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.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:45 PM

Actually McGrath, some of the counties in Florida do have optical scanners. The one where I live does.
I don't know what the counties with punch card machines do though. I'll try to contact Skeptic. He works in county government and perhaps he knows or can find out. I know we used to have punch card machines. The optical scanners are fairly new.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:54 PM

Troll, that last post of yours where you speak respectfully of Skeptic- that was meant as humor, right? Sometimes I have trouble knowing the difference. :)

Eb

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 09:38 PM

He does have his uses Ebbie, limited tho they may be. No, I'm afraid that it was said in all seriousness.
He really does have a job with the county and he really does know the Supervisor of Elections. I think it has something to do with the waste basket in her office but I'm really not sure.
He's a bit reticent to talk about his job (he said once that they hired him to come in and make "a clean sweep") and I don't like to pry.
He hasn't tried to cadge money or food in quite sometime so I assume he's doing OK.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 12:53 AM

This has been an interesting and educational thread; I do enjoy debating a controversial issue, be it theology or politics ("forbidden topics" in polite society, I am told) with those of alternative perspective who demonstrate some intelligence, experience, and can articulate their position well - as you all do, in my humble opinion. It is a challange, good intellectual excersize, and an opportunity to learn, if someone can credably and convincingly present their issue with documented and verifiable data, facts, and evidence. I may be a hard - headed old Yankee, but I try to stay reasonably flexable, open minded, and ameinable to growth.

Thanks for the feedback on my run-on text; since this format requires HTML codes for paragraph breaks and sometimes my mind outruns my formatting, I get lazy. I'll try and do better.

One of you wondered if I "really beleived" all the stuff I present here; very perceptive, indeed! Actually, I do... for the most part. Let me qualify that by adding that on accasion I will throw out a red herring which I know is mostly speculation or unverified "buzz", but which I also know has high inflamation potential, just to see who takes a shot at it, and how good their aim is. Another reason I do this is to stir up controversy, draw some fire, and stimulate some thoughtful alternative viewpoint, which I usually find at least interesting. Although this usually also sends up a cloud or two of hatred and discontent, this is usually not the primary objective - it serves as a form of topical "bait". I am capable, on occasion, of advocating a position which I may have little or no personal adhesion to, or even oppose just to rile someone up and get them thinking. Considering the way I am, and have been most of my life, it is nothing short of a miracle that I have lived to be as old as I am.

It's getting late and I have not the mental energy or have done prerequisite research to refute opposing allegations or defend my own previously stated and subsequently challenged contentions, but hope to before long. What I would like to leave here for those who wish to consider is:
Proposed:

Individual or collective human behavior tends to develop and follow certain patterns within the context of a given environment, group, or society. One of the more reliable ways to evaluate or predict the most likely forms of future behavior is to project on the basis of previous behavior patterns. The more accurately these patterns are observed over a period of time, the more reliable said projections are apt to be.
It's called HISTORY, Dearly Beloved... and you know how it has a nasty habit of coming back around to haunt us if we don't observe, project, and prepare.
What is the history of the Clinton/Gore "administration" ( I rather prefer the term "Syndicate")? What have they "fixed" vs. what they have complained about? What of cultural, moral, or tactical value have they diminished / compromised / destroyed? What happens to a lot of people close to them? Who do they associate with? Are their stated values and objectives consistant with their behavior? Can they be relied upon to tell the Truth? Obey the Law? Respect the sanctity of Life? The Constitution? The Institutions of a free society?
Perhaps tomorrow the sore loser will admit it and the "winner", if you can call him that, can get on with facilitating such healing as may be humanly possible. We can hope.

Selah.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 10:33 AM

I can't add much to that.

troll

If the Democrats want Gore to be President so much, why didn't they vote for impeachment? ***BG***

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 01:08 PM

Who gives a bugger what the politicians want? - it's supposed to be the people who decide. Supposed to be.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Skeptic
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 01:27 PM

McGrath,

On both the optical scan system and the punch system (including the butterfly ballot) write-ins follow the same rules:

1. To be counted, it has to be a valid name : alive, real and qualified for the office. Bugs Bunny, Lord Nelson or "who really cares" don't get counted.

2. You either mark or punch next to the space where you write in the name and office. The machine kicks out the ballot. If you haven't tried to both vote for and write in a candidate for the same office, the write in is hand counted and the ballot is feed again. Override code allows the count for preprinted candidates.

There is some discussion that either the internet and/or a touch screen system is better. Given the abilities of hackers and crackers, I'm not sure that improves anything. Plus there are people like who would find the internet of touch screens a formidable obstacle. The former tends to marginalize the poor, the latter is expense and ignores a substantial number of people in the country who can't use a touch screen. My mother has never been able to figure out how to use the ATM at her bank. She has trouble with vending machines and always has. It is my Liberal (advisedly upper case) friends who push the internet as a solution. All too many of them have an agenda for dealing with the poor (who overwhelmingly have limited computer access) without having any real understanding of what it means to be poor. In this last they are joined by my Conservatives friends. I've also noticed that while Conservatives have a faint contempt for the poor, Liberals use a kind of genteel contempt. I'm still not sure which is worse.

Conversely, my liberal and conservative friends (advisedly lower case) at least make an effort at understanding others and tend to have an innate respect for their neighbors, regardless who net worth, color, creed or whatever.

Uncle Jaque,

What is the substantial and real difference between Bush and Gore. Or any mainstream politician. History does provide lessons. I maintain that the substantival difference between Bush and Gore is illusionary. No matter what they say there positions are, the play the same game by the same rules. The difference is a matter of style. The issue is not that Conservative is the opposite of Liberal, or Democrat of Republican, but that the opposite is a different way looking at distributing power. Both flavors assume that the infrastructure is fine. A case not necessarily demonstrated. (The forgoing is not a backhand attempt to promote any other "ism", just an observation that helps me maintain a criticality when dealing with the pronouncements of politicians)

troll,

Although I don't know ebbie, post made indicate she is a sensitive kind and extremely compassionate person. Her comment on your past posts demonstrates several things: First, her extreme compassion and second, your acorn theory.

