?

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 22, 2000.

But seriously, folks...

I won't be anywhere near a computer until at least Saturday if I can help it. I'll check in then...

Have a lovely Thanksgiving, and remember, no matter how annoyed you may be with some of yer fellow men right now, we all need to be friends again with some of 'em down the road. Most of us'll get over it.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 22, 2000.


RC,

>But see, here's the point of all this - you've now fallen back to what's LEGAL!

Not "fallen back". It's been my consistent position all along that the Florida election should be resolved through Florida state legal procedures.

If you'll go back to the original thread Wall St. Journal: Why the Florida recounting gives biased results. you'll find that in my very first posting on November 13, I wrote:

"While many election provisions and procedures are intended to make the outcome as objectively correct as possible, a la statistics, others are designed to balance or guarantee the rights of competing political interests which are inherently unobjective, or to cope with practical limitations of government."

and

"George Bush had exactly the same legal rights and opportunity to choose counties in which to request hand recounts."

and

"Judges carry out the law. Laws govern elections. Carrying out the law doesn't determine an election result -- the voters did that. Carrying out the law (we're assuming here that the law is well-designed, impartial, and so forth) simply determines how the voters voted."

I'm sure I expressed my position that Florida state legal procedures should be followed in some other thread(s) at least as early as November 13, but cannot now find them. If I do, I'll point them out.

>*Not* what makes logical or statistical sense...

It makes logical sense for Florida state legal procedures to determine what to do about elections held by the state of Florida. Elections are a matter of law.

>No Spam, I quote all this just to show that, and I'm sure you realise this, that any discussion of the effects of shakiness/weakness/whatever on the likelihood of hanging a chad is pure speculation. Your explanation of this effect is as much guesswork as my goofy bodybuilder example...

You stated, on November 20 back in the original thread, "2) The problems with punch card voting should occur randomly - anything else would indicate the possibility of fraud."

I disagree with that statement. There can be nonrandom nonfraudulent problems with punch card voting. My example of a possible effect of shakiness/weakness/whatever on the likelihood of hanging a chad has been intended to provide a plausible counterexample to your statement about randomness of punch card voting problems.

>Like you said, "Well, there you have provided your own example of how different people can get different results." Except that I refuse to speculate on those different results in the absence of some good industrial test data on punch card ballots.

Do you now agree that it is _possible_ for there to be nonrandom nonfraudulent problems with punch card voting?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.



Flint,

NSP>[... so all those voters not using punch-card ballots did not cast votes? My pen-marked ballot, counted by optical scan, did not represent a valid manifestation of my intent to vote?]

F>Hey, have you been taking lessons from me? If you go back and read, you will find 3 or 4 cases where I was careful to specify "in this implementation", and "as implemented in these counties", and words to that effect. Now you carefully omit this qualification,

No, I simply did not realize that you meant your statement to include that qualification. I did not realize that "in this implementation" meant what you have now pointed out that it meant. I'm sorry I didn't realize that. My omission was not deliberate.

>and THEN come back and attack me

No, I did not attack you. I posed two questions. I _asked_ you for clarification.

You have now satisfactorily explained, and I accept, that your "punching IS voting" phrase was legitimate. I regret that I misunderstood that part of your posting, but I did not "attack" you for it.

>Now, earlier you were irritated when I quoted part of your statements and (in your reading) failed to include what you considered critical. When *I* did this, it was a misrepresentation. Do you claim it's honest when YOU do it?

I didn't do the same thing. Now that you have pointed out my misunderstanding in the present case, I am acknowledging my mistake and apologizing for it the very next time I am posting a response.

Did you apologize for your mistake in that earlier case?

NSP>[It just requires a sufficiently clear definition of what constitutes a valid ballot.]

F> < snip > the legislature must (a) write volumes closely tied to current technology;

Well, they probably had to add authorization of use of the punch-card method to law, and that would have been the appropriate time to add or update relevant definitions as required.

F>(b) they (or the courts) would need to update all that verbiage with every technological improvement.

