BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot

Subject: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 10:39 PM

Did you see in the news that in a (very small) test in Alberta 3 out of 15 voters, using the identical infamous butterfly ballot as in Florida, by mistake punched candidates in the Buchanan position?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: GUEST,Uncle Jaque - Maine
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 11:38 PM

From what I've seen, Canadian ballots do something rather foreign to the average American's experience; they are simple, and they make sense! These factors would never do, of course, for predominantly Dem officials in Fla who selected and set up that absurd system. Why? Who knows for sure, but I've heard one theory advanced that Gore Campaign Mgr. "Bugsy" DALEY rather favored them, as it is the kind of system that lends itself well to confusion of voters and judges, second-guessing Voter "intent" and to "creative recounting" practices perfected by the Sr. Mayor DALEY late of Chicago ("King", or "Boss" DALEY) which helped him get JFK elected in 1960. Even if the old "Vote-O-Matic" dosn't come through, as it seems to have failed to do so far, or the Vegas card-shark "counters", there is the old DALEY tactic of "Vote Pumping" where a recount (even an honest one) in a district where your guy is ahead is mathematically guarenteed to produce a gain of approximately the same % of contested ballots as your original lead. These "pumped" votes will increase with every re-count even if you don't manage to manufacture a few extra (want ketchup with those chads?) in the process. Hey, that one Republican observer has gotta pee sometime! Most everything going on in Fla is right out of the Chicago political machine playbook, being orchestrated with proffessional virtuosity. Son has learned well at the knee of the old Master. All that stands in the way of a Gore leagal coup is the rule of Law, and the Constitution. These do not seem to be insurmountable obstacles, however, to this gang. I don't think that all that many of us Yanks have a clue how critical and momentous this situation is becoming. And that's just the way the big TV and "news" potentates want it to be! Some districts in Maine apparantly used similar "punchcard" ballots, but even the most senile Legislators up in Augusta finally recognized how easy they are to friggajig and flim-flam, and we threw them all out in favor of a simpler optical system over 20 years ago. I wouldn't mind taking some serious lessons in credable electioneering from our neighbors to the North! It won't be long at the rate we're going before both Socialist systems will be virtually indistinguishable. Perhaps you can make Maine a Provence, and liberate us from the Peoples' Republic of Massachussetts! French as a National language, I'm afraid, may not catch on all that well here right away.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Jimmy C
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 11:50 PM

WE had a Federal Election just the other day here in Canada. The polls closed around 8.00pm or 9.00pm. By the late night news we had a good idea of the results and by the morning papers it was all settled. I cannot believe that forms used in Florida for such an important election were not given a dry run. I was a " Forms Designer" for many years and we always had and "Idiot test" before sending out any large quantity of documents, The test consisted of 100 to 500 people picked at random, and asked to fill in the form. The number of correct/incorrect answers gave us an idea of where the strong and the weak points of the document were. A few amendments and we were ready to go. What happened in Florida is not only embarassing but a complete waste of taxpayers money.
We also had municipal elections at the start of the month, I was able to select my candidates and the ballot paper was scanned and read at the polling station, the results electronically tallied before I left the building. We are a community of about 70,000 people, If we can do it I don't see why Florida and others cannot do it. If they need someone to design their next election ballots I will glady go down to Florida and design them, preferably in January, February or March.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: ddw
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 12:00 AM

That whole thing with the "confusing" ballots strikes me as a red herring. Are these not the same ballots they've been using in Fla. for a number of elections? And even if they're not, how come there were millions of people who apparently had no problem with them and a relative few who couldn't figure it out?

Maybe that's why the Gore camp is so anxious to have them counted; anybody that dumb probably WOULD vote Democrat.

Sorry, but I can't see how terminal stupidity can be used as the basis for a recount.

You lost, Gore. Get over it!

david

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 12:20 AM

David, you're missing the point: like it or not, some people did not/do not get it right. Jimmy C is right- it makes no sense not to have given it a trial run.