Ebbie, In his own mind, troll is almost always serious. Couple that curious delusion with his severely dysfunctional personality and a view of reality that can best be characterized as, literally, unique and you capture a hint of the difficult in deciphering his cryptic attempts at communication. Let along dealing with him face to face.

I've always found that: 1. Ignoring him does no good. He can't take the hint. 2. Some people crave abuse and rejection. He requires it. 3. Don't take him at all seriously. Although he takes himself that way, those who know him have adopted a kind of benign contempt.

I hope his comments weren't meant as a compliment. Talk about ruining your whole day.....!!!!

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 01:40 PM

:)

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

Uncle Jaque: You don't need HTML to break your post into paragraphs. Just leave a blank line; i.e. hit "enter" twice. That's the way it works with my browser, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 02:23 PM

Ebbie, theproblem with Skeptic is that he wouldn't recognize a joke if it walked up and bit him.
The poor little guy has no sense of humor. None. Not that modern science has been able to detect anyhow. Thats why he has the job he has now; a humor defecit is a distinct advantage whan one deals with local Government.
The whole thing is a joke but they -being at the pinnacle of power- can't see it. Neither can he. This makes him very useful since he is able to take their inane ideas at face value without laughing, something that the rest of us simply cannot manage.
Skeptic
Yes, they WERE meant as a compliment. But then, almost anything I could SAY of you would BE the truth or a compliment.
Be sweet now. Y'heah?
Uncle Jaque. try < then BR then > it should give you a break. You'll also get one if you ignore Skeptic.

troll **BG**

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 10:47 PM

I vote for Skeptic for President, and troll for Vice President.

Carol (who wants the job of "skulker at large" in their administration)

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 11:21 PM

Carol, you don't know what you've done. Now he will be COMPLETELY insufferable ALL the time. Nevertheless I accept for both of us. And you can skulk as much as you like. But only while playing the accordion. **heh heh heh

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 11:25 PM

Thanks for the advice; it looks as if i might have overdone it a bit on that last post. I'll try the double-space trick on this one.

Troll, you are OK by me, bub. I try not to ignore anybody unless they become consistantly annoying, or as the Bible puts it, "a vexation to the spirit".. but I don't see anyone here anywhere near that point yet - at least according to my internal settings.

Sceptic and Troll do seem to be enjoying the sport of marching back & forth over one another with cleats on... although does anyone else sense a bit more verbal ordnance falling Into Troll's postion than coming out of it? Pretty deftly aimed, too, from where I sit. I'm just trying to stay clear of the crossfire.

One of the more effective methods of sending me into a howling, flailing fit of incredulous indignation (no doubt rather amusing to the casual observer) is to posit this ever popular but (is BOGUS too strong a term, here?) OK... "questionable" contention that there isn't a spits worth of difference between BUSH and GORE. AAaugh!!!! Granted, neither side has a monopoly on vice OR virtue, but even a cursory examination of history and credable data should indicate to any reasonably lucid observer whose head is not totally encased in some very opaque orifice that a great preponderance of hypocracy, guile, deciet and utter contempt for the rule of Law and the values and traditions that have undergirded American society for over 225 years, are distinctly drifted up in great heaps on one side of this contest. What kind of Supreme Court Justices might we expect GORE to appoint? The kind that actually read and respect the Constitution, or just make up the rules as they go along as did the FLA SupCt.. before, that is, the Federal SupCt went up their dolly with a big cold speculum and a 1,000 Watt flashlight just to instill a certain sense of jurisprudence remarkably missing hitherto. You might think that the "right" to chop up your inconvenient baby before it gets out the chute or to be discriminated FOR ("Affirmative action") are two of the most sacred, pivotal, inaliable rights granted under the U.S. Constitution, the preservation of which is just cause to sacrifice all others. Now just where in the Constitutuon or Bill of Rights ARE those "rights", anyway? I wish one of you scholars out there could edify me, as in my ignorance I just can't seem to locate them. A GORE Court would, I respectfully opine, pump out plenty more of the same until representative Government became vestigial and moot, at which time Congress could go home and we could all be absolved of the inconvenience of voting at all. Wouldn't that simplify things? "W", as near as I can tell (and I don't get all of my information from CBS/NBC/CNN) generally holds himself accountable to his constituancy, the Law of the land, and to God. He uses the term "Serve" a lot in referance to his current position as Gov. as well as his possible future Presidency. GORE? "No controlling Legal Authority". Indistinguishable? Helloooo!!! Are you getting an echo in there, Sport? Give me a bloomin' BREAK, willya!!?? Sheesh!

OK, I'm gonna run away and take cover now.

INCOMING!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 12:46 AM

And you can skulk as much as you like. But only while playing the accordion. **heh heh heh

-troll

That sword cuts two ways, troll. **HEH HEH HEH**

(Lady of Spain tum te tum te...)

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Skeptic
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 01:33 PM

Carol,

The simple solution to the skulking issue is to let troll be both. He can use one of his defficient personalities as VP and another as the skulker, leaving servcerl more for things like eating, breathing and his mudcat posts. I, on the other hand, must decline as President. My Daddy raised me with better sense and more ethics than to run for office. Being offered the position of God-Emperor is another matter. Just don't tell troll. He thinks he already is.

Uncle Jaque,

I'll contend that there isn't substantial difference. Different would be proposing that we strictly limit government (Federal and Local) only to the specific areas delineated in the Constitution and reserve all other rights to the individuals. The current interpretation seems to be that the Government "gives" us rights with the implication that they are theirs to give. The original theory was that all sorts of rights were inalienable and the Bill of Rights et ale, listed some of them. Operating from that theory would greatly limit the scope and abuses of government. Neither Bush nor Gore seem willing to trust the people to that extent.

