Firstly, thank you for the link(s). The most notable thing I observed, however, was the repeated criticism that no research had been done in major areas of concern for various voting mechanisms.
The problem is the pre-scoring which may, through incorrect punching or rough handling, cause extra chad to fall out, or cause hanging chad to be forced back into the ballot card, thereby misstating the voter's choices
This is not research, but commentary. However, let us examine it. The opinion expressed, clearly is about perceived problems with punch cards...and is not commenting on the merits or demerits of hand counting.
If we accept that punch cards have the potential problem of sometimes misstating the voter's choices--does it follow that hand counting is a remedy to this misstatement?
This commentary as quoted does not say so. But let us attempt to be logical and fair: When an impartial and unbiased hand counter observes a pregnant or dimpled ballot, how does he/she determine rather this dimple was: Rough handling, an unfinished intention to vote the dimple, or the conscious decision not to follow through on an original thought or impulse? How can anyone pretend to know the answer to this?
In the previous paragraph I questioned the ability of an impartial person to determine the intention of an anonymous voter. But that is not really the fairest question, is it? Surely, I do not need to coax you on the potential for self interest in vote counters? Of course, I do not. You know why they have observers, and observers of observers, and so on, right? You know why they have lawyers and cameras, and antacid tablets for nervous stomachs, right? Surely, we all understand the real world; Surely we do.
I am not arguing the appropriateness of punch cards. Indeed, I would argue against them. But I also argue against biased observers skewing the vote of an individual with their bias, and their self interest. Their self interest is not the self interest of the voter--not unless they are he/she. We can certify a machine as unbiased (and this was done), and we can thus accept that the errors due to voter rough handling, or poor handling, are not errors of bias. Yes, we can certify a machine as free of bias (as separate from miniscule error on a random scale)--but can we certify a Republican as free from bias? Or a Democrat? Or a Human Being?
So this whole exercise is an exercise in cunning, deceit, and greed. If the machines were fair and unbiased within the RANDOM uncertainty inherent in all mechanical, human, natural, and Universal perceptions of the Truth (remember Heisenberg?)...then why should we place the intent of a voter in the hands of an observer that is so untrustworthy that he/she requires to have multiple observers on a vigilant alert? Why do casinos have the most advanced safechecks in place in their money palaces? That is correct: Money. The power brokers also love money. Indeed, SHE is their hand maiden. This is the only reason for these hand counts, because the machines (after all) have been certified. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it. The purpose of the hand count, in this instance, is to obviate voter intention to the benefit of the power brokers. You know it; I know it; Everybody knows it. So let us not pretend. |
