How would you count 1.76 Million votes?

[Weird Harold]

All of the blithering and moaning about how there isn't enought ime to count the "undervotes" in Florida got me to thinking. (dangerous I know)

I came up with the following plan. How would you set up the count if the decision were yours?

---
How to count votes without standards or bias:

1 A: Divide total ballots to be counted by 500 X Number of hours count should take. (1,760,000 by (500 x 5) = 352
B: Multiply times 5 (352 x 5 = 1760)

2 A: randomly select from payroll of state/county the required numbers of counters.
B: Divide into groups of five counters
C: Seat in testing room (classroom) type environment and equip with pencil and paper to record tabulations

2: Provide each counter with 500 ballots and one hour to count them. (six seconds per ballot, plus ten minutes leeway/breaktime.)

3: Pass each stack of ballots around the group until each group has counted the same 2500 ballots. (five hours total.)

4 A: Discard the high and low counts (in each category) from each group of five.
B: Average the remaining three counts in each category.
C: Total the five categories together and divide each category by the total. (obtain percentage valuation for each category.)
D: Multply each percentage valuation by 2500 to obtain the count for that group's 2500 ballots.

5: Total the counts of all 352 groups and certify as complete and accurate.

The bias and standards of each of the five members of each group is canceled out by the bias and standards of the other members of the group. Tossing the high and low counts in each category eliminates attempts to artificially inflate or deflate counts for any one candidate.

 

[Merelan]

I am not sure what scares me more.
That you figured all that out.
That I understood it before my caffeine...
or that it makes a hell of alot of sense.

Of course, that's why it won't happen that way.

 

[Fallen Angel]

I have to agree that makes too much sense for the goverment to do. I do wonder how sturdy those ballots are and how many times they can be handled before the chad start to fall out on their own.

Heh heh heh I think that with the vote so evenly split across the country that we should have Bush as pres and let Gore stay the vice pres. We already have congress almost evenly split so why not split this branch too. That way everyone's vote would count to an extent and the only real difference it would make is that Gore a D. would cast the deciding vote in case of a tie in the senate.

 

[Bushido71XS]

Keep it Simple, Stupid

The Easy way: One at a time,
Lots of pencils,pads,
and an abacus.

 

[Thumper]

KISS

My tabulations came up different...

1,760,000/(500*5)=1,760,000/2500=704 or

1,760,000/500=3520 3,520*5=17,600

To count 1,760,000 ballots in one hour at 500 ballots per counter would require 3,520 counters

Five hours counting time would require 704 counters(1760000 divided by 2500 ballots per counter working at 500 per hour) this doesn't allow recounting the same ballots four additional times...to do that would require the full 3,520 counters...working the full five hours

3,520 counters x 5 hours=17,600 counter/hours

17,600 counter hours x 500 votes per hour=8,800,00 votes

8,800,000= every vote counted 5 times...

It would work if you could gather 3,520 workers together at one time in short notice...

you could separate out the Nader/Buchanan votes and concentrate on the Bush/Gore votes...

Our county uses pencil and paper....and optical scanning..

I think the ballots should be standardized and simplified to ease counting and make voting simpler...

Name in LARGE letters on the left and even a picture maybe and a circle on the right to fill in with a an indelible marker. That is the way we fundamentally read anything...Left to right top to bottom...

Why make things complicated?

Fix the damn system.

 

[R Nitelight]

One at a time?

 

[Skibum]

I propose a constitutional amenndment to make the ballot for electoral college electors standard for all fifty states ( and D.C.). No machine voting allowed. All absentee ballots to be submitted by the day of the election. Let's get the system under control before 2004.

 

[Myrrdin]

Well out of 1.76 million voters. Is it going to be a problem finding three or four thousand numerate state employees to do the counting?

If they are state employees and therefore being paid to count the votes, there prime concern should be staying non partisan and getting the job done for the State. Not any party allegiances they might have if they were doing the job voluntarily.

If it's done by volunteers, how are you going to stop all the Republicans getting up early and being first in the volunteer line? People have all sorts of motives for volunteering.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: KISS

My tabulations came up different...

