Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
I Think I'm Dumb, or Maybe Just Happy
The New York Times edit board is suddenly very concerned with the North Carolina ballot, as 1) long ago, Dixiecrats exempted the presidential race from the button that lets you vote straight ticket and 2) Obama is narrowly ahead in the polls there.
This year, North Carolina’s flawed ballot could again result in tens of thousands of votes being lost. That is particularly worrisome since polls indicate a very close presidential race in the state. And as we saw in 2000, a presidential election can be decided by a mere 537 votes.
The problem isn't with North Carolina. The problem is democratic. Any majoritarian system is, by its nature, going to rely on the involvement of masses of dumb people who can't read or understand rules very well. Any ballot tweak meant to increase voter choices or simplify one part of the process is going to accidentally disenfranchise people who don't understand the rules. In 2000, this literally cost Al Gore the presidency. Not old people misreading butterly ballots, that is. People who didn't get the rules.
The results of Duval County's vote left Democrats here shaking their heads. More than 26,000 ballots were invalidated, the vast majority because they contained votes for more than one presidential candidate. Nearly 9,000 of the votes were thrown out in the predominantly African-American communities around Jacksonville, where Mr. Gore scored 10-to-1 ratios of victory, according to an analysis of the vote by The New York Times.
... Local election officials attributed the outcome to a ballot that had the name of presidential candidates on two pages, which they said many voters found confusing. Many voters, they said, voted once on each page. The election officials said they would not use such a ballot in the future.
Rodney G. Gregory, a lawyer for the Democrats in Duval County, said the party shared the blame for the confusion. Mr. Gregory said Democratic Party workers instructed voters, many persuaded to go to the polls for the first time, to cast ballots in every race and "be sure to punch a hole on every page."
"The get-out-the vote folks messed it up," Mr. Gregory said ruefully.
They probably did, but there's only so much you can do with voters who think "if I want Bush to lose, I have to vote for Gore AND Monica Moorehead of the Workers Party." When an election law huckster like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. throws around facts like "black voters' ballots are disqualified at nine times the rate of white voters' ballots," this is the story behind them.
What can states do about it? As simple as you make a ballot (and "vote once for president then hit this button for the rest of the ticket" is not rocket science), you're going to have voters who can't grok it.
Nigel Watt|10.28.08 @ 10:36AM|#
If people are too stupid to figure out how to vote, I don't have a problem with their vote not counting, even if you believe democracy can possibly be effective.
BDB|10.28.08 @ 10:37AM|#
There are probably a good number of rednecks who can't figure it out, either, so it cancels out the inner city black folks that can't figure it out. It's a wash.
Nigel Watt|10.28.08 @ 10:37AM|#
There were better ways to phrase that sentence, but that's what three hours of sleep gets you.
robc|10.28.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Any voting system that cant pass a 6-sigma test shouldnt be
used.
I dont think ANY system currently being used qualifies by that
standard.
|10.28.08 @ 10:45AM|#
What can states do about it?
Hand voters a blank piece of paper and force them to actually know
the names of the people they are voting for. Spelling and
legibility count too.
All I know is that I have never been able to vote for more than one
candidate in a given race using the electronic voting machines in
Floriduh.
Head|10.28.08 @ 10:45AM|#
If the outcome of the election comes down to 500 possibly spoiled ballots cast by the functionally retarded - I'm ok with just flipping a coin.
|10.28.08 @ 10:46AM|#
There are probably a good number of rednecks who can't figure it out,...
Believe it or not, a lot of those rednecks are voting for the same
party as those inner city black folks, so I'm not sure how much is
getting cancelled out.
BDB|10.28.08 @ 10:47AM|#
Isaac--
I meant roughly the same demographic that thinks Obama is in an
"arab" probably can't figure it out.
Balloon Maker|10.28.08 @ 10:50AM|#
I'm in favor of making ballots as complicated as possible to weed out the morons who can't figure them out.
|10.28.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Mr. Weigel is quoting none other than Kurt Cobain ... from Nirvana's best album, In Utero.
robc|10.28.08 @ 10:52AM|#
For any who care, my idea (which isnt totally original to me, I
stole bits and pieces from others) which I think would pass 6-sigma
muster, if built properly:
Computerized voting, touch screen or whatever. Prints out piece of
paper with two sections:
A. Race - Votee list. Lists every race and who you voted for, so
you can verify before turning in ballot.
B. An encoded section with scannable info on who you voted
for.
You then take valid ballot to scanner and insert it. The scanner
reads and counts votes via the encoded section. A random selection
of precincts are hand counted to make sure vote total from section
A matches scanner count form section B.
I would have at least 1 randomly selected race per precinct hand
counted. Also, some randomly selected precincts completely
audited.
There are still issues, but they seem to be fraud related more than
system related.
Citizen Nothing|10.28.08 @ 10:52AM|#
Polling places should all be located at the end of a fairly complex maze.
BakedPenguin|10.28.08 @ 10:53AM|#
swillfredo - if you still want to vote electronically in Florida, you have to claim a disability.
|10.28.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Try putting yourself in the other guy's shoes for a
minute.
Imagine being 83-years-old, half blind, and arthritic.
Gee, why can't they just read the ballot and punch the right
hole?
robc|10.28.08 @ 10:54AM|#
In many ways, my idea isnt too different from what I do now. I get a paper ballot and bubble in next to the name of the person Im voting for, then run it thru a scantron type machine. The only thing Im changing is eliminating the 2-votes per candidate and erasure and misbubbling errors by having the computer print out the form.
robc|10.28.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Imagine being 83-years-old, half blind, and
arthritic.
Thats what 51-years-old, fully sighted, healthy children are
for.
Guy Montag|10.28.08 @ 10:55AM|#
The New York Times edit board is suddenly very concerned with the North Carolina ballot, as 1) long ago, Dixiecrats exempted the presidential race from the button that lets you vote straight ticket
Wonders how many comments will indicate a failuer to grock that
statement.
Citizen Nothing|10.28.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Along the way would be one-way exit doors marked "Free Psychic
Reading," "American Idol Auditions" and "Hot Female Welders."
(That last one's for Guy.)
kinnath|10.28.08 @ 10:56AM|#
I'm in favor of making ballots as complicated as possible to
weed out the morons who can't figure them out.
