Uncle Jaque: "Hey, that one Republican observer has gotta pee sometime!"

Please tell me you don't seriously believe that rigging an election is as simple a matter as waiting for an observer to take a break and then diddling the ballots. That doesn't say much for the intelligence of the Republican observers.

I understand that the recounting in Florida has been done with MANY people watching, and even some TV cameras. A Republican judge, being interviewed on TV, said (a) they were only "counting" the ballots they all agreed on, and the ones they disagreed on were being put aside, and not "counted" as belonging to any candidate; and (b) they agreed on 99% of the ballots they were looking at. Furthermore, they were ONLY looking at ballots that had gone through the machines and had not registered any vote.

I know that there have been a lot of "spin doctors" standing on the sidelines and claiming that the ballot counters were making wild, unjustifiable inferences about the ballots, but clearly that isn't the way the counters see it, not even the Republican ones.

However, your point about "vote pumping" (I've never heard that term before - I have to assume you are using it correctly) is valid - which is exactly why Bush should have agreed to Gore's proposal that they recount the whole state.

Regarding motives: There is a principle of science called "Ockham's Razor" (or Occam's) which says, always favor the SIMPLEST of all possible explanations. In human behavior, the simplest explanation is usually stupidity, so a good corollary might be, don't assume that someone is dishonest if their behavior can be explained by plain stupidity.

Yes, I'm willing to accept that a Democratic forms designer committed a well-intentioned but stupid act, in using the butterfly ballot. I understand that the butterfly ballot was only used once before in Florida, and that was in the 1996 presidential election, but the election in Florida wasn't close then, so nobody took much notice of the fact that there were lots of uncounted ballots then, too.

Before that (and since then, in all elections except presidential ones) they used a punch-card ballot, which was NOT a butterfly ballot. In that version, the candidates were all listed in one column, with the print just high enough so that one name lined up with one potential hole. But the print was so small that a lot of senior citizens couldn't read it, so it was redesigned with the type twice as big, which meant that the list of candidates spilled over into 2 columns, with the holes in the middle, and now TWO holes appeared in the space allotted to one candidate. This is what made the arrows necessary.

The butterfly ballot that was used in Chicago was used ONLY for the election of judges. I don't know about Illinois, but where I live, hardly anybody except lawyers pays any attention to the election of judges, and not voting on that part of the ballot is the rule rather than the exception.

If the butterfly ballot has been used anywhere else, I haven't heard about it.

As to why punch cards are used rather than optical scanners: it is mainly a matter of economics. Optical scanners are much more expensive than punch-card readers are, especially if you want to put one in every polling place.

David: "I can't see how terminal stupidity can be used as the basis for a recount."

Whether you attribute it to stupidity, inattentiveness, macular degeneration, senile dementia, a badly designed ballot, or an insufficiently sensitive machine, -- your remark only illustrates for me what a LIE the whole concept of "compassionate conservatism" is.

To Uncle Jaque again: Why is it, when a senior citizen fails to punch a chad all the way out, it's "tough luck" but when a military person fails to ask the postmaster (or whatever they call them in the military) to postmark his ballot it's "the minutest of technical pretenses"?

I have only filled out an absentee ballot once in my life, and it was about 30 years ago for the state of Missouri. I remember that there were specific instructions that I was supposed to take the ballot to any post office, show it to the postmaster, and ask him to rubber-stamp it (the ballot itself, not the envelope) with the date BEFORE I marked the ballot.

The reason I remember this so clearly is that I screwed up, and without reading the instructions, started marking the ballot. (The ballot consisted of several separate sheets, for different offices.) Fortunately, I realized my mistake before I marked ALL the sheets. When I took it to the postmaster, HE read the instructions (this was in Minnesota), saw that some sheets were already marked, and refused to rubber-stamp those sheets. I had no choice at that point but to throw away the sheets I had already marked.

I don't specifically remember this part, but it would make sense if I would have to show the postmaster a picture ID, and have him check it against the name and address on the envelope, before he rubber-stamped the ballot. Then his stamp would be evidence, not only of the date, but also of my identity.

I haven't seen the instructions that are printed in Florida absentee ballots, but I assume that if the law says the ballots have to be postmarked, then the instructions will say, "be sure your ballot gets stamped with the date by your postmaster." Surely military postmasters are equipped to do this. If a military person fails to follow directions, how is that different from a voter at home failing to follow directions? If you're going to be strict with one, you should be strict with the other.

Maybe - just MAYBE - both the Gore side and the Bush side have been equally inconsistent. I don't know, since I don't know the exact criteria that were used to reject some military ballots. But I do know this: at LEAST we know that all the punch-card ballots were cast by registered voters who showed up on the right day. In the case of the military ballots, we DON'T know that, until we have examined the evidence. Therefore, it is entirely right and appropriate that absentee ballots (whether they are military or non-military) should have a couple more hurdles to get over than the punch-card ballots do. They not only have to be legible; they have to contain evidence that they were marked on the right date, and by a registered voter.

I know this has been a long posting. I hope I'm not wasting my breath. Did anybody manage to read it all?

Uncle Jaque: Your postings would be easier to read if you would break them up into paragraphs.