Florida Recount -- From Red Rock Eater News Service\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nFlorida Recount Potpourri -- From Red Rock Eater News Service<\/b><\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\nBy Phil Agre<\/b><\/p>
\r\n\r\nFrom - Sat Nov 11 17:02:00 2000<\/p>
\r\n\r\n[I have enclosed two messages relating to the ongoing recount of\r\npresidential ballots in Florida. The first explains why (among other\r\nthings) the manual count should be expected to be more accurate than\r\nthe machine count (even if it won't be perfect). I have reformatted\r\nit. The second points to an odd pattern in the recount in Velousia\r\nCounty. If you look at the recount numbers by county, it really seems\r\nlike some of the \"recounts\" were nothing of the sort -- the numbers in\r\nthose cases aren't changing at all, which is not very likely.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nAlso, everyone needs to be aware of a bad argument: <\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nRecount 'Em All, or None at All<\/b><\/p>
\r\n\r\n
\r\n http:\/\/www.opinionjournal.com\/editorial\/feature.html?id=65000587\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\nThe argument is that Gore is trying an \"old statistician's trick\",\r\nnamely massaging the outcome by cleaning up selected data points and\r\nleaving others alone. Even if this makes the selected points more\r\naccurate, the argument goes, the overall result does not become more\r\naccurate, since errors in the other direction aren't affected. The\r\nconsequence, it is argued, is that you can't recount any ballots in\r\nFlorida without recounting the whole country. You will probably hear\r\nthis argument in the coming days, so it helps to know the fallacies:<\/p>
\r\n\r\n(1) Because a national revote is impossible, the suggested consequence\r\n would make it impossible to redress any election irregularity, no\r\n matter how extreme. And the problems with the Florida elections\r\n were clearly not just routine glitches but a complete farce, with\r\n chaos and worse reported in several counties.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n(2) The Gore people have asked for much broader recounts than they have\r\n been granted. In particular they have been compelled to pick and\r\n choose particular areas for the recount by hand when they would\r\n clearly prefer a complete recount.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n(3) The Bush people have the same legal rights to ask for recounts as\r\n the Gore people, and in fact the Republicans have asked for recounts\r\n in many past elections.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n(4) Recounts were done throughout Florida, and even though some of\r\n them were apparently empty exercises, Gore has gained (according\r\n to the unofficial AP survey) something like 1000 votes. This is\r\n not supposed to happen, and we were told that it wouldn't happen, so\r\n clearly something is wrong, and because the recounts were statewide,\r\n the result favoring Gore cannot be a result of the Gore campaign's\r\n picking and choosing. (Why do the recount advantages to Gore argue\r\n for a flawed initial ballot and not a flawed recount? Because the\r\n recount is being carefully monitored by lawyers from both parties.)<\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\nNote<\/b><\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\nOn another point, the message by Ben Austin that I sent out last night\r\nturns out to be legitimate. This is the guy whose mother was a precinct\r\nworker in Palm Beach County. The New York Times has a long article on\r\nthe situation this morning. I sent it out earlier without flagging it:<\/p>
\r\n\r\nLocal Officials Say System Fell Apart on Election Day
\r\n http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2000\/11\/11\/politics\/11PALM.html <\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\nLinks<\/b><\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\nHere are more URL's, several of them bearing directly on these issues.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nFlorida Confusion Has Precedent
\r\n http:\/\/www.salon.com\/politics\/wire\/2000\/11\/11\/precedent\/<\/p>
\r\n\r\nNAACP Hears Florida Voting Testimony
\r\n http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/aponline\/politics\/AP-Recount-NAACP.html<\/p>
\r\n\r\nFlorida's Election Day Vote Could Be Irrelevant
\r\n http:\/\/writ.news.findlaw.com\/commentary\/20001109_katyal.html <\/p>
\r\n\r\ncartoon about the Palm Beach ballot
\r\n http:\/\/www.motherjones.com\/comics\/tater.html <\/p>
\r\n\r\nPolice Find Locked Ballot Box at Miami Hotel
\r\n http:\/\/uk.news.yahoo.com\/001111\/80\/aovym.html\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\nPalm Beach County: Explore Numbers Behind the Controversy
\r\n http:\/\/www.govspot.com\/features\/palmbeach.htm <\/p>
\r\n\r\nMore Florida Ballots Said Disqualified
\r\n http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-srv\/aponline\/20001111\/aponline130619_000.htm <\/p>
\r\n\r\nElection Result Could Swing on Hand Tally Today
\r\n http:\/\/www.gopbi.com\/partners\/pbpost\/epaper\/editions\/today\/news_2.html <\/p>
\r\n\r\nStatistics Point to More Than Random Error in Florida Vote
\r\n http:\/\/www.lasvegassun.com\/sunbin\/stories\/weds\/2000\/nov\/10\/511018638.html\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\nDid Votes Intended for Gore Go to Buchanan?
