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: Dave Gore who wrote (376)	11/14/2000 3:06:40 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Dear Dave: if my thesis is naive then Bush himself and the other states who have enacted the manual recount into law are wrong! That's quite a statement. Again, its naive. The legislatures of many states have adopted procedures for recounting to address the several types of irregularities that have occurred in past elections across the country. One remedy, but NOT the ONLY remedy is to have a manual recount of the ballots. In Florida, as we have learned, requires a MANDATORY recount when the margin of victory is less than 1/2 of one percent. Beyond that, DISCRETION is left to the individual canvassing boards to determine what procedures they should proceed with based upon the outcome of the MANDATORY recount. but it is certainly naive and very wrong to say that we might as well be satisfied with 96% accuracy when we could have 99% accurate. That's plain stupid and un-American, lml! In an attempt to be non-partisan here, it is clear that NEITHER party has been satisfied with the DISCRETION exercised by several of the county canvassing boards to conduct a manual recount, or to cease a manual recount. Regardless of which aisle you sit on it is a FACT that the DISCRETION to hold a manual recount is NOT MANDATORY, but DISCRETIONARY. This alone contradicts your position that any recount must continue to ensure 99 percent accuracy. This is simply wrong, and a wrong reading of the statute. I'll forgive you for the closing indirect result directed my way. For anyone to say that the machines are more accurate at counting bent cards and partially punched holes is an idiot. . . . The manual count is embedded in state laws so that the will of the people is as closely followed as possible. Surely even you must admit that the states allowed for manual recounts for that reason?! Here, you lose sight of the pros and cons of machine counting v. hand counting. I think you will agree with me that neither system is PERFECT, that each method has it shortcomings as well as its attributes. With that said, it is clear that in the State of Florida, judging by the number of counties that use machine counting to count their ballots, that machine counting is a credible and reliable method by which to canvass votes cast at an election. Your comment challenges this. Now, that's not to say that a machine count is infallible. It is apparent as we have followed this unfolding story that machine counting does lead to SOME errors in the proper counting of ballots, and that SOME OF THESE errors, but NOT ALL may be remedied by a manual count. BUT, the big problem with hand counting is that it INTRODUCES INTO THE EQUATION, to potential for error NOT PRESENT with MACHINE counting. It introduces human error, human subjectivity, and human bias, regardless of the intent of those performing the hand count to remain objective and impartial. Just as voters can make a honest mistake at the ballot box, those performing a manual count can make a mistake in interpret the TRUE INTENT of the voter. Just because a chad has on loose corner does lead one to make PRESUMPTIVE conclusion that the voter intended to vote for the candidate whose name coincided with that particular hole or chad. This kind of subjectivity cannot be removed from the manual process. So again, for you to believe that a manual recount is perfect and that a machine count is not is naive.

To: Dave Gore who wrote (376)	11/14/2000 3:27:36 PM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Given what's happening to the ballots in a hand count I would wager that it will now be impossible to ever have a reasonable degree of certainty as to who won the election. And to cap it all off 99% certainty isn't going to even come close. That would be +/- 60,000 Votes. Try something like 99.99% certainty. Has anyone run the probability of finding 19 votes in 4600 out of 460,000? lml is 100% correct. By hand counting you are just HOPING a different set of systematic errors favor your candidate, in addition to opening the door for much larger amounts of subjectivity--at a huge irrevocable expense to everyone.

To: Dave Gore who wrote (376)	11/14/2000 3:42:14 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3887

pmfji, this may have been said before, but what's happening is NOT a recount. It's a subjective examination of every ballot to see whether humans can discern a voter's intention where the machines did not. Unfortunately, the people who are examining the ballots are NOT neutral, objective observers, but are themselves partisan officials and voters. If Bush supporters do a manual "recount" on 427,000 ballots and Gore supporters do a manual "recount" on the same ballots, I guarantee you the results will be different. In fact, I would venture to say that if a single set of recounters recounted the ballots ten times, they would get ten different results. It's not like counting coins, where everybody would agree whether a given coin is a nickle or a quarter. It's more like looking at an inkblot and asking what people see in it. What they see in it is a function of what they WANT to see in it. The only way to even remotely approach the possibility of getting a fair manual recount is to ship all the ballots to a neutral third party with no connection to or possible benefit from who wins or loses this election and have them do the recount. Do such people exist in this world? Maybe the Swiss, maybe New Zealanders. But NOT the Palm Beach County canvassing board.