Comments on: Comments on 6759

Post number 6759

iceberg273 — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:28:17 -0800

Hanging a dead chad . . . The Miami Herald has completed the recount of undervotes from all 67 counties in Florida. The findings? The Herald says it best: . . . under almost all scenarios, Bush still would have won. Indeed, in one of the great ironies of the bitter 2000 election, Bush's lead would have vanished only if the recount had been conducted under severely restrictive standards advocated by some Republicans. Go figure.

By: Su

Su — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:33:09 -0800

Are we still talking about this?

By: a3matrix

a3matrix — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:37:21 -0800

I agree, let it go. See you in 4 years. Then we shall see if all the voting inconsistencies are straightened out.

By: iceberg273

iceberg273 — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:08:31 -0800

Are we still talking about this? I agree, let it go. See you in 4 years. Then we shall see if all the voting inconsistencies are straightened out.
So you don't think that analyses like this can help to determine how the system broke down and how to proceed with these kind of controversies should they arise again? I think that research like this can tell us a lot about how not to conduct an election - especially about interesting things in human factors like what people do in the voting booth and the results of bad design (somewhat unrelated link). Now is a good time to start planning for 4 years from now (actually, 2 years for some seats in the house and senate) and these studies are probably giving us the clearest picture that we've ever had of what goes on in a polling booth. I think we got to the Florida recount problem because we've never really paid attention to how people behave while voting.
The preamble to the longest Mefi thread ever says it best (in a slightly different context): Is anyone holding a gun to your head [and] making you read anything on the web?

By: hc

hc — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:47:58 -0800

Wait a tick. Not to sound like a "Republican," but if these results showed Gore to be the winner (everyone say it with me) wouldn't we all be up in arms talking about it! The answer is: you bet we would! There would be a discussion longer than a LA traffic jam about "Bush our Selected President" or how "Jeb stole the election" or what have you. A good discussion is what MeFi is all about. And a good political discussion is even better. Why? Because we can't solve our nations problems here, but every one of us has an opportunity to work on the problem the minute we step away for our keyboards and engage the world around us. So, let's not be too quick to forget that national nightmare that was the 2000 election. Regardless of your vote, or how you feel about our President, we must remember the frustration we all felt when the election took more than a day to decide. Ultimately, we've got to encourage the lawmakers in D.C. (and Tallahassee) to pay for a better national voting system. Preferably it will run on Mac OS X or some flavor of Linux. ;-) I really don't care, just as long as it works.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 06:05:19 -0800

Wait until the NY Times-Post-WS Journal study is released. If it concludes the same, then "W" should be given some slack. But only then.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 06:15:12 -0800

Actually, I take that back. No slack. The article's conclusion is not based on a recount of all 67 Florida counties. NO SLACK. NONE WHATSOEVER!!!!!

By: anapestic

anapestic — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 06:51:53 -0800

Actually, the analysis showed that if improperly discarded ballots had been considered, Gore would have come out on top. Other analyses of overvotes also showed Gore picking up votes. I still say let it go. Different counters will use different standards. Nothing can be done to change the result. Fix it by '04. Or '02.

By: rcade

rcade — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 08:35:02 -0800

The media recount seems to be making two things clear:

Bush fought against the last-minute recount that would have given him a win without the Supreme Court forever tainting his legitimacy.
Gore fought against the statewide recount that would have given him a win consistent with his own "count every vote" rhetoric.

The Peter Principle is alive and well in the American two-party system.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:10:13 -0800

Of course, this didn't address overvotes at all, like the 19,000 that were mysteriously cast for Pat Buchanan in a Democratic-leaning district. While legal recounts may reach different conclusions, it's clear that were it not for that fluke concentration of confused voters, Gore would have easily carried the state. By the way, I think a3matrix was being sarcastic.

By: iceberg273

iceberg273 — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:20:01 -0800

Of course, this didn't address overvotes at all The National Opinion Research Center recount will include both over- and undervotes. It should be done soon. Then the statisticians will wade back into the fray (I'm taking a multivariate statistics course right now just in case :) ).
By the way, I think a3matrix was being sarcastic. Upon second reading, I think you may be right. In which case I apologize for being brusque. I hadn't eaten breakfast yet. If only we had Semantic/Pragmatic Markup!

