🚀 go-pugleaf

Professor Vonroach (vonroach@popd.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On 29 Nov 2000 05:33:37 GMT, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> wrote:

: >    To paraphrase somebody or other, "Depends on what the
: >meaning of 'correctly' is."  If you make a nice clean punch,
: >and make sure nothing is hanging on the back of the ballot,
: >the odds are pretty good that the machine will count it 
: >correctly.  But not 100%.  And nowhere in the voting 
: >instructions does it say to check that the back of the ballot
: >is clear.  (But it will from now on...)  If you don't make a
: >clean punch and don't check the back of the ballot, then the
: >machine may reject your ballot.  Thus a manual count is
: >always at least as accurate as a machine count, and may be
: >more accurate.

: A rather biased evaluation when millions of votes are cast.  There are
: many scenarios - ticket splitting, not voting in a selected race. Try
: this one, you intend to vote for Bush, accidentally punch Gore's chad,
: then see your mistake and go back and attempt to vote for Bush and
: leave a `dimpled' chad.  Ballot will be counted by machine for Gore in
: all probability, or if hand counted, folks in Miami will conclude that
: your intention was to vote for Gore and you almost made a mistake, but
: then punched the right chad.  Determinations of a voter's intention
: are pure unadulterated bull shit. 

     Counting in Miami (and everywhere else) involves observers from
both parties, and disputes over individual ballots must be 
resolved.  Nobody tries to read a voter's mind; if the intent is
not clear, the ballot cannot be, and is not,  counted.

: The voter must know how to vote, take some pains to do it correctly,
: then let the machine tabulate the results and the chips fall where
: they may.

     Not to start another long Human Factors discussion, but the
ballot should be designed for easy, error-free use by its
intended users, who include the elderly, the handicapped, and
those who do not use computers every day (if at all).
     And let the chads fall where they may!

: Summary - GW Bush won in Florida by almost a thousand votes not
: counting the military votes that were not counted.

     GW Bush has almost a thousand more votes counted. I wouldn't
go beyond that, certainly not to military votes that were
illegally altered by GOP "observers."