|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 216 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 143 of 216:
| 
Nov 12 00:06 UTC 2000 |
What they are afraid of is just what they said. People applying their own
bias to the ticket.
what if a ticket has two partial punches, one for Gore and one for Bush, but
the machine registered the vote for Bush. The hand counter, not knowing
that the machine read it as a bush ticket, and being the good dem that she
is, counts it as a Gore ticket.
Now I do not KNOW that the machine could do this, I also do not know that it
couldn't happen.
The machine, though less discerning than the human eye, will not apply any
bias. Also, the machine would not discriminate to only one side, if a Gore
voter made a mistake in one direction, it is also possible that a Bush voter
did as well. The law of averages says it should even out.
They are afraid of the bias of the counter.
Now...Shall we look at teh impropriates in the other 4 states?
Iowa - reports of impropriates, a state that Gore won with only 5000 votes.
Wisconsin - Bribery of the poor to get them to caste votres for Gore.
Proof that cetain polling places let voters in line and vote past
8:00 cutoff.
A poling place with Gore Lieberman posters all over it and easy
access to the ballots
Complaints from several people saying they were given more than
one ballot, and being told to keep them after they reported them
to the election staff. A stae with a difference of 6208 votes.
Oregon - where they have to handcount everything, they are within 575 votes
of a mandatory recount.
New Mexico - Gore had a lead of 11,407, but with a partial recount of 67,000
votes, that lead shrunk to just 162. 252 ballots are missing,
340 have to be hand counted becaus ethe machines are rejecting
them. And that is only a PARTIAL recount. Over 11,000 errors
in just one county.
|
scg
|
|
response 144 of 216:
|
Nov 12 00:11 UTC 2000 |
If that's the case in those states, it's probably reasonable to recount there
as well. Getting the count right is pretty important.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 145 of 216:
|
Nov 12 00:16 UTC 2000 |
The machine would (well, should) reject the partial punches and duplicate
punches and outright. The hand counters (and there are three, not just
one; had you been paying attention to the news coverage, you should have
know that) will also reject the duplicate punches. The partial punches
are the key: the machine can't score them, but humans can. It's part of
why machines aren't completely capable of counting votes. They can do
more faster, but they can't get the ambiguities.
Do the ambiguities break even, or do they favor one over the other? Won't
know, unless we look at the ballots individually, will we?
|
scott
|
|
response 146 of 216:
|
Nov 12 00:23 UTC 2000 |
Many balloting methods that are used haven't had a good test (ie a close race)
in a while.
|
richard
|
|
response 147 of 216:
|
Nov 12 00:41 UTC 2000 |
jan, on Nightline last night they had a panel of five constitutional
scholars, all of whom agreed that only a majority of the electoral college
need be present for a vote. If florida's electors dont show up, but all
the other electors do, then there IS a majority of the total electors
present and a vote can take place. A president absolutely can be elected
without the presence of the florida electors.
not that this will happen though
|
mdw
|
|
response 148 of 216:
|
Nov 12 00:55 UTC 2000 |
Sure, a vote can take place, but do they still have to reach the 270
count?
|
richard
|
|
response 149 of 216:
|
Nov 12 01:44 UTC 2000 |
270 is the majority of the total electoral college, and theremustbe
atleast 270 electors present to have a vote at all. But as with any vote
on mostboards, if the board has met quorom and they are authorized to
vote, the majority vote of those who are present is all that is needed to
pass anything.
If only four of seven grex members show up at a grex board meeting, they
have quorum, and can vote, but a majority of those four votes will suffice
to pass votes. If only four were present, and a majority vote of all
members (not just those present) were required, there would have to be a
unanimous vote to get anythingpassed.
The forefathers knew there could be,back in the days before airplanes and
highways, instances where Electoral college electors could not show up for
the vote. And they did not wish to have the presidency in doubt because
the electoral college was not 100% present.
In 1864, Lincoln was re-elected. The southern states had seceded and
obviously did not send participate in that vote or send electors to
theElectoral College. However, the secession of those states was never
officially recognized (the northern states never held that the southern
states had the right to secede) So Lincoln was elected *without*
technically a full electoral college vote in 1864. He was elected based
on a majority vote of those electors who did show up.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 150 of 216:
|
Nov 12 02:01 UTC 2000 |
Richard, you are wrong. I strongly suggest you take a few minutes to
read the relevant documents. Just to make it easier:
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may
direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and
representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress" (Article
II, Section 1, US Constitution).