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:31:52 -0800

The main purpose of not forgetting is to remind the "President" that he was not elected by a majority of voters, even in Florida, and that radical departures from previous policy are unacceptable.

By: aaron

aaron — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:12:06 -0800

He who is in the White House has the mandate, as the first two months of the Bush Administration has made quite clear.

Your claim is Barbra Streisand anyway if you were a Clinton fan, as he only received 43 percent of the vote in 1992, and only 49.24 percent in 1996.

By: bargle

bargle — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:16:47 -0800

I am fully confident that when all recounts are completed, it will become very clear that Pat Buchanan won the state of Florida and then this debate can die. =) The sad part of all this is that I seriously doubt that this giant fiasco will actually bring about any change in how future elections are handled.

By: retrofut

retrofut — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:39:19 -0800

He who is in the White House has the mandate, as the first two months of the Bush Administration has made quite clear. Nah, they're trying to get their Christmas list finished before Strom or Jesse dies and they lose control of the Senate. The repubs have made it clear that they're not interested in sharing power, as if that were a surprise. Of course, both major parties have subverted the Constitution and violate their oaths of office with impunity. They're fighting over who gets to have their hands on the wheel when the country rolls over that cliff ahead. ps: BS? Aaron, you need to go to the AA, you're showing addictive behavior. Do try to meditate on your contradictions.

By: retrofut

retrofut — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:42:36 -0800

By: retrofut

retrofut — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:44:16 -0800

By: retrofut

retrofut — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:46:16 -0800

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:56:43 -0800

How the hell did you manage to post the same comment 4 times?

By: retrofut

retrofut — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:57:42 -0800

AIIIEEE! Desperate apologies! The posting kept timing out (lovely error message there) and I kept hitting the "Wait" button. Apologies to all, I didn't mean to shout.

By: netbros

netbros — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:11:09 -0800

carpal tunnel.

By: RedundancyMan

RedundancyMan — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:12:41 -0800

Nothing to see or look at here, people. I now have the current situation under control and in hand.

By: rcade

rcade — Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:16:21 -0800

I don't mean to quibble, RedundancyMan, but shouldn't you post that message twice?

By: RedundancyMan

RedundancyMan — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:07:52 -0800

rcade, you are absolutely completely correct. I was contemplatively thinking this very thought as I fell asleep and dozed off last night in the Redundant-Underground-Cave.

By: RedundancyMan

RedundancyMan — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:07:54 -0800

rcade, you are absolutely completely correct. I was contemplatively thinking this very thought as I fell asleep and dozed off last night in the Redundant-Underground-Cave.

By: daveadams

daveadams — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:36:27 -0800

Redundancy is only funny if it's worded differently each time. I think you should have written the second post in a different way in order to increase the hilarity. Essentially, it would have been funnier if you'd changed the way you said the same thing repeatedly twice.

By: swanson

swanson — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:57:28 -0800

The original post that started this thread is, of course, incorrect. The Miami Herald has NOT completed a recount of undervotes from all 67 counties in Florida, as even a cursory glance at the article in question would show anyone willing to read it. Nobody has completed a recount of all Florida counties. The Herald has counted a big bunch of counties. Several remain uncounted. Tallying the counts, using reasonable standards, Gore has more votes in Florida than Bush, before, during, and after the Herald's count. Gore wins by a substantial margin, if you're using loose standards (http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181), and Gore wins by a smaller margin if you're using tighter standards (http://unknownnews.diaryland.com/returns.html). To anyone taking an honest look at the recounts, one thing is clear: Gore got more votes in Florida.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:30:56 -0800

But of course, by now, the media is so stupid, so superficial, and so Fox News Channel-y, that the true on the votes, especially the overvotes, may never get across to a large number of people. Or it will get across, but they are too stupid by now to care. Oy.

By: norm

norm — Fri, 06 Apr 2001 08:18:49 -0800

WHOOPS!! Just kidding, says the Miami Herald. I guess this won't receive nearly the attention of the other story, though, and lord knows I don't want to start a new thread about it.