Mr Gore has demonstrated a definite lack of character. Still he did win a majority of the popular vote so maybe he feels entitled to drag this through the courts (I don't but oh well). My prejudice against Mr. Bush is based on my strong sense that he's 100% behind the Bill of Rights, he'd just prefer you have a net worth of 5 million plus before you're allowed to exercise any of them. He seems to have his fathers sense of patrician elitism without a counterbalancing sense of noblesse oblige.

Of course there's some difference, though I personally find that what both brought to the election was that they both met the citizenship and age requirements to hold office. (Plus the ability to raise many hundreds of millions of dollars, of course)

troll,

I work very, very hard at being insufferable. Glad to know I succeeded. Yes, I work for a local government. And have worked for myself, several school systems, a fortune 100 company, a private hospital, a public hospital and a number of odd jobs in between. It isn't government that's the joke. Or at least not the biggest one. The sad thing about Dilbert is how true much of it is.

ebbie,

You see what I mean. Not only can't he help himself, he lacks the basic introspective skills to even recognize his random, all to often incoherent and certainly illogical ramblings as just that. As a believer in the strict interpretation of the Constitution I must defend troll's right to ramble, mumble, dissemble and froth at the mouth. But its an effort.

Regards and Happy Holidays

John

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 03:12 PM

Uncle Jaque is confused- seems to think the U.S. is voting for a Pope, not a president. Should he wish to live in a theocracy, Afghanistan or Pakistan suggest themselves. He'd probably enjoy stoning unfaithful women, too. And I hope I'm not the only one that didn't find his gynecological references amusing. What a pig!
Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 06:52 PM

Wow, Stackley.

I didn't read his post before you pointed it out because it was too long and it wasn't broken up into readable bits.

I'm starting to have a hard time telling the difference between Uncle Jacque's posts those of a Troll (not troll).

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 06:58 PM

There should be an "and" between "posts", and "those", in my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 07:56 PM

I tend to skip the ones without paragraphs. Makes me feel dizzy trying to read them. So I missed UJ's first one. In among the Trolling ("on occasion I will throw out a red herring which I know is mostly speculation or unverified "buzz", but which I also know has high inflamation potential") he throws out one point that I've just seen there, which seems to be widely accepted among political gossip columnists and such. But it is logically totally fallacious.

It's the vote pumping fallacy:
"Vote Pumping" where a recount (even an honest one) in a district where your guy is ahead is mathematically guaranteed 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."

Obviously a partial recount in some precincts etc where lots of valid votes had been discarded first time might well give an advantage to the candidate who is significantly ahead in those precincts, but if the first recount is an accurate one, no further recounts can produce any change whatsoever. That could only happen if a significant number of void votes are missed each time. Or of course if the people carrying out the count are crooked and crooked in the same direction at that.

And that just does not happen in a competent recount. (Yes, such things can be achieved, as a matter of routine.) To be safe you might have to keep recounting till the last recount comes in at exactly the same as the one before, in a really close vote, but so what?

And I still simply don't understand the logic of permitting partial recounts in some counties or precints and not others - it doesn't save any time at all, if all the counts are done in parallel, and the money saved in overtime payments is small potatoes in an election costing billions of dollars.

If need be, the people running the count could get the cost refunded, by charging the candidate who is asking for the recount each time. (Don't you just just bet that, if any of those recounts put Gore a whisker ahead, Bush would suddenly discover that manual recounts are a good idea, and ask for it to be done one more time.)

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: rabbitrunning
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 09:46 PM

Well, I'm coming to this late (haven't had a functional computer for months!) but I thought I should throw in my two cents about those counts/recounts and dimpled ballots...

As I understand it, the Gore camp has been trying, ever since Nov 7, to get three counties to look at the ballots which were rejected by the machines and have them all counted on the same standard, consistent standard, which includes all dimpled ballots where only one name has been marked as valid votes. Gore also offered to settle for a manual recount, on the same standard, of the entire state, and to include the absentee ballots.

Bush's legal eagles have been doing their best to delay the handcounts until deadlines were past, get the vote certified (on the basis that Gore couldn't really contest the vote until it WAS certified) and then keep making hay out of the notion that dimpled ballots, even if the ballots are there, shouldn't count because the voter hasn't shown intent.

In the meantime, the absentee ballots, which are a lot more susceptible to fraud, and particularly in a close election, have been being played with too.

It's a mess, but I do think that Gore and his folks have one point absolutely correct. Manual counts should be done, and the dimpled ballots should be counted. Why?

In Massachussets a few years back we had an election, with only one race. It wasn't great weather, either, but a certain dedicated percentage of the people made it to the polls anyway. Now in a one race election, you can be pretty sure that any person who made it as far as their polling place intended to vote in that race. But some of the punch card ballots used were only dimpled instead of completely punched. Clearly there is something about the punch card method of balloting which can lead a voter who intends to vote with a dimpled chad. (Remember, these voters, like the Florida voters, had not been recently subjected to tons of tv reporters explaining how the ballots actually work.) Perhaps the rubber pad beneath the ballot was mispositioned, and instead of pushing against a slot, the voter was pushing against the hard rubber. Perhaps the slot was full of previous voters' chads. Either way, the evidence is that voters who have intent can and do leave dimpled chads. Since Florida law enshrines voter intent, rather than the balloting method, the dimpled chads should count.

By the way, after this mess up, Massachusetts got rid of punch card ballots entirely. So should Florida!