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for
President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an
inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their
ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the
person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of
all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as
Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall
sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the
United States, directed to the President of the Senate; . . . The person
having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be President, if
such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;"
(Amendment 12, US Constitution).
It's not a majority of those who show up; it's a majority of those
*appointed*. If I remember correctly, the southern states declined to
appoint any electors when Lincoln was elected the second time. They could
have, but they didn't. This is the situation that *may* pertain here:
Florida may decline to appoint any electors, thereby reducing the number
of electors and the number required to achieve a majority of those appointed.
Personally, I believe this all to be moot: Florida will, indeed, appoint
its electors by the date the Congress has established for the vote.
|
flem
|
|
response 151 of 216:
|
Nov 12 03:07 UTC 2000 |
> "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for
> President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an
> inhabitant of the same state with themselves;
Wait, is that saying that the President and VP can't be from the same state?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 152 of 216:
|
Nov 12 03:13 UTC 2000 |
Yup. That's why Cheney registered to vote in Wyoming earlier this year (he
had been registered in Texas). Just before he was announced as the VP
candidate, in fact.
|
scg
|
|
response 153 of 216:
|
Nov 12 03:29 UTC 2000 |
My reading of that is just that the electors can't vote for both a President
and Vice President from the same state as the electors doing the voting. So,
if somebody wanted to get a court ruling saying that Cheney is in fact a Texas
resident (he does does live there, and it is the last place he was employed),
then the Texas electors could be blocked for voting for Bush-Cheney. I don't
think anybody is going to try that, though.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 154 of 216:
|
Nov 12 03:47 UTC 2000 |
Residency is up to each state. That's why a Rockefeller can become
Governor of West Virginia. Or how two boys raised in Maine can become
the Governors of Texas and Florida at the same time. Or how a woman
born and raised in Arkansas can become the junior Senator from New York.
Cheney is not a resident of Texas; he is a resident of Wyoming.
A ticket of a President and Vice-President from the same state that took
that state's electors would face them with an unsurmountable problem:
They can't vote for both, so which one do they vote for? It is likely
that the ticket would get enough votes from the other states' electors
that not getting their own wouldn't hurt them too much, but why fight it
unnecessarily? One of them simply moves. (Easier now than when the
requirement was first written, I'd guess. Although they did get around
a bit even then.)
|
scg
|
|
response 155 of 216:
|
Nov 12 04:32 UTC 2000 |
I assume most states define residency in the same way Michigan and California
do: If you have a permenant home there, or live and work there, you are
considered a resident, and if you have homes in more than one state, you are
a resident of the state where you both live and work.
Jay Rockefeller presumably lived in West Virginia before becoming their
Governor and then Senator. Likewise, I assume Jeb Bush lived in Florida
before becoming their Governor. Hillary Clinton bought a house in New York,
and moved into it at about the time she announced her Senate campaign.
Likewise, having moved from Michigan to California last summer and gotten
a job in California, I am now a California resident.
Did Cheney actually move back to Wyoming when he started running for Vice
President, or did he just fly in, change his voter registration, and then fly
back to Texas?
|
scg
|
|
response 156 of 216:
|
Nov 12 04:37 UTC 2000 |
Oh, I should also point out that Hillary Clinton was born and raised in
Illinois, and moved to Arkansas to be with Bill Clinton, and that the Bush
boys were apparrently at least in part raised in Texas, not Maine. Not that
that has anything at all to do with this discussion...
|
gelinas
|
|
response 157 of 216:
|
Nov 12 05:03 UTC 2000 |
Thanks for the clarification on Ms. Clinton's youth. When did the Bushes
estalish the family compound in Kennebunkport? I'd assumed they had it while
the boys were growing up.
Cheney had served as a Congressman (I don't remember whether Representative
or Senator) from Wyoming. I'd guess he still has property there. And more
than one person has established residency in a hotel room.
|
janc
|
|
response 158 of 216:
|
Nov 12 05:03 UTC 2000 |
>what if a ticket has two partial punches, one for Gore and one for Bush, but
>the machine registered the vote for Bush. The hand counter, not knowing
>that the machine read it as a bush ticket, and being the good dem that she
>is, counts it as a Gore ticket.