I'm in favor of forcing people through multiple gates where they
have to answer questions (such as "What is the airspeed of a
unladen sparrow?") before being allowed to touch a ballot.
Balloon Maker|10.28.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Do most states have mail-in ballots like I filled in in AZ and
sent in 2 weeks ago so I don't have to bother with waiting in
line?
The retarded (and blind/arthritic) should use those and have
someone help them
robc|10.28.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Until a year ago when I moved, I voted at a retirement center. The 83hbas didnt seem to be having much trouble.
kinnath|10.28.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Citizen Nothing to two, count'em two, in before I could finish my post.
Guy Montag|10.28.08 @ 10:59AM|#
CN,
I don't fall for that one any more ;)
kinnath,
Are you shure you don't mean "unladen swallow" or was that not
supposed to be a MP ref?
kinnath|10.28.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Citizen Nothing got in two, count'em two, in before I could finish my post.
kinnath|10.28.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Not only am I slower than Citizen Nothing, but I fucked up the joke as well ;-)
kinnath|10.28.08 @ 11:01AM|#
Upon further review, I got it right the first time, so I'm just going to quit while I am ahead ;-)
robc|10.28.08 @ 11:02AM|#
To continue the theme:
I think we can successfully weed out moronic voters via the "What
is your Favorite Colour?" question.
A: Nineveh!
Guy Montag|10.28.08 @ 11:04AM|#
[Socialist voice]
Oh, Dave, thanks for bringing the election chatter back to the
inherant racism that infects this country from top to bottom. We
need social justice. We need a new system that promotes equality by
allowing minorities to be the only voters in the next few election
cycles.
[/Socialist voice]
[My voice]
No, Dave, I was not accusing you of that nonsense, I was talking
about the Times.
|10.28.08 @ 11:05AM|#
Do most states have mail-in ballots like I filled in in AZ
and sent in 2 weeks ago so I don't have to bother with waiting in
line?
The retarded (and blind/arthritic) should use those and
have someone help them.
I'm sure some civic-minded community organization would be happy to
help them on a door-to-door basis.
Guy Montag|10.28.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Wow, this discussion is rapidly spiraling downward (sideward?)
to one of my favorite Slashdot
articles.
Or are we going to hit the SciFi tangent before the vote selling
tangent?
PC|10.28.08 @ 11:11AM|#
People who {em}cannot handle simple instructions{/em} should not be allowed to vote.
JLM|10.28.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Linked below is a local ballot from NC. As you can see, the
following statement is printed DIRECTLY above the presidential
selections. It is repeated again above the "straight party"
section. They also tell you explicitly that you have to vote
separately for the presidential candidates when they hand you the
ballot- this has been the case in every presidential election I've
voted in here, including this one.
"The offices of President and Vice President
of the United States are not included in a
Straight Party vote. This contest must be
voted separately."
http://www.nhcgov.com/AgnAndDpt/ELCT/Documents/8GNEWH05sample.pdf
This shouldn't even be a fucking story. Anybody that can't figure
this out is a waste of perfectly good oxygen.
|10.28.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Guy, what does socialist voice sound like? In my head it's a
mixture of a smooth baritone with someone strangling a cat in the
background.
The thing I don't get is that when a ballot is too complicated it
disenfranchises minority voters. We could call it like it is and
accept that if you can't figure out how to vote, then you shouldn't
vote. It's not overly complicated.
To the arthritic, blind, alzheimers folks, I'm sure you are aware
of your condition and ought to be able to plan ahead to outwit that
crazy ballot machine despite your deficiencies.
Offtopic, how do we measure literacy rate? I would bet that there
are plenty of folks who are literate in census terms, but are
functionally illiterate. I would bet there are more than three but
less than 30 million folks like that.
Guy Montag|10.28.08 @ 11:19AM|#
JLM,
[Ron Kubie voice]
Just because you vote in Whitelandia does not mean that everybody
else does, or gets the correct instructions.
[/Ron Kubie voice]
Guy Montag|10.28.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Guy, what does socialist voice sound like? In my head it's a
mixture of a smooth baritone with someone strangling a cat in the
background.
It sounds like that guy who had the painting show on PBS forever.
It is the "happy fluffy cloud" Socialist who lulls unsuspecting
Liberal Arts students into the web of social justice.
|10.28.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Why is it always people who rail about "elitism" who are so eager to declare large swathes of their fellow citizens unfit to have their voices heard at the ballot box?
|10.28.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Try putting yourself in the other guy's shoes for a
minute.
Imagine being 83-years-old, half blind, and arthritic.
Gee, why can't they just read the ballot and punch the right
hole?
Because they are too fucking proud, in delusional denial of their
waning abilitie or just too pathetically stupid to ask for
advertised available assistance.
Nope joe. Those lame excuses don't cut the mustard with me.
fyodor|10.28.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Boy this is really bringing out the "libertarian as asshole"
stereotype.
Sure, there are limits to how far to bend over to make everybody
happy. And sure, I take Weigel's point that no ballot is gonna be
perfectly understood by everyone equally well. But if one type of
ballot is losing a significantly larger number of people than
others, one may safely assume it's probably more complicated than
it needs to be.
As for eliminating the dummies, watch your glibness. You may need
those dummies on your side sometime.
Guy Montag|10.28.08 @ 11:28AM|#
CN,
Who rails about elitism?
Frequently it is elitists trying to distract people from their
authoratarian ideas.
However, as of late it has frequently been the fair minded folks
who are sick of the elitists.
Elitist Prick|10.28.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Why is it always people who rail about "elitism" who are so
eager to declare large swathes of their fellow citizens unfit to
have their voices heard at the ballot box?
I'm proud to call myself an elitist, and I firmly believe that
large segments of the population are too dumb, ingnorant, or lazy
to be allowed to vote.
Guy Montag|10.28.08 @ 11:29AM|#
fyodor,
Are you sure you are in the correct thread? This one is about
voting in NC.
Reformed Republican|10.28.08 @ 11:31AM|#
I have always thought it was interesting that Democrats will say that voting difficulties will disproportionately affect their party. That means Democrats think their party contains more idiots than the Republicans.