This study by Dr. Richard C. Sinclair at the University of Alberta is to be published next week. The experiment involved 116 men and women test subjects. Half voted on the butterfly ballot and half on a straight, single column ballot. There were no errors among voters using the single column ballot. Among the 15 people who meant to vote for the "Gore" position, 3 of them instead voted for the "Buchanan" position.

Quote: About 462,350 presidential ballots were cast in Palm Beach County. A 20 % error rate would amount to about 92,470 votes. Enquote

Uncle Jacque- lots of people are "senile".

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 12:37 AM

Jimmy: It's not that the Dems in Fla "can't" get it streamlined or more efficient - they don't WANT to! A system like you have in Canada is not nearly as easy to "tweak" in a close call as these absurdities are... and I strongly suspect that that is the whole idea! Isn't it interesting that they are squinting at "chads" with magnifying glases trying to eke out another "vote" for Gore, while most of the absentee ballots from our overseas Military personell (who were expected to go predominantly for BUSH) were rejected on the minutest of technical pretenses. "Every vote must count"? Yeah, right, Al! Reminds me of the Biblical parable of the Scribes and Pharasees who swallow a camel whole right after spending the last hour on the crapper straining to poop out a fruit fly. That's my paraphrase, by the way - I'm not sure that's the way Jesus actually put it, but I think he was right up front and to the point about that sort of thing. "Scribes"= "Lawyers".... my, there is a connection there, eh? I wish you would go down there to fix things up (we seem to be doing pretty well here in Maine, thanks) but I suspect that you, or anyone else attempting to interject any integrity, common sense, or logic into that gulag would be personna non gratia.. or worse. There is hope that enough Americans are waking up to this horsepuckey so that Democracy and a modicum of Liberty might endure a bit longer; check out one "alternative information" source (What wer'e not supposed to know) at: rushlimbaugh.com drudgereport.com or freerepublic.com The internet is helping to circumvent the Liberal-controlled "news" establishments and their PC censored propoganda just like they are tying to circumvent the Constitution.. and it's tearin' 'em right up! Of course "big Brother" is likely keeping tabs on all of this, so don't be surprised if I come up among the missing some day....if you'll excuse me, I must be tilting another windmill....

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: ddw
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 12:48 AM

Ebbie, I'm not missing your point — I just don't think it's valid.

Unless I'm dreaming in technicolor (not unheard-of for me) I remember a wire story on the night I was putting the first of the spoiled-ballot stories in the paper that said explicitly that it was the same type of ballot used in previous elections in the state of Florida and it had never been a problem before. The whole gist of the story was that it was absurd to challenge the vote on that basis.

There's also the question — unaddressed, as far as I know — of how many of the ballots marked for Buchanan were INTENDED that way.

What you seem to be basing your (or Gore's) position on is some anecdotal evidence — always dangerous, since it requires reasoning from the specific to the general — and a pretty lame "experiment" by an academic who should know that a sampling of that size is subject to so much statistical error it's absolutely ludicrous.

If the good Dr. Sinclair knew or cared anything about research methods, he would have taken into account he's dealing with a population used to one thing and seeing how many of them will screw up if they're presented with something alien. Totally different kettle of fish from Florida voters who had seen this style ballot before.

I won't argue that the ballot couldn't be improved by putting everything in a straight line, but I still can't buy — given the number of people who DID get it right — that you can ASSUME all the others are wrong.

The only way to sort things out definitively would be to hold another vote — which in the long run would probably be less expensive than all the litigation that Gore's wasting time on.

As for the quote you pulled out, it's the kind of absurdity that sometimes gets picked up by the media (most of whom, contrary to popular belief, know absolutely nothing about statistical sampling) and repeated so often people start to believe it's fact. It ain't necessarily.

cheers,

david

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 03:54 AM

Jimmy, this thread seems to indicate that the fault lay in a misprinted version of the ballot paper. If that is the case, no amount of testing the design would have made any difference but the quality control would need to be questioned.

