They plan to count categories of votes -- clear votes, hanging chads, dimpled chads, double punches. I assume they will try to do it by candidate, though I think that was implied, not stated.

Sara "until verified, this is only a rumor"

Getting back to the ballot issue, I would be willing to concede that a hanging chad is probably a vote for a candidate, but I am hesitant to allow pregnant or dimpled chads to be votes. It just gets into too much of trying to figure out what the voter wanted which we really cannot ascertain from a ballot that is not at least punched through.

Consider a scenario where someone goes to the polls and sits there thinking, "Do I really want to vote for either of these turkeys? (while resting the puncher thingie on, lets just say, Ralph Nader's dot) Nah, I think I just won't vote for that race." Now, that voter probably left a dimple by Nader's name, but they didn't intend to vote for anyone.

I will be interested to see what numbers the Herald comes up with for a count.

(And, in addition, the longer they're stored, the more those "pregnant" and "dimpled" chads will be flattened out...)

Count 'em now, sez I, or count 'em later if we can't handle the truth, but never, never destroy history!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alias_Rex:
An article in this morning's Los Angeles Times reports that certain Republicans will now attempt to have Florida's ballots sealed for 8 years for "National Security Purposes."

---

B) There is no legitamate reason not to allow private re-counts ASAP and Florida laws don't provide any exceptions to free access to information.

Car "not a legal scholar" penter

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carpenter:
... and Florida laws don't provide any exceptions to free access to information.

---

Unless the Florida law ends up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

quote:

---

Florida Statutes, Title IX Section 101.5614

Canvass of returns.--

(5) If any ballot card of the type for which the offices and measures are not printed directly on the card is damaged or defective so that it cannot properly be counted by the automatic tabulating equipment, a true duplicate copy shall be made of the damaged ballot card in the presence of witnesses and substituted for the damaged ballot. Likewise, a duplicate ballot card shall be made of a defective ballot which shall not include the invalid votes. All duplicate ballot cards shall be clearly labeled "duplicate," bear a serial number which shall be recorded on the damaged or defective ballot card, and be counted in lieu of the damaged or defective ballot. If any ballot card of the type for which offices and measures are printed directly on the card is damaged or defective so that it cannot properly be counted by the automatic tabulating equipment, a true duplicate copy may be made of the damaged ballot card in the presence of witnesses and in the manner set forth above, or the valid votes on the damaged ballot card may be manually counted at the counting center by the canvassing board, whichever procedure is best suited to the system used. If any paper ballot is damaged or defective so that it cannot be counted properly by the automatic tabulating equipment, the ballot shall be counted manually at the counting center by the canvassing board. The totals for all such ballots or ballot cards counted manually shall be added to the totals for the several precincts or election districts. No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board. After duplicating a ballot, the defective ballot shall be placed in an envelope provided for that purpose, and the duplicate ballot shall be tallied with the other ballots for that precinct.

---

The way I read it then is that if there was a problem with the ballot (damaged, torn, wrinkled) so that it could not be read, then it was manually inspected. So problems with the ballot itself should not have kept them from being counted. All other ballots went through the tabulating machines (which were tested before the election). If the ballot had been filled out correctly and there were no physical defects with the ballot, then the vote was counted. As an example, here is the Palm Beach County ballot instructions
Note that it clearly, in bold and all caps, says

quote:

---

If you make a mistake return your ballot card and obtain another.

AFTER VOTING, CHECK YOUR BALLOT CARD TO BE SURE YOUR VOTING SELECTIONS ARE CLEARLY AND CLEANLY PUNCED AND THERE ARE NO CHIPS LEFT HANGING ON THE BACK OF THE CARD.

---

pinqy

quote:

---

Originally posted by pinqy:
Assuming Florida law was followed, all the votes WERE counted.

---

A guy on MSNBC -- a reporter, I believe, whose name I missed -- said that he has
heard from a reporter that the Miami Herald has a team of 50 ready to go to count all the votes in Florida.

should have been

A guy on MSNBC -- a reporter, I believe, whose name I missed -- said that he has
heard from a reporter that the Miami Herald has a team of 50 ready to go to count all the ballots in Florida.

That was a mistake on my part.

Sara "Ban the Punch Ballot anyway"

Assuming George W. Bush is sworn in on January 20th, no recount can depose him. But it sure would make him look like an @$$.

(See, I don't envision the Miami Herald getting its recount complete by Inauguration Day, or even months down the road.)

I imagine the network news anchors sighing and saying, Well, I guess Al Gore really *should* have won the presidency. But that's not what they'll do. They'd go positively ape -- not that there's anything to be done at that point.