Zubon|10.28.08 @ 11:38AM|#
It sounds like that guy who had the painting show on PBS
forever.
"The Joy of Painting" with Bob Ross. Required cultural
knowledge.
|10.28.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Because they are too fucking proud...for us to want
their votes to count.
robc,
No, they don't do it in the same post. Yippee.
Guy Montag|10.28.08 @ 11:41AM|#
I have always thought it was interesting that Democrats will
say that voting difficulties will disproportionately affect their
party. That means Democrats think their party contains more idiots
than the Republicans.
Not to mention the places where the "difficulties" emerge are run
by them anyway.
Head|10.28.08 @ 11:42AM|#
Why is it always people who rail about "elitism" who are so
eager to declare large swathes of their fellow citizens unfit to
have their voices heard at the ballot box?
Joe, because elitists are people who think the masses are too
stupid to do things by themselves, and want to hold their hands to
do things they are sure they would want if they are smarter. People
like me who think dumb people spoiling their ballots is ok don't
presume to know what the hell the masses need or want and don't
care, because if they don't vote right it's not my problem.
Citizen Nothing|10.28.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Head - your definition of "elitism" and mine must differ.
I think the masses are perfectly capable of running their own banal
little lives without my help.
|10.28.08 @ 11:46AM|#
Let's face it. People are too stupid to vote. Even if you find a
way to make the ballot fool proof, 98% will still vote for either
the giant douche or the turd sandwich.
No one who actively seeks political office should be allowed to
hold it. I say we go back to the original democracy and choose our
representatives in government by random lot.
alan|10.28.08 @ 11:47AM|#
joe | October 28, 2008, 10:54am | #
Try putting yourself in the other guy's shoes for a minute.
Imagine being 83-years-old, half blind, and arthritic.
Gee, why can't they just read the ballot and punch the right
hole?
You can ask for assistance at anytime.
You are also asked on screen to double check your selections before
sending the ballot off to be cast.
At least the NYT admits it only gives a shit about this 'problem'
out of paranoia that there is a slight possibility it may cause
their man to lose a few votes.
Head|10.28.08 @ 11:48AM|#
I'm proud to call myself an elitist, and I firmly believe
that large segments of the population are too dumb, ingnorant, or
lazy to be allowed to vote.
The best part is we don't need to "not allow" them to vote. They
self select themselves for stupidity by being unable to perform a
simple task. In the early days of our democracy, you had to
handwrite the name of the person, and misspelling it invalidated
your ballot. I'm not suggesting anything nearly as draconian. But
if you think "anyone but McCain/Obama" means "vote for
everyone else"...
Bob|10.28.08 @ 11:49AM|#
My mother works at a polling place in North Carolina. Her
instructions are to tell people that you have to vote for president
separately from the straight party option. However, some people are
insistent about voting straight party and disregard the comment
about voting for president separately.
There's not much you can do. The Democrats have even given out
little cards with this same instruction, and people still don't
understand.
|10.28.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Joe, because elitists are people who think the masses are
too stupid to do things by themselves, and want to hold their hands
to do things they are sure they would want if they are
smarter.
Oh, I get it. You don't actually know what "elitist" means, beyond
its use as a political insult.
e⋅lit⋅ism /ɪˈlitɪzəm, eɪˈli-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation
[i-lee-tiz-uhm, ey-lee-] Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored
group.
Talking about how much smarter you are than some group of people,
and how you and not they should be allowed to participate in
politics, is elitism.
Its opposite is not.
Why should people who can't read a dictionary be allowed to debate
politics, anyway?
|10.28.08 @ 11:57AM|#
So, if one person states that people spoil ballots because
they're too stupid, that is elitism.
If a different person states that they spoil ballots for some other
reason, and argues that plenty of non-stupid people could make that
mistake, that is the opposite of elitism.
If one person argues that people who are "stupid" shouldn't have a
say in the political process, that person is an elitist.
If another person argues the opposite, that every person whould
have an equal say in the political process, that person is the
opposite of an elitist.
elitist: one who believes in rule by an elite.
You either think everyone should count and be counted, or you
don't.
|10.28.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Why is it always people who rail about "elitism" who are so
eager to declare large swathes of their fellow citizens unfit to
have their voices heard at the ballot box?
Just because some of our citizens are arrogant elitists doesn't
mean others aren't idiots, joe.
robc|10.28.08 @ 11:59AM|#
joe,
Talking about how much smarter you are than some group of
people, and how you and not they should be allowed to participate
in politics, is elitism.
This isnt necessarily true, using your definition.
Lets break it down:
Talking about how much smarter you are than some group of
people
does not necessarily imply consciousness of or pride in
belonging to a select or favored group. Acknowledging the
truth can be just that. Who says the smart people are select of
favored?
how you and not they should be allowed to participate in
politics
Is it elitism to not allow those under 18 to not vote? Or
noncitizens? Or felons? How about the dead? How about slaves? Okay,
the last was a bad idea, but not necessarily elitist - property
shouldnt vote (it was elitist to think certain people could ever be
property, but thats a different issue).
Deciding on what groups can or cannot vote may or may not be an
elitist issue. The assumption that it is elitism is wrong.
|10.28.08 @ 12:00PM|#
OK, people, this is NC we're talking about. There are lots of
functionally illiterate rural voters, mostly black and older who
grew up under segregation with limited access to education.
I'm not personally happy about any illiterate, ill-informed bloc of
people voting, but rule or law and equal protection require that
voting be accessible to all.
Many posters here may be unfamiliar with the long history of
deliberate disenfranchisement techniques used in Southern states.
The literacy test was one such, and no the test was not fairly
administered (white voters always passed, blacks never).
Due to this shameful past we can never implement voter
qualification tests even if just and fair.
Head|10.28.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Joe,
Lets see: elitists are people who think the masses are too
stupid to do things by themselves, and want to hold their hands to
do things they are sure they would want if they are
smarter.
seems functionally pretty close to
practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
while if they don't vote right it's not my problem
doesn't seem that similar to consciousness of or pride in
belonging to a select or favored group.
Unless you consider the group 'anyone who can punch a ballot' to be
favored or selective.
Nope - doesn't really wash. nice try though.
alan|10.28.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Why should people who can't read a dictionary be allowed to
debate politics, anyway?