As for the design of forms, I think we agree. I worked as systems co-ordinator for the production control department of a manufacturing company for several years and think I am pretty well aware of the importance of good form design (both paper and computer). IMO, if a form leaves room for interpretation (which in this case seems to be what aligns with what) and mistakes are made, the fault lies with the designer not the user.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Jimmy C
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 12:03 PM

Jon,

I agree, thats what makes a test run important. Unfortunately everybody thinks they can design forms. As you know some types of forms should only be designed by people who know what they are doing. There is a vast diference in designing a simple log-in sheet as opposed to a complex document that needs the correct information laid out in a logical sequence and easy to understand. This is especially true in countries like Canada and the U.S.A. where English may be a second language for some residents. (clarity, clarity, clarity)

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Peter T.
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 01:05 PM

Butterflies were not on the ballot in Canada, but I am sure that at least 20% of the Canadian people are in favour of them. Of course the Alliance got 25% of the vote, whose leader believes in the literal accuracy of the Bible, which presumably means that he is in favour of slavery, death for homosexuals, and the Ark. So who knows. Perhaps, given the chance, 25% would have voted against butterflies.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 03:58 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: NightWing
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 04:01 PM

Sorry guys, I just don't get it. The county where the problematic butterfly ballot was used is heavily Democratic. Why would the Democratic election officials in that county have assumed that the vote would be close and tried to obfuscate the issue? Their pre-election assumption would more likely have been something along the lines of "We must make it very easy for our Democrats to vote and vote correctly."

If we were talking about a county with a fairly close split, it might be a different matter, but Dade County (is that the right one) is supposedly about 60%-70% Democrat.

Re the "same as they've used before" issue: not quite. Indeed the butterfly ballot has been used for a number of years in Florida. The specific ballot that is claimed to have confused people used a different arrangement of it than has been used before. (One that incidentally turns out to have been illegal on its face.)

This was done, according to the official who designed the ballot, in an attempt to make the ballot EASIER to read. With the large number of Presidential candidates on the ballot, keeping all of them on one side of the ballot page made the names be very small. She was able to make the names larger by putting candidates on both sides of the open butterfly ballot page.

Indeed this is an example of extraordinarily stupid design. And the lack of testing is another example of stupidity. But to suggest that this is part of a "liberal plot" is equally nonsense. Think about all the government workers you know, regardless of party or ideology. Do you REALLY think the people who tend to get such jobs are at the top end of the bell curve?

This is NOT to say that everyone who works for governments (of whatever country) is stupid. I know several exceptions personally. But all of those exceptions agree (indeed, insist) that MOST people who work for governments are this stupid.

BB,
NightWing

P.S. Vote NO on butterflies! *L*

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: paddymac
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 04:15 PM

I wonder if those Canadian test subjects over-winter in Palm Beach County. We always wonder about "snowbirds" anyway, and they often get blamed for whatever ails the body politic at any given moment, especially when the various and sundry "growth management" disputes come up. But, then again, maybe it's something in the water down there.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Skeptic
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 05:02 PM

Uncle Jaque and Others

Crazy as they were, the ballot design in Palm Beach was approved by the various parties on the ballot. And printed by one of the handful of companies certified by the State to do such. They were also certified by the State Division of Elections (who work for our very Republican Secretary of State) so this wasn't a southern version of Boss Daley engineering the election.

As to the butterfly ballots themselves, that is probably the least expensive of the "automated systems" to use. My County switched last year. It cost several hundred thousand, plus training and other conversion costs. For Palm County to convert would have been significantly more expensive. Given the wealth in the County, I wonder why they didn't as they are a fairly wealthy County.

The optical system is more reliable, but even it has a failure rate. Touch Screens are considered the most reliable but also the most expensive and temperamental. Our optical system performed perfectly. No discrepancy between the initial count and the recount

If you're looking for a conspiracy, please remember we have a Republican Governor and Legislature, and the State Division of elections is controlled by a Republican Secretary of State, all of whom exercise fairly significant control. I don't think Palm Beach is a Charter County which gives the State even more control. And while, the Supervisor of Elections is a Democrat the County Commission (who'd have to pay for a new system) is controlled by the Republicans. Hardly fertile ground for a Democratic Conspiracy.

