Here's a piece of trivia: as far as I know, the first to begin an independent recount of the whole state of Florida was Larry Klayman's Judicial Watch, the conservative legal organization that has been responsible for many of Clinton's legal woes.

While Jesse Jackson, the Miami Herald and several others have said that they were planning an independent recount, Klayman has already been doing one. He's finished several counties, and complains that he's met with severe obstructionism from BOTH sides (ex., he accuses the Republicans of pulling a "stunt" to prevent him from counting Broward County here).

Others have postulated the effect of these recounts on public opinion. I don't think it will have much of an impact, myself, because each of these counts (there will be more than one; plan on it!) will produce a different result.

We're back to the old question of standards: WHICH "undervote" or "overvote" ballots, if any, should be counted? Will Jackson count them all? Will Klayman count *any* of them? Who knows?

Then there's the problem that many of these ballots have been handled so much that they've deteriorated -- especially in the Democratic counties that Gore targeted.

I am of the convinced opinion that we'll never really know what the actual vote count was in Florida, and anyone who's hoping that these "independent" recounts will shed some light on the matter are grasping at straws.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Answers

We agree! now don't all this just make you feel fuzzy all over? hehehe

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

The bigger question is why would Jesse Jackson even have access to these votes? Would he be functioning in some official capacity? The very thought that he would be allowed to get his hands on the ballots is laughable. He has no authority or assigned power that I am aware of and now that we have new blood on Capital Hill the ‘Reverend’ will discover that he is just another citizen.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Barry, Florida has one of the most generous Freedom of Information laws on the books.

As a citizen, he has EVERY RIGHT to inspect those votes; so do you, so do I.

This is now the second time I've seen you toss about a thinly- veiled "threat" against Jackson. Care to be a little more specific?

One thing you either haven't taken into account, or don't WANT to take into account is this: The absolute, positive LAST THING the GOP wants to do is piss off the entire African-American population.

If the GOP wants to accomplish ANYTHING in the next two years, they're going to need the cooperation of EVERYONE -- not just White- Bread America.

And frankly, they aren't off to such a great start.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Thinly veiled my ass. Jesse Jackson is the worst example of racial pimping to ever come down the pike and he should be held accountable for his constant threats of civil unrest. The AA population should pick their spokesmen more carefully. BTW, the blacks in this country are perpetually pissed off and need no help from the GOP. Don’t bother retorting with the standard racial tags. Facts are still facts.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Also, those Florida ballots have been manhandled so many times there won’t be ANY chads left on the cards. That should make for some interesting interpretations of voter intent.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Actually, as I understand the Florida law, no one aside from the election officials (whatever you call those people) can handle the ballots. IOW, if the Miami Herald is granted counting rights, what's going to happen is that the election official(s) will physically hold up each and every ballot so that the representative from the Herald can inspect them. At no time, however, is that rep allowed to TOUCH them in any way.

But that brings me to another question. Near as I can tell, all the ballots have been machine-counted twice (the original count, and then the automatic machine re-count mandated by the closeness of the first count). Three counties (of Gore's choosing) were manually re- counted. Miami-Dade was partially manually re-counted before they were "interrupted".

So how do you figure these ballots have been "manhandled so many times"?

As to Jackson, well, we disagree there. I still have a ton of respect for the guy; probably always will. I think some people do whine just for the sake of whining, but I don't think you can place the MAJORITY of the African-American community in that category. IMO.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

OK Patricia, I’ll offer the same white flag as I did to your SO. I don’t want to nit-pick so lets just say we each have a different view of the ongoing events. Due to the nature of this epic struggle, the ‘line in the sand’ if you will has become a ravine. I’m confident that the majority of the major political players will find a way to come together and put this moment of history behind us. It behooves us common folk to do like wise. Have yourself a super weekend!

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

If black people are perpetually pissed, it's certainly not without good reason. The bad old days of Jim Crow and open discrimination ended quite recently. Heck, in Alabama, there was a concerted effort to keep the state's anti-miscegenation laws during the last election. No, the law isn't constitutional and hasn't been enforced since the 60's, but it's a big slap in the face to blacks (and pretty much everyone else) that there was such a concerted effort to keep the law on the books.

Like the song says, "old times there are not forgotten,"

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Tarzan,

I live in Alabama and didn't see a "concerted effort" to keep that law on the books; that's a wee bit of a stretch on your part.

I have no doubt that some ultra-fundie religious types in the sticks probably nattered to their congregations about keeping "Ham separate from Japteth" (or some equivalent nonsense), but most Alabamans (including I) voted to get rid of that antiquated law with no further comment or ceremony.