Oh, snap! I get why this gets on your nerves, though. It is the
same smuglies MNG gets when he is feeling particularly socialized
in the world of academia (been there too, buddy, I have so
been over it for years now), except it is the Libertarian version
of that attitude in drag.
Eric S.|10.28.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Joe,
You are intentionally omitting additional dictionary definitions of
the word elitism to make your point. FAIL.
Head|10.28.08 @ 12:05PM|#
You either think everyone should count and be counted, or
you don't.
I think everyone should get a fair and reasonably easy chance to be
counted. I don't believe we should go around tallying up votes of
incapacitated, dead, or disinterested easily influenced people who
don't care enough to vote on their own. What the elitists don't get
is some people just don't care and that's ok. Maybe they
would if the elitists did better than silly patronizing
pandering.
See, people might be to dumb to punch a card correctly, but they
know when someone holds them in disdain.
Citizen Nothing|10.28.08 @ 12:06PM|#
I belong to joe's definition #2.
I am conscious of, and proud in belonging to a select group of
non-idiots.
I don't believe we non-idiots should rule, however so I guess
definition #1 doesn't apply.
Perhaps we need a new word. (Or maybe, as fyodor suggests,
"asshole" will work just fine.)
|10.28.08 @ 12:07PM|#
robc,
"Talking about how much smarter you are than some group of
people
does not necessarily imply consciousness of or pride in belonging
to a select or favored group."
Yes it does. Proclaiming yourself and those like you to be smarter
than some other other people is precisely a statement that you
consider yourself better than them.
"Acknowledging the truth can be just that." I see this from racists
all the time. I'm not racist, it's just true. Whatever.
"Who says the smart people are select of favored?" The people who
proclaim themselves smarter, and who make statements about only
smart people like them rightfully having a say in governing.
Is it elitism to not allow those under 18 to not vote? Or
noncitizens? Or felons? If you are arguing that they should
not have the righ to vote because they are inferior and cannot be
trusted with the responsibility - if your argument is that such
people are just too stupid to vote - yup, textbook,
dictionary-definition elitism.
How about the dead I'll pretend not to notice this,
because it's beneath you.
Deciding on what groups can or cannot vote may or may not be an
elitist issue. Right. It's only when people make the argument
that some group shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're too
stupid that it becomes elitism.
|10.28.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Eric S,
1. Go to dictinary.com
2. Enter "elitist."
3. Copy the results into a comment.
4. Apologize to me.
Citizen Nothing|10.28.08 @ 12:11PM|#
"if your argument is that such people are just too stupid to
vote - yup, textbook, dictionary-definition elitism."
So joe, does that mean you are an elistist in some cases?
Surely you must grant the fact that three year olds are to stupid
to vote (which is fortunate, since, in my home, they could deadlock
every ballot).
|10.28.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Head, flailing:
Lets see: elitists are people who think the masses are too
stupid to do things by themselves, and want to hold their hands to
do things they are sure they would want if they are smarter.
seems functionally pretty close to
practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
Sure, if you pretend that helping someone case their vote as THEY
wish is the same thing as voting for them, or denying them their
vote at all.
Which is to say, your argument makes sense, as long as you pretend
that a cabbie who drives where his passenger tells him is "holding
his hand and taking him where he would want to go if he knew
better."
You know, like, not at all.
|10.28.08 @ 12:14PM|#
alan,
I'm sorry you can't understand anything about politics except which
sort of persons you don't like.
robc|10.28.08 @ 12:14PM|#
joe,
Yes it does. Proclaiming yourself and those like you to be
smarter than some other other people is precisely a statement that
you consider yourself better than them.
This is bullshit. I am smarter than a vast majority of the people
on this planet. This is a true statement that it would be stupid of
me to deny. I dont think smarter people are better people. I think
they are smarter. I think you are an elitist for thinking that
smarter == better.
fyodor|10.28.08 @ 12:16PM|#
I don't believe we should go around tallying up votes of
incapacitated, dead, or disinterested easily influenced people who
don't care enough to vote on their own. What the elitists don't get
is some people just don't care and that's ok.
Um, people who make it to the ballot box are neither dead nor
disinterested, and there's no reason to think they're any more
"easily influenced" than anyone else. Not sure what you mean by
incapacitated. They had the capacity to get to the ballot box, but
apparently not to understand a particular kind of ballot. Wouldn't
take much "going around" to make the ballot as easy to understand
as it is in other states.
Citizen Nothing|10.28.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Smarter is better than dumber.
Prettier is better than uglier.
Kinder is better than meaner.
More peaceful is better than more agressive.
Yep. I'm an elitist.
T|10.28.08 @ 12:18PM|#
I don't know about election law in other states, but I do know
it in Texas. If you cannot functionally use the voting machine,
election workers are required to provide you with assistance so you
can vote. We used to be able to let your family members assist you.
That led to Mom bringing her retarded 18-yo son in to "help" him
vote. Now it's all election worker assistance. It's fun, believe
me. Half-blind, arthritic, 83 years old, drooling on the floor, and
palsied? Yeah, I helped that guy in the primary. He's a nice guy,
too. Apologizes for drooling.
At some point people have to take some ownership of the process. I
understand people who have physical and/or cognitive limitations.
But otherwise capable adults who won't read the instructions and
won't ask for help? Fuck 'em. If your pride won't let you admit you
don't understand the process, don't show up and waste everybody's
time.
7 years of working elections has also convinced me we have the
government we deserve because most people are fucking idiots. Yet
another reason I'm a libertarian. I don't want the collection of
people that show to up vote to be the ones telling me how to run
anything, much less a nation of 300 million people.
|10.28.08 @ 12:18PM|#
So joe, does that mean you are an elistist in some
cases?
No.
Surely you must grant the fact that three year olds are to
stupid to vote
Not too stupid, too immature.
But that's a telling remark - you consider adults to be like
children, or at least the ones you don't want voting. And you're
willing to lump them into the ineligable to vote category based on
attributes (disability, for example, or not having a poll buddy to
help them overcome it) that have nothing to do with intelligence,
responsibility, or wisdom.
|10.28.08 @ 12:19PM|#
And the assholes come out in full force on this thread.