Well. that's the same as with anything else. If a technological change in something affected by law requires updating the law in some respect, then someone (e.g., whoever's selling the punch-card machines to the state, or someone in government who's responsible for making sure that such purchases are legal) has to realize that and prod the legislature accordingly.

F>I suggest this is less possible in practice than you imply it is in theory.

Governments have people whose responsibility is to keep up with such things.

NSP>[That itself doesn't prevent adequate functioning of the electoral process.]

F>Sigh. There are many ways the process can function "adequately" depending on what "adequate" means.

I meant it in an honest, noncorrupt way.

>Opposing lawyers are arguing for different meanings. OK, if you were one of these lawyers, which side would you choose to represent?

For reasons I've already stated (e.g., I'm not a Florida resident), I'm not going to try to answer questions about what I would do if I were what I'm not.

I'm expressing my opinions from my actual situation, not a hypothetical one.

>You have taken a side in this case before these decisions have been handed down, yet you claim your side is the "right" one by law!

Will you please specify what you mean by "this case", "these decisions" and "your side"? I have expressed opinions and thoughts about several different legal matters -- to which to you refer?

>If Bush's lawyers win the case,

Which case? It's my understanding that there are several judicial cases in progress that are related to the election, and I'm probably not aware of them all.

>would you "flip sides" because the CURRENT judicial definition has flipped?

Give me a specific example. I've already told you that what I think is right would not flip sides.

NSP>[What, then, do you think would be good law in this case?]

F>"Count 'em all, or none at all". Remember Glaeser's original title? That's what I think a good law would say.

What if no candidate alleged that there was reason for recounting more than one particular county?

Should a candidate who wants a recount only because of irregularities in a single county be obligated to pay the cost of a statewide recount?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.


[Did you apologize for your mistake in that earlier case?]

Yes, of course I apologize for any inadvertent misunderstanding. As I wrote earlier, it seems neither of us is particularly skilled at divining what the other is trying to say.

[Governments have people whose responsibility is to keep up with such things.]

True. I suggested neither the courts nor the legislature is where this responsibility lies, but rather with the executive branch. The secretary of state's office should be responsible for the relevant regulatory and administrative detail. But there will always be gray areas.

[I meant it in an honest, noncorrupt way.]

Yes, I know. I was trying to say that, in my opinion, when the prize is large enough and the race is close enough, whichever side stands to lose is *strongly* motivated to find inadequacies, whether they exist or not.

[Give me a specific example. I've already told you that what I think is right would not flip sides.]

You told me that you would follow the law, as determined by those parties responsible for creating and interpreting it, is that correct? But you can see from all these various lawsuits, the two sides have what they consider legitimate disagreement about the law itself. Do dimples count? Well, that depends on *who dimples help*! The law does not address dimples.

To me, with all due respect to your position, it's a cop-out to say you'll follow a law the courts themselves cannot agree on, which might be interpreted very differently (AND decide the election) depending on just who happens to be judge at the time. Those interpreting the vote were obliged to define how to interpret ambiguous ballots, and to decide whether to keep counting after various shifting deadlines, and whether to obey the conflicting directives handed down by the secretary of state (Bush's campaign coordinator) and the attorney general (Gore's campaign coordinator). Both of these worthies is of course simply trying to apply existing law without prejudice, you know.

In other words, IMO it's not legitimate for you to say you will do what's right without interpreting what that might be, in a situation where you cannot do anything WITHOUT interpreting what's right. I speculated that we would flip sides because the law as written allowed for interpretations favoring EITHER candidate, both interpretations equally legitimate. Saying "I won't do my job because it's not defined clearly enough" will get you replaced by a more obedient party flunctionary. Saying "I'm not a florida resident so I can't hold an opinion" is, IMO, simply dodging the issue.

[Should a candidate who wants a recount only because of irregularities in a single county be obligated to pay the cost of a statewide recount?]

