How many may have wanted to vote for Buchanan but got Gore instead? I
don't have the all the stats at hand but Buchanan got something like
3000 votes. Is it the claim by the Democrats that all these votes
should've gone to Gore? There were 19000 spoiled ballots due to double
marking this year. In 1996, 14800 ballots rejected for the same reason.
Where's the evidence that this year's ballot was more difficult? The
butterfly ballot was used previously and is in use in other
jurisdictions including Cooke county Illinois. The comments by Daley are
hypocritical and unworthy. Buchanan's Reform party membership increased
from 1996 to 2000 by 110% in Palm Beach county. Comparing 1996 to 2000,
there's no evidence of widespread error or fraud.
Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:22:25 GMT, Peter Lewycky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > 1) The ballot form was made public and widely distributed well in
> > advance of the election. The print was larger than normal to assist the
> > elderly. The ballot was a single page. If they had used a conventional
> > list then it would've been two pages long (possibly with Gore on the
> > second page). Both parties saw nothing wrong with the form and approved
> > it's use.
>
> - Lousy forms design isn't obvious to amateurs. This one could have
> been improved by 90% by directing the eye with a few touches of
> half-tone shading... maybe.
> - I have no idea what particular precedents there are for having
> re-votes. I know that I have not heard of many ever happening.
> Pre-approval does undermine the "culpability" argument about
> "unfairness."
>
> > 2) How many people thought that they were voting for Buchanan when
> > inadervtently they marked Gore? How many thought that they were marking
> > Bush but punched the hole for another candidate?
>
> Oh, sit down. The conclusion seems to be: nearly 19,000 voted
> accidentally for Buchanan, based on the EXCESS seen for HIM; and
> practically zero missed marking for Bush (the top box on the ballot
> seems unambiguous, and that was Bush's).
>
> How large is 19,000, as a *fraction*?
>
> I doubt that the law puts it this way -- but --
> When do ethical considerations tell us to require a re-vote? if the
> ballot is bad enough to be mis-marked by 2% - 5% - 10% - 20% of all
> voters? Or, of all voters intending one candidate?
>
> --
> Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
