|
Grex > Agora35 > #124: Win the electoral college but lose the popular vote? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 409 responses total. |
aaron
|
|
response 101 of 409:
| 
Nov 10 14:58 UTC 2000 |
If Bush thought there were any chance of his winning a revote, I think he
would be calling for one as a "reasonable resolution" of the dispute. He
knows he will lose a revote, and thus would lose the Presidency.
If the expected margin of error is 2%, and the actual margin of error is
4%, that is *not* an insignificant change, Bruce.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 102 of 409:
|
Nov 10 15:29 UTC 2000 |
NB: This is not the first time the Electoral College would "overrule" the
popular vote. Doing so this time would not force a "constitutional crisis."
|
krj
|
|
response 103 of 409:
|
Nov 10 17:27 UTC 2000 |
Today's Washington Post: the Bush people say they are expecting that when
all absentee ballots are tallied nationwide, that Bush will be
found to have won the popular vote.
Historically such ballots break Republican, the pundits say, and there
are a million of them in California alone, while Gore's popular vote
lead is only 200,000. A million California ballots wouldn't shift
California's electoral votes, but if they break 60-40 for Bush it wipes
out Gore's claim to have won the popular vote.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 104 of 409:
|
Nov 10 17:29 UTC 2000 |
I would be willing to wait to see if the count if the absentee
ballots would render the possible change in vote counts in Palm County
a non-issue.
|
goose
|
|
response 105 of 409:
|
Nov 10 18:57 UTC 2000 |
RE#102 -- Grover Clevland, 1888 was the last time (maybe the only other time)
I think.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 106 of 409:
|
Nov 10 19:30 UTC 2000 |
I heard one report that the Palm Beach sample ballot printed in the newspaper
was not the same as the actual ballot - something like the sample ballot
was shown with all the candidates in one column, not staggered. I haven't
heard any follow up on that. What was the true situation?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 107 of 409:
|
Nov 10 20:40 UTC 2000 |
We now know the source of the confusion re: the Florida ballot:
http://www.geocities.com/klalbaugh/flballot.jpg
|
albaugh
|
|
response 108 of 409:
|
Nov 10 21:46 UTC 2000 |
Of course, there's also: http://www.geocities.com/klalbaugh/flprez.gif
|
aruba
|
|
response 109 of 409:
|
Nov 10 22:27 UTC 2000 |
Carol, who's a technical writer, and I think that one of the lessons from
the Plam Beach ballot situation is about the usability of technical
communications. As anyone who's studied it can tell you, a person designing
something for others to use can't always predict what problems other people
will have. That's because the designer knows a lot more about what's going
on than the users.
The best solution to the problem is to do usability testing, by showing a
system to actual users and having them use it, and seeing what problems
they have. That often doesn't seem necessary to people who feel they know
much more than any user could tell them, but that's precisely the reason why
they should test.
Sending sample ballots to people didn't accomplish the same thing, because
it probably wasn't the people who looked at the sample ballot, for the
most part, who had trouble. And it doesn't address the problems with the
machine and the stylus (or lack thereof) that Marcus pointed out.
I feel bad for the woman who designed that ballot. She obviously had
nothing but good intentions, and now the fate of the country may be riding
on what she did.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 110 of 409:
|
Nov 11 00:50 UTC 2000 |
I agree about the importance of usability testing in information design.
One of the Salon technology columnists has used the election fiasco as an
excuse to reprint an older column lauding the works of Edward Tufte, the
guru of information design.
Starting with his classic work from the mid 80's "The Visual Display of
Quantitative Information", Tufte has published a number of very important
(and very underappreciated) classic works on how to lay out numerical and
iconic presentations so as not to obscure the information content. They
should be required reading for anyone who makes their living using either
desktop publishing or presentation software..
|
mdw
|
|
response 111 of 409:
|
Nov 11 01:33 UTC 2000 |
This isn't the first time punched cars have been a problem for voting.
Problems have happened many times, and one notable example is the
1996 Johnston-Delahunt congressional election. In that case, the vote
initially was 266 in Johnston's favour, which dropped to 175 after a
recount. Delahunt filed a lawsuit, and the case went to court.
A superior court judge reviewed nearly 10,000 punch card ballots,
and ended up *counting the disputed ballots by hand* before declaring
Delahunt the winnter by 108 votes. Massachusetts has since banned the
use of punched card ballots.
Punched card ballots are actually not all that old. They were introduced
in the last 60's. Problems are almost as old. In Detroit in 1968,
one batch of cards got soaked in a rain storm on the way from the
polling place to the counting machine.
Here are some URLs for further reading:
http://www.s-t.com/daily/04-97/04-08-97/a03sr024.htm
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam01.txt
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/14.04.html
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/14.02.html
|
janc
|
|
response 112 of 409:
|
Nov 11 03:30 UTC 2000 |
I don't think the issue with the Palm Beach Ballots has to do with the
alignment of the holes. I think it has to do with seeing the names on the
left, noticing Gore is the second line, and then punching the second hole
without really noticing that there were names on the right side or little
arrows pointing at holes. Second hole for the second name, what could be
more obvious? It's worse if you have reduced visual field, as some older
people do, but it isn't all that hard a mistake to make.
Some people are suggesting that some of the Bush electors should vote for
Gore, in recognition that the popular vote went to Gore. I think that would
be immoral and improper. The electors should behave the way their voters
expected them to behave. The popular vote is *NOT* a consideration.
However, this leaves open another possibility. If you were a Florida
elector for Bush, but were convinced that regardless of what the official
vote count says, most Floridian's vote for Gore, which way should you vote?
