Andrea Leistra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, John D. Giorgis wrote:
>
> > In my humble opinion, even with the evidence from West Palm Beach, a
> > revote would be disastrous for the country, and should be absolutely
> > out of the question. The West Palm Beach vote is a mistake, but I
> > don't know what can be done in the best interest of democracy.
>
> I think a do-over in that county is probably the best option. Far
> from ideal, but I don't think there is anything ideal that we can do.
Can we enumerate the choices?
1. Count the votes as they are recorded
2. Disqualify that county's votes entirely
3. Do-over - original votes trashed, everyone in the county gets to
revote
4. Allow mistakes to be fixed (e.g. swear before a judge)
Any others?
(4) is completely impossible in a secret ballot - anyone could claim to
have made a mistake even if they hadn't and "convert" a legitimate vote
for the other guy.
(2) would be an outrage in a democracy (at least, if I'm using the
phrase as John has taught me to) - denying a group of individuals their
vote. Side question - who would win if this happened?
(3) allows everyone to change their vote as they see fit (Side question:
do we also allow only those who voted previously to revote?). This
places enormous pressure on the voters; for example, those who voted
Nader or Buchanan know that they will not get the 5% necessary for
federal matching funds in 2004, so would they alter their vote?
(1) might therefore be the least-worst choice - accepting that mistakes
are made in the system but that a reasonable effort was made by the
government and that the other choices bias the voting system more than
remaining with the results as they stand. Should this muckup have
happened in any other state this election (e.g. where an irregularity in
one county would not potentially decide the entire outcome vote), I find
it hard to believe that anything other than (1) would be considered.
Reasonably, then we should not apply a different standard to this
particular ballot than to any others.
Personally, though, I'd like to see (3) just because it most closely
approximates one of the other voting schemas (run-off, Approval or Borda
vs. simple Plurality) and the press analysis would focus on what we'd
call the game theory of voting. It'd be a good learning experience for
the American public to be exposed to alternate voting techniques and
practices.
Joshua