\r\n http:\/\/www.indiana.edu\/~playpol\/pbmodel.pdf <\/p>
\r\n\r\nanalysis of James Baker's statement on the Florida recount
\r\n http:\/\/www.bushwatch.com\/<\/p>
\r\n\r\nBush Seeks To Block Hand Recounts, Thwarting More Accurate Count
\r\n http:\/\/la.indymedia.org\/display.php3?article_id=4521<\/p>
\r\n\r\nSeminole County Delivers Edge to Bush in Recount
\r\n http:\/\/orlandosentinel.com\/elections\/1110sem.htm <\/p>
\r\n\r\nAgain, all the election URL's from this list can be found here:<\/p>
\r\n\r\n http:\/\/dlis.gseis.ucla.edu\/people\/pagre\/florida.html <\/p>
\r\n\r\nWe have a list of URL's for regional newspapers in Oregon now, but we\r\nstill need New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa, if anybody is looking for\r\nsomething useful to do.]<\/p>
\r\n\r\n=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
\r\nThis message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the \"redirect\" option. For information about RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, see http:\/\/dlis.gseis.ucla.edu\/people\/pagre\/rre.html
\r\n=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<\/p>
\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\nSanity In The Election Process<\/b><\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\nDate: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:42:40 -0800 (PST)
\r\nFrom: PRIVACY Forum
\r\nTo: PRIVACY-Forum-List@vortex.com
\r\nSubject: PRIVACY Forum Digest V09 #24<\/p>
\r\n\r\nPRIVACY Forum Digest Saturday, 11 November 2000 Volume 09 : Issue 24<\/p>
\r\n\r\n (http:\/\/www.vortex.com\/privacy\/priv.09.24)<\/p>
\r\n\r\n Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
\r\n Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A.
\r\n http:\/\/www.vortex.com
\r\n\r\n\t\r\n ===== PRIVACY FORUM ===== <\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\n The PRIVACY Forum is supported in part by\r\n the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) \r\n\t Committee on Computers and Public Policy, \r\n\t\t Cable & Wireless USA, Cisco Systems, Inc., \r\n and Telos Systems.
\r\n - - -
\r\n These organizations do not operate or control the \r\n PRIVACY Forum in any manner, and their support does not\r\n imply agreement on their part with nor responsibility \r\n for any materials posted on or related to the PRIVACY Forum.
\r\n -------------------------------------------------------------------<\/p>
\r\n\r\nCONTENTS
\r\n \tSanity in the Election Process
\r\n \t (Lauren Weinstein and Peter Neumann)<\/p>
\r\n\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------<\/p>
\r\n\r\nDate: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 13:29:47 PST\r\nFrom: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)\r\nSubject: Sanity in the Election Process<\/p>
\r\n\r\n \t Lauren Weinstein
\r\n \t Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility
\r\n \t Moderator, PRIVACY Forum
\r\n \t Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy<\/p>
\r\n\r\n \t Peter G. Neumann
\r\n \t Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility
\r\n \t Moderator, RISKS Forum
\r\n \t Chairman, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy<\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE<\/p>
\r\n\r\n\"Sanity in the Election Process\"<\/p>
\r\n\r\nNovember 11, 2000<\/p>
\r\n\r\nThe continuing controversies over the results of the recent U.S.\r\nPresidential election, particularly concerning the vote in Florida,\r\nhave now apparently begun to hinge on technical issues relating to\r\nvoting systems and ballots, especially in terms of machine vs. manual\r\nrecounts, voting irregularities, voter confusion and complaints, and\r\nother related issues.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nWe feel that several critical points are being misunderstood or\r\nmisrepresented by some parties to these controversies, particularly in\r\nlight of Governor George W. Bush's campaign having taken federal court\r\nactions attempting to block manual recounts of the vote in several\r\nFlorida counties. Regardless of the outcome of those particular court\r\nactions, the following points are crucial to consider.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n1) As is well known to election officials and voting system vendors,\r\n but historically not advertised to the public at large, all\r\n voting systems are subject to some degree of error -- electronic\r\n and mechanical systems alike. Punchcard-based systems are\r\n no exception, for which a variety of known problems can occur. \r\n These include poor ballot layout (currently a major issue regarding\r\n the \"butterfly\" Palm Beach County ballot), machine reading errors\r\n (often relating to incompletely punched ballot selections, usually\r\n in the form of \"hanging chad\"), paper fatigue, and other problems.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n In general, so long as the interested parties both have observers\r\n participating in manual recounts to assure a consensus on the\r\n interpretation and tabulation of the cards, manual recounts provide\r\n the MOST reliable mechanism for counting these cards accurately,\r\n particularly due to the common hanging chad problem which often\r\n reads as \"closed\" (no vote) when processed through automatic\r\n reading machines. Indeed, manual counting is still prevalent today\r\n in England and Germany.