In 1960, the hand recounts in Illinois (requested by the Republicans) lasted until mid-December. And changed nothing. And unlike the Daley Machine, the recounts in Florida are being done "in the sunshine" with multiple observers from both parties. You can watch it on TV. There are a very few governmental proceedings that are not required to take place publically. As I understand the system in Canada, there is no similar requirement under law. Not sure about Maine but I seem to recall a friend complaining that the local Council used to hold a caucus before the public meeting to "work things out". Such is illegal in our backward State.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Peter T.
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 05:49 PM

I was an electoral officer in one Canadian election, and we did a recount. It was all done privately, but we mutually scrutinized the ballots. As was said to me at the time: if you are going to fix things, waiting for the recount is far too late in the process. You can't get away with anything in a visual recount with other party people there.

The bizarre thing in the American system is the election and sometime appointment of judges along party lines. This is what is making this all so bizarre from a foreigner's point of view (and pretty dangerous). We certainly appoint judges in partisan ways, but they would not be tagged as such. We bend over backwards to keep the judiciary as non-political as possible.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: DougR
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 06:54 PM

It seems that today, the Florida Supreme Court put the question of the legality of the Butterfly Ballot to rest. According to the court, they are legal.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 08:15 PM

deciding they are legal..(that is, not un-constitutional) doesn't 'put it to rest', just decides how it will bbe treated for THIS election. They are still not 'good' and some people were obviously confused...I suspect that next election they'll be changed.

What the court said was ...it is not necessarily illegal to be unfair...

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 08:49 PM

Pregnant chads and optical scanner?
Count by hand and mind your manners.
Buttterfly ballots, put them to rest
Simple answers are sometimes the best.
Pencil and paper, that's trick ,
Neat and cheap and fair and quick.

(And Jim Dixon, you asked for feedback about your long post in this thread, in that other presidential thread. Hit the bullseye. I can't really see how anyone can honestly see it any other way.

And the post didn't seem long to me - but then I'm a wordy bastard.

And I second what you said about the importance of people putting in paragraph-breaks. It makes my eyes spin when people don't do that, in a longish post, and I always find I tend to skip over it. And I'm not alone in this - which I'm sure is not what the writer intends should happen.)

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 10:04 PM

This is quoted from a column by Thomas Sowell writing for the Jewish World Review on Nov.30. 2000.

"Another big lie which the truth has not yet caught up with in most of the media is that military ballots had to be disqualified because they lacked postmarks. Here again, the Gore lawyers have engaged in spin. The directive that went out to attorneys for Democrats across the state of Florida told them to object to military ballots without postmarks before the envelope was opened."

"Why before the envelope was opened? Because the law allows military ballots without postmarks to be counted if they contain a signed and dated statement within the envelope. But if gullible or compliant election officials tossed military ballots aside unopened, in response to legal challenges, then these very real votes would not count, while guesses elsewhere would."

The truth is out there. All you have to do is look.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 10:17 PM

Troll, that may be true in Florida. It is not true in Alaska. With good reason. How often have you written a check and didn't get it into the mail so that the inner date and the postmark do not agree? Going by the inside date seems nonsensical to me.

I'd like to add, it should seem nonsensical to you too. Part of the time your stuff is cute, Troll- your comment about legend in one's own mind, June 1947, made me laugh out loud- but too much of the time your attitude reminds me of the Goldwater line "Deep down you know he's right..." Well deep down I knew he was not right.

I don't care if you don't agree with me but I resent your condescending manner to us all.