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 10:31 PM

Rabbitrunning, I think you need to review the recount requests. The first recount was automatic. Then the Gore camp requested a manual recount that took into acount "Hanging" etc. chads. Then they asked for ANOTHER recount, this time counting dimpled chads.
Had the machines been truly defective, it would seem logical that they would jam up. There is no evidence that any did. Frankly, you can play "what if" all day to try to account for invalidated votes and that seems to be what the Gore team is doing to try to find those last few votes to win Florida for him.
Voting machines are quite expensive and most counties have other things to spend their limited money on, such as re-paving streets, better salaries for police and teachers, etc. Since elections are ocasional ocurrences, they tend to get shoved into the background until something like this comes along.
If you will, please cite the section of Florida law that "enshrines voter intent" as I am not familiar with it.
CarolC, don't say I didn't warn you. God-Emperor indeed! And, I'll have you know, our personalities are NOT deficient: they well developed and fully integrated.
Except for Freddy. He's new.
Ebbie, see what I mean. You have to give him credit. God love him, he tries SO hard.
Skeptic, we are all very proud of you. You are doing a find job for someone with so few social skills and so little aptitude for the work. I would suggest a study of Oscar Wilde. Perhaps someone on the forum knows of a (very) simplified collection of his less taxing works.
You might also try Groucho Marx and Dorothy Parker.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 11:17 PM

Since the sounds of secondary impacts seem to have diminished and the RAD levels on my dosimeter appear to have fallen to survivable levels, I hazzard a peek out from under my bunker's hatch and make a damage assesment. Oh, not all that bad after all!

Skeptic: How do you come by this perception of BUSH as a Monarchal elitist? Are you personally aquainted, or do you just believe whatever the PC propaganda mill pumps out for public consumption?

I try to peruse an ecclectic array of viewpoints, rationally analyze what information is available, and go with whatever makes the most sense. I live in Maine, not Texas, so I admittedly have to rely on intermediary sources to provide the data upon which my opinions and choices are based. But then most of us do, don't we?

Granted, both sides raised a lot of money. They have to. One of them list all contributors on a publicly accessable website, and I beleive limits the amount of individual donations. Another keeps all this a well guarded secret, and has been known to soliciet funds from Bhuddist Monks sworn to an oath of poverty, at $10,000 a whack (maximum individual contribution under Federal Law) with checks drawn indirectly but later traced to a General in the People's Liberation Army. That's CHINA, to those of you in West Palm Beach. Big Oil? Oh, like that Federal Reserve in Oak Grove Cal. which AlGore arranged to sell to Occidental Petroleum... in which he held (unknown if he still holds) at least half a mil in stock? You mean Komrade Dan (RATHER) forgot to tell you about that one? Pity.

I could go on, but alas in probable futility. You seem to have chosen not to recognize any significant differences between the contestants regardless of any evidence to the contrary, and I expect that you will remain steadfastly true to that decision.

As to philisophical distinctions between "Conservative" and "Liberal"... that's another area in which the organized disinformation industry (including our Goverment monopoly factory "education" system) does a bang-up job of simultaniously obfustcating and re-defining the terms. Control the definitions; control the culture.

OK, I'll jump out of my bunker - and closet (where a lot of us seem to be finding ourseves these days) and admit it: I'm a Conservative (in case you havn't guessed by now.). Now in American (perhaps global) pop-culture, that means "Racist" "Homophobe", "Hate-Monger", "Facist" "Oppressor and exploiter of the Downtrodden", "Greedy Industrialist"... Oh, I almost forgot: "Pig". I present, as evidential exhibit "A" (may it please Your Honors) the above post by Guest Stackley, who has never even met me, spoken with anyone who does, or have any idea what a softhearted and compassionate fellow I am know to be among my associates. Eccentric perhaps, but essentially harmless. And WE are supposed to be the "bigots"? It's working like a charm, isn't it? By the way, Stackley; "Stoning an unfaithful woman"? Ye gads mon; that's no way to treat a Woman - even if she isn't a "Lady"! And as much as I try to respect the spiritual traditions of others divergent from my own, I do not subscribe to any tradition that demands or condones any form of dismemberment, mutilation, or abuse toward anyone just because they refuse to see things my way - as many in those nations you invite me to remove to routinely do. That is NOT a "Conservative" practice, despite what you may have heard on the 6 O'Clock News or in public school.

Just so's you'll know on no uncertain terms: That refferance to abortion was not intended to amuse you- or anyone else - at all. It certainly does not amuse me, nor does it amuse the Author of Life before whom you and I will ultimately stand to give an accounting for the lives we lived and the choices we made. From the assessment which will be rendered on our eternal souls (regardless of our belief in or approval of it) there will be no re-count, no second opinion, no appeal. I take that very seriously - and there isn't a whole lot in this life that I do. I don't destroy tiny lives waiting to be born... and wanted, and loved. I don't stone anyone because they love outside the lines.

You do as you please.

It's been a while since I've been addressed as "pig" - not since I parked my cruiser and turned in my badge many years ago. It seems that I was too much of an idealist to "enforce" anything, including the Law. Besides, the Captain of the SWAT Team told me that I was such a nice guy, I was going to get my head blown off some night. He was probably right. But I digress...

A rational definition of "conservative" political philosophy which I subscribe to (because it makes sense to me) is that the essential premise is that it is not government that makes a civilization work and prosper, but the PEOPLE. Government is subordinate and accountable to the Citizens, not the other way around. Citizens are endowed, not by government, but by their CREATOR (remember reading that somewhere?) with natural "rights", and (taken for granted if not ennumerated) concurrent responsibilities. Individuals are assumed to have options under normal circumstances, but are allowed to reap the rewards of intelligent and enterprising excersize of approprite options, as well as to deal with the consequences of poor choices, wantonness, malice or sloth (laziness). Opportinity vs. risk. Let the people have a shot at it; government stands by to protect and facilitate, maintaining an environment where resonable options can be excersized by (ideally) all participants.

I know, it hasn't worked that way in the best of times... heck, ideally and in theory, Socializim has a lot of very salient points and has the potential of nurturing a society as close to the elusive "Eutopia" as any yet have; the fact that it has yet to, and predictably devolves wherever it has been tried into a deplorable pit of squallor, repression and atrocity is more a function of it's vunerability to human nature than by any fault in theory. That's why those drunken, insane, adulterous, promiscuous and hypocritical (as PBS would have us beleive) "Founding Fathers" set the Constitution up the way they did, and any diddling with it (as the CLINTON / GORE Syndicate seems so anxious to do)invites disaster. It was and is brilliant; not bad for a bunch of whacked out old Whoremongers in funny clothes and wigs, eh?