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n It is true that manual recounts tend to boost the number of votes\r\n counted, again due to hanging chad and other problems noted above.\r\n This suggests that if concerns are present regarding the fairness\r\n of a manual recount only in particular counties, the obvious\r\n solution is to manually recount in ALL Florida counties, and to\r\n manually count ALL votes (not just a sampling). Yes, this will\r\n be slow, and potentially expensive. But if the will of voters\r\n is not to be subjugated to technical flaws over which they have no\r\n control, this would be the only fair course.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n2) While all voting systems have \"normal\" error rates, these errors\r\n typically are not of great significance so long as the margin\r\n of victory is significantly larger than the error rate, which is\r\n usually the case. However, this does NOT suggest that systemic\r\n errors in the voting process are of insignificance and can simply\r\n be discarded in close elections where the error rate DOES matter.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n In particular, the Palm Beach situation from the VERY START of\r\n election day showed all the earmarks of systemic problems. Voters\r\n complained of ballot confusion in great numbers, harried precinct\r\n workers provided conflicting and apparently often inaccurate\r\n information to voters about the ability or inability to correct\r\n spoiled ballots or other ballot errors, and warnings regarding\r\n the confusing ballot situation failed to even reach all affected\r\n precincts, among other obvious problems. These problems occurred\r\n all through election day in Palm Beach County. The statistically\r\n anomalous results of the voting in that area regarding votes\r\n received by the Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan would appear to\r\n further validate this analysis -- the dramatic vote skew observed\r\n clearly does not result from \"normal\" voting errors that can be\r\n reasonably discounted or ignored.\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\n Unlike the typical error rate expected in most elections where\r\n significant quantities of voter complaints are not received, the\r\n Palm Beach situation, with its extremely atypical and alarming set\r\n of complaints and problems throughout election day, would appear\r\n to put those votes in a category that cannot be simply swept under\r\n the rug, and that appear to be deserving of immediate redress,\r\n adjustment, and\/or revoting. These widespread voting problems\r\n in Palm Beach County were clearly not the fault of \"inept\"\r\n or \"moronic\" elderly voters, as some persons have arrogantly\r\n suggested.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n3) Attempts to short-circuit the process of correcting the injustices\r\n and technical problems discussed above, through calls for rapid\r\n \"closure\" or the simple accepting of inaccurate and unjust results\r\n (particularly in Palm Beach County) \"for the sake of the country\"\r\n should be rejected.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n We should not attempt to resolve this situation through quick\r\n \"solutions\" or calls for concessions. These same issues would be\r\n present even if the candidates' current positions were reversed.\r\n The critical questions shouldn't even be focused on the candidates\r\n at all, but rather on the VOTERS themselves, who appear to\r\n have been shortchanged by technical issues, procedural problems\r\n not under their control, and now by attempts by politicians\r\n to hurriedly dispose of this mess through vague references to\r\n the public good -- a route that would leave the affected voters\r\n effectively disenfranchised.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nThere are two efforts that need to take place. First, the problems\r\nof this particular election, as discussed above, need to be dealt with\r\nin a deliberate and fair fashion. If that involves courts, manual\r\nrecounts, and revoting, both inside and perhaps outside Florida, so be\r\nit -- they're all part of the procedures that we have in place. Let's\r\nget it right -- we should not be treating voters as disposable peons.\r\nIf we do not take a proper course, whoever ends up in the White House\r\nwill be viewed by at least half of the U.S. population, and probably\r\nmuch of the world, as not wholly legitimate.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nSecondly, we need to look long and hard at the election process\r\naround this country, taking note that calls for radical departures\r\nfrom current widely-used systems must be viewed with extreme care\r\nand skepticism. In particular, Internet voting must be considered to\r\nbe extremely problematic (please see the PFIR Statement on Internet\r\nVoting - http:\/\/www.pfir.org\/statements\/voting, and \"Hacking the Vote\"\r\n- http:\/\/www.vortex.com\/reality\/2000-11-08). One major reason to\r\nlook skeptically upon these hi-tech systems is that their potential\r\nreduction in voter privacy and lack of rigorous audit trails fail to\r\nallow true recounts to occur when the integrity of the voting process\r\nis called into question, and such questions can arise in electronic as\r\nwell as mechanical voting environments.