Now that I've got that off my chest, I'm prepared to like you again.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 11:14 PM

Ebbie, I spent time in the military when there was literally NO way to get a postmark on a document or envelope. That's why the Florida law reads like it does, so that people serving in the military are not disenfranchised by virtue of their service. Thats also why there is a "grace" period following the election for the counting of absentee ballots.
Just because someone is at a listening post somewhere in the boonies of central Asia, doesn't mean that he shouldn't be able to vote and have his vote counted.Anything that circumvents that right is illegal and immoral in my opinion.
I don't mind when someone disagrees with me. Skeptic and I rarely see eye to eye on ANYTHING but we are, nevertheless, very close.
What I do object to is the same old arguments over and over. I have tried to let everyone know where I get much of my information, right down to giving a URL where they can start. No one seems to be interested in any other viewpoint but the one that suits their particular notion of how things are.
If I sound condescending, forgive me. I don't mean to be; it's just so frustrating sometimes.
Thanks for the kind words about the attempt at humor. I think you're cute too.

troll***BG***

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: DougR
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 11:56 PM

Sorry, Ebbie, I must correct you again. The Goldwater slogan was "In your heart, you know he is right." And I think he was.

Bill D: Whatever you want to believe. An awful lot of people had no problems with the Butterfly Ballot, however. It helps, I suppose, if you can read, follow directions and are a Republican.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 12:13 AM

Uncle Jaque,

I don't think you really believe all of that stuff you said.

Respectfully,

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: flattop
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 10:11 AM

Why can't you Yankers muck up an election without insulting Canadians?

Who's to say that 116 Albertians represent Canadians? They represent 116 Albertians. I don't think that they represent Canadians any more than I would think that one American is less cultured than another simply because he didn't read The Cincinnati Enquirer.

Anyone living in Alberta after the end of October needs more than their voting skills examined. In no way do they represent typical Canadian voters. Furthermore, if you're a butterfly living in Alberta after October 30th, you're probably already free-dried.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 10:52 AM

"An awful lot of people had no problems with the Butterfly Ballot, however. It helps, I suppose, if you can read, follow directions and are a Republican."

It helps too if your name is at the top of the list next to the first button.

As for the military ballots - if an inmcompetant scrutineer chucks out a valid ballot because he or she doesn't know the law, it's right that the courts should be asked insist that it is counted? But on the other hand if a clapped out machine throws out a valid ballot because it couldn't recognise that it was valid, it's wrong that the courts should be asked to insist that it is counted?

That sounds like a double standard to me, and double standards appear to be at the centre of this whole mess. One rule for all, no picking and choosing to help one side or the other when it come to counting the vote. Why for God's sake is that so difficult for all Americans to agree about? Is politics really more important than those kind of principles?

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: DougR
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 12:47 PM

McGrath: Oops! I forgot to mention if you can see an arrow pointing to where one is supposed to punch the hole.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 12:53 PM

DougR, you're so right- about the quote. :)

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 01:20 PM

I wasn't suggesting that sticking Bush up the top was dishonest, just that it did mean that there'd have been no way anyone could misunderstand which button to push if they wanted to vote for him, even if they didn't notice the arrow.

But I take it you agree with my point about it being off-limits to allow double standards in these kinds of matters, DougR? It seems to me that an awful lot of people I've been seeing on the box don't - whatever might help the side they are on is OK, and whatever might hurt it is not OK.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 03:03 PM

I have finally found a copy of the offending document in the Washington post. For curiosity puropses, I have placed it together with a copy that I have very roughly and quickly tried to re-align it in a way that I think would be easier to follow (it is a hack, I've just tried to use the logic of arrow at the left to the top hole, right at the bottom) at http://www.jonbanjo.redhotant.com/test.htm. Am I alone in thinking that even my buchered version is more easy to read than the official version?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 04:22 PM

Congratulations Jon. Yours IS more readable.
McGrath. All VALID, LEGAL ballots SHOULD be counted. And, with the exception of the mistakenly (I'm being charitable here) discarded military ballots, they HAVE been. Several times over. Both by machine AND by hand. The ones that have NOT been counted are NOT VALID, LEGAL ballots.
Why is it so hard to understand that ballots that have NOT had the chad punched out are NOT VALID, LEGAL ballots?
Would you expect anyone to listen if a loser in the national lottery complained that he INTENDED to write down the winning numbers but got confused and so should be the winner?
As Eliza said in Shaws Pygmalion," Not bloody likely!"
I am amazed that you have trouble understanding this. I thought you got your information from The Guardian, not The Daily Mail.

