I saw the statisticians on CNN. However, again, it comes down to how you count the votes.
The primary category everyone is concerned with is the undervote, instances where no vote is reflected for the presidential race. The primary problem with the undervote has been what standard to employ in the hand counting of these particular ballots.
This should be easier to discern now, and it's too bad the statisticians weren't asked to include the standard the court will use if it counts the votes.
What am I writing about?
Well, from the Florida race where extremely accurate optical scanners were used, we now have a truer representation of what percentage of voters never intended to vote in the presidential election. That number appears to be one out of 1,000, as opposed to 22 out of 1,000 with the punch-card systems.
The judge, now in control of the recount of Miami-Dade, should he rule this recount should move forward, will have the benefit of this information as a guide to help the court establish a standard for counting.
Thus, if a dimple is shown in the judge's recount, it'll likely be counted as a vote, as opposed to the standards used in the recounts of Volusia, Palm Beach and even Broward counties.
Now before the court are direct challenges to Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties. If these counties get recounted, it'll happen against the now known statistical backdrop derived from the results of the optical scanners. Given this, Gore easily could pass Bush's vote total.
Additionally, one cannot rule out the possibility the butterfly ballot got thrown out becuase it was too complicated and a revote remedy too severe. With Seminole and Martin county issues still looming large in the background, I think it made it easier to dispose of the butterfly challenge.
Were anyone to read objectively what's described above, one would have to conclude Gore's still got a fair shot at winning Florida. |