All the people railing about too stupid to vote and can't do it
right -- you basically are saying that there should be a literacy
test required before you vote. That's some pretty impressive
company you are now keeping.
This is absolutely wrong. The ballots should be made in a way that
even the dumbest person in the world should be able to vote without
requiring assistance.
And all you smug douchebags who think that people too dumb to
follow arbitrarily convoluted directions don't deserve their vote
to count are the problem, not the "stupid" people.
It's not always that people are too stupid. My mother needs me to
help her vote. She can't see very well, and can't read the ballot
all that well and is prone to making mistakes.
Does she not deserve to have her vote count? Should bad eyesight
disqualify her? Should she have to rely on myself or a poll worker
for help ?? Can she even trust the poll worker to not mislead
her??
An my polling place, we use optical scanners (touch screens are
also an option but no one uses them). Once we are done voting they
run the scanner through a validator. This validtaor will indicate
if you have spoiled your ballot by over-voting for any offices. If
so you are given the opportunity to vote again and validate it
again until you get it right
Why shouldn't every polling place have something like that? Unless
your goal isn't to actually get as many valid ballots as
possible.
Citizen Nothing|10.28.08 @ 12:21PM|#
I do wonder why is it that I, who agree with T and believe that no one is smart enough to "run" the country, can comfortably cop to the label "elitist," when someone who believes we just need the correct smart, well-intentioned folks in charge to make things better, can not.
Head|10.28.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Sure, if you pretend that helping someone case their vote as
THEY wish is the same thing as voting for them, or denying them
their vote at all.
Fine, except that I never said anything of the kind. It's been
pointed out that people get help if they ask for it - that's dandy.
Your cabbie analogy presumes the person actually asked to be driven
to the Obama camp - which is why I think you are being willfully
ignorant.
|10.28.08 @ 12:23PM|#
I think T's statment boils down the differences on this
question:
But otherwise capable adults who won't read the instructions
and won't ask for help? Fuck 'em.
Some people believe that if Group X isn't able to participate in
the democratic process, it only hurts those people. Fuck 'em.
Some of us believe that cutting Grouop X out of the process hurts
our democracy as a whole.
Citizen Nothing|10.28.08 @ 12:24PM|#
Some of us have also copped to being assholes, ChicagoTom, so what's your point?
fyodor|10.28.08 @ 12:24PM|#
Proclaiming yourself and those like you to be smarter than
some other other people is precisely a statement that you consider
yourself better than them.
You overstepped your case there, joe. By itself, considering
yourself (and other smart people?) smarter than others doesn't
inherently mean that you think you're better than others. And hell,
what if it's true?
Though personally, I consider the whole "elitism" thing a red
herring, whatever the point being made (and for those who don't
know me, I've got a pretty good right to my decoder ring!). It's
tautological and reeks of ad hominen.
robc|10.28.08 @ 12:24PM|#
joe,
If you are arguing that they should not have the righ to vote
because they are inferior and cannot be trusted with the
responsibility
I think "cannot be trusted with the responsibility" is exactly why
we dont let those groups vote:
17 years old - not mature enough
felons - too criminal
non-citizen - may vote against the best interests of the
nation
it is in fact, entirely a matter of lack of trust. Its
stereotyping, Im sure many young kids are mature enough to vote,
many felons shouldnt be IMO, and many immigrants would vote to help
America, but there is enough doubt to withhold the vote from all of
them. Does the same apply to those who cant follow simple ballot
rules? At least in that case we are doing a better job of
separating out those that are and arent trustworthy.
alan|10.28.08 @ 12:24PM|#
joe,
joe | October 28, 2008, 12:14pm | #
alan,
I'm sorry you can't understand anything about politics except which
sort of persons you don't like.
I'm sorry I don't have the free time to pontificate at length as
you do all day at leisure on this board.
BTW, I happen to like MNG, but he has a serious flaw that bleeds
out from time to time.
I'm most sorry about attempting to be reasonable with you, my bad,
it wont happen again.
|10.28.08 @ 12:25PM|#
Citizen Nothing | October 28, 2008, 12:21pm | #
I do wonder why is it that I, who agree with T and believe that no
one is smart enough to "run" the country, can comfortably cop to
the label "elitist," when someone who believes we just need the
correct smart, well-intentioned folks in charge to make things
better, can not.
Translation: I'm a libertarian, so I get a Get Out of Elitism Free
card. I can shit on as many people as I want, hell I could argue
for disenfranchising all the black people, women, and renters, but
if I support libertarian policies, I'm not an elitist.
|10.28.08 @ 12:27PM|#
joe, do you have a constructive suggestion? We cannot go back
and "fix" those votes. Most changes to ballots are "close a door,
open a window" kind of changes, in that they clarify things for one
set of voters and simultaneously befuddle another group.
And I really don't see how you're "cutting people out" of the
process if they cannot follow the instructions on the ballot.
They're cutting themselves out.
Am I happy about it? No.
Do I see a solution? No.
|10.28.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Head:
Fine, except that I never said anything of the kind. that
is, never said anything about helping people vote being
elitist.
Let's go to the tape: elitists are people who think the masses
are too stupid to do things by themselves, and want to hold their
hands to do things they are sure they would want if they are
smarter.
The above comment was written in response to a statement that
voting should be made easier.
Citizen Nothing|10.28.08 @ 12:27PM|#
"And you're willing to lump them into the ineligable to vote
category based on attributes (disability, for example, or not
having a poll buddy to help them overcome it) that have nothing to
do with intelligence, responsibility, or wisdom."
Tut, tut, joe. You're making unverifible assumptions. (And I know
how they make your skin crawl.)
Kolohe|10.28.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Try putting yourself in the other guy's shoes for a
minute.
Imagine being 83-years-old, half blind, and arthritic.
My father is a poll worker in Va.
This nearly describes the median poll worker as well.
|10.28.08 @ 12:29PM|#
fyodor, robc,
OK, proclaiming yourself to be smarter than some other group
based on something that may or may not have anything to do
with intelligence is prima facie elitist.
It is the assumption that the problems other people face come from
their stupidity that is elitist.
|10.28.08 @ 12:30PM|#
When an election law huckster like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
throws around facts like "black voters' ballots are disqualified at
nine times the rate of white voters' ballots," this is the story
behind them.