With all due respect,

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 04:31 PM

Probably better but still confusing. Faced with a paper like that I'd reach for my pencil and use thye writre-in slot at the end, even if I wanted to vote for one of the candidates on the list.

And at least I wouldn't have had my vote dumped on the grounds I made my chad pregnant, or didn't make it pregannt enough, because I didn't poke the button hard enough.

And in any case and this is a real question, not rhetorical,or anything - how do these clapped out machines cope with write-in votes? Surely the existence of a write-in option means that, since they don't have optical scanners, any vote that is rejected because the machine hasn't identified a hole has to be checked manually in any case? Has this in fact been done? Does the Supreme Court know this?

Is it true that there have been people in Washington criticising the election arrangements in Haiti? I think chutzpah is probably the right word for that...

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: DougR
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 05:05 PM

You're right, McGrath, I don't endorse double standards of any type.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 05:41 PM

...how do these clapped out machines cope with write-in votes? Surely the existence of a write-in option means that, since they don't have optical scanners, any vote that is rejected because the machine hasn't identified a hole has to be checked manually in any case? Has this in fact been done?
Good question, McGrath. I've not heard that issue mentioned. You suppose they're just not counted?!

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 05:55 PM

I'd not be too surprised if you're right there. In a voting system where results get announced before all the votes are even in,let alone counted, nothing would surprise me.

I've always thought the availability of a write-in option was one feature of American voting that could usefully be adopted generally.

Someone said that in Australia there's a none-of-the-above write-in option, and if it got a majority they'd have to have a fresh election. Now that is something really worth having. I'm sure it would send the number of people who go to vote way up through the ceiling.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 06:49 PM

Actually, if any individual garners a certain write in vote percentage of the overall vote, the write in votes must be counted. In Alaska, recently, a write in candidate for governor got more than the official standard bearer of the Republican party.

One reason, I suppose, that not much attention is given to those votes normally is that you come across some real oddities. We've seen votes for, among others, Mickey Mouse, Donald Trump, and Pac Man.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 07:44 PM

"If any individual garners a certain write in vote percentage of the overall vote, the write-in votes must be counted."

I'm confused there - if they haven't counted the votes manually, how can they tell whether any individual has garnered a certain write-in vote percentage?

And if someone has done a writr-in vote as well as a punch vote for the same office, that would mean that they'd voted twice, and it would be invalidated. (After all, how could you know whuich they had meant to vote for?)So that would imply that all the votes would have to be manually checked in any case.

And what if someone decides to write-in in mainstream candidate such as Gore or Bush, because they don't trust the machine? Which will surely happen in future elections anyway.

(As for Mickey Mouse, doesn't it seem quite likely that Mickey Mouse may have got in anyway?)

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 10:24 PM

Great, I have had feed back - an improvement but stil confusing, I can get this feedback from Mudcat and the Florida people in charge of the design can't see anything wrong with it?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 11:43 PM

Jon, that ballot was approved by the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, the Florida State Supervisor of Elections AND one of the three national companies that are certified to print ballots for the state of Florida. NONE of them caught it.
Stuff like this happens all the time. It just isn't as high profile.
For example, my first ex-wife works for the College of Engineering at the University of Florida as an illustrator. One of her first jobs there was to design a brochure with a tear-off post card for a big engineering symposium. When the job was done, she, her boss, and the Dean of the college were going over the brochure.
Said the Dean,"they just fill out the post card and sent it with their registration fee and that takes care of the whole thing."
"Wait a minute," said my ex,"That won't work."
"Why not?" said the Dean.
"How are they going to sent a check with a post card?" she answered.
If she hadn't caught it...
So you see, it isn't that hard to make that sort of mistake. It happens on all levels.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 12:34 AM

McGrath, Monday I'll call my old office and ask how that percentage is ascertained! Good point.