Apparently CNN and MSNBC have estimates that differ from the 1.76 million undervote estimate in the dissenting opinion of the florida supreme court, so both calculations are incorrect. Yours however has the right number of decimal places, where mine dropped one.

I'd like to see presidential elections brought into the 21st century rahter than having them sent back to the 17th. The voting machines used here in Clark County, NV are nearly idiot and fraud proof. The ballot is an overlay on the face of the machine, with lighted arrows (touch-pad buttons) pointing to your selection. It is also about 50% larger than the sample ballots mailed out. (roughly the size of two newspaper pages.) It is a system that's very easy to use, and produces a repeatable, accurate count in about two hours after the polls close (plus travel time from polls to tabulating center.) Each precinct is counted in the time it takes to electronically copy the information from the machines memory unit to the central computer.

I should note that my system is NOT a strictly accurate count of each vote, but rather a method of determining the will of the voters with a reasonable degree of freedom from subjective bias.

Myrrdin asked:
"If it's done by volunteers, how are you going to stop all the Republicans getting up early and being first in the volunteer line? People have all sorts of motives for volunteering."

If I were writing a statute to implement such a standard for counting disputed ballots, I would specify that the counters be drawn from the pool of jurors call for jury duty.

In a situation such as this, I really think that using the national guard would be the best method of finding the manpower for counting. The problem there is the perception of the military deciding the issue. It wouldn't be a factual problem, because the national guard is simple citizens, drawn from all walks of life, who are committing to respond in 24 hours to a call to service. The fact they don uniforms when they respond would be misconstrued in countries where a person in uniform is essentially just a government thug.

The key to an accurate result is random selection of the counters. That's why I suggested a "lottery" from the payroll of the state/county employees for a short notice count. They're in known locations (at work), There's no problem with their employer releasing them (they work for the government doing the count), and they can be "drafted" by simply changing their duty assignemnt temporarily.

There was a mention of "the standard of common sense" relating to the opinion of the FSC. It's been my experience there isn't very much common sense involved in any of this legal wrangling.

 

[Unclebill]

At this point, counting the ballots is a useless exercise. There has been enough tampering to create more votes for Algore and to negate votes for Bush (by double punching valid Bush ballots) that an accurante count is not possible.

I offer Gunsberger as a typical Algorite who's been doing the tampering.

 

[Chuckus]

For each ballot counted a like number amount of shots of your liquor of choice should be taken........although the process might go even slower than it already is!!!

 

[Weird Harold]

There has been enough tampering to create more votes for Algore and to negate votes for Bush ... that an accurante count is not possible.

Tampering and/or mishandling is why I prefer the electronic record type of machine her in Clark County. It would require a very sophisticated setup to tamper with the cast votes here. The procedures that go with the machine to insure an unbroken chain of custody for the memory units makes tampering difficult.

If the authors of the article you linked elsewhere are so certain of the tampering, why isn't it in court already?

 

[Unclebill]

If the authors of the article you linked elsewhere are so certain of the tampering, why isn't it in court already?

Who's going to investigate and prosecute? Janet Reno?

 

[Weird Harold]

If the authors of the article you linked elsewhere are so certain of the tampering, why isn't it in court already?

Who's going to investigate and prosecute? Janet Reno?

Bring it as a civil challenge to the election, or file it as a complaint with the Florida District attorney. There is no reason for Janet Reno or the Federal Justice department to get involved until it's appealed, not even then really, because it would be a State case.

If there are ANY facts to support the charge, it should be brought into court in some fashion to get it into the official public record.

 

[Myrrdin]

The voting machines used here in Clark County, NV are nearly idiot and fraud proof.

I bet they said that about the Pentagon computer, until some 16 year old with a laptop hacked his way in.

A few years ago because of unscrupulous car dealers winding back the mileometers on high mileage company cars to make them look like family run abouts The Gov't pressurised the car industry to use the tamperproof odometer in new cars. Supposedly sealed and fraud proof. But "clocking " still happens. The clocker just gains access through the units backdoor, which the manufacturer left in to enable servicing and calibration.
We have a voting system from the old days in the UK. As long as you know which way around to use a pencil its idiot proof. And because of the paper trail its harder to defraud.
Sometimes perhaps you have to take a step backwards to make progress.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

While it's true that any new system we implement to replace the current one won't be 100% fraud-proof, that's certainly no reason not to completely overhaul this system. If there's anything that both sides can agree on about this election it's that for the most powerful nation in the world and a beacon of democracy, our election system is terribly antiquated and fraught with uncertainty.

