ATTN JMS: Sweeping it under the carpet...the movement to ingore problems with the election
Bill Daras
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
(First of all, I should point out that I dislike Al Gore and did not vote
for him this year.)
Everyone likes a good drama, and that is exactly what we have been dealing
with over the past few days.
People also like to have their lives go on a predictable and uncomplicated
manner.
It has become obvious that there are some serious voting irregularities in
Florida. There is a growing movement to investigate and correct the
mistakes, however there are also a lot of people who want to simply pretend
nothing has happened and ignore any problems with the election.
Personally, I find this attitude disheartening. For years, people have felt
left out by the electoral process and to forget about the problems with the
2000 election and simply charge on would seriously undermine the faith of
the public.
People have pointed out that there have been similar irregularities in the
past that went unchallenged, and use them as examples of why we should sweep
this matter under the carpet. Of course, this argument is without any logic,
if someone else does something wrong and nobody bothers to investigate it,
it doesn¹t make what they did right, or justify not investigating future
incidents.
Bush supporters are trying to make the Democrats, especially Al Gore feel
guilty about their efforts to investigate and address the errors in
Tuesday¹s vote. Honestly, they have enough to feel guilty about already
(abandoning their core supporters, etc), this is a matter of following the
law and acting like it¹s no big deal not only undermines the faith of the
people in the electoral process, but in the man who is trying to squelch any
investigation into the questionable results and practices in Florida. In
addition, they are basically saying it is more important to follow the rule
of law when the President is serviced by an intern and lies about it, then
when an entire election is at stake.
I know it¹s tough for some people to be distracted from the normal flow of
things and have to comprehend difficult concepts like the Electoral College
vs Popular Vote, and they would much rather get back to worrying about their
gas prices, the weather and if ³Who Want¹s To Be A Millionaire² is going to
be on TV that night.
I believe however, that ignoring the problems in Florida will only result in
more and more people feeling as if they do not matter on Election Day, and
with good reason. If nobody cares what they said, why should they bother to
speak up in the future?
Right now we can either ³Go along to get along², and have the instant
gratification, don¹t-bother-me-with-the-details, nice, quiet ending to this
crisis, where everything is neatly packaged, as long as nobody looks too
closely, or face the issue head on, find out what went wrong and address the
problems.
It seems the Republicans would rather ignore all the problems and have a
president with an air of illegitimacy surrounding him for the next four
years "For the sake of the country"
Whatever happened to their gung-ho "We want the truth no matter what!"
attitude that was so prevelent when it became clear Bubba got serviced by
one of his interns and then lied about it? I am not here to defend Bill
Clinton, but I do find it very interesting that while the Lewinsky scandal
was handled with urgency and importance of high treason, the election
provokes a "Whatever" response from Republicans.
Is this *really* less important?
Where were the concerns about "What's best for the country" back when the
impeachment trial was ramping up and dividing the nation? Is oral sex more
important that the fate of the election? Surely many of the same arguments
for impeaching Clinton over a comparatively trivial matter would apply here.
Credibility of the office, trust in the president, etc, etc, etc.
Do Republicans apply the law strictly when only when they have nothing at
stake?
-Bill Daras
Jms at B5
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Paul McElligott
Bill Daras <bill_...@cyberzone.net> wrote:
>
> (First of all, I should point out that I dislike Al Gore and did not
vote
> for him this year.)
Okay, neither did I.
> Whatever happened to their gung-ho "We want the truth no matter what!"
> attitude that was so prevelent when it became clear Bubba got
serviced by
> one of his interns and then lied about it? I am not here to defend
Bill
> Clinton, but I do find it very interesting that while the Lewinsky
scandal
> was handled with urgency and importance of high treason, the election
> provokes a "Whatever" response from Republicans.
>
> Is this *really* less important?
>
> Where were the concerns about "What's best for the country" back when
the
> impeachment trial was ramping up and dividing the nation? Is oral sex
more
> important that the fate of the election? Surely many of the same
arguments
> for impeaching Clinton over a comparatively trivial matter would
apply here.
> Credibility of the office, trust in the president, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Do Republicans apply the law strictly when only when they have
nothing at
> stake?
>
Excellent points. The fact that the Republicans are hypocrites isn't
news to some people here, but you put it better than I could have.
--
Paul McElligott
http://www.terrafed.com
Note: No toads were strangled in the posting of this message.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Brian Stinson
I have heard many election reform ideas during this fiasco that I would
either gladly support or at least seriously consider.