I didn't even know the blamed law was on the books; the election was the first I'd heard of it!

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Stephen:

I seriously considered voting to keep it, just to see what would happen. But I ended up voting against it just like everyone else. I didn't see any "concerted effort" either. In fact, I didn't see any mention of it until I read it on the ballot. Maybe the olden days are being forgotten after all.

Except (and it's a big exception) inter-racial marriages face some tough social static in Alabama. People react to these things still.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Just a tiny comment. The last thing a minority person in this, their country needs is to be convinced that the brass ring of full participation as an individual is out of reach...for any reason. This is what galls about Jackson. Under the guise of inspiring to confront racial inequity he winds up promoting it. If he was stupid enough not to see the damage he causes I'd forgive him.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

The good ‘Reverend’ has become an industry unto himself and is extremely wealthy. I doubt if hauls too many of his people over to the crib and you have to wonder how much of the cash flow he generates ever sees the ‘streets’. When I see or hear Jesse the word that always comes to mind is ‘Sanctimonious’. Here’s a guy making ARod kind of money and he can’t even touch good heat.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Heat ain't a problem if you're your own ump. Just call 'em like you want 'em.

I don't give a shit about his money. The part that bothers me is deluding good Americans out of their chance. We're born equal but then we're pretty much on our own. Jesse ain't helping our black bros.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Then there's the problem that many of these ballots have been handled so much that they've deteriorated

That is not true. There was a time when those things were sent through the US Mail for the purpose of billing. The ballots are punched in such a way that the chads will stay intact unless there is a concerted effort to dislodge them. As was seen by the ballots that had pin holes in them instead of the chad being dislodged, explained by chads having filled up the cavity so the chads could not be pushed through and the pressure of the voter punched a hole through the chad with the tip of the stylus itself.

I've worked with those type of computer cards for decades and have handled ones that were 15-20 years old which had been handled hundreds of times. The way they are stored and stacked prevents them from becoming bent or damaged, much the same way a deck of cards behave. The ballots were not bent or mangled during the recounts, there is visual proof of this as every count was documented on videotape.

There were claims repeated endlessly of mishandling of the cards, but there never have been specific incidences named.

The chads are flush with the rest of the cards and will not dislodge unless something is done to them to move them out of position. They do NOT just fall out for no reason, even if they go through the machines a hundred times.

There has to be a reason for chads to have fallen from the cards when they were being counted or during machine re-counts. The only reason would be that one or more of the corners had been broken, or the chad had been punched hard enough that the simple corners were weakened and the chad was indented enough that it would catch on the machine (in a machine count) or by simple movement against another card.

In other words, unless there was a concerted effort to dislodge a chad, they can not just "fall out". They were made that way on purpose, to prevent what people are claiming is happening.

Funny that no chads are "accidently" falling out of the ballots in the areas where no voting was done.

Stephen, I'm disappointed that you aren't looking at the different areas in the campaign and situation in Florida and admitting that at least some of the things that were done by the republicans and or Bush camp are not strait forward and honest.

In admitting a wrongdoing or case that is questionable, you tend to justify it by saying the same thing was or would have been done by the "other side".

The bias others show in their insistence that Gore constantly lied shows that even when given proof, they choose to believe the spin over facts.

The fact that the republicans continued to snidely refer to Al Gore as saying he "invented the internet", after it was disclosed that he had indeed not said that, that it was a media person who had exaggerated. This was widely reported and there is no way that they could not have known the details of the how the rumor was started, yet they continued, Bush especially, to refer to this as proof of Gore being a liar. Who then was the real liar? Another example used to "prove" he chronically lied has to do with him naming the wrong person from FEMA that he was with down in Texas. He had in fact been with the one he named, but on a different occasion, and had mixed up who he was on which trip. An honest mistake, one anyone who is human could make. You know, like George W Bush who publicly snidely repeated over and over that "they" (Gore and the republicans) thought social security is a federal program. Also ignored is his inability to distinguish between one black person and another, even Colen Powel who he plans to add to his cabinet. Yet, Stephen, you do not hesitate to point out how those of us who are not Bush supporters are biased and dishonest in our views, but can you honestly say that you are totally honest with your perceptions of the republican and Bush actions you have witnessed? I feel the reason there is such a strong divide between camps is that the actions of Bush and Co. are not commonly reported, where there has been an organized effort of the republicans and especially the bush campaigners to report and publicize every tiny error or mistake made by Al Gore. Can you honestly tell me you know the facts behind the campaign irregularities that Gore was supposed to have been involved in at the Buddhist Temple? Or do you, like everyone else just accept the "spin" that has been broadcast about it? The republicans orchestrated a smear campaign against Al Gore. This is not my opinion, they actually bragged about it and explained it in detail on TV and in the print media. It bothers me to see blatant, and even subtle misdeeds go uninvestigated and swept under the rug. It really worries me that so many people just accept what they are told without even considering the possibility that they are being manipulated into believing something that is not true. As in the case of Al Gore, when his words were twisted and his actions interpreted in a negative slant, the constant repetition makes people believe them. And this was the intention of of doing it. Grab a book on CIA methods and you might just recognize a few that have been used in the past year, or eight.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Patricia: >> Near as I can tell, all the ballots have been machine-counted twice (the original count, and then the automatic machine re-count mandated by the closeness of the first count). <<