I find it hard to believe that we're still using paper ballots and glorified hole-punchers here at the turn of the 21st century. In addition to the possibility of fraud by ballot-tampering after the election, the current system is responsible for the large number of "undervotes" causing this whole morass. With the technology available today there is no reason for the existence of such ambiguous votes.

What's more is that there aren't even established standards for the divination of the voters' intent. It's left to canvassing boards and courts after the fact which chads are to be considered votes and which are not. We can do much better.

I don't think justice can truly be done in this election. All we can hope for now is to try to come to a conclusion based on the least injustice and make sure that this whole thing never happens again.

 

[Weird Harold]

The voting machines used here in Clark County, NV are nearly idiot and fraud proof.

I bet they said that about the Pentagon computer, until some 16 year old with a laptop hacked his way in.

As I understand the system, the votes are recorded on write only memory so any changes will be detectable. The memory units are intentionally large enough that they are not easily hidden from view for a clandestine switch, and the procedures to transport them are akin to the "no lone zone" principle the military uses for access to nuclear weapons and sensitive material.

No system is perfect. I'm sure that if enough people had access to the right equipment and software, fraud could indeed be commited with this system. I still think it would be more difficult than "stuffing a ballot box" is.

A simple paper ballot with the name of the candidate written in by the voter is still the simplest way to determine the voter's intent. A bin of colored balls under a picture of the candidates, where the voter selects one ball and drops it in the ballot box, is even simpler and requires no literacy.

The electronic voting machines here have one big advantage in my opinion, and that is that the voter CANNOT vote for more than one candidate by mistake. The only change I would make, is they don't require a confirmation, that you have made all selections you intend to, before accepting the "cast vote" button. There are provisions for handling that situation, but essentially it boils down to "oops, you're screwed" if you press that cast vote button before you're done.

 

[Cheyenne]

I wouldn't. And neither would the United States Supreme Court.

 

[Unclebill]

While it's true that any new system we implement to replace the current one won't be 100% fraud-proof, that's certainly no reason not to completely overhaul this system. If there's anything that both sides can agree on about this election it's that for the most powerful nation in the world and a beacon of democracy, our election system is terribly antiquated and fraught with uncertainty.

The process is not so flawed as all the propaganda would have you believe. While it is not state of the art, the machines used to count the ballots in Florida have a test spec of 1 miss (erroneous registration) in a million is a fail.

Keep in mind that this technology has been in use for fifty years or so. Punched cards were used for data and program code entry into computers where the error rate of 1/1,000,000 is really dicey. If the wrong code is entered (by misinterpretation of a punch card), the program doesn't do what it should. If the data is flawed for the same reason, the results are flawed.

In the ensuing fifty years, the technology to interpret the punches has only improved. While what is in use is not state of the art, it is nowhere nearly so flawed as the Algore Propaganda Division and his lapdog constituents in the press are trying to portray.

I find it hard to believe that we're still using paper ballots and glorified hole-punchers here at the turn of the 21st century. In addition to the possibility of fraud by ballot-tampering after the election, the current system is responsible for the large number of "undervotes" causing this whole morass. With the technology available today there is no reason for the existence of such ambiguous votes.

The undervotes are not causing the morass. Algore's rabid tenacity to the idea that he alone must be anointed as president is what's driving this whole mess.

He's still the petulant, spoiled, arrogant child of a rich, powerful arrogant politician. He's stamping his feet and whining that the votes must be counted and recounted (as long as necessary) until the result shows he is the winner because his daddy raised him to be president and it's just not fair that more people voted for Bush.

The undervotes in Florida from all accounts I've seen are lower than in almost every other state. Undervotes are nominally 1-2% of the total votes cast. The voter didn't vote for a candidate for a certain office for a variety of reasons. They are NOT the result of machine errors as the Algore prostitutes are frantically implying.

