Jim asked:
> I keep hearing that they (the voting commission) are concerned
> about "19,000
> double-punched ballots", as if no one has ever heard of statistics! Is
> 19,000 a statistially significant number? Is it a _statistically
> significant_ difference from the double-punch outcomes in other counties?
> Using other ballots? In previous elections in the same county?
> Apparently
> no one is doing the math! At least we know for sure that no one is
> REPORTING the math. Not that I'm hearing.
For a point of comparison, let's look at the 1996 election. Apparently,
there were 14,000 invalidated ballots in Palm Beach County that year. That
includes over-voting (double-punch) and under-voting (no punch). Election
officials state that under-voting is typically more prevalent than
over-voting. So let's say that half the invalidated 1996 ballots were
over-voted. That means we jumped from 7,000 double-punched ballots in 1996
to 19,000 in 2000. Sound significant.
What are my sources for these numbers? Hell, I don't know. Just stuff I've
seen on CNN or MSBNC or the New York Times or whatever.
> It sounds to me, and I've been keeping up as I said, that THESE
> THREE PEOPLE
> DECIDED ON THEIR OWN that 19,000 was too much. Then they decided ON THEIR
> OWN what to do about it- recount.
No, they did a partial hand-recount at the request of the Gore campaign, as
provided for in Florida law. It wasn't arbitrary.
My final take is that all the recounts of these crappy Palm Beach ballots
will never undo the injustice of the ballot design itself. Putting Pat
Buchanan second on the ballot, when the law states and every experienced
voter expects that the two major parties will be first, is a fatal flaw that
justifies a re-vote. I'm not saying a re-vote would be prudent, I'm saying
it would be justified.
Deb Messling
"I like cats. They give the home a heartbeat." ~Joni Mitchell