This is now admitted to be false by Florida elections officials: Five Florida counties Never Recounted Ballots on Nov. 8.

This admission throws a rather new light on Jim Baker's claims about how Florida's vote was counted and recounted "five or six times".

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Precisely so, Brian. Moreover, counties were allowed to present the returns from the original count, if doing so disadvantaged Gore.

Since the Republican spin machine now has better things to do, these matters will now get the public attention they should have had, but didn't get, during the failed attempt to COUNT THE VOTE! And we are going to see a lot of moderate Republicans wandering around saying "I didn't know they did that". "Republican officials shouldn't act that way". And similar mea culpas.

Bit late for that.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

I hope you're right, Paul. I've grown quite tired of pointing to FACTS and having them thrown in my face as SPIN.

We shall see who really SPUN this election.

I hope.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Paul:

[counties were allowed to present the returns from the original count, if doing so disadvantaged Gore.]

Now wait a minute. First we are told that these counties did NO RECOUNTING. NOW you say they were "allowed" to present original returns IF they favored Bush. But if they did no recount, HOW did they know whom a recount would have favored? Why wouldn't they have been like the special Gore recount counties, discovering more Bush votes the second time?

Your claim that, in the absence of ANY data, we "know" these non- recounts disadvantaged Gore, is a statement of FAITH. What else can it be, without a trace of data? On what basis can you possibly conclude that a recount would have found more Gore votes? This sounds like if they recounted they were cheating (because they were Republican counties), but if they did NOT recount they were also cheating!

So we're back to the mantra that "Gore got more votes", and the "proof" is that any other result is favoritism, whether they counted or not! Remember how y2k was justified? We were hosed, and the "proof" was that anyone who said otherwise was a liar by definition!

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Flint go to the websites of those named originally here. Two of them have results one can work with to maybe answer your inquiry. The two I found results for, indicate there were 420 or so ballots lacking a vote for Prez. The two counties in question went for Gore.

I think it logical to assume Gore "and" GW would have picked up votes if these undervote ballots would have been looked at.

Whole point is this election demanded a closer look. In the above 5 it is not even debatable the majority of these ballots would have been deemed to be what they were,,,votes for none-of-the-above. But without a place one could have indicated that sentiment, and being how damn close this was and the methods used not precise enough in said, I think it the right move to have a look.

Many feel as they do, and I agree, because in these claimed 18 counties alone, even using the optical systems, Gore may have had enough votes left uncounted to become President. I think it a major stretch to think Gore would not have found the 538 needed to win in the 3 counties diputed who used the Votomatic systems.

I think the standard argument against fishing expeditions based on the assumption the manual recounts involved ALL the ballots bogus. I do not believe this is what the calls for manual counts called for, and neither did the FSC. Clouding the issue is what I have called the PalmReader Meme. Which at its roots has the notion all the ballots are going to be held up to the light for interpretation, this is NOT what I believe would have happened, or allowed to have happened.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Doc:

The fundamental problem is that the error rate of our voting techniques exceeds the vote difference between the candidates. There are enough genuinely ambiguous ballots to swing the election one way or the other, depending on WHO arbitrarily resolves this ambiguity. And ANY method of resolution, however reasonable it may sound, is arbitrary because the data simply aren't there.

For some of us, this means the "winner" cannot be knowable, in terms of the intent of all the voters. We simply lack the data. For others, this means we should *assume* that we can fabricate data that simply don't exist by modifying our counting method!

And sure enough, we find party workers most willing to "interpret" data where it's lacking, in favor of their preferred candidate. We watched this live and in person. This process is not trustworthy.

Furthermore, for the "change the rules and see if we can change the winner" crowd, there is no avoiding the implication that we simply lack ANY voting technology that can be trusted with a close election. Is this really what we want? I am sincerely concerned about the precedent that any loser of a very close election can go to court and GET a manual recount SOLELY on the grounds that the election was close, so if MY guys can win enough recount arguments, then maybe I will win after all.

