Voter Intent

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.11.1100)]

It looks like the Supreme Court decision will be based on
an issue that could not possibly be _more_ relevant to PCT:
determining voter intent.

I think PCT would say that the only way to determine voter
intent is to do the test for the controlled variable. That,
of course, is never done in any election for practical reasons.
So all we have after an election are behavioral results (marks
on paper, punches of varying clarity through cardboard, etc)
and we have to decide whether each result is intended or not.

The Bush lawyers seem to be arguing that a machine can detect
the intent of the voter better than a manual inspection
of the ballots. I think PCT shows that this is hogwash; with-
out a test for the controlled variable _neither_ approach is
better than the other at determining the intent of the voter.
For example, just because a machine reads a clearly punched
hole as a vote for X doesn't mean that the voter actually
intended to vote for X. The voter (like all those little
Jewish ladies who clearly punched the ballot for Buchanan)
may have misread the ballot; or the voter, not meaning to
vote for anyone, may have slipped and accidentally poked the
hole next to Gore.

So, if the Supreme Court overrules the manual vote count of
non- machine read ballots based on the argument that manual
recounts are less reliable indicators of voter intent than
machine recounts, you can refer the Justices to papers that
describe the _science_ of determining intent (I would love to
talk with Justice Scalia about _Mind Readings_). Then, of course,
they'll understand that machines and people are equally poor
at determining intent and that they will have to find another
approach to ending democracy at the Federal level (Article II
still looks like the best approach to me;-))

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.11.1330)]

The Bush team also brought up the issue of manual count standards. The
Bush team claims that the manual approach to determining voter intent
will violate the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution
because different counters (across the different counties) will use
different standards to determine what constitutes an intended vote.
David Boise took care of that argument nicely in his oral arguments,
quoting actual data to illustrate his position (another reason I
love Boise; he'll look through the telescope). Boise pointed out
that there is much greater consistency across human counters in
different counties than across voting machines in different
counties in terms of what is considered an "intended vote". That is,
different human counters, using even the very vague standard provided
by the Florida Legislature itself, produce more consistent identifica-
tion of "intended votes" than do different voting machines. If the
Bush team really cared about "equal protection" they would throw out
the votes counted by machine as well as the ones counted by hand.

Best

Rick (fighting for democracy) Marken

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Richard Kennaway (2000.12.12.0944 GMT)]

Rick Marken (2000.12.11.1330):

That is,
different human counters, using even the very vague standard provided
by the Florida Legislature itself, produce more consistent identifica-
tion of "intended votes" than do different voting machines. If the
Bush team really cared about "equal protection" they would throw out
the votes counted by machine as well as the ones counted by hand.

You mean, throw out *all* the votes and just appoint Bush? It could come
to that. As I understand it, in Florida, as in most states, the letter of
the law allows members of the electoral college to vote for anyone they
please. All of them have invariably followed the people's vote in modern
times, but if the reference is "Bush in the White House" then invoking that
disused legal power could become the means.

There has been speculation on British television that this will happen if
the final count favours Gore. I don't know how seriously the possibility
is taken by those closer to the scene.

-- Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk, http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/
   School of Information Systems, Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.

[From Bill Powers (2000.12.12.0424 MST)]

Richard Kennaway (2000.12.12.0944 GMT)--

You mean, throw out *all* the votes and just appoint Bush? It could come
to that.

In a way it has already come to that. The vote has split so evenly that in
effect the voters have cancelled themselves out, leaving the choice up to
whatever random processes may separate the hanging chad, or whatever slight
imbalance of power already exists.

The Southern Ute Indians just voted to recall the chairman of their tribe
by a ratio of about 15:1. A magical triumph for majority rule? Maybe.
Unfortunately, the chairman urged his supporters to boycott the election,
so we'll never know. About half of those eligible voted -- just enough to
make the election legal.

Close elections probably mean that it doesn't really matter who wins.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1212.0935)]

Bill Powers (2000.12.12.0424 MST)]

Close elections probably mean that it doesn't really matter who wins.

I believe the technical terms for such a pronouncement is "wishful thinking."

BG

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.12.1110)]

Richard Kennaway (2000.12.12.0944 GMT)--

You mean, throw out *all* the votes and just appoint Bush? It could come
to that.

It sure could. But the Supreme Court will almost certainly rule that
the count was over on Nov. 12 and that's that. We won't appoint Bush;
we'll just elect him without doing a complete vote count.

Bill Powers (2000.12.12.0424 MST)--

The vote has split so evenly that in effect the voters have cancelled
themselves out, leaving the choice up to whatever random processes
may separate the hanging chad, or whatever slight imbalance of power
already exists.

I think the problem is that it _won't_ be a random process that determines
the result. Thanks to the Supreme Court, it will be either some Federal
precedent (like equal protection), which will make the entire Federal
election open to challenge on the basis of non-uniform machine or human
systems for counting votes, or by legislative fiat.

Close elections probably mean that it doesn't really matter who wins.

I agree. I don't care who wins. I care about the _principle_ of
democracy.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1212.15050]

Rick Marken (2000.12.12.1110)

I agree. I don't care who wins. I care about the _principle_ of
democracy.

Let the record show that _I_ care who wins. In fact, I doubt the sincerity
(or good sense) of those who say they don't care. (Except Ralph Nader, of
course, who is beyond reproach.)

BG

[From Norman T. Hovda (2000.12.12.1315)]

Bill Powers (2000.12.12.0424 MST)-

> Close elections probably mean that it doesn't really matter who wins.

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.12.1110)]

I agree. I don't care who wins. I care about the _principle_ of
democracy.

Reference level perceptions of "principle"? Democracy = two wolves and
a lamb having a "complete" vote count perceptions about lunch (read
justice).

Best,
nth

[From Rick Marken (2000.12.12.1450)]

Me:

I agree. I don't care who wins. I care about the _principle_ of
democracy.

Bruce Gregory (2000.1212.1505)

Let the record show that _I_ care who wins. In fact, I doubt
the sincerity (or good sense) of those who say they don't care.

Well, of course, I _did_ care who won when I voted. But given that
it's so close, I "don't care" now in the sense that I know there
will be no real winner. It is, indeed, a statistical tie. I
don't think a count of the rest of the votes is right because it
will give the _true_ result; I think it's right because it's
consistent with what I see as the _spirit_ of democracy, which
to that every person's vote really does count (or, at least, that
every effort will be made to _try_ to count every vote).

Norman T. Hovda (2000.12.12.1315)--

Reference level perceptions of "principle"?

I think democracy is a reference for a principle perception, yes.
Expediency might be the name for another reference level for the
same principle perception.

Democracy = two wolves and a lamb having a "complete" vote count
perceptions about lunch (read justice).

Yes. It can certainly work out that way. I think that's why people
have rightly feared democracy. But in most democracies there is a
constitution or common law which prevents the majority from passing
laws like "abolish the minority". There's no perfect solution to
this problem; not democracy, not monarchy, not anarchy, etc. I
happen to like democracy as a basis for selecting leaders. It's
a tad better than heredity and a lot better than brute force, I
think. Anyway, that's probably just my third grade indoctrination
talking; I like to think of America as a democracy.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com