Unlike some Liberal editorialists, whenever I throw you some blarney (or a "red herring") I will try to 'fess up to it, eventually. Really, now; the basest of those who signed the Declaration of Independance or contributed to the development of our Constitution were far better, braver men than either Bill Clinton or Al GORE ever were, are, or can ever aspire to be. That's just the way it is, as I see it, and I've been watching. You don't have to like it for it to be Truth. Truth dosen't give a Damn whether we like it, or beleive it, or accept it; it still is. And when we are good and done, it will still be there.

"One Nation, Under God", "Of the People, by the People, for the people". OK?

"Liberal": The masses, or working class, must be protected from the predations of geedy Capitalists by a benevolant, albeit omnipotent government. Of course, these peasants are much too ignorant to be entrusted with such momentous decisions such as how to raise their children, order their lives or spend the fruits of their own labor; such things are best left to the enlightened elite who are much better qualified to provide for our welfare and direction. It is not the place for the dependant to question the motives or authority of the "leadership" elite, and any who do are best rectified (that's what they did to little Elian GONZALEZ) or liquidated for the ultimate "good" of the collective society.

Gov. BUSH's contention in his proposed tax policy seems to be that the people who earn the resources should be entrusted, at least to some extent, with the discretionary choice of how best to utilize their own assets. This speaks volumes as to how he feels about the proper relationship between Government and the governed.

Re. the "Vote Pumping", I got this from a posting on "Asmainegoes.com", an open forum which discusses topics on a regional and National level. I can try to run it down if you are interested; it seemed well presented and documented, and consistant with independant, credable reports from other sources. Bear in mind that I'm looking not just at isolated incedents here but at long standing, consistant patterns which contribute to my positions and opinions.

Sleep well.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 11:17 PM

troll,

How does he look in a toga? If he's buff, I might have to vote for him for God-Emperor.

You (and your buddies...except maybe Freddie) can be Vice God-Emperor, but I still want to be Head Skulker (wearing my sneakers for getting around quietly).

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 11:53 PM

"Buff" is NOT a term that I (or anyone without a seeing eye dog) would use to describe Skeptic.
I have never considered what he would look like in a toga since I have always considered the toga to be a garment that requires of one an inate dignity to wear well.
He has a certain dignity it's true; the sort that one sometimes finds in a piece of really BAD art.
Add to that the fact that his musculature has all the tone of a rubber band , the low sloping forehead and massive brow ridges, and his truly remarkable color sense...
No. I don't think Skeptic is the toga type.
We are not sure about Freddie. We think he's a little too nice.
The job is yours. I LIKE Lady Of Spain.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 11:56 PM

I, on the other hand, have the physique of a Greek God.
Bacchus comes most readily to mind. *sigh*

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: rabbitrunning
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 11:57 PM

Sorry, troll, I've been following this, and the Gore team didn't ask for **two** manual recounts -- they asked for one, and when the question of what should count or not came up, they said include the dimples. Even dragged one of our Massachusetts pols down to Florida to testify on our experience and this was way back in the first week after the election.

(The dimpled ballots would count in Texas, too, and wasn't it Dubya who signed a revision into Texas law that favors manual recounts over machine recounts, hmmm?)

But it wasn't two separate requests for counts, it was one request and one argument about what should be included in the count.

And it's not the machines I'm faulting, it's the METHOD of balloting. Illiteracy has only been grounds for disenfranchisement in this country for racist reasons, and that's why on other kinds of ballots, a person who puts a check mark instead of an X gets his/her vote counted anyway. The problem doesn't lie with the machines, it lies with HOW the cards get punched, possibly with the paper of the card itself, and with totally inadequate voter education.

As for Florida law enshrining the voter intent, I may have gotten a little fancy, but I have read that the law there says "intent to vote" and I seem to remember seeing (in the NYTimes)the text of the USSupreme Court decision which cited the Florida Constitution's bill of rights as putting "the right to vote" up at the top of the list. Sounds pretty enshrined to me...

The "what if" that strains my credulity is the argument that a voter would press hard enough to dimple the chad and then decide not to vote after all. I can rest a pencil on the paper without even leaving a mark, much less a dent, and that's on much softer paper than an IBM card!

If it calms you though, I also think that any absentee ballot received within the time limit, with a signature that matches the voters' and which doesn't represent a second vote (which is why some of them were invalidated) should be counted. Particularly if the voter can be shown to be in the armed forces.

I'm in favor of having the fewest possible number of votes discarded, regardless of who would win the election under those circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 12:19 AM

This from

Where are the Bloodhounds? By Robert Tracinski (December 4, 2000) [CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM]

Is the media coverage of the election fiasco biased in favor of Gore?

Many small instances of bias show up in reporters' choice of words. When Democrats take to the streets, for example, they are always described as "demonstrators" or "protesters" -- but Republican protesters in Florida are described as a "mob."

But a more insidious form of bias can be seen, not in what the media says, but in what it does not say. It can be seen in the big stories the press has failed to investigate.

The biggest story is the 19,000 double-punched ballots in Palm Beach County. The Democrats cite these "over-votes" as evidence that the county's ballot format was confusing. But the statistics point to a more sinister explanation.

Here is the pattern, as reported by statistician Robert Cook. The usual rate of double-punching due to error and confusion is about one-half of one percent; out of the 460,000 ballots cast in Palm Beach County, that would explain about 2,300 ballots. But the actual rate of double-punching was more than 4 percent, almost 10 times greater.