Yes, after a LOT of court battles, we might replace one winner with another for no better reason than we flipped the coin again. But I don't think that's what we're after either.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Sorry I am not buying what you are selling. I find it the height of irony that many who not a year ago would trust a pc, are now placing their trust in historically inaccurate vote tabulating machines. I also find it simply amazing a tech guy like yourself also placing aside the obvious. This ain't logic, it is plain old bias.

Who says we can't decipher ambiguous ballots? YOU?

Take these 5 to 18 counties using the optical systems. Is there a standard as to how much ink one has to apply to the box? and if done insufficiently will not be read as a vote? Could maybe a pair of human eyeballs determine ink there but not read? I think absolutely they could and should be given that chance. To not do so IS an violation of Equal Protection and Due Process of the system to treat all fairly using less than perfect methods.

What system was in place say a week ago to even verify 5 to 18 counties even actually did their required recounts? You talk about faith, well there it is for ya.

At some point SIR, you must admit this whole thing ridiculous. Folks were screwed royally. Little if anything was really done to correct the blatant incompetency and inaccuracy inherent.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Doc Droolie:

I claim there isn't sufficient data there to correctly decipher the voter's intent on enough ballots to swing the election. It doesn't take many when the election is this close.

You postulate a ballot that's pretty obvious and claim I can't tell. This is misleading. MOST of them are pretty obvious. There were an estimated 40,000 undervotes minimum. There is also the possibility that the machines may have misinterpreted overvotes or ballots they counted as legal votes as well. Who knows what mistakes the machines may have made?

And if 99% of the undervotes ALONE can be agreed on by all parties as being clear, this STILL leaves enough to swing the election. I'm not claiming we can't decipher ANY ballots, and I'm not claiming that ALL undervotes are ambiguous. I'm saying if 1% of the undervotes are ambiguous, then the winner can never be known. And unless we manually examine ALL votes to see what OTHER errors the machines may have made, the results will also never be known.

You seem to be claiming that if ONE ballot is unambiguous, then ALL of them are, and we could see just from watching the convassers that this was not the case. Easily more than 1% of these ballots generated sincere differences of opinion. And that's the problem.

(By the way, an ambiguous ballot is one that cannot be definitively determined. I'm citing a dictionary definition, not making a biased claim.)

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Flint: >> The fundamental problem is that the error rate of our voting techniques exceeds the vote difference between the candidates. There are enough genuinely ambiguous ballots to swing the election one way or the other, depending on WHO arbitrarily resolves this ambiguity. <<

Flint, I have seen you postulate two fairly distinct arguments:

One is that the error rate for hand-counting would be no better than the error rate for machine counting. For example, if a machine can count votes with an error rate of 0.43%, you scoff at the idea that a committee of humans could improve on this rate. You have never provided any proof for this position. As such, we have only your word that this is true. Why should I believe you? Have you tested this assumption? Have you measured it? If you haven't then you are peddling an article of FAITH just as much as anyone else - an action you seem to scorn in others.

The second (and perhaps more telling) argument is that whatever standard one sets for dividing the ballots where voter intent is discernable from ballots where no intent is discernable, the standard one adopts is "arbitrary" and therefore (you imply) meaningless. For example, using the "one corner detached", "two corners detached", "three corners detached", or "daylight visible" standards for whether a chad registers intent might all produce different results.

You argue that because this adoption of any counting standard is "arbitrary" the results are equally arbitrary.

So how do you answer the argument that every standard for discerning intent, whether enforced by machine or by law, is arbitrary, making the results of every close election arbitrary?

For example, using an optical scanner ballot (just to avoid those nasty chads) there clearly must be a cut-off point at which a No. 2 pencil mark fails to register "properly" with the scanner - either it doesn't cover a sufficient percentage of the marking area (56% is OK, but 55% isn't!), or the voter failed to bear down so that the mark is not dark enough (but a further .01 foot-pound would have turned the trick!), or the voter slopped over and marked some area outside the official marking area (a 10% overrun is OK - but 10.7% is disqualified).

All of these mismarked ballots will "arbitrarily" register a vote or fail to register one accoridng to the standard set by the scanning machine. So, why should we not consider every close election to be an arbitrary coin flip?

Or how about the question that one scanner might pass on a ballot where 55% of the marking area was marked, but another machine will not? The second machine always needs 56% marked! Doesn't this violate the "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment?

