Drake Bradley wrote:
> The point of having the voter select "No vote" is so that such decisions
can
> be distinguished from ones in which a hole *is* punched, but the machine
> failes to detect it (due to the chad sticking, etc.).
Assuming that the "No Vote" hole is punched out, right?! Of course, if it
isn't there's always the pregnant chad, hanging chad, drooling chad,
tumescent chad ...
uh, wait a second........ :>)
reg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Drake Bradley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: No vote option
>
>
> dennis roberts wrote:
>
> > why should a no vote option cause a ballot to be rejected? is there a
law
> > that says IF you vote, you have to vote for each and every category on
the
> > ballot?
>
> I didn't suggest that. If the voter selects "No vote" that is just fine --
no
> vote is tallied for that office, but the rest of the votes (for other
> candidate running for other offices) are tallied as usual.
>
> The point of having the voter select "No vote" is so that such decisions
can
> be distinguished from ones in which a hole *is* punched, but the machine
> failes to detect it (due to the chad sticking, etc.).
>
> People have the right not to vote for certain offices if they wish -- we
just
> want to make sure that is what they are doing, and not that they tried to
> vote but it didn't register electronically for some reason.
>
> Drake Bradley
>
>
>
> =================================================================
> Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
> the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
> http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
> =================================================================
>
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