The optical scanner method in Alaska is new- as of two years ago. We used to punch it out.

You're right- it appears that Mickey did get in...

In November's TALK, a glossy magazine, they showed Bush and the mayor doing the ceremonial ground breaking at the Rangers' stadium grounds in 1992. The accompanying photo shows Bush with his right foot pushing on the left shoulder of the spade. Have you ever tried that??

Ebbie

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Skeptic
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 03:08 PM

For a quick overview of the punch ballot issue take a look here:

http://www.startelegram.com/columnist/ivins2.htm

Granted Molly Ivens is clearly part of the liberal media conspiracy to destroy truth, justice and the American Way but its still a good article.

Regards

John

ps: troll: I agree and endorse the first paragraph in your latest post. But then, I know where you got it from. Lobachevsky would be so proud.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 09:49 PM

I only steal from the best. I'm happy that you FINALLY recognized one of my many sources of information.
Of course, even a blind pig will find an acorn if he roots long enough.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 06:51 AM

Just curious, is the "blind pig" cited by troll supposed to be troll or Skeptic? Or both?

I don't actually think pigs rely too much on their eyes when looking for acorns.

Here's an acorn this blind pig found.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:21 AM

Skeptic.
It's true that many old sayings don't make a lot of sense if you examine them too closely.
Take " a watched pot never boils" for instance. But they work if you don't pick them apart.
As to the "acorn" you found, very good. Had you also quoted say, The Times, even better.
We have these kinds of charges every election. It's called "playing the race card".
Ours is a very fluid society and people move frequently. In my nearly thirty years with the US Postal Service I can vouch that people moving and NOT registering an address change was one of our biggest headaches. They'ed move, not tell us, and then come in screaming for their mail. College students were especially bad about this.
My point is, that if people won't turn in a change of address to the post office, they are even less likely to remember to change their address with the supervison of elections. And the demagogues shout "racism!"
Re: convicted felons, unless their civil rights have been restored by the count, they are indeed ineligible to vote. The restoration is not automatic; they have to petition the court. It is not usually a problem. You need a good work record and no arrests. This is, I believe, a federal law, not a state law.
As to the other statements made in the article, I have no knowledge of them at this time but I shall certainly check them out. If indeed the list of convicts and ex-convicts contained a significant number of errors then someones head should certainly roll for it.But I'll take with a large grain of salt ANY charges made by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or the NAACP. I'll believe what comes out in court as evidence, not what they release to the press.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Skeptic
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 12:00 PM

troll, The Times? In response to something in the Forth Worth Star Telegraph? You are being less than lucid. Glad you're getting back to normal. I think you meant the first part to reply to McGrath's link to the Guardian Article.

On the fluid society, I spoke with the Supervisor of Elections in my County. They purge you from the Voter Registration Rolls if you haven't voted in two years. After sending three notices to your last known address. Doesn't forwarding expire in like a year??? I don't have a real big problem with felons losing their rights when convicted. But once they've served their sentence, restoration should be automatic. The theory behind our system of punishment is that when it's done, its done and the government doesn't get to go on punishing you. They've been paid their pound of flesh. Demanding more is wrong.

There are ongoing lawsuits on this issue in Florida, become long before our Alice-in Wonderland post election romp.

McGrath, Regarding the investigation in Florida into race related problems with the vote. There are several underway. the ones I've heard about that the Justice Department is actively investigating is linked to a non-presidential race a couple of years back. What the world is watching is an interesting example of the shotgun lawsuit, increasingly popular in this country. Sue everybody for everything on the theory that if you can't win on the facts, you can confuse and delay the issue until its moot. The Gore faction is using the former theory, the Bush faction the latter.

