The problem with the punch card ballots doesn't happen at the point where the card goes through the machine. The problem happens at the point where the voter stands at a table with a ballot and a little probe device (which even the company that makes the machines thought needed improvement before this election) and then tries to make a mark on the card. According to the newspapers here (both the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald) punch cards are laid over a grid and the grid lays over a sheet of rubber with little slits in it. The voter pushes down on the chad of choice with the awl, and, if everything goes right, the chad is caught in the slits in the rubber and comes away cleanly. The hole in the punch card is then read by a light shone through by the machine in an entirely separate function.

The existence of "chadology" pretty much proves that the manual method of creating holes in punch cards is far less than perfect. When a flawed method is combined with a broad lack of voter understanding of just what it is that the machines actually look for, you get ballots with hanging chads and "garage doors", etc. Most states exclude dimpled ballots from the count on the basis that voter intent cannot be shown unless some daylight comes through. (Texas is an exception here.) Massachusetts used to exclude dimples on the same grounds as most states, but the unintentional experiment I described made it clear that voters who really wanted to vote sometimes turned in ballots which had dimpled chads, rather than partially or fully punched chads.

And yes, the Massachusetts experience has been mentioned in the Florida courts, it just hasn't gotten as much media play outside of Massachusetts.

As for double-punched ballots, Uncle Jaque, there were reports, beginning before the polls closed, that voters themselves were complaining about the confusing ballots and saying that they had double punched their ballots, trying to make sure that the vote for Gore counted. If a statistical analysis of the double punched ballots were given to us, you might be able to make a case for an ice pick, but couldn't it be just as likely that a Republican, hearing people complain, ran a bunch of ballots through with an ice pick on the Buchanan hole in order to disqualify ballots?

Here's something to infuriate you:

George W. Bush can only believe one of the following two statements:

A. Observed manual recounts are a better way to resolve close elections than machine recounts.

or

B. Machine recounts are a better way to resolve close elections than observed manual recounts.

If George believes "A" then why is he protesting manual recounts in Florida?

(Answer: He wants to win, even if it means abandoning his own beliefs.)

If George believes "B" then why did he sign the law in Texas that says if two candidates ask for recounts with different methods, manual recounts trump machine recounts?

(Answer #1: Because he didn't care what he was signing.)

(Answer #2: Because he didn't **read** what he was signing.)

(Answer #3: Because his daddy told him to.)

Logic should never never never be applied to politics....

ta ta!