Should an elector vote his or her best understanding of who his state
voted for, or should it vote the way the election officials decided it
came out? I don't know if Florida is one of the states that allows
"faithless electors" but if it is and if the Florida courts and election
officials don't manage to come up with a convincingly legitimate result,
then there might be a possibility of elector defection.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 113 of 409:
|
Nov 11 03:35 UTC 2000 |
Personally, I'd either vote for Bush or resign. Electors are chosen to
act, not to think.
|
janc
|
|
response 114 of 409:
|
Nov 11 04:05 UTC 2000 |
I tend to agree. The right way to settle this is in the courts before the
electors meet.
|
mdw
|
|
response 115 of 409:
|
Nov 11 04:06 UTC 2000 |
Supposedly, electors are the "party faithful" -- so while it's not
unheard of for them to make a surprise vote, it's extremely unlikely.
I don't think it was any one thing that did the Florida ballot in - it's
likely some people did count down holes, other people got confused by
alignment, etc. One thing that would help is if the booth were recorded
on the ballot - if one booth generated an unusually high # of botched
ballots, the problem could at least be traced down. Unfortunately,
there's nothing on the ballot that records the machine used.
|
janc
|
|
response 116 of 409:
|
Nov 11 04:22 UTC 2000 |
But they do know which ballots came from which precincts, and how many
machines each precinct had (usually a smallish number), so you could probably
recognize any such consistent machine error. I don't think it is likely. Some
voter would have noticed the problem and alerted an official if a machine were
that much out of whack.
|
mdw
|
|
response 117 of 409:
|
Nov 11 05:21 UTC 2000 |
*Maybe* you or I would have - but I don't think either of us represents
the typical Florida voter. It sounds very like they had a rather
efficient conveyer-belt style setup there, designed to herd people in,
through the voting process, and back out as quickly as possible. The
few who managed to bleet out a complaint were efficiently dispatched
without fuss or bother, or any real attempt at fairness. Most didn't
figure out they'd been fleeced until they were back outside, had a
chance to compare notes, and noticed a common problem. By then it was
*far* too late.
|
senna
|
|
response 118 of 409:
|
Nov 11 05:34 UTC 2000 |
States that *didn't* herd people efficiently received lawsuits. Missouri,
Michigan, et al
|
janc
|
|
response 119 of 409:
|
Nov 11 05:36 UTC 2000 |
I've visited Palm Beach. There are lots of old folks, but there are also lots
of young folks who are at least as much on the ball as you and I. And some
of those old folks are pretty danged stubborn about standing up for their
rights. It's not a herd of sheep down there.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 120 of 409:
|
Nov 11 05:40 UTC 2000 |
In addition to the markings that were on the ballot, color coding the
punch holes and the candidates' names would have helped.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 121 of 409:
|
Nov 11 06:35 UTC 2000 |
The electors are chosen to *think* as well as act, according to the
constitution. Otherwise there would not be an elaborate procedure of
meeting and voting by ballot. Even their choosing is entirely open to the
state's decision. The electors don't even have to choose the P and VP from
the same party - or any party. The state only determines how they are
selected. What they do is up to them. (History shows mainly conventional
and non-controversial colleges, but the possibility remains and has
occurred for deviations from conformity - I think this is an asset rather
than a fault.)
Incidentally, I just noticed that the decision process for P can be
delayed to 4 March. What is everyone getting so uptight about?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 122 of 409:
|
Nov 11 06:47 UTC 2000 |
It's January 20th, not March 4. That clause of the 12th Amendment was itself
amended by the 20th Amendment. (As I've said elsewhere in this agora. ;)
But I agree; there's no need to get uptight. We've been down this road
before, and we'll reach the end none the worse for wear.
And I was quoting a complaint from 1796 in #113. See
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/ec_unfaithful.htm
|
rcurl
|
|
response 123 of 409:
|
Nov 11 07:15 UTC 2000 |
My copy of the constitution, which appends the amendments with remarks
and footnotes in the main original text, does not indicate that the
XX-th amends the XII-th. However I admit that my copy (from the TIME Almanac
for 1999) may have an oversight in its footnotes and comentary.
|
mdw
|
|
response 124 of 409:
|
Nov 11 07:20 UTC 2000 |
There have been tons of psychological studies about how people behave in
groups. We *like* to think we're all independent minded old cusses who
will stand up for our rights. This is, after all, the American
heritage, and part of the American myth. The reality is, given the
right social context (which is almost trivial to create) *almost
everyone* is a sheep. There are some classic psychological studies that
show this, like the one where subject A is asked to use electrical
shocks to torture "subject B" and paired with "another subject" who is
actually in on the fix and encourages the torture. I'm sorry, but
expecting voters to fix problems with the election process on the spot
is not necessarily realistic. It *is* the responsibility of the
election officials to do so, and that includes the responsibility to
seek out, identify, and solve problems.
I think people have a right to expect to be able to vote quickly,
accurately, and fairly. A slow process is certainly bad, especially if
it means some people are denied the right to vote at all. An inaccurate
process is also bad. A process in which the inaccuracies are more
likely to hurt one candidate than another is real bad.
|
janc
|
|
response 125 of 409:
|
Nov 11 07:39 UTC 2000 |
We I voted this week, I saw two different people raise fusses over two
different issues. One lady was offended by some guy pamphletting outside
the polling place, and Valerie made a fuss because she didn't want to
stand in line to vote in a "privacy booth" but just wanted to sit down
on the floor with her number 2 pencil and get it over with. The election
officials told her she had to use the pen in the privacy booth. She noted
that the ballot said you could use a number two pencil and anyway,
they had to have extra pens in case some ran out, so started soliciting
the whole room for someone to loan her a number 2 pencil. She got one,
voted, turned in her ballot, and left while I was still standing in line.
I may be a sheep, but there are a couple non-sheep in every crowd.
|