Interesting idea. I have a question about your assumptions: Who determined the 500% greater probability of error and what method did they use to arrive at the number?
As I understand the figures, the percentage of ballots NOT cast for President of the United States in Palm Beach County is not appreciably different than past elections, or results of the current election in similar urban counties (such as Los Angeles County, California, where 2.68% of those who went to the polls cast no ballot for President). I read an AP dispatch which says that the nationwide number is estimated at 1.5%. Within Los Angeles County itself, some cities had less than 1% while others had far greater than 3% void or unmarked ballots. I could be wrong. It certainly would not be the first time.
As for the bipartisan recount: I think you will find that the transcripts of decisions made about challenged ballots by the canvassing boards will reveal more partisan maneuvering than bipartisan agreement.
No one can actually prove that an indentation is anything more than an indentation - ballots are not generally identifiable and thus your guess of intent is no more valid than mine. Where you may see an intent to vote, I may see a decision not to cast that vote. We can't interview the voter because we cannot identify that specific voter.
I personally oppose counting any vote where at least some part of the ballot has been punched through, no matter what. You appear to think it is ok to discern intent without that. To me, that is nothing more than a guess. It may be an educated guess, but it is a guess nonetheless. I prefer concrete proof when dealing with something as important as a vote.
Having participated in hand recounts myself, I have little doubt that the new results will bear less resemblance to reality than the first results. I doubt we will ever know who actually won on election day.
That said, I think the winner of this election, whoever that may be, will, in fact, turn out to be the loser. |