Some of these include the abolition of the Electoral college. This falls
into the "consider" category because despite the problems exposed in this
election, the system does serve a purpose. I assume anyone taking the time
to read this has been watching the news, so they've heard all these
arguments, so I will not catalog them here.
A re-examination of the myriad of balloting systems we have in this country
is also appropriate. As I have stated in other posts, I thought the punch
card ballot was pretty good, but I have heard from some in my area that
touch-screen computer balloting is available in a few areas and I have heard
nothing but rave reviews of these. In terms of both ease-of-use and
near-absolute accuracy in counting, I doubt this could be beat ( though I'm
sure someone will find some reason to object ). I suppose the only
down-side to this would be the initial costs of setting up such a system on
a widespread basis.
I also think we should strongly consider not releasing any projections until
after the polls have closed in every state. This has been mulled over for
years, but perhaps this election will drive home the point.
However, as stated at the top of this post, you don't change the rules in
the middle of the game. The time to consider any changes is after the
election.
"Bill Daras" <bill_...@cyberzone.net> wrote in message
news:B6323C00.67FD%bill_...@cyberzone.net...
[ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
(First of all, I should point out that I dislike Al Gore and did not vote
for him this year.)
Everyone likes a good drama, and that is exactly what we have been dealing
Whatever happened to their gung-ho "We want the truth no matter what!"
attitude that was so prevelent when it became clear Bubba got serviced by
one of his interns and then lied about it? I am not here to defend Bill
Clinton, but I do find it very interesting that while the Lewinsky scandal
was handled with urgency and importance of high treason, the election
provokes a "Whatever" response from Republicans.
Is this *really* less important?
Where were the concerns about "What's best for the country" back when the
impeachment trial was ramping up and dividing the nation? Is oral sex more
important that the fate of the election? Surely many of the same arguments
for impeaching Clinton over a comparatively trivial matter would apply here.
Credibility of the office, trust in the president, etc, etc, etc.
Do Republicans apply the law strictly when only when they have nothing at
stake?
-Bill Daras
Jonathan Biggar
> It seems the Republicans would rather ignore all the problems and have a
> president with an air of illegitimacy surrounding him for the next four
> years "For the sake of the country"
>
> Whatever happened to their gung-ho "We want the truth no matter what!"
> attitude that was so prevelent when it became clear Bubba got serviced by
> one of his interns and then lied about it? I am not here to defend Bill
> Clinton, but I do find it very interesting that while the Lewinsky scandal
> was handled with urgency and importance of high treason, the election
> provokes a "Whatever" response from Republicans.
>
> Is this *really* less important?
>
> Where were the concerns about "What's best for the country" back when the
> impeachment trial was ramping up and dividing the nation? Is oral sex more
> important that the fate of the election? Surely many of the same arguments
> for impeaching Clinton over a comparatively trivial matter would apply here.
> Credibility of the office, trust in the president, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Do Republicans apply the law strictly when only when they have nothing at
> stake?
This is nothing but partisan BS. Bush's campaign has never said that
Gore needs to conceed because it's "best for the country." They have
said that both sides should agree that the vote count is the only thing
that matters. If the vote count isn't the truth, than what is?
You are also making the false claim that Republicans don't care that
there were voter irregularities. That too is wrong. Irregularities
reduce the legitimacy of the voting process, and no one wants that.
Both Nixon & John Ashcroft (who are both Republicans) have conceeded
close races to their opponents despite evidence of "irregularties" in
the vote, and have told their supporters not to attempt to overturn the
results. Until you can find a list of Democrats who have done the same
thing, your claims that Republicans don't care about what is best for
the country is nothing but partisan rhetoric.
--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org
Joshua P. Hill
<paul_mc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Excellent points. The fact that the Republicans are hypocrites isn't
>news to some people here, but you put it better than I could have.
What really gets me is that after making a big fuss about how the
Democrats shouldn't sue over questions of fraud and ballot
illegalities, the Republicans just sued to prevent a manual recount on
the basis of "potential for mischief."
What, citizen complaints of actual illegalities don't matter, but a
manual recount is out of the question because there's a "potential for
mischief"?