My ballot would classify as an undercount simply because I did not cast a vote for one office. Why? I had no information on either candidate. Which bozo would be better (or worse)? I had no way of knowing, so I decided to choose neither.

I did vote for the office of President but not for either of the finalists.

And the Florida Supreme Court is really out on a limb with this last decision in which they essentially told the United States Supreme Court, "Up your nose" with a blatantly partisan political decision that their Chief Justice specifically and directly said was bad and would not stand the test of Constitutionality. Read his 20 page dissenting opinion (if you download the PDF from their site http://a311.g.akamai.net/f/311/2656/1h/www.flcourts.org/sct/sctdocs/ops/sc00-2431.pdf, it's pp40-59 of that file). He cites numerous cases in which the same court made diametrically opposed decisions.

While he is a partisan political activist on the bench (as evidenced by the unanimous decision of the court in their first decision), he also seems to have at least some understanding that when you become so utterly blatant in your practice of ignoring law and the Constitution that the U. S. Supreme Court vacates a decision you've set down and asks you to justify it when both they and he knows there is no justification, given a second chance, he knows that to repeat the same act of stupid belligerent judicial activism is virtually suicidal (professionally). That such an act puts the integrity of the court out the window completely unmasking the transparent facade of honesty and objectivity. And that I believe is the reason for his scathing rebuke of those remaining partisan activists without his insight or concern for the ideas of the rule of law or justice.

If you'd like a little more insight into the Florida Supreme Court's egregious political activism, take a look at the [i/Rule of Lawyers[/i] article at the following link: http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=65000763

Having not heard much from the Algore supporters lately lauding his character, honor and tenacity, aren't you so proud of the whiner, liar, thug and miscreant you wanted as President? Hasn't he lived up to all your expectations? I know he's lived up (or is it down) to all my expectations of him!

[Edited by Unclebill on 12-10-2000 at 02:06 PM]

 

[Thumper]

I don't call it whining...

or being a sore loser.

This isn't a friendly game of cards or tiddly-winks. This is a decision regarding the leadership of this country for the next four years. If a candidate truly believes that his and his party's ideas are the best for the country and that his opponent's platform is wrong then he is obligated to pursue every avenue at his discretion to win. I would expect Gov. Bush to do the same thing if the situation were reversed. Indeed I would lose some respect for a candidate who just gives up. This isn't "bad" for the country. It is Constitutional evolution at work. The possibility of this present situation happening has always existed, although nobody would have believed it actually occuring. The Republic will survive and changes will be made to the system to make it better. Look out the window...there are no tanks rolling...no mobs with machetes hacking each other up..unless you count the crowd at Best Buy trying to get the latest sale items...no anarchy. It will work itself out. And for the better too.

 

[WriterDom]

If we did count them all and gore was still behind, we'd just have to count them over again

 

[BlondeBeauty]

Easiest way to decide our President?

Let's have 'em play Paper-Rock-Scissors...

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[CelestialBody]

Re: I don't call it whining...

 

[Unclebill]

Re: I don't call it whining...

Originally posted by Thumper
or being a sore loser.

This isn't a friendly game of cards or tiddly-winks. This is a decision regarding the leadership of this country for the next four years.

For Algore, you're right. This is not a friendly anything. It's a life or death struggle and he will destroy anyone or anything to win at all costs. He is clearly advertising his complete adoption and acceptance of the fundamental collectivist principle, "The end justifies the means."

If you can call Algore a leader, I wonder at your criteria. If you want more of the Clinton brand of leadership, i. e., stick the moistened finger into the wind for a choice of direction, then you can see Algore as a leader perhaps. If you expect someone decisive, inspirational and with a genuine vision of the future for America, I don't see how you could even remotely consider Algore.

Read some of his Earth in the Balance tripe to see what he's all about. Taking us back to the horse and buggy is not my idea of progress.

Originally posted by Thumper
If a candidate truly believes that his and his party's ideas are the best for the country and that his opponent's platform is wrong then he is obligated to pursue every avenue at his discretion to win.