Whoa Weigel, you are treading on thin ice here. To suggest that
"black voters" are not intentionally being "disenfranchised" by a
vicious cabal of pasty-white Republicans is just a little bit over
the top, don't you think?
Citizen Nothing|10.28.08 @ 12:30PM|#
"Translation: I'm a libertarian, so I get a Get Out of Elitism
Free card. I can shit on as many people as I want."
I thought libertarianism was about NOT shitting on people. (Oh
well. Sometimes I can almost sympathize with Guy's filter
policy.)
I'm outta here for now.
fyodor|10.28.08 @ 12:33PM|#
Translation: I'm a libertarian, so I get a Get Out of
Elitism Free card. I can shit on as many people as I want, hell I
could argue for disenfranchising all the black people, women, and
renters, but if I support libertarian policies, I'm not an
elitist.
Well joe, to a certain extent this does reflect a genuine
difference of opinion on the sacrosanctness of voting. Not caring
how easy it is for marginal folks to vote is different from
thinking people should have their lives run by a centralized
authority. Which is more elitist? As I've already said, who
cares.
Personally, though, I do think some libertarians undervalue
democracy as a generally necessary means to maximize freedom. It's
imperfect, but as we all (oughtta!) know, it's kinda the best we
got. And just like rights for some means rights for none, democracy
for some ain't democracy.
|10.28.08 @ 12:34PM|#
TAO,
joe, do you have a constructive suggestion?
About the North Carolina ballots? Lose the straight-party
voting.
About the issue in general, and about elitism in general? Get over
yourself (not you personally, necessarily), and stop assuming that
you're better than everyone, or that whenever something bad happens
or there's a failure in the system, it's the result of their not
being as smart and good as you.
I think my most constructive suggestion was "try putting yourself
in the other guy's shoe's for a change." When faces with story
about something going wrong for someone...don't be an elitist.
Head|10.28.08 @ 12:34PM|#
The ballots should be made in a way that even the dumbest
person in the world should be able to vote without requiring
assistance.
Unequivocally impossible.
arbitrarily convoluted directions
punch the box next to the name...
Notice, nowhere in any of my remarks do I say that people should be
able to read, walk, write, assess objectively who would be the best
leader of the free world... It would be nice if they
a) knew the name of the person they are voting for
b) can punch the card, or ask for help to do so correctly
c) realize they can only vote for one person
I don't think this viewpoint is especially "elitist" - but
apparently it is not only that, but anti-democratic, racist, and a
douchebag. And, I get called elitist by a guy who says he is
smarter than the "vast majority of people on the planet"
|10.28.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Tut, tut, joe. You're making unverifible
assumptions.
Not at all. I am on very solid ground making the statement that
people are lumping those with disabilities, or illiteracy, or some
other problem together under the heading "stupid." Just read the
thread. The only assumption I'm making is that the thread actually
exists.
Fluffy|10.28.08 @ 12:37PM|#
joe,
Holding an exaggerated concern that there are large numbers of
people who will be confused by simple ballots could certainly be
considered "consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or
favored group" - the group of people who are competent to take care
of their own ballot.
Surely you can see that believing that large numbers of people
won't be able to complete a simple task without your personal
intervention to change the system to save them from their
inadequacy is in its own way an elite belief?
With regard to the larger question, I'm not sure why ballot
problems aren't dealt with at the point of sale, as it were:
Use paper ballots and optical scanners. For every office or ballot
question, include a "Do Not Wish To Vote" bubble. Then pre-scan the
ballots when the voter is submitting them, and if the voter has
chosen two candidates/answers for any ballot item, or has
"undervoted" without explicitly selecting "Do Not Wish To Vote",
have them fill out a new ballot until they get it right. This way
there would be no overvoting and no ambiguous undervoting.
fyodor|10.28.08 @ 12:38PM|#
do you have a constructive suggestion? We cannot go back and
"fix" those votes. Most changes to ballots are "close a door, open
a window" kind of changes, in that they clarify things for one set
of voters and simultaneously befuddle another group.
No, there's nothing we can do about votes already cast. The future
holds a lot more promise for reform than the past! And as I alluded
to way up the thread, while I agree that no ballot is gonna be
perfect, if one type is clearly creating a lot more confusion than
others (as appears to be the case in NC, and nobody's refuted
that), then that would seem to suggest it would be more fair to do
what's reasonable to make the ballot less confusing. That's
all.
|10.28.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Rodney G. Gregory, a lawyer for the Democrats in Duval
County, said the party shared the blame for the confusion. Mr.
Gregory said Democratic Party workers instructed voters, many
persuaded to go to the polls for the first time, to cast ballots in
every race and "be sure to punch a hole on every
page."
These poor, disenfranchised voters were only following the
instructions of their ACORN handlers.
|10.28.08 @ 12:39PM|#
This nearly describes the median poll worker as
well.
Too true, Kolohe.
But when ballots get spoiled, it's because people are stupid, and
shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway.
Thanks to CN for proving my point: I thought libertarianism was
about NOT shitting on people. He can write as many posts
shitting on people as he wants, declaring them inferior and
unworthy of equal participation, but because he's a libertarian,
it's not elitism, and he's not really shitting on anyone.
|10.28.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Fluffy,
Holding an exaggerated concern that there are large numbers of
people who will be confused by simple ballots could certainly be
considered "consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or
favored group" - the group of people who are competent to take care
of their own ballot.
But that's the point - I'm arguing that it could happen to anyone.
It could happen to me. When did I say anything about their
inadequacy, or my persona intervention?
Head|10.28.08 @ 12:45PM|#
joe,
the tape looks like this:
Why is it always people who rail about "elitism" who are so
eager to declare large swathes of their fellow citizens unfit to
have their voices heard at the ballot box?
Joe, because elitists are people who think the masses are too
stupid to do things by themselves, and want to hold their hands to
do things they are sure they would want if they are
smarter.
My point was that there is at least as much elitism in your
assumption that the liberal agenda is the best thing for poor
people, as there is in saying "if you screw up your ballot, there's
really not much we can do about it"
Fluffy|10.28.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Personally, I don't think that people are too stupid to
vote.
