A Yale statistician who spoke at the same time the guy who invented the voting machine did, and I have no idea what statistical methods he used to determine the number. His testimony was interrupted by a commercial in any case. Since it's a thought experiment, let's stipulate that his figures are right and see whether that makes any difference to anybody. I think it won't.
He wasn't calculating unmarked ballots, though; he was comparing, from district to district, percentages of ballots in which only the presidential vote (in the poorly working line one) was left blank, while other lines were all voted.
<<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.>>
I didn't say that, and didn't mean it. I compared SOME unsuccessful votes of the bulge or incompletely dislogdge chads variety, in principle, to faintly stamped letters that a machine couldn't pick up but the human eye could read -- "BUSH" or "GORE" -- quite easily.
In dubious cases, you and I both agree there's nothing even to talk about. They must be tossed out.
I suspect that most on this board disagree with you about allowing "a vote where at least some part of the ballot has been punched through..."
And I am not sure I am don't agree with them.
I think better voting machines are called for, and I think certain voters got royally screwed and now are getting verbally abused, but it's my reluctant (sympathetic) conclusion, I think, that their votes must be tossed out because of the slippery slope precedent I mentioned.
Still, I understand that they might not feel this way. And I don't understand why their completely understandable feelings are being characterized so viciously.
And boy, do I agree with you that the winner is the loser. |
