Carl, for the first time, I have seen on CSPAN the actual dimpled ballot. Not one dimple, but a ballot from a voter that voted for a large number of contests, all of them dimples (the president choice happened to be Buchanan). I for one would say that the electronic reader surely could not read the intent of that specific voter, and while I am not sure what to do in the event that some choices are fully punched out and some dimpled, it is quite clear to me, that such dimples where strong indication of voter's intent. The fact that these did not go through has to be the result of either a defect in the machine, the ballot itself (no good preperforation) or the fact that this voter might have not had the virility to punch all the way through (possibly an infirm or octogonaire). Unfortunately, during the space I watched, any attempt by the witness to explain how such dimples could be formed in the course of voting were blocked by objections (from the Bush camp, and rightfully so), since the witness did not have a degree or expertise in mechanical engineering or an associated field and thus was not a qualified "expert witness" on the subject.
Personally, I think that anyone seeing that array of dimples, would be persuaded that these were not there by someone turning pages but only thinking he may want to vote. Since many people vote only for the top of the ticket or at most the federal tickets, I, for one, would have to accept single dimples like that as intentions to vote as well.
I had to find this tid bit, finally from CSPAN, where the totality of the proceedings are shown. Why has not the media shown us examples of such ballots for all of us to come to our own conclusion is beyond me. Could it be the media is colluding to obfuscate the facts?
Zeev |
