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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (463)	11/27/2000 8:25:14 PM
From: jcky	Respond to of 14610

MadDog, I am not convinced a manual recount involving dimpled chads, assuming reasonable standards for counting dimpled chads are implemented, will ever reproduce an equal count, each and every time. Even if there are truly impartial manual counters, there is just too much a subjective judgement process discerning a dimpled chad from either a scratch, an indentation with intent or random manufacturing errors on the voting ballot itself. Whereas, in a hanging or penetrated chad, at least the passage of light thru the punctured chad can be easily recognized. With regards to the statistical outcome of the nearly equal Presidential candidates, I can make the argument that fifty different manual recounts will yield fifty different interpretations resulting in fifty different final manual totals. Within the standard deviation of error, each candidate is correct in assuming each particular count may produce a new electoral winner. When we are talking about less than 500 votes from more than 6 million potential voting ballots then this election really boils down to a game of statistics and probability just as much as a game of politics. Have you ever heard of God playing dice with the Universe? Well, we are all witnessing a similar process on a lesser scale. But rather than dealing with quantum physics, we are involved with the election process of a new president. Regards,

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (463)	11/27/2000 9:26:38 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

OMD--- I certainly agree that, in a perfect world, the accurate counting of the vote should be the paramount concern. The problem is that we are in an imperfect situation where there is simply no way to guarantee 100% accuracy no matter how many times the ballots are folded,spindled, mutilated, spyed through magnifying glasses, seen through backlights, with or without horn-rimmed glasses, mulled over, prayed over, divined or processed through a ouija board. That is the reality of the situation. So while I wholeheartedly agree that it would be wonderful to assure 100% accuracy, that every single vote is counted regardless of the IQ of the voter, his or her ability to follow directions, perceived difficulties with the ballots, machine glitches, acts of God, or other manner of problems, it just ain't possible, and this is true even if the deadlines were extended to inauguration day in January. I'm sorry to have to say it, but I believe this to be the case. The remedy is not to drag this process out unnecessarily. The remedy and proper focus is to address these problems so that they will be minimized in the future. I am, at heart, a pragmatic person. While there are certain values which should be held dear, and which I do hold dear, such as the right and privilege of voting, I cannot agree that the methods being employed in Florida, even if they were given until the cows come home to complete them to the satisfaction of all, would ever be 100% accurate or not flawed in some manner. As for the counting method and vesting of discretion, you can't change the rules after an election. For better or worse, they are what they are. What you think might be a reasonable approach to the method might not be deemed reasonable by all. Who did the voters vote for? sounds like an obvious and facile question, but the way to get there is the problem. JMO M