Just a bunch of confused voters? Well, consider this. Usually, double-punching errors occur for all offices; you would expect to see the same rate for House and Senate races as for the presidential race. But in Palm Beach County, the high rate of double-punching occurred only on the ballot for president.

And here's the most damning evidence: Most of those double-punched ballots came from a few precincts, where the double-punch rates were 10 or 15 percent -- more than one can reasonably brush off as mere voter error or confusion. Such glaring statistical anomalies, Cook concludes, are prima facie evidence of vote fraud.

The fraud would work like this. An election official forms a neat stack of ballots and runs a long metal punch -- say, a dulled ice-pick -- through the whole stack, punching out holes for Gore. The result: Ballots with no votes for president become Gore votes -- and ballots punched for Bush become double-punched ballots and are thrown out. This is the simplest explanation for the huge rates of double-punched ballots in those selected precincts in Palm Beach County.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 12:24 AM

I think we should keep in mind that Florida statutes say that if a recount is requested, that no fewer than 3 counties shall be chosen. (There is evidently no problem with choosing a recount of the entire state.

In Alaska, if a recount is performed and the numbers do not substantially change, the person or party that requested it has to pay the costs.

Uncle Jaque (sp?), I will forward your name to the Bush camp if you wish, but I must warn you that I suspect they'd be too embarrassed by you to be interested.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 12:32 AM

"Right to vote" and "intent to vote" are not the same thing.
If is can be shown that the machines were defective, the dimples would be more logical. The Gore camp did not use the Mass. case in their appeal, but an Illinois case, and it has since been revealed that the Gore lawyer-Bois(sp?)- lied . He is under investigation by the Bar Assn.
No one has denied that the Gore camp had every right to ask for a recount. It's just that they seem to keep asking that the rules be changed, going from hanging chads to dimples; stopping the State Supervisor of Elections from certifying the election on the date required by law; asking for an extention of time in defiance of federal law; and they are losing in court right down the line.
I appreciate your support on the military ballots. I, too, believe that every legitimate vote should be counted. Maybe someone, somewhere, will come up with a foolproof system.
But I'm not holding my breath.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 12:56 AM

Gore Calls For Recount Of Supreme Court Vote WASHINGTON, DC-- An increasingly desperate Al Gore called for a recount Tuesday of the U.S. Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board. "There is reason to suspect that these nine votes were not properly counted and that as many as five justices who sided with Mr. Bush did not intend to do so," Gore said. "It is therefore in the best interest of our democracy for the U.S. Supreme Court to suspend judgment in this case until we can be absolutely certain that this court did, in fact, intend to rule in Mr. Bush's favor." Gore added that if his recount request is denied, he will file an appeal with the Interplanetary Supreme Court. (http://www.theonion.com)

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Crowhugger
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 03:41 AM

Just a couple of things:

1) Next election in FL had best be overseen by the United Nations.

2) What's a 'chad?'

CH.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: rabbitrunning
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 04:20 AM

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!

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 07:49 AM

center>ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE
(Not available in some states)

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 09:10 AM

The fraud would work like this. An election official forms a neat stack of ballots and runs a long metal punch -- say, a dulled ice-pick -- through the whole stack, punching out holes for Gore.

     Jesus, Jaque (sp?), keep away from the methyl alcohol. I can't decide who is the bigger arsehole, Uncle, Tracinski for writing this patent bullshit, or you for believing it. I fancy the latter.
     Try the experiment yourself. Stack some punch cards and have at them with that dull ice pick. IT WILL NOT WORK! Sorry. Perhaps UFO's are responsible? Or the Trilateral Commission? Or the Father of Evil Himself?
Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 09:32 AM

Federal law states that any law governing an election must be in place on the day of the election. The Texas law regarding manual counts and dimpled chads was in effect before the election. There's no such law in Florida.
Bush would have to be the fool some of you take him to be not to take every legal advantage he could. I don't hear you blaming Gore for it.
"ONE PERSON. ONE VOTE" sounds good Greg. Thats what we strive for here in America. Of course, you do have to be a citizen, over eighteen,not in prison or have had your civil rights revoked, and registered in the precinct in which you live. On election day, you must show up at the polls between 7am and 7pm(unless the courts rule an exception) with your voter registration card and a valid picture ID.
Although it is not a requirement, you should have familiarized yourself with the candidates and issues on the ballot. In Florida this year, all voters were sent a sample ballot.
When you get to the polling place, your name will be checked off against that precincts list of registered voters. If you are not on the list,there are proceedures to find out why. In my county, if you haven't voted in two years, your name is purged.
But there are no goons with guns there to make sure you vote the "right" way, there's no poll tax or literacy test or property requirement, and, generally speaking, the ballots are counted fairly and accurately.
There are, of course, problems. This is a large country with a diverse and highly mobile population. People are inadvertantly left off rolls but it's due more to human error than to malice. Machines do malfunction but that's the nature of machines, if I may anthropomorphize for a moment.
It has been estimated that between 2 and 3 million votes were thrown out nationwide for one reason or another. There has to be a moment when you say "Thats it. It's over." In Florida, that time comes 7 days after the election.
I like your little slogan. The world should adopt it. If it does, I'll see that you get credit for it.
BTW, I'm sure you meant "ONE PERSON" rather than "ONE MAN."

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Skeptic
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 02:59 PM

Check out http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file

This was quoted by Herbert in the NY Times.

Just to add some fuel to the fire. Note that the "connections" to the Republican party aren't all that ominous, but could certainly serve as proof of a massive Republican conspiracy to control the country. Certainly as valid as the "liberal media" proof on another thread.

Palast's article does serve to illustrate one problem that has plagued the election and recount: The latitude granted to or assumed by the local Supervisors of Elections.

And it is precisely because the Florida Legislature didn't enact rules as detailed as those in Texas that the Courts got involved. There appeared to be a valid legal issue not covered specifically by existing law and the Courts were asked to determine to what extent the law applied or didn't apply.