Josh
Seti Alpha
attitude that was so prevelent when it became clear Bubba got serviced by
one of his interns and then lied about it? I am not here to defend Bill
Clinton, but I do find it very interesting that while the Lewinsky scandal
was handled with urgency and importance of high treason, the election
provokes a "Whatever" response from Republicans.
Is this *really* less important?
Where were the concerns about "What's best for the country" back when the
impeachment trial was ramping up and dividing the nation? Is oral sex more
important that the fate of the election? Surely many of the same arguments
for impeaching Clinton over a comparatively trivial matter would apply here.
Credibility of the office, trust in the president, etc, etc, etc.
I agree that this will undoubtedly follow Bush all the way through his 4
years. I also agree that if they're going to recount one of the Democrat's
"strongholds" (re: Florida), perhaps they should be fair about it and
recount one of the Republican's "strongholds." We want fairness here,
right?
John
Neither Bush not Gore have rights here, but the people who voted have the
right to have their vote counted. They also have the right to vote in a
knowing way that complies with the law. From what I understand, this is not
the case.
John
Kurtz
"Seti Alpha" <seti...@home.com> wrote in message
news:cJiP5.186223$g6.84...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
The world over, the same thing happens - invalid ballots get tossed.
That's life - not just in Palm Beach county, but everywhere. What we
have here is effectively "we don't like the outcome, let's root through
the trash and see if we can dig up another vote here or there" and ascribe
it to the noble ideal of finding the truth. If the truth were so relevant, a
hand count would be ordered for the entire state, and not just the four
most densely populated counties that went for Gore. Daley's response?
"Hey, time's up. Too bad, you had YOUR chance to contest it". So, for
*fairness* sake, they want to dispute the official count by waving hand
counted ballots, but only in areas that favor them. They want to
re-interpret
the meaning behind the vote based on subjective means. AND when that's
all done, they want to say hey we want what the PEOPLE wanted - but
as to the guys on the western panhandle - screw what THEY want, that
doesn't help our guy.
If you want the rules waived, you should waive them for everyone.
LK
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
On 10 Nov 2000 22:10:48 -0700, Bill Daras <bill_...@cyberzone.net>
wrote:
>It seems the Republicans would rather ignore all the problems and have a
>president with an air of illegitimacy surrounding him for the next four
>years "For the sake of the country"
>
>Whatever happened to their gung-ho "We want the truth no matter what!"
>attitude that was so prevelent when it became clear Bubba got serviced by
>one of his interns and then lied about it? I am not here to defend Bill
>Clinton, but I do find it very interesting that while the Lewinsky scandal
>was handled with urgency and importance of high treason, the election
>provokes a "Whatever" response from Republicans.
>
>Is this *really* less important?
>
>Where were the concerns about "What's best for the country" back when the
>impeachment trial was ramping up and dividing the nation? Is oral sex more
>important that the fate of the election? Surely many of the same arguments
>for impeaching Clinton over a comparatively trivial matter would apply here.
>Credibility of the office, trust in the president, etc, etc, etc.
>
>Do Republicans apply the law strictly when only when they have nothing at
>stake?
>
>
>-Bill Daras
Me, too!
But the Republican party does have something at stake, whether or not
Bush, "jr." gets into office.
I get more irritated with everyday citizens who are more than happy
with labeling concerned citizens who want investigations, owed to them
by law and fairness, as "whiners" and "cry-baby losers."
To want an acurrate accounting of events is to whine? To assume
someone has a victory, and when reminded the outcome is still in
doubt is to be a "cry-baby loser?"
The truth, the facts, and the need for clarification and restoration
of confidence that when one votes, one's vote can be read and counted
is...
I'm pretty disgusted with name calling which does far more damage and
creates more ill-will than making the time for finding the facts.
Somehow "kill the umpire" attitude of sporting events seems to have
found a new home.
LK
Rick Corey
card ballot was pretty good, but I have heard from some in my area that
touch-screen computer balloting is available in a few areas and I have heard
nothing but rave reviews of these. <<
In Connecticut and New York, I have only used machines with levers. You
*CAN'T* double-punch because once you have thrown one lever up, the other
levers in that row won't move.
The levers are directly above the names - you don't even have to "follow the
arrow".
If you change your mind, you can flip a lever down, then some other lever
up, until you are satisfied.
I assume the votes are tallied mechanically or electrically - I assume they
are not counted (or mis-counted) manually.
Does anyone know of any drawbacks to these? They are all I've used, so it's
hard for me to compare.