I think that people are smart enough to vote, and if they have
personal problems that make it difficult for them to vote, they are
smart enough to ask for help. Asking for help is a very basic human
ability that you have to be truly disabled to not possess.
So if I don't think poorly-completed ballots are the biggest
problem in the world, it's not because I think people are stupid.
It's because I think the opposite.
I think there's all sorts of skullduggery and vote suppression
going on, but almost all of it is at the registration stage. I
think a huge effort has been made nationally to make the actual act
of voting pretty easy, and to provide help for people who need it.
If even given all that effort, you still can't vote, you're
basically like a guy standing in a room surrounded by tables
covered in glasses of water, trying to tell me it's somehow my
fault or the system's fault that you're thirsty.
If I thought people were too stupid to vote, I wouldn't hold them
responsible for failing to vote properly. It's because I think
they're smart enough to vote, or to ask for help, that I blame them
when they fail.
Tsu Dho Nihm|10.28.08 @ 12:49PM|#
elitist: one who believes in rule by an elite.
I'm a hipocrat. I believe in hipocracy, the rule by the extremely
cool.
Fluffy|10.28.08 @ 12:52PM|#
But that's the point - I'm arguing that it could happen to
anyone. It could happen to me. When did I say anything about their
inadequacy, or my persona intervention?
OK, if you want to argue that it could happen to you, too, that's
different.
I've been taking away from your posts the idea that you're saying
that voting is really hard, and that people need lots and lots of
help. And that would be a little demeaning, if you exempted
yourself. Sort of like sitting in a class thinking about how
everyone else in the class but you was about to really bomb on a
test.
|10.28.08 @ 12:52PM|#
... many persuaded to go to the polls for the first time, to
cast ballots in every race and "be sure to punch a hole on every
page."
These are people who DID NOT WANT to vote in the first place. They
were bullied into it by political thugs pushing their own agenda.
What is the fucking tragedy, here?
alan|10.28.08 @ 12:59PM|#
If I thought people were too stupid to vote, I wouldn't hold
them responsible for failing to vote properly. It's because I think
they're smart enough to vote, or to ask for help, that I blame them
when they fail.
I believe pretty much the same. It gets lost in this discussion,
but the straight party line option was one of those measures taken
to
simplify the process that would attract more voters to the polling
booths by making it easier for them to get in and out at a
convenient pace. Unintended consequences, perhaps, but where have
you been all this time
NYT, or Charlotte Observer? Did your favorites in local races not
benefit from straight line voting during those halcyon Dixiecrat
days when old white guys could reliably be expected to vote
Nixon-Ford-Reagan-Bush in the Presidential race but vote Democrat
in the local races?
robc|10.28.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Head,
Unequivocally impossible.
I agree with this.
I was referring to computers, but more than a decade ago I said
that building an "idiot proof" system just evolves bigger
idiots.
robc|10.28.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Head,
I get called elitist by a guy who says he is smarter than the
"vast majority of people on the planet"
That was me, responding to joe. I dont think I called anyone an
elitist. Unless you are pro-slavery. Then, I think I did.
|10.28.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Fluffy,
To expand on my point, one day, I'm likely to be half-blind and
arthritic, if I'm lucky. Would it be elitist to say that I might
need a cane?
Also, if screwy ballot design means that 1/2 of voters mess up,
that's in the neighborhood of 600,000 votes. Anyone can space 1/2
of 1% of the time when doing a task. That's why they have QC people
at the end of assembly lines, even when those lines are staffed by
extremely skilled, hand-chosen people.
|10.28.08 @ 1:09PM|#
They were bullied into it by political thugs...
Convincing someone to vote is bullying them?
How can you write this shit?
robc|10.28.08 @ 1:17PM|#
joe,
That's why they have QC people at the end of assembly
lines
You see my 6-sigma post above? 3 errors per million, I think.
T|10.28.08 @ 1:22PM|#
Shorter version of this argument: do we design the voting
process to be as simple as possible so that the possibility of
voter error is reduced to a minimum? Some of us say yes. Next
constraint: the voting system also has to comply with all
applicable local, state, and federal laws and elections. This, in
my opinion, complicates the "ideal" system.
There is also going to be a non-zero percentage of error on the
part of the voter that cannot be designed out of the system. What
percentage is too large? Again, some would say any is too high, but
let's be realistic. Some people are going to screw this up. How
many is too many?
Me, I'm just happy I can have these discussions on a theoretical
level since I don't have to work the polls next week.
fresno dan|10.28.08 @ 1:23PM|#
elitist
1: leadership or rule by an elite
2: the selectivity of the elite ; especially : snobbery
3: consciousness of being or belonging to an elite
robc|10.28.08 @ 1:26PM|#
joe,
I think you've got a good idea there.
Dumb people would still find a way to screw it up.
:)
alan|10.28.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Shorter version of this argument: do we design the voting
process to be as simple as possible so that the possibility of
voter error is reduced to a minimum?
A definite yes to that, but on the non abstract but applicable
matter of this, as I've pointed out in previous post, historically
the process of
simplification (at least in the example that this post is about)
has not been about designing a more fair system but a system that
benefits a particular party.
T|10.28.08 @ 1:31PM|#
historically the process of
simplification (at least in the example that this post is about)
has not been about designing a more fair system but a system that
benefits a particular party.
Either way, I'm reasonably certain it won't make it any easier for
3rd parties to get on the ballot.
|10.28.08 @ 1:35PM|#
How can you write this shit?
I grew up in Chicago. I saw first-hand the "get out the vote"
machine in action.
The implicit message in the NYT story was that the double voters
really meant to vote for the Democrat. How do they know that? Why
don't they conclude that those voters really intended to vote
Monica Moorehead of the Workers Party? Because it conflicts with
their world-view that Democrats own the black vote.
It is funny to see the calls to "fix the system" when a small
percentage of voters mess up their ballots. I don't recall anybody
giving a shit when a supposedly Republican voter invalidates his
ballot through bumbling.
stuartl|10.28.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Polling places should all be located at the end of a fairly
complex maze.
