30th December 2004, 2:52 PM
(This post was last modified: 30th December 2004, 3:08 PM by Dark Jaguar.)
I gotta wonder, do you really think those ballots are fabricated? I'm under the strong impression that the courts have run through such a possibility by now.
On another note, I'll only say this. All voting methods have flaws in them one way or another, just as all tournemant bracket systems do (for example the standard bracket tree has the flaw that one can really only find out which person was the best, but NOT who was second best or beyond). Thus, a voting method can only be fair if it is agreed upon beforehand. Having another vote afterwards saying the first was unfair is, as such, completely illogical. It is totally silly to think one can ever get a perfectly fair voting system. They all allow for strange situations, some less than others, but none are perfect when differening wills are involved.
Now, with a "revote" out of the question in cases where the first vote's validity was agreed upon beforehand, there is one other thing I MUST point out. If the vote that actually took place was somehow flawed in the sense that the agreed upon method was NOT what happened, then, and only then, must something be done about it.
It's one thing to say "this voting method is flawed because the electoral college system is outdated, we need to have a new vote". That is illogical since everyone agreed by that standard before the vote.
However, to say "this election is flawed because countless votes were burned instead of being read" is different, excepting of course that the populace agreed beforehand that burning random votes rather than counting them was part of that election's method :D. In that case, if the election as it was originally meant to happen did not happen, then it is invalid.
Example A: Bush gets electoral victory in 2000. Some democrats get infuriated by this and demand that the electoral system be changed because their guy would have won, and should have won, because he got the popular vote. This is invalid because the electoral system was agreed upon by everyone involved, voters and all, from the start. A revote can't take place due to this.
Example B: Some Floridians complain that the ballot was confusing to them and they accidentally voted for the wrong person. Some democrats demand that the election be redone in Florida with new ballots. This is also invalid because the original ballots were agreed upon as being valid by both parties, as was the amount of explaining that would be done to people before they voted. The instand the confused voters submitted their ballot rather than asking for help or taking the time to examine the ballot so they could understand it properly, they were agreeing to the method, and thus they can't take it back. They may have made a mistake, but they will have to live with it. The people running the places may have not informed people well enough, but since everything was agreed on beforehand, they will just have to live with that too, and learn for next time.
Example C: Some ballots have holes that aren't punched, but rather slight dimples in them. The machine discards these as being incomplete. Some democrats complain that this also demands a total recount. However, since it was agreed beforehand that the method for determining a voter's intent was a total hole punch, NOT a dimple, then any change in the method of determining intent is not valid. They may get it wrong any other way they choose just as well. The only valid method for determining intent is the original one, which means that the machines were right after all.
Example D: Some mystery ballots were discovered to be stolen/discarded/destroyed rather than counted in Florida and other places. These were apparently not discarded for any previously agreed on reason, such as being incorrectly filled out or being filled out by a fellon. In this case alone, the complaint is valid because the election did NOT take place by the agreed upon method. To correct this, these discarded votes, after being confirmed (via phone calls to the people on them and checking the database of other voters to make sure there was no double voting for example) need only be counted themselves and added to the tally. A revote is not needed nor would it be desired as it would invalidate the whole point of adding these votes.
In the end, one thing is for sure, hand counting to be sure a machine got it right is supreme stupidity. What is this, the 50's? Just check the machine for glitches and assume it got it right. It's sure to be a lot more accurate than a hand count. And, a touch screen system with a closed circuit database is the best way to go for storing voting data. Closed circuit to prevent any sort of hacking mind you, up until the moment when the final results are sent to wherever on a dedicated line.
On another note, I'll only say this. All voting methods have flaws in them one way or another, just as all tournemant bracket systems do (for example the standard bracket tree has the flaw that one can really only find out which person was the best, but NOT who was second best or beyond). Thus, a voting method can only be fair if it is agreed upon beforehand. Having another vote afterwards saying the first was unfair is, as such, completely illogical. It is totally silly to think one can ever get a perfectly fair voting system. They all allow for strange situations, some less than others, but none are perfect when differening wills are involved.
Now, with a "revote" out of the question in cases where the first vote's validity was agreed upon beforehand, there is one other thing I MUST point out. If the vote that actually took place was somehow flawed in the sense that the agreed upon method was NOT what happened, then, and only then, must something be done about it.
It's one thing to say "this voting method is flawed because the electoral college system is outdated, we need to have a new vote". That is illogical since everyone agreed by that standard before the vote.
However, to say "this election is flawed because countless votes were burned instead of being read" is different, excepting of course that the populace agreed beforehand that burning random votes rather than counting them was part of that election's method :D. In that case, if the election as it was originally meant to happen did not happen, then it is invalid.
Example A: Bush gets electoral victory in 2000. Some democrats get infuriated by this and demand that the electoral system be changed because their guy would have won, and should have won, because he got the popular vote. This is invalid because the electoral system was agreed upon by everyone involved, voters and all, from the start. A revote can't take place due to this.
Example B: Some Floridians complain that the ballot was confusing to them and they accidentally voted for the wrong person. Some democrats demand that the election be redone in Florida with new ballots. This is also invalid because the original ballots were agreed upon as being valid by both parties, as was the amount of explaining that would be done to people before they voted. The instand the confused voters submitted their ballot rather than asking for help or taking the time to examine the ballot so they could understand it properly, they were agreeing to the method, and thus they can't take it back. They may have made a mistake, but they will have to live with it. The people running the places may have not informed people well enough, but since everything was agreed on beforehand, they will just have to live with that too, and learn for next time.
Example C: Some ballots have holes that aren't punched, but rather slight dimples in them. The machine discards these as being incomplete. Some democrats complain that this also demands a total recount. However, since it was agreed beforehand that the method for determining a voter's intent was a total hole punch, NOT a dimple, then any change in the method of determining intent is not valid. They may get it wrong any other way they choose just as well. The only valid method for determining intent is the original one, which means that the machines were right after all.
Example D: Some mystery ballots were discovered to be stolen/discarded/destroyed rather than counted in Florida and other places. These were apparently not discarded for any previously agreed on reason, such as being incorrectly filled out or being filled out by a fellon. In this case alone, the complaint is valid because the election did NOT take place by the agreed upon method. To correct this, these discarded votes, after being confirmed (via phone calls to the people on them and checking the database of other voters to make sure there was no double voting for example) need only be counted themselves and added to the tally. A revote is not needed nor would it be desired as it would invalidate the whole point of adding these votes.
In the end, one thing is for sure, hand counting to be sure a machine got it right is supreme stupidity. What is this, the 50's? Just check the machine for glitches and assume it got it right. It's sure to be a lot more accurate than a hand count. And, a touch screen system with a closed circuit database is the best way to go for storing voting data. Closed circuit to prevent any sort of hacking mind you, up until the moment when the final results are sent to wherever on a dedicated line.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)