Exactly the kind of question a good lawyer should ask. If I were creating the regulations, I would specify this. Perhaps it might be best to require that recounts require documented irregularities to be done at all? Perhaps a local recount could only be performed to correct error or fraud, while a recount with NO alleged irregularities, done purely in the hopes that it might produce a different winner in a close election, must be performed throughout the relevant jurisdiction? These are questions worth discussing.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 24, 2000.


Flint,

From the original thread:

Flint>You are seriously telling me that should I write "IF you are going to insist on being such a jerk, why should I respond", that I never suggested you were a jerk?

NSP>Your inclusion of "such" is a back-reference implying a previous mention of "jerk". So your example does not parallel what I wrote.

[Let me insert here that I now see that the use of "such" could have a meaning that did not imply a back-reference.]

NSP>If, instead, you wrote, "IF you are going to insist on being a jerk, why should I respond", then you would have suggested the possibility of being a jerk, but not made an accusation of that. I could respond, "Well, I'm not going to be a jerk", and the second part of your if-sentence would be irrelevant.

Then a little later on appeared:

NSP>[No. Actually, "such" implied a previous assertion of "jerk".]

Flint>No, your tortuous misunderstanding of "such" is an *inference* on your part, which you are working very hard to justify. It should be clear that if anything, the "such" is referring to the post being replied to, that is, the current instance.

After consulting a dictionary, I find that "such", as used in the example sentence, could have more than one meaning. (I.e., we're both right about it.)

Flint, if "such a" is a crucial part of your example because the meaning would significantly differ without that, please explain why.

Otherwise, if you agree that the purpose of your example sentence is still satisfied even after removal of the words "such a", then you will find that I already answered that question in the preceding thread, and repeated that answer above here. Do you care to respond to what I said about the "such"-less example?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.


Flint,

(back to the current thread)

>You told me that you would follow the law, as determined by those parties responsible for creating and interpreting it, is that correct?

Yes, and I've always meant that "the law" includes the state constitution and the legal structure such as the legislature, courts, and executive branch. Recently I've begun writing "the legal structure" or "legal procedures" to try to indicate that I'm not referring only to legislative statutes.

>But you can see from all these various lawsuits, the two sides have what they consider legitimate disagreement about the law itself.

... and they are proceeding within the Florida state legal structure to resolve those disagreements.

>To me, with all due respect to your position, it's a cop-out to say you'll follow a law the courts themselves cannot agree on, which might be interpreted very differently (AND decide the election) depending on just who happens to be judge at the time.

What's your alternative to use of the existing legal system, including judicial, legislative, and executive branches? Pistols at forty paces?

The law is not a mass of ambiguity everywhere one looks. What is wrong with having legal disputes settled in court or legislature, as I advocate? Certainly it would be desirable to have clarified ambiguities or missing details earlier when there was not so high a political stake involved, but we're stuck with the current situation. I trust that the existing state legal structures will sort out the arguments and come to resolutions.

As for who happens to be judge at the time -- so? That's always true. There's always someone who is going to happen to be judge at the time -- that's why it's important to choose good judges. What can you propose that's better?

>In other words, IMO it's not legitimate for you to say you will do what's right without interpreting what that might be, in a situation where you cannot do anything WITHOUT interpreting what's right.

Haven't you yet noticed that I have consistently and repeatedly said that I trusted the legal system? _That_'s what's right, because the alternative is going outside the legal system to decide the election outcome. The legal system is set up to accommodate conflicts between opposing interests without violating the rights of anyone.

If you are not going to agree with me that going through the legal system is the right thing to do, then what do _you_ think is right? Armed conflict in the streets?

>I speculated that we would flip sides because the law as written allowed for interpretations favoring EITHER candidate, both interpretations equally legitimate.

... and I take the "side" that the conlicting interpretations should be settled within the existing Florida state legal system. What's wrong with that? My "side" doesn't depend on which candidate has the higher vote total. Apparently, yours does, and you keep wanting me to do the same for some reason.