(I haven't seen touch-screen polling machines, but I hope the CRT or LCD is
very bright and clear.)
Corey
Joshua P. Hill
On 13 Nov 2000 15:18:58 -0700, "Rick Corey" <Rick....@atip-usa.com>
wrote:
They're old fashioned--34 years old, IIRC--heavy, expensive, subject
to mechanical failure and wearing out. They have to have something
like 57 repairmen standing by on election day in NYC alone.
I think touch screens are the way to go--nothing mechanical.
Josh
LK
<josh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I think touch screens are the way to go--nothing mechanical.
>
In the Seattle are touchscreens are getting a workout--in
supermarkets. They are for self-check out.
It amazes me that the balloting methods in various precincts out here
are so low-tech. Especially given the large population.
LK
Brian Stinson
would be much like other touch screen computers ( ticket machines, etc ).
One screen per office / proposition. Names in various languages. Even the
candidates' picture. A verification screen to double check your choices and
make changes if necessary. The counting would be virtually instant, and
very accurate. Ballot tampering would be most difficult ( I would say
impossible, but the ingenuity of criminals never ceases to amaze )
"Rick Corey" <Rick....@atip-usa.com> wrote in message
news:t10p0s1...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> , I thought the punch
> card ballot was pretty good, but I have heard from some in my area that
> touch-screen computer balloting is available in a few areas and I have
heard
> nothing but rave reviews of these. <<
>
>
> In Connecticut and New York, I have only used machines with levers. You
> *CAN'T* double-punch because once you have thrown one lever up, the other
> levers in that row won't move.
>
> The levers are directly above the names - you don't even have to "follow
the
> arrow".
>
> If you change your mind, you can flip a lever down, then some other lever
> up, until you are satisfied.
>
> I assume the votes are tallied mechanically or electrically - I assume
they
> are not counted (or mis-counted) manually.
>
> Does anyone know of any drawbacks to these? They are all I've used, so
it's
> hard for me to compare.
>
> (I haven't seen touch-screen polling machines, but I hope the CRT or LCD
is
> very bright and clear.)
>
>
> Corey
>
>
>
>
>
Paul McElligott
In article <8obr0ts941i5loh1l...@4ax.com>,
josh...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> What, citizen complaints of actual illegalities don't matter, but a
> manual recount is out of the question because there's a "potential for
> mischief"?
>
Don't you know? Republicans are completely honest and trustworthy.
It's those scurilous Democrats you have to watch like a hawk. You
never know what they're going to do!
Stellijer
"Jonathan Biggar" <j...@floorboard.com> wrote in message
news:3A0D901A...@floorboard.com...
> results. Until you can find a list of Democrats who have done the same
> thing, your claims that Republicans don't care about what is best for
> the country is nothing but partisan rhetoric.
On this subject, I can say that I have the feeling both Republicans and
Democrats *believe* what they're doing by getting elected is "best for the
country". I don't feel they actually so self serving they wish to HARM the
country; it's just their views on what is actually GOOD that sometimes I
disagree with.
John Jasen
> <paul_mc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Excellent points. The fact that the Republicans are hypocrites isn't
> >news to some people here, but you put it better than I could have.
>
> What really gets me is that after making a big fuss about how the
> Democrats shouldn't sue over questions of fraud and ballot
> illegalities, the Republicans just sued to prevent a manual recount on
> the basis of "potential for mischief."
>
> manual recount is out of the question because there's a "potential for
> mischief"?
'manual recount' -- especially on punch card ballots is a code word for
the 'most inethical party stealing votes'.
Somewhere around there's an article on some of the techniques used during
such a count to 'slant' an election.
--
-- John E. Jasen (jja...@umbc.edu)
-- Some elections you just can't buy. For others, there's GORE 2000
Rick Corey
>> expensive, subject
to mechanical failure and wearing out. They have to have something
like 57 repairmen standing by on election day in NYC alone.
>>
That's a good answer, although it amazes me that something used so seldom
would be likely to wear out. Rust out, maybe.
Corey
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>RE: lever-based polling machines
>
>>> expensive, subject
>to mechanical failure and wearing out. They have to have something
>like 57 repairmen standing by on election day in NYC alone.
>>>
>
>That's a good answer, although it amazes me that something used so seldom
>would be likely to wear out. Rust out, maybe.