Great idea! You could give votes to the republicans for those that
solve it with the right hand rule, the dems get those that solve it
with the left hand rule, those that solve it without a rule go to
the libertarians, if you get lost you don't get a vote.
|10.28.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Why don't they conclude that those voters really intended to
vote Monica Moorehead of the Workers Party?
Because they can compare the spoiled ballots to the voting patterns
of similar voters. Absent some plausible reason why spoiling one's
ballot would indicate a stronger likelihood of voting for a
communist - a plausible one, now "how do we know that..." - then it
is extremely unlikely that there would be a marked difference
between how the two groupos of similar voters would vote.
I don't recall anybody giving a shit when a supposedly
Republican voter invalidates his ballot through
bumbling.
I can't think of any cases where there was a higher incidence of
ballot failure in Republican-heavy areas than Democratic ones.
Eric S.|10.28.08 @ 1:46PM|#
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-) Pronunciation
Key
n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or
groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived
superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial
resources.
The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elitism
I stand by my original statement. Quit telling people they don't
understand the definition of elitism.
Elitist Prick|10.28.08 @ 1:54PM|#
I want to go back to the beginning:
Direct election of House of Representatives
Senators appointed by the states
President selected by a real electoral college
|10.28.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Joe,
You are intentionally omitting additional dictionary definitions of
the word elitism to make your point. FAIL.
Dishonest editing by joe? Our joe? I'm shocked. He'll cut of a
sentence in the middle and respond to it. Get used to it.
chanceH|10.28.08 @ 2:15PM|#
I think party labels should be banned from all ballots. For president, I think they should only put the the name of actual elector on the ballot. So NC is moving in the right direction.
robc|10.28.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Only male land owners over the age of 30 should be allowed
to vote.
30 is silly. I have no problem with 18. I also dont have a problem
with a landowner requirement. Like felons, children, and
immigrants, renters are just inherently untrustworthy. :)
Head|10.28.08 @ 2:21PM|#
Citizenship and voting rights for military veterans only - and only after a full career. No pansy quasi-civilian career fields either. You are a veteran if you carried/rode a gun/weapon for a living.
robc|10.28.08 @ 2:22PM|#
I can't think of any cases where there was a higher
incidence of ballot failure in Republican-heavy areas than
Democratic ones.
I wonder if we can suggest any reasons for this without being
called an elitist?
Fluffy|10.28.08 @ 2:27PM|#
I definitely would agree with eliminating party labels from the
ballot.
The parties have absolutely no Constitutional standing. Individuals
are eligible to be elected to federal offices and parties are
not.
The ballot should be a ballot, not an advertisement.
Head|10.28.08 @ 2:27PM|#
robc, sure you can - because the evil vote repressing republican ground machine intimidates the honest hardworking democratic voter in their hometowns.
robc|10.28.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Fluffy,
The ballot should be a ballot, not an advertisement.
Although, if we were willing to sell the blank spaces on the
ballots, or a 30 sec flash ad for touch screens before starting,
the elections could pay for themselves.
T|10.28.08 @ 3:31PM|#
I bet we could clear the most from porn and
weight-loss.
And no kiddies to see the porn ads! It's a win-win.
|10.28.08 @ 4:05PM|#
I can't think of any cases where there was a higher
incidence of ballot failure in Republican-heavy areas than
Democratic ones.
Why is that? Are Dems just naturally dumber, or is there some
sinister Rovian plot involved?
|10.28.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Proclaiming yourself and those like you to be smarter than
some other other people is precisely a statement that you consider
yourself better than them.
Nope. Only an elitist would think "smarter" = "better than."
I think I'm smarter than most people, in certain pretty narrow and,
thankfully, well-paid ways. I don't for a minute think I'm better
than them, because I know all too well that there's all kinds of
shit that I can't do that they can.
|10.28.08 @ 4:31PM|#
joe, you honestly can't see how libertarianism is a pretty good inoculation against "practice of or belief in rule by an elite"?
|10.30.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Casting ballots correctly requires a minimum I.Q. and what that
ceiling is depends on the design of the ballot.
The pseudononymous mathematician, La Griffe du Lion, looked at the
2000 Florida election and the (at least) 12 voting systems used
throughout. Very interesting:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/elec2000.htm
Here is a portion:
"The best voting system was 'L,' an optical scanning system from
Global Election Systems, Inc. Adopted by 17 counties, it required
only an IQ of about 60 to use correctly. Before PC, people with IQs
of 60 were classified as morons. 'Mildly retarded' is now more
acceptable. They are capable of acquiring reading and arithmetic
skills to about sixth-grade level.
"The most difficult system was 'A,' from Sequoia Pacific System,
Corporation. This punch-card system, adopted by 2 counties,
required an IQ of about 75 to use. Though not qualifying for rocket
science, 75 is enough to disqualify more than 25 percent of blacks
and 5 percent of whites. Compare this to the Global Elections
system which would stump only 3 percent of blacks and a negligible
fraction of whites."
"Can you tell what the Florida outcome would have been if
idiot-proof voting systems were used?" I asked.
"Indeed we can," said Mentor, retrieving another table to the
screen.
"Look here," he said, "using cumulative data for all Florida, I
computed the statewide IQ threshold to be -2.19 SD, and from this,
calculated overall black and white error rates. Applying these to
the turnouts, I found the number of uncounted ballots cast by each
group.
Black
Turnout White
Turnout Error Rate
Black Error Rate
White Votes Not
Counted
Black Votes Not
Counted
White
STATEWIDE
TOTALS 893,000 Bl 5,246,000 Wht
11.73% Bl error
1.43% Wht error
105,000 Bl votes uncounted
75,000 Wht votes uncounted
"An 11.7 percent error rate for blacks caused 105,000 presidential
votes to go uncounted. The white error rate of 1.4 percent resulted
in a loss of 75,000 ballots.
"From exit polls we know that 57 percent of whites supported Bush,
with 40 percent backing Gore. Only 7 percent of blacks supported
Bush, 93 percent going for Gore. Applying these percentages to the
uncounted ballots, we find that Gore lost 127,000 votes to voter
error. Bush lost 50,000. Had there been no voter error, with all
voters recording their true intent, Gore would have picked up a net
of 77,000 votes, enough to defeat Bush handily in Florida, and
award him the presidency."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245