Well, maybe if the candidate I favored had jumped right to federal court after the election to try to get the federal government to override state law before he first even attempted to settle matters in state court, and that candidate had previously claimed that he favored states' rights over federal control, I'd be reluctant to agree to abide by state legal procedures, too.

Say ... what _are_ your comments on Bush's having gone to federal court right after the election to try to get the feds to override stater law even though he had not yet even tried to get satisfaction in state courts, Flint?

>Saying "I'm not a florida resident so I can't hold an opinion" is, IMO, simply dodging the issue.

Okay -- show us how _you_ would answer the questions you directed to me in response to which I said something about not being a Florida resident.

NSP>[Should a candidate who wants a recount only because of irregularities in a single county be obligated to pay the cost of a statewide recount?]

Flint>Exactly the kind of question a good lawyer should ask.

... before the simplistic legislation you propose got into law.

>If I were creating the regulations, I would specify this.

Specify it how? What provision would you make for the case I described?

If you wish not to answer that, then tell us why you consider your (and Glaeser's) simple "Count 'em all, or none at all" to be a satisfactory replacement for existing recount law.

Once you make even a single exception for a partial recount, you've parted ways with Glaeser, right?

So would you allow any possibility of partial recount, or not?

> Perhaps it might be best to require that recounts require documented irregularities to be done at all?

AFAIK, a candidate can't just say, "I want a recount." S/he _already_ has to give reasons, to specify that s/he suspects that something was wrong with the original count. This is already in the recount laws.

>Perhaps a local recount could only be performed to correct error or fraud, while a recount with NO alleged irregularities, done purely in the hopes that it might produce a different winner in a close election, must be performed throughout the relevant jurisdiction?

See previous response.

If you are going to provide for any partial recount, then you are parting ways with what Glaeser says in his article. So, are you?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.


No Spam Please, with nothing more than a cursory glance through the current threads, I find that you have spent a tremendous amount of time inputting thousands of words in many posts. This makes me wonder if you spend as much time with your family or managing your personal life. Do you have a family? Do you have a life? Curious minds want to know.

-- I (h@ve.spoken), November 24, 2000.

I (h@ve.spoken),

>a tremendous amount of time inputting thousands of words in many posts.

I type fast -- used to be faster before intermittent muscle tremor as a side effect of a prescription medicine.

>This makes me wonder if you spend as much time with your family or managing your personal life. Do you have a family?

I am divorced, with no children. My closest relatives live about 700 miles away.

>Do you hav a life?

Sure. I'm recovering from a medical disability that currently prevents me from holding a job.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.


No Spam:

[Do you care to respond to what I said about the "such"-less example?]

By now, I've lost that train of thought. I hazily recall we were trying to determine whether making a sentence conditional meant that it was not intended as an accusation. As I recall, there's an old joke about telling someone NOT to think about a pink elephant, the punchline being that the idea implanted in the hearer takes root anyway. I think most people would interpret any form of "IF you are drunk", or "Sober up IF it's necessary" or "I'd never come right out and *say* this, but your argument is so weak I can't help wondering what MIGHT have addled your mind", etc. are all at least veiled accusations, and all make the same point as "You are drunk" regardless of the specific chosen locution.

[The legal system is set up to accommodate conflicts between opposing interests without violating the rights of anyone.]

Yes. Back to Anatole France. "The law, in its majestic equality, prohibits the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges." Your faith in the law is touching. Now, do dimples count as votes? The courts, I believe, have decided that this is up to the vote canvassers, to exercise their best judgment on a ballot by ballot basis. Let's say you are a canvasser. If you count dimples, Gore wins. If you do not, Bush wins. Do you count dimples as votes? Do you return to the courts and request that they make this decision instead of dumping it on you? Laws themselves are made by partisan people, after much debate and depending on who won which elections.

[Say ... what _are_ your comments on Bush's having gone to federal court right after the election to try to get the feds to override stater law even though he had not yet even tried to get satisfaction in state courts, Flint?]

