🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:59:32 -0600, in wi.general 
Mike Hartigan <mike@hartigan.dot.com> wrote in
<0210AB645B3F6BC1.46F07665E5FF8CEB.7DE4AD6FE9BA7F33@lp.airnews.net>:


>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:29:06 GMT, David Jensen said...
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:44:38 -0600, in wi.general 
>> MWSmith <mws@wt.net> wrote in
>> <3EF950B49BEB7C98.AA241107AB02C3ED.24F68721CAAA405C@lp.airnews.net>:
>> 
>> 
>> >On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:37:26 GMT, David Jensen
>> ><david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Well, I think that the law says all the votes that can be counted
>> >>according to the criteria in the statute. 
>> >>
>> >>Good ballot procedures should:
>> >>
>> >>(1) not allow ambiguous votes.
>> >>(2) not allow multiple votes for the same seat.
>> >>(3) not allow a seat to be forgotten.
>> >>(4) leave a highly reliable audit trail.
>> >>
>> >>We cannot fix the past, but we can certainly avoid repeats.
>> >
>> >#3 is wrong. The "undervotes" were votes for "none of the above".
>> >These people voted in other races, but not for President because there
>> >is no space (or punch point) for "none of the above".
>> 
>> I want to require that people explicitly not vote for those candidates.
>
>And then what do we do with those ballots for which there is still no 
>punch?  Give them to the Democrats?  (Recall that Gore's logic was that 
>anybody who is too stupid to figure out how to correctly mark their 
>ballots must be for the Democratic candidate)

No, the ballot is immediately rejected by the machine before the voter
leaves.

>> Then, if we are looking for real electoral reform, the next step is to
>> disqualify the losing candidates in the revote when NOTA wins.
>
>I fear that a situation like that would make 'Election 2000' pale by 
>comparison!

With the current situation NOTA is about the only one who can get
incumbents out of office.