>
>Corey
Those machines always struck me as pretty Rube Goldbergish. And this
being government, they may not be doing enough preventive
maintenance--lubrication, cleaning, replacement of dulled paper
punches, etc.
Josh
Pål Are Nordal
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
John Jasen wrote:
>
> 'manual recount' -- especially on punch card ballots is a code word for
> the 'most inethical party stealing votes'.
And just how do you suppose that happens, given that that an election
official, a Democrat *and* a Republican has to agree on the vote of each ballot?
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Jonathan Biggar
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Pål Are Nordal wrote:
>
> [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
> [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
> [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
>
> John Jasen wrote:
> >
> > 'manual recount' -- especially on punch card ballots is a code word for
> > the 'most inethical party stealing votes'.
>
> And just how do you suppose that happens, given that that an election
> official, a Democrat *and* a Republican has to agree on the vote of each
> ballot?
Because it is the Democrats in charge of the process who have changed
the standards for counting votes in a way that favors Gore.
Pål Are Nordal
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Jonathan Biggar wrote:
>
> Pål Are Nordal wrote:
> >
> > And just how do you suppose that happens, given that that an election
> > official, a Democrat *and* a Republican has to agree on the vote of each
> > ballot?
>
> Because it is the Democrats in charge of the process who have changed
> the standards for counting votes in a way that favors Gore.
And what changes would that be?
Jonathan Biggar
> It is obvious you have never dealt with this kind of punch
> card or how a manual count works. Even a moderately careful
> manual count is more accurate than a machine count with this
> kind of punch card. When I worked with this type of punch
> card on a research project the only way to get a reliable
> and complete machine count was to go through by hand and
> remove any "chads" that were punched but still connected.
> The only reason to use this kind of ballot is that almost 40
> years ago it was a fast way to do a machine count. As long
> as a race isn't close it is still considered good enough by
> many counties when they are asked to buy new machines.
I might be convinced about manual recounts in a perfect world, where noone
makes mistakes and no one ever has an agenda that might cause them to make a
mistake on purpose or worse.
The current margin of victory for Bush is at about one vote in 200,000. Show
me that the manual recount will have an accuracy of less than about 1 in
500,000 and I might believe that it's results are better than the machine
count. Please find me one real expert in human factors who would support such
an accuracy number. You won't.
--
Jonathan Biggar
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org
Bob Joesting
> 'manual recount' -- especially on punch card ballots is a code word for
> the 'most inethical party stealing votes'.
It is obvious you have never dealt with this kind of punch
card or how a manual count works. Even a moderately careful
manual count is more accurate than a machine count with this
kind of punch card. When I worked with this type of punch
card on a research project the only way to get a reliable
and complete machine count was to go through by hand and
remove any "chads" that were punched but still connected.
The only reason to use this kind of ballot is that almost 40
years ago it was a fast way to do a machine count. As long
as a race isn't close it is still considered good enough by
many counties when they are asked to buy new machines.
Pål Are Nordal then wrote about John Jasen's post:
> And just how do you suppose that happens, given that that an election
> official, a Democrat *and* a Republican has to agree on the vote of each
> ballot?
Jonathan Biggar <j...@floorboard.com> responded:
>Because it is the Democrats in charge of the process who have changed
>the standards for counting votes in a way that favors Gore.
While there may have been others but in all the
changes I have heard about it was the Republicans
that insisted on using a procedure which the
Democrats didn't agree with. Then the Republicans
either changed their minds or were told to change
by the court. Why am I not surprised that the Bush
family and their associates blame this on the
Democrats?
Bob Joesting <valen (at) psicorps (dot) com>
Adam Michaud
Jonathan Biggar <j...@floorboard.com> wrote:
>
>The current margin of victory for Bush is at about one vote in 200,000. Show
>me that the manual recount will have an accuracy of less than about 1 in
>500,000 and I might believe that it's results are better than the machine
>count. Please find me one real expert in human factors who would support such
>an accuracy number. You won't.
The inventor of the voting machines in question has said that it's
patently unreasonable to expect better than 1 in 1000 (i.e., 99.9%)
accuracy from them. Given Bush's 1 in 200,000 lead, it seems a little
silly to actually consider him to have certainly come out ahead. The odds
are probably quite significant (from those numbers, probably 40-some%)
that Gore *did* have more votes; the point is that we simply don't (and
can't) know. The voting technology in use there simply won't let us be
that accurate.