Uncle Jaque, (and off topic) I have meet one of the brothers Bush (Jeb)and have friends who have known the Bush family for some time. I base my judgement on those experiences and conversations. I didn't mean to imply that George W. was a monarchial elitist. Just an elitist who feels that money equates to some sort of divine sanction granted to those who have it. Much more in the Calvinist vein, I think. To parapharse Piet Hein, he as the "prense of authorized omniscience"

To counterbalance that, Mr Gore strikes me being focus challanged. Lots of ideas without committment to any of them.

I do feel that Mr. Bush has the potential to do more harm to areas I hold dear (personal rights) than Mr. Gore, as the latter seems to have trouble with actually making a decisions whereas Mr. Bush has all those rich Republican king makers to make his decisions for him.

Carol C, Sorry to disappoint, but my buff days are a thing of the past. Thinking about troll in a toga is something no sane person would entertain. The kindest response would probably alternate between hysterical laughter and terror. I think we have laws about that sort of thing. If not we should.

Now, the question is if a man had made a comment and implied that it was a women's physical attributes that were an important criteria, would that be acceptable?

troll, considering your opinions, ideas, multiple personalities and related flaws and somewhat curiou sinterpretaions of events, you remain the single greatest argument against one person, one vote.

Given your aesthetic sensibilities, I find it hard to imagine your recognizing any form of art, good, bad or otherwise. By "we" I'll guess you're talking about a majority of your personalities. You are the only person I know who, when asked for an opinion can honestly say: "Well, its nine to three in favor of it." And still be completely wrong.

Having read most of Wilde's works, along with several biographies, as well as a number of works by and on Groucho, (I always found Ms. Parker somewhat derivative and prefer Mencken) any efforts such as you suggest on the part of mudcatters would be wasted. But thank you for your attempts at ingratiation. They failed. You may now claim that was not your intent at all but others may judge the evidence.

I would recommend one of my favorites, Ambrose Bierce, but if falls into the category of casting pearls before swine. Only more so.

Regards and Happy Holidays (the Saturnalia comes to mind)

John

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 04:24 PM

"Bush would have to be the fool some of you take him to be not to take every legal advantage he could. I don't hear you blaming Gore for it."

Not a fool. Just an honest man who sincerely believed in democracy.

There's a difference between trying to use the courts to ensure that all the votes are counted fairly, and trying to use the courts to ensure that they are not counted fairly.

Maybe if the votes had come in showing Gore just ahead and Bush just behind we'd have seen the actions of the candiadtes reversed. In that case I would have been expressing my contempt for Gore. Would the people who have supported Bush in trying to obstruct the recounts have supported Gore in trying to do the same thing? And vice versa?

Well, DougR said he doesn't believe in double standards, so I take it that means he would have done precisely that. What about the others? Both sides?

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 05:48 PM

Skeptic,

To answer your question, see this thread: "Do tits book bands". I'm not strident, and I do have a sense of humor.

I like your politics better, but troll's more fun to play with. I vote for myself for Goddess-Emporess. You two can be my lackeys.

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 08:56 PM

Ya got it sweets! Do I get to loll at your feet and peel grapes? I can sing too. The only way Skeptic could carry a tune is in a bucket. With a lid.
McGrath, as usual you have taken one look and decided that thats the whole picture. Gore surrogates are sueing in Seminole and Martin Co.s to have sone 15,00 votes thrown out and I'm NOT going to explain the military absentee ballot thing yet again.
Gore is rabid to get all those invalidated votes from Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counted. They are heavily Democrat and MIGHT give him the one vote he needs to beat Bush.
At the same time His surrogates are trying, just as diligently, to throw out VALID votes in Martin and Seminole. The problems there are NOT with the ballots but with the APPLICATIONS for those ballots. There is already a precident in the Florida courts for this. A few years ago basically the same thing happened in Volusia Co. in a local election. The loser challenged the results in court and lost. The judge raised hell with the Supervisor of Elections, but let the results stand since no criminal intent could be proven.
The only votes AL Gore wants counted are those in areas that might give him a win.
As Herr Goebels said, if you tell a big enough lie long enough, people will believe it.
Al Gore is a known and proven liar.
Al Gores mantra of "count every vote" is a lie. He said he'd do anything to be president.
He's proving it.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 09:01 PM

Try again-

Do tits book bands. If it doesn't work this time, I give up.

(Not all women are strident, and some of us have a sense of humor.)

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 09:10 PM

Ok, here we go again with the "amazing disappearing post segments" thing. The part about not being strident and having a sense of humor was missing from my 8:48 post. So I repeated it in my 9:01 post. Now I see it's back again in the 8:48 post.

Yes, by all means troll. That would work just fine.

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Skeptic
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 10:00 AM

Carol, Please don't encourage him.

Also, I Never meant to imply that you were/are strident and apoligize if I seemed to. There are those that are. The comment was addressed to them.

troll is indeed more fun to play with. I keep trying to get him to volunteer as a tackling dummy for the UofF Gators but so far no luck.

troll,

I believe you are partially correct. In Seminole County the suit was brought by the Gore Group, the counter suit by the Bush camp. As I understand it, while the Marion County suit was brought by a democratic lawyer, it wasn't orchestrated by the Gore camp. The Bush camp is orchestrating the counter suit. And as there is precedent, then both issues are tempests in a teacup baring proof of intentional fraud. But that is what the courts are for.

Bottom line issue would seem to be not whether the vote should, or shouldn't be counted but rather what steps need to be taken to preserve some semblance of legitimacy. Both the the process and to whoever wins. As it stands now, the first is in serious difficulties and the second is a major problem. Looking at the local listserv, a lot of normally sensible people are ranting and raging over that issue, prepared to deify one and demonize the other.

You know my preference for President, though I came at it sort of through the back door. I tend to agree with Sam Rayburn that it takes a lot to hurt our democracy. This nonsense is getting us close. If there are a substantial body of citizens who care more about the country than the individuals, its time to speak up. Both Bush and Gore are doing their best, through the media and the courts to make this an issue of personalities. Somewhere I seem to remember that one of th major intents of the founding fathers was that we are a nation of laws, not of men.