I don't understand it. I've tried to follow the legal arguments, but I confess this never made much sense to me. Maybe a lawer could tell me what legal principle was involved here. I do note (while I write) that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bush's appeal that the Florida Supreme court exceeded its authority by (for example) overriding the will of the legislature by moving the deadline to one of its own choosing and deciding to exercise itself the discretion the legislature chose to give the secretary of state. Interesting.

[If you are going to provide for any partial recount, then you are parting ways with what Glaeser says in his article. So, are you?]

Yes. You have persuaded me. While I think we are in fact seeing a partial recount purely and simply in the hopes of reversing a close election, it's also true that committed people are always imaginative enough to find some pretext for doing so in accordance with even the most carefully written laws and procedures. I suspect laws must be honed and polished through exactly what we're seeing in Florida, and what comes out the other end will be much less ambiguous. I sincerely hope that if Florida is in this position again, a Gore-style fishing expedition will be either clearly permitted or clearly prohibited.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 24, 2000.


Flint,

>Back to Anatole France. "The law, in its majestic equality, prohibits the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges." Your faith in the law is touching.

The alternatives are worse.

The rich will have more power (, resources, opportunity, ...) than the poor anyway. Laws can help keep the disparity from becoming intolerable. Democracy gives the poor a way to exercise some countervailing power of their own.

>Now, do dimples count as votes? The courts, I believe, have decided that this is up to the vote canvassers, to exercise their best judgment on a ballot by ballot basis. Let's say you are a canvasser. If you count dimples, Gore wins. If you do not, Bush wins.

... and there are observers from the parties to watch my every decision. Or at least the law provides each party the right to have observers present. Observers who see what they consider an improper decision or action have the opportunity and duty to document them for immediate or future protest or challenge.

>Do you count dimples as votes?

Okay, I'll answer as though I were a canvasser. I try to make the most reasonable call based on what I see and what I've been provided as legal guidelines. I hope that if I make a mistake, someone else (another canvasser, or an observer) will catch it, and I try to abide by the procedures that minimize the chances that mistakes will go undetected. I trust that if I show bias toward or away from a particular candidate, an observer or other canvasser, having been on the lookout for such things, will note it and take appropriate action.

>Do you return to the courts and request that they make this decision instead of dumping it on you?

If I didn't accept the duties of canvassing, I wouldn't agree to become, or to remain, a canvasser. If it seemed that the law was missing details that I thought it could and should reasonably be expected to provide, then I'd say so, and, depending on the circumstances and details, perhaps "return to the courts" if that seemed a reasonable thing to do. I wouldn't "return to the courts" for just any little old thing.

>Laws themselves are made by partisan people, after much debate and depending on who won which elections.

So, people of good will try to set up systems that protect the rights of all. Free discussion and debate will help bring out the best ideas for doing that. Experience shows what has worked.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.


No Spam:

[>Do you count dimples as votes?

Okay, I'll answer as though I were a canvasser. I try to make the most reasonable call based on what I see and what I've been provided as legal guidelines.]

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Nobody is asking you to cheat or suggesting you might even be tempted to cheat. You want to see the election decided in favor of the candidate the people really intended to elect. So do we all. In the case of dimples, you unfortunately have no clear legal guidelines, and aren't going to get any. You have precedents whichever way you decide. You are painfully aware that the election hinges on your decision. You genuinely DO NOT KNOW whether the dimpler intended a vote, and you cannot ask.

The courts and the lawyers will be more than happy to support either decision you make, *strictly along party lines*, depending on which candidate just happens to be supported by which decision in which county.

At some point, we must recognize that some critical decisions are partisan political decisions. Remember that one key issue in this election is WHO gets to nominate Supreme Court judges. Clearly, the law itself is political both in its creation and in its interpretation.

