Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (85)	11/12/2000 1:44:08 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Sleight of Hand The hand-recount system creates a significant risk of fraud. By Robert Alt, adjunct fellow, John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs he hand-recount system creates a significant risk of fraud — a complaint that cannot seriously be made about the current count. The Bush team filed a lawsuit seeking an emergency injunction to prevent hand counting of ballots in several disputed Florida Counties. While the legal process should be cautiously applied to the election dispute, the question raised by Bush — fraud — is more substantial than the allegations of unintentional voter confusion raised by lawsuits supporting Gore. Given the significant risk of fraud, the county canvassing boards should not wait for the courts, but should exercise their authority to require that recounts be limited to machine rather than hand counts. The risk of fraud associated with a hand recounts is substantial. Leaving aside simple human error in counting, the hand-recount system is less science and more art. In a hand recount, officials attempt not simply to perform an actual count of the ballots, but rather to recreate voter intent where ballots are unclear — a standard nebulous enough to allow for a heavy dose of subjective interpretation. While there are checks built into the system by state law — the counting teams are supposed to consist of counters from both parties — mischief takes but a second, and with stakes this high the mischievous hand moves even more quickly. By contrast, the machine counters are not perfect — no system is — but they are not ideological and they have no discretion, both of which are virtues. In the end, reasonable people must concede that the hand-recount system creates a significant risk of fraud — a complaint that cannot seriously be made about the current count. Another serious issue concerning the selective use of hand counts is the sampling error-an error that already prevails in the current preoccupation with Palm Beach County. The problem with using a process that discerns the "true intent" of ballots marked for two candidates (or no candidate at all) in Palm Beach is that it applies a different standard there than in all other counties in Florida, or across the nation for that matter. But the alleged irregularities in Palm Beach are not unique: Ballots were tossed out for double marking all over the country, including in Dade County, where 2.7 percent of the ballots were double marked. Similarly, butterfly ballots were used in numerous polling places, including in Cook County where I voted. Once you acknowledge that similar unintentional voting errors occur elsewhere — errors which are presumably greater than the narrow margin of victory — two options remain: hand count everywhere or hand count nowhere. Florida is only determinative because Gore won a number of states by slim margins, so anyone who applies the "it's too important not to hand count" criteria quickly finds that they must recount a healthy portion of the country in order to be consistent. The better response is to stand by the original count where it is undisputed, and use mechanical recounts where necessary unless there is evidence of actual fraud — which there is not in Palm Beach. This said, the question of whether to enjoin hand counts need not go to trial. Florida law gives county election boards discretion as to whether to grant manual recounts. Given the substantial risks involved, the boards should use this discretion to assure that any necessary recounts are done by machine, and thereby prevent fraud from having a hand in this election.