response 176 of 216:

Nov 13 04:29 UTC 2000

#174> Except that the general media opinion seems to be that the precincts
for the 1% were selected because of their concentration of Democrats, not
randomly. All the same, if the manual recount translates to about 1000 votes
for Gore, which it easily could, that would tie everything up.

#175> Palm Beach County's in a bad spot, legally. They have a judge telling
them they can't certify the results just yet, and the state telling them they
must certify the results. Unless the judge or the state bends, their window
for certifying (legally) is only an hour or so.

response 178 of 216:

Nov 13 14:30 UTC 2000

I'm sorry...but I would want to know who really won if I was a candidate. 
And I wouldn't point the finger at anyone else.  Bush is afraid, Gore is
afraid.  I just don't care anymore.  if counting the votes will determine a
winner, then we will count the frickin votes.  But an injunction to hand
counting the votes because it would prevent, possibly, a bush win, because
of either the outcome, or the "human" error of counting?  God, if you're THAT
worried, hire computer people or accountants to do it.  They're used to
numbers, if you can't trust others to do it.

I didn't like EITHER of them.  And I like them less.  And I don't think that
this whole fiasco is as important as they are letting on, since the electoral
college wouldn't have voted yet anyway, and the new pres isn't until January.
We're obsessed with the luxury of "predicting" the winner by a landslide, that
when it is actually a close race and have to wait "it's all falling apart!!!!"

response 180 of 216:

Nov 13 15:39 UTC 2000

The questionable accuracy of hand counts is not because humans can't count.
It's because of all the nebulous determinations of the "voter's intent".

  Ballot 1:  Hole for Bush is unpunched, but dimpled slightly.  Nothing else
     punched.   No vote or Gore vote?  Let's say "no".

  Ballot 2:  Hole for Gore is partially punched out, with the chad still
    hanging by two corners.  No vote or Gore vote?  Let's say "Gore".

  Ballot 3:  Hole for Gore is partially punched out, chad hanging by two
    corners.  Hole for Bush cleanly punched out.  We just said the same
    sort of Gore punch was a Gore vote, so is this an overvote or a Bush
    Vote?

If you try to read the voter's mind by examining the ballot, you can probably
achieve a pretty accuracy rate, but certainly not perfect.  It's partly guess
work, which wouldn't be accurate even if the counter is perfectly accurate
and unbiased.

So the Bush campaign has a legitimate beef about the accuracy of manual
counts.  I'd guess manual counts are "more accurate" than machine ones,
but not all that much.

response 182 of 216:

Nov 13 17:43 UTC 2000

Since the machines are designed by humans, they have *some* built in
features to reduce counting errors, but *by definition* they cannot have
more than humans. Only fraud can reverse that. 

response 184 of 216:

Nov 13 18:07 UTC 2000

By the way, I hope both candidates are hard at work behind the scenes drafting
The Mother of All Concession Speechs.

Eventually, there is going to be a winner declared, and the other guy needs
to give a speech that will close the book on the debate over who is president
as much as possible.  It has to be done without whining and without
resentment, congratulating the other guy on a close race, and completely
backing his right to hold that office.

It's interesting that the first best chance for a candidate to really show
his fitness to be president by selflessly bringing the nation together in a
time of stress will go to the loser.

response 186 of 216:

Nov 13 18:35 UTC 2000

I'm sorry, but in designing the machines, engineers chose dimensions and
operating protocols so that, in their opinion (or by experimentation)
errors would be reduced. These are all "built in features to reduce
errors". A machine is NOT "just is" - it was designed. However all design
is compromise, so not all possible errors will be addressed in the design.
Hence, "they have *some* built in features to reduce counting errors, but
*by definition* they cannot have more than humans".

response 188 of 216:

Nov 13 18:47 UTC 2000

A machine just is.  I don't care if you think the design makes some major
factor in the operation of the machine, it thinks A+B=C because you tell it
that.  You say what the factors are and it does them.  To precision.  You
might think they reduce the number compared to human error, but it does what
it is programmed to do.  No more, no less.  A wheel spins.  Now you can think
of the width, the tread, and the diameter in getting to your distance, but
to the wheel, it turns.  That is the function.  It goes round and round.
So if you want to say that because of the design of the machine and the
comprimises made within, the machine cannot verify a partial punch because
they couldn't allow for it....machine says "Punch in A=A...Partial punch in
A= ...Nonpunch in A= ...."  Because that's what you told it.  

Engineers want it to produce the end result with the lowest amount of
perceeved errors.  Generally designs are made up, programs are written, and
then debugging or error correction occur, not before.  They also want a
machine that can do the job with as little personal handling and programming
time as possible.  A box is a box until you tell it that it has another
function and it can understand that.  

response 190 of 216:

Nov 13 20:03 UTC 2000

Mary, if a machine just "is", then there is no use for engineers.  
However, while a wheel does spin, there are always potential errors that 
may occur.  This isn't just for computers but also for various machines 
where there are a lot of variables.  Shit happens.

I really can't believe how crazy this election is versus previous years.

response 192 of 216:

Nov 13 21:14 UTC 2000

the judge today ruled against bush's request for an injunction to
stop the manual recounts.  Assuming the manual recounts go forward, there
is a strong chance Gore will end up winning and be president.  The Bush
people did not play their cards right, they let the deadlines for
requesting manual recounts pass in the counties where Bush is ahead. But
thats the way it goes.  

Of course, if Gore wins, there is all but guaranteed to be a no holds
barred rematch with Bush in 2004.

response 194 of 216:

Nov 13 21:19 UTC 2000

Jenn, I was saying that even though you may design a machine to do it's
function, once you make it, it does what it's told, good intentions to the
side.  It just is.  A calculator will not balance your checkbook or find lost
money for you.  It does simple math equations (dependingon the model you have,
some do complex graphing and equations).  But based upon the emotions and
intent that you use this machine does not give it the qualities you desire.
The voting machines count dots, for the punch cards.  Not partial dots, not
semi dots, and they are supposed to reject double dots where there should be
one.  If you want to say it is to make less errors on the part of human
counting, fine, but the machine just counts dots.

response 196 of 216:

Nov 13 22:08 UTC 2000

well Gore would make the argument that how do you call him a bad
candidate when (fact) he got more votes than any other democratic
candidate in history.  and won the popular vote.  I think Bush is so
popular with the gop insiders that he would easily get re-nominated, even
after being on the sidelines for four years.

response 198 of 216:

Nov 14 01:49 UTC 2000

In a properly designed system, the machine *should* be more accurate.
It won't forget to carry the ones, drop a pile of cards behind the pop
machine, or get drunk and have a headache.  In an improperly designed
system, the humans are going to be more accurate, because they can
examine the partially pressed out chad, see the mark made by the voter's
pen, and make a "best guess" as to who the voter intended to vote for.
The machine hasn't got millions of years of evolution behind any guess
it might make, all it has got is consistency based on the relatively
lousy sensors its designers gave it, and the arbitrary mathematical
constraints on the output of that sensor that its designers programmed
into it.  The humans may be victims of boredom.  The machine can be a
victim of "garbage-in, garbage-out", and unless it's really dramatically
wrong, nobody will even notice.