"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> What most surprises me though, is why this skepticism and fear of machines?
> Why this inherent assumption that only *humans* can accurately count a
> ballot? I actually happen to like machine counts because they are fast,
> efficient, and completely unbiased. A uniform standard is applied to every
> single ballot, *without* question. Why is this such a bad way of
> ascertaining the results?
A machine can only use the criteria that it was designed to use. If
those criteria have a bias (intentional or unintentional) then the
count will be biased even though the machine is applying a uniform
standard. Humans can 'reprogram' themselves to eliminate a bias once
it is discerned. (Whether they will is a separate question.)
In the case of the punchcard ballots the 'chads' may or may not be
partially attached or even fully attached - but the person who voted
on that particular ballot may have done everything correctly except
for making certain that the 'chads' were completely removed. I've used
such a ballot on several occasions and was never instructed to make
sure that there was no 'chad' remaining on the ballot so it would seem
that a 'hanging chad', or even a 'pregnant chad' would not be a
legitimate criteria for counting a vote that a human would be able to
perceive as having been cast.
Since it is supposedly possible that additional handling (by machine
or humans) might inadvertently detach a 'chad' that the voter did not
intend to have detached it is not clear which is _actually_ the best
approach in this election - but in my opinion it is quite clear that
any voting method in which additional recounting can _introduce_ error
should never be used again. Additionally since there is a 'skepticism
and fear of machines' - whether justified or not - any voting method
that is used should either be so demonstrably perfect that a
hand-count is never needed, or something that is amenable to being
counted by hand without introducing bias.
cheers,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