If you, like Algore, believe that bigger more intrusive government is the solution to America's problems you either ascribe to the principles of collectivism or you have ignored the numerous lessons of history which have amply demonstrated that failure that is collectivism. The most recent example is the collapse of the Soviet Union.

As far as pursuing the objective of winning, Algore did that. He presented his proposals to the voters albeit heavily laced with lies about his aim and about opposing ideas. The voters rejected him and his ideas. That was his avenue and he failed to succeed. Having so failed, he then embarked on a track of stealing the election by vote tampering, voter ballot invalidation, slanderous assaults on officials who were doing their job as required under the law (Kathleen Harris), and lawsuits taken to liberal activist courts, e. g., the Florida State Supreme Court, trumping up this crisis regarding confusing ballots, every vote should count except those that might be against him, etc.

Do you see any difference between accepting defeat with honor and dignity and behaving as has Algore? The man is a pathological liar, a hypocrite, and has no respect for the law as his efforts to have courts overturn existing Florida law after the election results have been certified. This is a man you would want as a leader of our nation? A yes answer to that question certainly gives me cause to question your judgement and integrity!

To further provide some insight into the character of the man who is fighting with everything at his disposal to be declared president by a court since he couldn't win the election, consider this. He is willing to fight this to the death (figuratively). Yet he dropped out of divinity school and law(?) school. Why? Well, in the schools, he had to work for the grades to succeed. In this contest, he doesn't have to work for anything. He's got dozens if not hundreds of lawyers working for him paid by others. Now there's a fine example of a leader, don't you think?

And another point to consider about this leader as you want to call him. He has changed his political position on just about every fundamental value to which he ascribed when he first entered into politics to become a player at the national level of politics. Particularly look at his position on abortion and the second amendment. Are these the qualities you want in a leader?

And what about his vote to support the Gulf War under the George H. W. Bush administration? He sold his vote to the side that offered him the most Prime Time air time which happened to be the Republicans. This you want for a leader?

Originally posted by Thumper
I would expect Gov. Bush to do the same thing if the situation were reversed. Indeed I would lose some respect for a candidate who just gives up.

Perhaps you would expect the same of Bush. I would not. There is a chasm of difference between the two men. One has a demonstrated sense of honor, respectability, honesty and integrity (and it AIN'T Algore, hint). Perhaps this has not been consistent throughout his lifetime, but through this campaign and election it has.

Originally posted by Thumper
This isn't "bad" for the country. It is Constitutional evolution at work. The possibility of this present situation happening has always existed, although nobody would have believed it actually occuring.

I have no clue what Constitutional evolution is since it is a document, a blueprint for government, not a living entity.

As for this being good for the country, I wonder at your perception there as well. Algore and his merry band of thieves (including fellow comrades in arms in Congress) continue their blatantly hypocritical public speeches about "tone down the rhetoric". Yet they are the ones who have been responsible for the vast majority of the rhetoric that they have carefully chosen and delivered with the certain intent of attempting to poison the well so to speak for a for a Bush Presidency. Now that they are almost certainly faced with the dilemma of having lost the election and not being able to steal it, they are now intent on making it impossible or as nearly so as they can for Bush to have an effective presidency.

As far as potential, there is always potential for criminal behavior. To expect it as a normal part of your everyday life is irrational. However, what has happened in this post-election fiasco is beyond the province of law. Courts are constrained to interpret law when it is not clear. They have no legitimate power to create law as the judges in the Florida courts have been doing. I suggest reading the article from the Wall Street Journal for some insight into what the Florida courts were doing. I'm not making this stuff up as I go along. I have read the Constitution. I also read Judge Wells dissenting opinion (all 20 pages) which is a scathing rebuke of the four judges who essentially told the U. S. Supreme Court, "Fuck off. If we want to make our own laws, what can you do about it?" Well, I think Tomorrow morning, they're going to find out.

But you see this as good for the country? I can't wait for that explanation. If you watch and listen, who is always leading the parade with lies, character assassination, blackmail and any other means of gaining and holding power? Is it the Republicans or the Democrats?

Which party passed numerous laws but exempted member of Congress from being subject to those laws? Which party repealed that provision of the laws?

Now which of these two parties do you perceive as more likely to take actions with the best interest of America at heart?