Once it is conceded that any and every standard for registering a vote is arbitrary, then this argument loses meaning. A standard is a standard is a standard. If a standard is well enough defined to be followed correctly, then its arbitrariness is a moot point.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Brian:

[So how do you answer the argument that every standard for discerning intent, whether enforced by machine or by law, is arbitrary, making the results of every close election arbitrary?]

Bingo! By Jove, he's got it! It is *always* possible for *any* election to be closer than any currently used voting technique can resolve. At the extreme, we have the case of local elections where only a few votes are cast resulting in a flat tie -- like 50 votes apiece, with no ambiguity in any of these ballots. Do we flip a coin in that case? Who "won"?

As the number of votes cast grows, the number of indeterminate votes grows, as does the opportunity for mistake, fraud, misunderstanding, mechanical failure, or sheer perversity. This inevitably creates a certain amount of "slop" (as witness the debate as to the impact of the police who set up a vehicle inspection checkpoint 1 1/2 miles from a Tallahassee polling place. Did this really discourage selected voters from participating, considering that *everyone* was stopped and twice as many whites as blacks were cited? Can there be a definitive answer to this question?)

[So, why should we not consider every close election to be an arbitrary coin flip?]

We should, because it is. Our tools simply cannot resolve what they cannot resolve. In these cases, recounting by different methods may produce a different "winner", but the actual intent of enough voters is not knowable, so we've simply switched guesses.

[If a standard is well enough defined to be followed correctly, then its arbitrariness is a moot point.]

Exactly! If our standard is "whatever the machines say", then that's our standard, unless we can actually demonstrate mechanical failure or clear fraud. If our standard is "two corners broken", then we should not EVER count by machines, because these might inadvertently rip some corners. Counting this way may be slow and expensive, but at least this is a standard specific enough to be followed consistently.

And so (by my reading) we agree that one should NOT decide to switch standards AFTER the election simply because it was close, especially when the new "standard" varies from place to place. The loser of an election so close it defies our ability to resolve has LOST the election. Perhaps deservedly so, perhaps by bad luck, but we simply cannot know which. And this should be agreed ahead of time, and no reneging and running to the courts when you lose a very close one.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Reading your last paragraph, I derive the idea that you would never allow a recount of an election under any circumstances. Not by machine. Not by hand. Not ever. Nor would you allow any loser to challenge the outcome of an election in court. Ever.

If I am wrong in this - what circumstances do you think could possibly permit a recount? What about a court challenge?

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Brian:

Well, I'm trying to define "fishing expedition" recounts, done when the initial count puts the difference between candidates inside the known error rate of the method. So I've been trying to say that *in this case*, our method is not capable of resolving the result any closer than it has already. If a voting method has been demonstrated to have a known error rate of X%, and the difference between candidates is LESS than X%, this should not *in and of itself* be grounds for a recount.

But this is NOT to say the threshhold for a legal challenge is infinitely high. We are back to something similar to Judge Sauls' distinction between the mere possibility that a recount will reverse the results (which by my reasoning is near 50/50 for any given recount in the case of a statistical tie), and the indication that something went clearly wrong.

This means specifics. I'd personally ignore "somebody somewhere may have cheated", but I'd go after "THIS guy did THIS, which is illegal." Similarly, if a machine has broken, it should be clearly demonstrable, not "maybe swinging chad might have inadvertently blocked more photocells for me than for my opponent." I'd like a recount to require demonstration of a clear and present irregularity, kind of like the requirements for getting a search warrant. You'd have to specify what went wrong, and how your allegation can be demonstrated to be clearly true or false.

In this present case, I genuinely feel no such threshhold was reached. All I've seen is a bunch of poorly supported maybe's. MAYBE the butterfly ballot confused some people NONE of whom asked for help when they voted. MAYBE a roadblock intimidated some people, though no specific person complained at the time. MAYBE some voting machines didn't permit punching a full hole through a ballot, though NOBODY raised this issue at the time of voting and no such machine has been found since.

In reality, these were window dressing. Gore had lost by an eyelash, and concocted a statistical stunt almost sure to regain him that eyelash just at random. There was no fraud, failure, mistake, or other appropriately challengeable irregularity, nor was any ever claimed. This was strictly a "nothing to lose" recount without any visible means of support other than the sincere desire of about half the country to see the initial results reversed. In my eyes, there's no question that the courts at ALL levels were politicized by this, and every judge decided every case just as s/he had voted in the election. This is bad for everyone, I believe.

As a footnote, I don't mean to imply that such challenges should only be applied to close elections. If someone is caught dumping dumpsters full of ballots into the bayou, this calls for remedy even if the election wasn't close. A recount remains a remedy for a demonstrated error legally defined before the election.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000