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.

Strategies & Market Trends : NetCurrents NTCS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ihearyou who wrote (4393)	11/13/2000 11:25:56 AM
From: Lane Hall-Witt	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 8925

ihearyou, My basic assumptions about the election controversy are that our electoral process is inherently flawed and that all the interests involved should be ensured due process. I tend to take issue with the Bush camp because they are arguing (1) that the electoral process in South Florida was fair and accurate and (2) that both the Democratic Party and a large number of individual citizens, who have filed lawsuits on their own behalf, should be denied due process. After all the recent hoopla, there's no doubt that our election mechanism is deeply flawed. Of course, we don't tend to notice this because elections rarely are close enough for these inaccuracies to be decisive. But in a case like this, where the difference between candidates is a tiny fraction of 1 percent, then we need to take extra steps to ensure that our counts are as accurate as possible. For a number of reasons, the various machines used to cast and tabulate votes are flawed, with inherent margins of error. We usually assume that these errors will balance out and leave the outcome unaffected. This isn't necessarily the case in Florida, though, because the principal Democratic districts use older, less reliable technology that is more prone to error. In other words, because they use different voting technologies, the errors in Republican and Democratic counties don't balance out; instead, the Democrats lose more votes than the Republicans. One might say: that's tough -- buy new machines. But that's an awfully callous way to handle this situation, when hand counts are available as a mechanism for correcting some of these errors. If there was literally no way to address the problem, then that would be that. But we do have a process, manual recounting, that is used quite commonly in elections in Florida and throughout the nation. Hand counts are not necessarily inaccurate, but it obviously is important to create a process that ensures consistency in interpreting the various marks on ballots. Most ballots are unambiguous and can easily be counted, so long as sufficient time is available to ensure this. (Historically, one major problem with hand counts has been that overworked election officials have had to scan hundreds or thousands of ballots very quickly; this, of course, is unnecessary.) I agree that the problem of ambiguous ballots is potentially vexing; however, again, I think it's possible to establish processes that will produce more accurate results than the machines, which simply kick those ballots out as a matter of course. Eliminating all of those ambiguous ballots might indeed be a consistent result, as you say, but is it fair to do that in cases where manual observation can ultimately determine the "will" of the some of these voters? I had to laugh last night when I was watching TV and saw a Republican talking head complaining about the changing criteria that the Canvassing Board in Palm Beach was employing. They did in fact change their criteria -- by penalizing Gore in response to a Republican request for a change. The Canvassing Board is now employing a tighter standard than that which is required in their written law, at the request of the Republicans who are overseeing the Board's work. The Republicans request this, are granted their request, and then cite this change as evidence that the process is built on shifting sands. The Canvassing Board seemingly should have gone with its initial standard and denied the Republican grievance. <???> I also have to laugh that the Republicans are complaining about the fact that only four Democratic counties will hold manual recounts. The Republicans had precisely the same opportunity to request hand counts in counties of their choice, but they were so busy playing politics that they failed to file requests on time. If they need hand counts, I'm sure the Florida Election Board will waive the 72-hour deadline and give in to them (the Sec. of State was the co-chair of W's Florida campaign). But c'mon, people -- this is a standard procedure that happens all the time and was freely available to both sides. I tend to agree with those who ask: if Bush is so confident that he has won -- after all, Jeb told him so (conveniently) -- then what's the problem with doing all we can to ensure that the votes are counted properly? Under the circumstances, one would think W would be especially eager to remove any impression that this is a tainted election. After all, it doesn't look good that the governor of Florida is his brother; that the Sec of State, who oversees the Fla Division of Elections, was co-chair of Bush's campaign in the state; that the head of the Division of Elections is a Republican Bush appointee; that the state Canvassing Board is made up of two Republicans and a Democrat who voted for Bush (named by Jeb when he recused himself). Am I the only one waiting for Fidel Castro to go to the U.N. and request that election monitors be sent to Florida?