The "hand counter" is not a Democrat. The way this seems to work in Florida
is that there are a bunch of tables, each occupied by an election official,
a representative of the Democratic Party, and a representative of the
Republican Party. All three look at each ballot and agree to place it in
a pile for Gore, Bush, no vote, or overvote (multiple punches). If they don't
agree that it is obvious, it goes in an "undecided" pile. All the "undecided"
are passed to a panel that studies each one and rules on it. My guess is that
the actual counting of the cards in the piles is done by a machine. It's
as careful a process as you can easily make. It is difficult however to
discern the voter's intent from a lot of incomplete punches, and the procedure
though not particularly biased, is dubious in its own ways. There is probably
no such thing as an absolutely authoritive count.
|
janc
|
|
response 159 of 216:
|
Nov 12 05:05 UTC 2000 |
G W Bush Sr's residence in Texas during his presidency was a hotel room. He
probably spent more time in Kennebuckport during those years, but most Texas
assumed he wanted to be a Texas resident because there is no state income tax
there.
|
janc
|
|
response 160 of 216:
|
Nov 12 05:10 UTC 2000 |
I'm seeing some hints of what future President Bush would be like under stress
here:
- "For the good of the country, this election must be resolved soon."
Sounds to me like the classic leader's error of confusing his own good
with the nation's good.
- He's been declining to talk about his suit to halt the manual recount
in Florida, leaving one of his people to talk about that, while he plans
for his administration. I read that as trying hard to look presidential
by distancing himself from subordinates who do the non-presidential
things for him.
Not admirable traits in a leader. Gore may be "quibbling" but at least
he's straight-forward about it, and not adopting poses.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 161 of 216:
|
Nov 12 05:18 UTC 2000 |
It's only four years, Jan.
|
richard
|
|
response 162 of 216:
|
Nov 12 07:26 UTC 2000 |
They just had on cnn, the meeting of the Palm Beach county board of
elections. They counted 1% of the votes by hand and showed a net plus to
Gore of 19 votes. If you assume that 19 votes is an average for each one
percent, counting all 100% of the votes could produce an extra +1900 votes
for Gore. Based on the fact that such extra votes could swing the
election, the board voted (vote was carried live) to order a manual
recount of all ballots in all precincts.
|
richard
|
|
response 163 of 216:
|
Nov 12 07:47 UTC 2000 |
which brings up the question, "exactly how long will it take to count
400,000 ballots by hand"? And do they postpone the hearing on Tuesday to
discuss whether to have a re-vote until the hand count is done?
|
mdw
|
|
response 164 of 216:
|
Nov 12 08:17 UTC 2000 |
I'd guess an important part of the recount would be to *also* count the
spoilt ballots, and perhaps try to take a stab at figuring out if there
is any sort of systemic fault in the spoilt ones. If after a recount,
the margin of victory (for whichever side) is larger than the spoilt
ballots, then they can declare a victor and rest. If the # of spoilt
ballots is larger than the margin of victory, and especially if there's
evidence of systemic bias in the errors, then that would seem to be
strong evidence that a re-election is necessary.
Presumably, there is no lack of hands that would be willing to count
ballots, so the real question may be a matter of figuring out how many
and which hands to trust, and coordinating the whole mess. If I were
them, I'd probably be starting by asking how much time I had to do the
count in, figuring out how many people were needed to do that count, and
go from there. I suppose if it turned out it was going to take longer
to do the hand count than to do a re-election, then that might be
another good argument to do so.
I haven't heard anything on those overseas ballots - things could get
*very* interesting if there's a net gain to Bush of, say, just under
2000. Do you suppose we might end up having a 1 vote difference
determining the next president?
|
birdy
|
|
response 165 of 216:
|
Nov 12 08:46 UTC 2000 |
That would be cool and an even *better* argument to get the idiot "my vote
doesn't count" people out of their houses on Election Day.
|
brighn
|
|
response 166 of 216:
|
Nov 12 20:43 UTC 2000 |
News that was glossed over a bit in last night's Palm Beach recount, that will
come back to haunt us, perhaps: They looked at 100 or so "overvote" ballots
-- where people had cast multiple votes. 80 of them were Buchanen-Gore (and
noone else), which is statistically significant support for the "confusing
ballot" theory.
|
gull
|
|
response 167 of 216:
|
Nov 12 21:24 UTC 2000 |
On what legal grounds is Bush challenging the recount? It was my
understanding that Gore has a right to request it, under Florida law.
|