Yes, we have procedures for ironing these things out over time, and these procedures themselves are of course not perfect, and tend to shift with the political tides. I think this is as it should be. Ultimately, I believe the position that "I don't have an opinion, I'm simply following the law" is misleading. Our entire appellate court system exists becuse the laws are vague, or conflict with one another, or fail to fully anticipate a fact situation. The law is not an end, it is an extremely useful tool to achieve an end. When the end is clear and urgent, and the law is murky or missing, we get this kind of conflict. I'm very uncomfortable relying on the law in such a case, because it means whatever we want it to. Or, in the present case, it means something *other* than what it says according to one court, to be subjected to oversight by another court.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 25, 2000.


Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Nobody is asking you to cheat or suggesting you might even be tempted to cheat. You want to see the election decided in favor of the candidate the people really intended to elect. So do we all. In the case of dimples, you unfortunately have no clear legal guidelines, and aren't going to get any. You have precedents whichever way you decide. You are painfully aware that the election hinges on your decision. You genuinely DO NOT KNOW whether the dimpler intended a vote, and you cannot ask.

Just my opinion here, but I think Palm Beach is doing a good job on these dimpled chads. If the voter was able to punch through on the other candidates and the ballot shows a dimple in the presidential category, they're not counting the dimple. Makes sense to ME.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.


RC > But see, here's the point of all this - you've now fallen back to what's LEGAL!

NSP > Not "fallen back". It's been my consistent position all along that the Florida election should be resolved through Florida state legal procedures.

You've "fallen back" in the sense that you've gone outside the bounds of Glaeser's argument - which is, after all, what's under discussion. Do you concede Glaeser's point about the *statistical* bias inherent in these recounts? (Conceding the point does not invalidate your thoughts on the legalities involved here BTW...)

NSP > "You stated, on November 20 back in the original thread, "2) The problems with punch card voting should occur randomly - anything else would indicate the possibility of fraud."

I disagree with that statement. There can be nonrandom nonfraudulent problems with punch card voting. My example of a possible effect of shakiness/weakness/whatever on the likelihood of hanging a chad has been intended to provide a plausible counterexample to your statement about randomness of punch card voting problems...

...Do you now agree that it is _possible_ for there to be nonrandom nonfraudulent problems with punch card voting?"

Possible? Sure. Likely? I strongly doubt it. Indicated by the reported results so far? Absolutely not.

As I said before, your speculation on the effects of weakness/shakiness on the likelihood of chad-malfunction is just that: speculation. I think it equally likely that strength/stress/hurry/pissed-offness/left-handedness/height/weight/vis ion/whether-you-had-sex-last-night/or a thousand other things could play a role. Or it could be pure luck.

Furthermore, in case you didn't realize, your example also speculates that the shaky-handed favor on candidate over another by a significantly different percentage than their neighbors. Do you really think that's the case?

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 25, 2000.


Some hastily tabulated (I don't guarantee the math) and somewhat surprising numbers from the links Anita provided:

Total punch card votes in FLA: 3,553,217

Breakdown: Gore 53% / Bush 47%

Total non-punch card votes in FLA: 2,267,269

Breakdown: Bush 54% / Gore 46%

And here's the surprise (to me, at least): Vote difference between recounts

punch card votes: 2387 (.11%) non-punch card votes: 2495 (.07%)

A little too shocked by that last bit to comment just yet. Anyone? Beuller?

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 25, 2000.


Anita:

You have adopted a protocol, on the grounds that it makes sense or sounds reasonable. That's fine, so long as you recognize that other protocols might also make sense or sound reasonable but favor a different candidate.

The basic point being discussed on this and the prior thread wasn't really the reasonableness of any particular protocol, it was applying ONE protocol in some places, and a SECOND protocol in other places, such that the protocol selected tends to favor the SAME candidate in these different places.

The question is, should Florida (or any state) procedures permit using variable and flexible procedures specifically intended to favor a particular candidate and specifically hurt the other? Secondarily, should a state permit recounts expressly with the intention of reversing close elections despite no allegation of fraud or error? Because let's be honest here, these hand recounts are NOT being done to correct any irregularities, they are being done because the candidate with fewer votes wants to change the result. The recounts are being done ONLY in counties calculated to help one candidate, and NOT being done where this same "reasonable" protocol would help the other.