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nWe stand at a crossroads where the existence of fundamental flaws in\r\nour election system have finally been exposed to the public. It is\r\nno longer tenable for the powers that be, with a gentleman's agreement\r\nor a nod and a wink, to steamroll over these flaws -- and the will\r\nof voters -- for the sake of convenience and expediency. We can\r\nstart down the path toward ensuring genuine fairness and integrity\r\nin the voting process by making sure that the election of last Tuesday\r\nis resolved in a manner that not only serves the candidates, but more\r\nimportantly the will of the voters themselves.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n = = = =<\/p>
\r\n\r\nLauren Weinstein
\r\nlauren@pfir.org
\r\n(818) 225-2800
\r\nCo-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http:\/\/www.pfir.org
\r\nModerator, PRIVACY Forum - http:\/\/www.vortex.com
\r\nMember, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
<\/p>
\r\n\r\nPeter G. Neumann
\r\nneumann@pfir.org
\r\n(650) 859-2375
\r\nCo-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http:\/\/www.pfir.org
\r\nModerator, RISKS Forum - http:\/\/catless.ncl.ac.uk\/Risks
\r\nChairman, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy\r\nhttp:\/\/www.csl.sri.com\/neumann<\/p>
\r\n\r\n************************<\/p>
\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\nDate: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:58:53 -0500 (EST)
\r\nFrom: Lee Campbell
\r\nSubject: Re: Skewed county results in recount ([RRE]Florida recount)<\/p>
\r\n\r\nI saw your note about recount oddities on RRE. I have another oddity\r\nto add to it: the numbers in Volusia County.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nBelow are all the tallies before the recount (from CNN) and after\r\nthe recount (from volusia.org). What's odd here is that the minor\r\ncandidates received 9003 votes before the recount but only 3979 after\r\nthe recount, and almost all their totals are different, but the Bush\r\nand Gore totals didn't change. If the minor candidates changed that\r\nmuch, it seems really odd that the major candidates would have zero\r\nchange.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nAccording to the numbers, Nader gained a few hundred, Pat Buchanan\r\ngained 100, while Browne lost 85% of his votes, and Phillips lost 99%.\r\nMeanwhile, the Bush & Gore totals remained precisely unchanged.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n \t- Lee Campbell\r\n \t elwc031@media.mit.edu<\/p>
\r\n\r\n -------<\/p>
\r\n\r\nFrom: http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/ELECTION\/2000\/results\/FL\/index8.7.html<\/p>
\r\n\r\n VOLUSIA Nov. 7 100% of precincts<\/p>
\r\n\r\n Candidates\t Votes Vote % EV<\/p>
\r\n\r\n \t Gore 97,063 49 % 0
\r\n \t Bush \t 82,214 42 % 0
\r\n \t Browne 3,211 2 % \r\n 0
\r\n \t Phillips 2,927 2 % 0
\r\n \t Nader 2,436 2 % 0
\r\n \t Buchanan 396 1 % 0
\r\n \t Hagelin \t 33 1 % 0 <\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \tno winner declared<\/p>
\r\n\r\n \tresults as of 8:38 p.m. EST, 11\/8<\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\nFrom: http:\/\/www.volusia.org\/11-8c-00.htm<\/p>
\r\n\r\n \tNovember 8, 2000
\r\n \tHolly Smith
\r\n \tCommunity Information Specialist
\r\n\t\r\n \t\t CANVASSING BOARD COMPLETES RECOUNT<\/p>
\r\n\t\r\n\tThe Canvassing Board for Volusia County's general election\r\n\tcompleted the state mandated recount of the Presidential vote\r\n\tat 8 p.m., Wednesday, November 8. There were no changes in\r\n\tthe unofficial returns in the Presidential race.<\/p>
\r\n\t\r\n\tVolusia's results show:<\/p>
\r\n\t\r\n \t Al Gore -- 97,063 votes.
\r\n \t George Bush -- 82,214 votes.
\r\n \t Harry Browne -- 442 votes.
\r\n \t Ralph Nader -- 2,903 votes.
\r\n \t James Harris -- 8 votes.
\r\n \t John Hagelin -- 36 votes.
\r\n \t Pat Buchanan -- 496 votes.
\r\n \t David McReynolds -- 5 votes.
\r\n \t Howard Phillips -- 20 votes.
\r\n \t Monica Moorehead -- 69 votes. <\/p>
\r\n\t\r\n \tThe results of the Canvassing Board's recount were provided\r\n\tto the State Department of Elections Wednesday evening.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n -------<\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/dlis.gseis.ucla.edu\/people\/pagre\/florida.html","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"A refutation of the argument that Gore is trying to massage the outcome by only cleaning up selected data.\r\nAn explaination why (among other things) the manual count should be be more accurate than the machine count. And funny numbers in Volusia County--no change in Bush or Gore totals, while other totals change dramatically. Plus links.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2000\/11\/rre_f01.htm","filesize":"21.0 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2000\/11\/4619.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}