The manual recounts don't have to be accurate to 1 in 200,000 to be
valuable, just significantly more accurate than the 1 in 1000 that the
machines are good for. And most experts would tell you that humans *can*
be more accurate than that.
Of course, this ignores willful miscounting, but then we try to minimize
that with the system of observers, etc. And we could argue all day over
how effective that is.
Adam
Jonathan Biggar
> Of course, this ignores willful miscounting, but then we try to minimize
> that with the system of observers, etc. And we could argue all day over
> how effective that is.
As we are seeing reported in the press, the observers are pretty much useless,
since the county canvassing boards are all (or majority) Democrats, who have the
final say on accepting or rejecting a ballot.
Andrew Swallow
Michaud) writes:
>
>The inventor of the voting machines in question has said that it's
>patently unreasonable to expect better than 1 in 1000 (i.e., 99.9%)
>accuracy from them. Given Bush's 1 in 200,000 lead, it seems a little
>silly to actually consider him to have certainly come out ahead. The odds
>are probably quite significant (from those numbers, probably 40-some%)
>that Gore *did* have more votes; the point is that we simply don't (and
>can't) know. The voting technology in use there simply won't let us be
>that accurate.
>
It is a very poor machine that can not count 10,000 properly punched cards
without making a mistake. The card punching was performed by inexperienced and
untrained people. That is where the errors will be. So the expected accuracy
of a manual count will be about 1 in 500.
Andrew Swallow
Robert Joesting
>I might be convinced about manual recounts in a perfect world, where noone
>makes mistakes and no one ever has an agenda that might cause them to make a
>mistake on purpose or worse.
>The current margin of victory for Bush is at about one vote in 200,000. Show
>me that the manual recount will have an accuracy of less than about 1 in
>500,000 and I might believe that it's results are better than the machine
>count. Please find me one real expert in human factors who would support such
>an accuracy number. You won't.
Other folks pointed out that the expected error in
machine counting with this machine is far more than
the "current margin of victory." There are several
reasons this kind of machine can have a high error rate.
1- The machines are old and the guides for the stylus may
easily be bent so it won't line up cleanly with the chad.
This is far more likely with candidates in position 2 or
3 than in position 1. Bush was position 1, Gore position
3.
2- If the stylus is old it can easily be worn so it can
not punch the chad out, leaving just a dimple. This is
more likely in position 3 than position 1.
3- It is easy for the machine to fill with chads so when a
voter pushes the stylus in it can't push out the chad. This
would make just a dimple, perhaps a very light one. The
workers at the poles need to empty chads or tilt or shake
(it depends on exactly which model of machine it is) the
machines often on a busy voting day.
4- On the old machines it is easy for the ballot to not
line up so you are either trying to punch between holes or
will actually punch the wrong hole. This is more likely if
the machine is full of chads.
5- As the machine gets used it can become harder to read
the names and see where the arrows point. The way some of
the machines are done this can actually wear off after a
few hundred people vote. I haven't seen a good enough
picture of this part of the machines to see if this was a
problem in Florida.
6- Even when everything is in perfect shape and lined up
correctly, quite a few chads won't get punched completely
out. This leave things like the "swinging doors." Many
of the chads that are almost punched out will come out in
the card reader. Unfortunately they may move around and
block holes so they read as not punched. Chads like the
"swinging door" will sometimes be read as punched and at
othertimes as not punched. By just running the same stack
of ballots through the reader twice, it is easy to have the
count change by one or two per thousand.
There are other reasons this kind of machine is not very
accurate but those were the ones that came to mind first.
The other question your post brought up is how accurate
can a hand count be? I have worked at something like 20
or 30 elections. I have worked on many hand counts. The
procedures in Florida seem to be quite close to what we do
here. Every ballot was looked at by three elections
officials, usually two of one party and one of another.
Two officials would record each vote as it was called out
by the third and looked at by all three. There was usually
other observers who watched both each ballot and each mark
we made. Sometimes someone would make a mistake. I think
we always caught them. I say that because on the times when
a different group of people would do a recount of our hand
count I don't think it was ever off by even one vote. The
exception was when it was not clear what someone's vote was.
Maybe one in at least ten thousand might be marked so the
intent wasn't clear. With the punch card vote that can
easily be one in each thousand or so.
A careful hand count of any ballot that doesn't read as
having a vote for president would find a lot of votes that
are obvious in their intent but just don't consistently
read.