Rage and rant as you will, Bush has done his fair share, both as instigator and reactor to muddy the waters both in the courts and in the press. Nor does he win any awards for integrity.

If Gore is trying to use the Courts to steal the election, why not challenge the recount in New Mexico. Surely not, as the great liar, some sense of ethics creeping in?. For that matter, if Mr Bush is interested in a fair count, lets remember that from day one his team opposed any recounts in Florida, characterizing them as sour grapes. And had countersuits filed from day one.

I look for some glimmer of hope and instead find that both sides have done their level best to divide the country. I know you feel that Gore's agenda is aimed at minorities and the poor and to hell with the middle class and the rich. It seems that Mr Bush's concern is with the wealthy and to hell with the rest. There are far more of the poor, disadvantaged and minorities than there are of the rich. And the former group is growing. Despite our respective sometimes checkered , neither you nor have had a lot of experience in either group. We were and remain part of the shrinking middle class about whom neither candidate cares.

Painting Gore as venal, self-serving and disruptive is easy, since there are elements of truth in the charges. Painting the Bush camp as the "good guys" (even by implication) doesn't seem to be supported by the facts. Looking at the lawsuits, both sides want exactly the same thing. Just count the votes that support me.

Regards and Happy Holidays

John

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 02:05 PM

Imagine that a few more of those old folk had managed to make sense of that butterfly ballot and had managed to cast valid votes, and that Gore had come in a few hundred votes ahead on that first count - and that Gore had then acted exactly the same way as Bush in resisting manual recounts, and Bush had acted exactly the same as Gore in going to court to try to get them.

Would the people who have supported and defended the actions of Bush and Gore over the past month have stuck with their principles, or gone with their candidates?

I'm sure there are some who would have stuck with the principles. But I suspect that they'd have been outnumbered by people who stuck with the candidates.

I find it a bit hard to swallow the notion that all the people who think that manual recounts are necessary in a close result just happen to be Gore supporters and all the people who think that they are not justified just happen to be Bush supporters.

And yet of course none of them admit to going in for double standards, under which the same behaviour is a dirty trick or a justified tactic according to who is doing it. It just happens by sheer coincidence that the view they hold about this purely technical matter happens to coincide with the interests of their preferred candidates.

It'd be refreshing to have someone say "This is a fight in which winning is everything. It doesn't matter to me what the actual votes was - what matters to me is that the counting is organised in such a way that my man wins."

Maybe if people could admit that, they could start to face up to the fact that thinking like this subverts and degrades the whole Constitution that they claim to regard so highly. And face up to the implications of the fact that they have a President-elect who thinks like that.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: rabbitrunning
Date: 09 Dec 00 - 12:04 AM

I think -- and I'll admit to having voted for Gore, mostly because I think that the Republicans are doing their best to undo the entire New Deal -- that I probably would have taken the same stand about dimpled ballots, given the evidence. I certainly feel that the courts acted correctly in refusing to throw out all of the absentee ballots in two counties on the basis of the evidence given. (Although I'd like to see charges made on some level. The supervisors of elections in those two counties, realizing that there were problem applications, would have done better to hire temps to make sure that all the applications were filled in, regardless of the party affiliation of the voter, rather than allow one or even two parties access. What about the independent voters, after all? And could they really have access to the database for reading without access for altering?)

I wish that the first US court that Bush went to had ordered the same remedy that the Florida Supremes just did. Or that Bush had taken Gore's offer, which would have had substantially the same effect, weeks ago.

I also feel that Gore, when the results of these manual counts are in, should accept the results, regardless of what they are. Bush too.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 03:44 AM

Troll,

Goebels? Goebbels perhaps, sounds like him.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Troll
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 09:29 AM

Wolfgang,spelling was never my strong suite. You are correct as (it seems) usual. Thanks.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Skeptic
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 09:01 PM

troll,

Among other things that aren't your......

Oh never mind. Its too easy.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Crowhugger
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 12:19 AM

Yoo-hoo, so many of you seem like you'd know the answer:

Sorry to bother you again with such a basic question: What is a chad?

I truly don't know. From various contexts I have a vague idea, but I'd like to know for sure. I've never seen, let alone used, a butterfly ballot until I clicked on a link kindly provided somewhere here.

If someone would please digress from the political and philosophical text to make a small entry in the glossary, I'd appreciate it.

thanks,[br]CH.

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 01:29 AM

They are the punched out bits that come from a scored square or oblong shape meant to denote one's vote when you poke it out, the equivalent of a hole. Ah ha! I thought of the proper explanation: they are donut holes!

My understanding is that a chad is poked out entirely; a hanging chad is partially poked out; a dimpled chad has an indentation in it; a pregnant chad is the other side of the ballot-it pooches out instead of being sucked in, in other words.

Now we both don't know much...

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: 20% Canadians Flunk Butterfly Ballot
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 08:05 AM

I thought a dimpled chad was the same as a pregnant chad, but that the people on the telly felt embarassed using the word "pregnant", or they got complaints about it something.

I was trying to think of how you could have a chad pushed in without someone having tried to vote, since the Bushies have been going on about it all being subjective, though it sounds pretty clear and simple to me. And the Florida law is actually quite clear that any vote where the intent of the voter is evident must be counted. (That stuff about "intent" isn't something dreamed up after the election.

I suppose you might have somebody hesitating over whether to vote or not, pushing in the button ad then deciding not to vote for anybody after all. It doesn't really sound very likely.

But then I don't imagine it's supposed to sound likely, and I don't suppose they believe it anyway. But, when you're ahead on a fluke, you don't want to risk losing if the game is played out fairly. Not if you are that kind of player, and think it all really is a game, and you think there's a very strong chance that you actually did come second.