Re: CHAT (POLITICS!!!): Putting the duh in Florida

Well the world is learning the word "chad."

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christophe Grandsire" <christophe.grandsire@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: CHAT (POLITICS!!!): Putting the duh in Florida


> En réponse à Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>:
>
> >
> > Personally, I doubt we'll ever know who genuinely won.
The historians will have the last word. All
the ballots and records should be preserved,
not discarded.

I would guess that the "winner" will want
them destroyed. But even if they are destroyed,
there will probably arise a consensus among
historians. Hope it is not contrary to the result
that gives us the next President. (We had a
case of that over a hundred years back when
Tilden was surely elected, but did not get in.)

> > I mean, if the
> > machines had even a .05% margin of error, that would translate into a
> > 3000-vote margin, and no one's ever done any studies to figure out how
> > accurate the machines are.
There are two sets of machines. One is a little
device in which the ballot is inserted for punching.
It might not work well if the stylus is short, bent,
etc. or if the angle of pushing (say from a wheel-
chair) is not so good. Or if there is a lot of chad
in the device from earlier voters. My son voted
recently (in California) and noticed there were
no holes in the ballot, so he asked for and got
a new stylus. That one was a bit longer and
made holes.

Then there are the machines that count the
punched cards. These are what have about
a  0.05% error.

> Well, that post gives me the opportunity of asking a question about all
this. I
> know it's way off-topic, but it's only a genuine question from a French
point of
> view. Well, if I understood correctly, not only the machines didn't count
votes
> correctly, but also the vote ballots themselves were ambiguous and the
whole
> thing went wrong in some counties of Florida.
We value local rule, so ballot shapes forms and
systems vary greatly in differing jurisdictions.
There are acual "voting machines" in some areas,
some with arms that you pull, etc. These make
a noise (or used to) and there were complaints
that a person outside the booth could hear if
the voter split his or her vote among various
candidates -- or chose a straight "party ticket."

In all, localization and decentralization makes
it less likely that the party in power nationally
could give itself any advantage. But it leads to
things being done "on the cheap" since the
costs are born locally too.

> So, my question is: instead of
> endlessly counting and recounting ballots, which each time gives a
different
> result, and is subject of all those political and judiciary problems, why
didn't
> the authorities of the counties where the problems appeared consider
simply that
> the vote process had been irregular, and that they would organize a new
voting
> day? If they had done that as soon as the first week, by now the elections
could
> have been done again and the results (this time undebatable) would be
known by
> now and not subject to those endless complains.
Yes, we may have to have such a system.
Unless the Supreme Court somehow allows
it, VERY unlikely, we don't have one now.

> This already happened in some
> places in France for MP elections, and the problems were solved simply
this way.
>
> Well, don't take me wrong. I'm just asking why this seems not to be even a
> possibility. Is there a constitutional or legal reason why they cannot
even
> propose such a solution?            Christophe.
The date of the election is set. (Unlike the
date of primaries, which may be easily varied
by the states.)

Basically, we have one of the oldest written
constitutions, surely the oldest still in use.
In many ways, it is not well designed for
present conditions. Changes only come about
AFTER the problem is manifest.