Bottom line -- it's not that PBC is using a bad procedure, it's that this procedure is being used solely to fabricate an artificial bias intended to change the outcome. This is wrong.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 25, 2000.


Flint,

>At some point, we must recognize that some critical decisions are partisan political decisions.

I think that most of us already recognize that. And we have checks and balances in our governments to mediate the influence of the differing partisan groups in order to achieve a better overall balance.

>Ultimately, I believe the position that "I don't have an opinion, I'm simply following the law" is misleading.

Okay. How about, "I hold the opinion that following the law gives better results than not following the law"?

>Our entire appellate court system exists becuse the laws are vague, or conflict with one another, or fail to fully anticipate a fact situation. The law is not an end, it is an extremely useful tool to achieve an end. When the end is clear and urgent, and the law is murky or missing, we get this kind of conflict. I'm very uncomfortable relying on the law in such a case,

On what would you feel more comfortable relying than the law (including the legislative, judicial, and executive branch organization set up by the law)?

>Or, in the present case, it means something *other* than what it says according to one court, to be subjected to oversight by another court.

Can you suggest a better mechanism for settling those differences of decision or opinion than what we (Florida, in particular) have? I mean that of course we can see that Florida can improve some of the details of its election law system (as could, probably, any other state subjected to the same scrutiny), but do you think that there is a better overall structure (i.e., the three branches with checks and balances operating from written law)?

I guess I'm wondering what your overall point is, other than that the law has flaws.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.


RC,

>You've "fallen back" in the sense that you've gone outside the bounds of Glaeser's argument - which is, after all, what's under discussion.

A) The discussion in this thread (including the original "Wall St. Journal: Why the Florida recounting gives biased results.") went outside the bounds of Glaeser's arguments the first day it was posted.

B) In my view, at least, Glaeser himself went outside the bounds of his argument as soon as he wrote, "The immediate implication of this is clear. If there is to be recounting by hand, it cannot be selective." That conclusion goes outside the bounds of the statistical argument Glaeser presented in the beginning of his article. I explained why in my first posting on the original thread.

>Do you concede Glaeser's point about the *statistical* bias inherent in these recounts?

I'll concede that if and only if he or someone else concedes that statistical aspects are not the only important aspects of elections, such as that some election laws and regulations are designed to protect non-statistical rights of candidates, voters, and other citizens, and the right of a candidate to request a partial recount is among those non-statistical rights.

Glaeser should've qualified his conclusions to make it clear that they were justified by statistical reasons, _but not necessarily by other valid considerations_.

NSP>Do you now agree that it is _possible_ for there to be nonrandom nonfraudulent problems with punch card voting?"

RC>Possible? Sure.

Okay. That was the purpose of my example.

>As I said before, your speculation on the effects of weakness/shakiness on the likelihood of chad-malfunction is just that: speculation.

No, it was not speculation. It was a constructed example designed for the purpose of showing that there could be a nonrandom nonfraudulent error in punch card voting, to contradict your previous assertion that any nonrandom error in punch card voting indicated fraud. Since you now agree that it is possible that there could be a nonfraudulent nonrandom error, that example's purpose has been served.

>Furthermore, in case you didn't realize, your example also speculates that the shaky-handed favor on candidate over another by a significantly different percentage than their neighbors.

That was part of the purpose of the example: to demonstrate that the distribution of votes within that subgroup could validly differ from the distribution of votes that were counted correctly by machine. IOW, that is was incorrect to conclude that a 2-1 distribution of votes counted by machine necessarily meant that the votes not counted by machine were also distributed 2-1.

>Do you really think that's the case?

It _could_ be.

Or there could be a hundred other reasons for ballots not countable by machine to have a genuinely different vote distribution than ballots counted by machine.

That's why hand recounts can give more accurate results than machine counts if some valid ballots are not counted by the machines but are determinable by human inspection. Which was my point.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