If the reporters counting the ballots actually do seperate them into the categories (ballots with pregnant chads, ballots with hanging chads, etc), then I would be more for it. If they just decide on a standard and don't report how many ballots were of each variety, then I'm less interested.

Interesting that the newspaper people won't be allowed to handle the ballots, so the paper will have reporters looking over the shoulders of election officials who probably have other things they need to be doing to count these undervotes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mortimer Brewster: If the undervotes are going to be counted in Florida by the press, shouldn't they also count all the undervotes in other states? Maybe Bush won Wisconsin and New Mexico and Oregon if we have a broad enough standard of what constitutes a vote.[/B]

---

I think this is more about the election process than about the winner. And I think it's more about a Pulitzer Prize than anything else.

BTW, I don't believe counting these ballots can hurt Bush. Sometimes, when your team benefits from the bad call, you feel a little bad about it but you still take the win. The bad call can go against you as easily as for you. If the shoe were on the other foot, Gore people wouldn't be insisting that it wasn't fair, that Gore should let Bush win because it's the right thing to do. Bush supporters won't be turned off if the ballot count is able to prove that Gore should have won. (There is no proof that this is what will happen.) Gore supporters already think this so proving it changes nothing.

However, Gore can lose. Suppose an accounting of the undervotes shows that Gore did not get as many votes as is popularly believed in some quarters. Gore supporters have to eat crow and Bush supports get to say "Told ya so".

And I don't believe that a true accounting will cause any chaos in this country. Once Bush is the President, he is the President and the leader of our country. Won't be the first time a segment of the population didn't like or respect or whatever the President, won't be the last. There may be bad jokes but there won't be chaos.

Sara

quote:

---

I'd be interested to see how many total ballots there are now vs. how many people cast ballots in the election.

---

And even if it was ever determined beyond all doubt that Bush won fair and square (which I myself doubt can be proven - aside from the ballots, there never will be a way to count votes that didn't happen because state troopers set up some kind of roadblock/ID check to scare off some black voters, if that is proven to be true) there are still the 330,000+ votes for Gore in excess of what Bush got. That doesn't mean Bush lost the White House, it just means that three elections in a row now, Republicans can't get a popular majority, or even a plurality, in a Presidential race. I never hear Rush Limbaugh describing it that way, funny, when he says that this is a conservative country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ewok:
Dagnabbit, what am I supposed to use for a default smilie now that shades-wearing smilie has turned into babbling smilie? Anyway...
[QUOTE]I'd be interested to see how many total ballots there are now vs. how many people cast ballots in the election.

---

[/QUOTE]

I had heard something different than that. WHat I had heard was more along the lines of after some of these counties finished counting, they had more total votes in their official totals (including undervotes and overvotes) than there were people who voted in the election.

Like I said, I don't know if it's true or not because one hears a lot of things that aren't necessarily true (as we all know).

As for the Texas Rangers deal (as mentioned in someone else's post), I don't see where there is even the appearance of fishy elements in that deal.

As for the counting. I don't think counting the ballots would hurt Bush, either, but I think it's a big waste of time and doesn't prove anything (unless Bush comes out ahead, but even that doesn't prove anything because there are other matters, such as the misvotes in Palm Beach County that people will point to if they want to claim the Bush presidency is illegitimate).

And as for counting all the ballots everywhere. I didn't say that the Miami Herald had to count all the ballots everywhere. I just said that their story isn't complete otherwise. If they're going to bother to count some ballots, they should count them all (or at least go count in other states that were also very close).

And, for the record, not all states have the same Sunshine laws. Some states are more restrictive.

As for the Texas Rangers deal (as mentioned in someone else's post), I don't see where there is even the appearance of fishy elements in that deal.

I probably shouldn't have said "fishy" regarding the Texas Rangers deal. I should have said "unethical." This is they guy from the party that claims to protect individuals from the tyranny of big government, and he got the government to take control of a bunch of land, apparently many many more acres than was needed just for the new Texas Rangers stadium. (I don't remember for sure if it was condemned or bought at below-market prices, or both.) Then the new stadium was built (not with his money) and his rather small investment grew very large, through the magic power of government.

We have a local scheme like that, where some out-of-state developers want to be given 6,000 now-prime acres of former Army munitions plant land, and through taxpayer bond financing and tax cuts, build a kind of "Disneyland Midwest." The taxpayers give up the land and money, take most of the risk, and get none of the rewards. So far, the county commissioners have held them at bay, in spite of the enormous pressure the business community has put on them. I'm glad George doesn't live here.