The "blind pig" reference was to me. Not one of his better efforts (using 'effort' very liberally). I think it some sort of sad compulsion to try to be witty. Much like his delusions of competency. (Note to troll - an opening for a comeback - don't miss it).

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 02:12 PM

The Times these days is a sadly diminished paper, I'm afraid. The Irish Times is far better.

If you want an English Conservative paper with some journalistic quality, the Daily Telegraph is a better bet, though that's gone down the pan a bit. (It's still got a good cryptic crossword though .

The idea that you lose your vote once you've served your sentence seems a weird one to me, and when it came out in the media recently, I think most people over here were pretty astonished to hear about it, and about the fact that it affects such enormous numbers of people. I'd have thought it's the kind of law that wouldn't survive a passage through tyhe US Supreme Court. It pretty definitely wouldn't stand-up in the European equivalent, if a European country had that kind of law.

It sounds the kind of notion one might expect to find in some screwed up antiquarian monarchy. But in England the only people who can't vote once they've reached the age of 18 are people actually in prison, hereditary peers (including the royals) and "lunatics" (the vocabulary is a bit dated) - but that last one in practice only applies to some in-patients in psychiatric hospitals.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 03:19 PM

I agree that the convicted felons can't vote law is unfair. But it IS the law at this time. I don't know if it's been to the US Supreme Court or not. Maybe one of our resident legal eagles can shed some light on the subject.
Skeptic. My dear fellow. I would NEVER use one of my better efforts on you.
I save them for those who can appreciate and -more importantly- understand them.
Far from being a "sad compulsion to try to be witty", I was merely trying to make YOU feel more a part of things. Sort of a "make jokes with him so he'll feel more like one of the guys". I realize that it was probably a wasted effort but I DID promise I'd try.
I should have remembered," Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Oh. By the way. All things considered, you are the LAST person I would expect to hear talking about competency.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Skeptic
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 06:41 PM

McGrath,

You lose your vote when you are convicted, (along with a lot of other rights). They have to be restored after you've served your sentence. Its not automatic.

troll,

Yes, its the law. So were the Alien and Sedition Acts. And mandatory segregation and all the rest of the absurdities that litter our history. Doesn't mean we have to like or tolerate them.

Is there someone who appreciates your efforts? I mean aside from those abnormal psych grad students using you as a case study?

Regards John

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:01 PM

In Alaska too, convicted felons who have served time for 'moral turpitude' lose their right to vote. (Moral turpitude is defined as being "wrong, in and of itself". For instance, conviction of drug usage may not be moral turpitude but drug dealing may be.) In these cases, their voters registration is placed on the 'inactive' list, which won't be reactivated until the Department of Corrections signs off on it.

Other convicts may be able to vote as soon as they are unconditionally released.

After a convicted felon has received an unconditional discharge (not still on parole or with conditions placed on his/her freedom) that person may apply for reinstatement of voting rights.

McGrath, I called my old office about write-in votes. Here's what I'm told:

All write in votes are counted. If one of the names garners more than .5% of the total vote, that person's name and percentage is published separately. If no one hits that mark, all write in votes are published as a one-lump percentage.

The optical scanner counts the write-in votes.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:10 PM

Skeptic.
Ebbie likes my humor. She said so.
So THERE!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:25 PM

Thanks Ebbie. That's what I like about he Mudcat, you ask a question, and across the other side of the planet someone finds the answer. It's a bit like that chaotic butterfly they're always talking about - flaps his wings and there's a hurricane in anther continent.

"The optical scanner counts the write-in votes." Yes, but they don't seem to have optical scanners in Florida, and they don't seem to like manual counts either, so the write-in puzzle remains. I suppose you could do a rapid manual flip through to identify the ballot paper with write-in votes, and that'd only take a couple of hours, the same time it takes to count the votes in an election over here. Maybe they do it that way, thoigh nodody has mentioned it.

Because if they don't I can't see how they can know how many of the votes are invalidated by people doing a write-in as well as a poke-in.