On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:14 AM, JW <[email protected]> wrote: > > ...Most of the time, the difference in recorded votes is greater > > than this inherent human error; but once in a while the the recorded vote > > is closer than the human error rate, and when that happens, it is > > meaningless to ask who *really* got more votes, Gore or Bush? ... > > I disagree. Strongly. > > (As with officiating, we'll assume that the elections process is honest > for the purpose of this discussion.) > > In 2000 Florida, we saw confusing butterfly ballots and problems with > chads. On the other hand, I used the same sort of voting machine I'd been > using for decades, where it was clear whose lever I was pulling, and where > the count was mechanical. With the current computer interfaces, it's > obvious who you're voting for, and the counting is straightforward. So > getting those results and adding them together is a simple enough process, > whether we're talking about the race for president or dogcatcher. If > there's any cloud of uncertainty, it's not because of the technology. >
So, my point is not that it is impossible to hold honest or accurate elections - just that it is impossible to get an accurate count of every actual vote cast among tens of millions, particularly when these are cast in so many different counties and precincts under so many different rules. If the eye of God knows that Gore actually received 2,912,253 votes in Florida in 2000 and Bush *only* 2,912,252, it would not be reasonable or even possible to expect that so many flawed humans could detect such a small difference - invariably, no matter how many recounts we did, there would be some error. If the final count gives Bush 2,912,790, that 538 vote difference is reasonably part of the inevitable messiness of human experience. Now in this case, there are procedures for doing recounts, and they were triggered. They were not fully completed, and I do think that was a mistake - but the "umpires" on the field - the Supreme Court - made a call, and as flawed as I might think it was, I accept it. I don't accept it just because I am a good American and respect the highest court in the land, but because watching that play out it became clear to me that even if a full and complete recount put Gore ahead by 500 votes, I could not in good conscience honestly claim that it was the 100% accurate result. That race was closer than the human capacity for accurately counting that many ballots. The winner basically was the one who belonged to the party that had won the previous state Governor's election. Trust me, I doubt anyone on this list wanted Al Gore to win that election more than I did, or is more critical of the bogus legal reasoning used in the majority SCOTUS decision, which was a scandal. But I admit that I would not trust myself to recount (or even supervise a recount) of the 6 million ballots and come up with a result that I could honestly claim was more accurate than anyone else's. Having it decided by whoever won the last Governor's election is probably not the worst solution. We have to accept that there are limits to the accuracy of our perception. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
