CDR: Re: Close Elections and Causality

[Bill Stewart]

At 09:02 AM 11/9/00 -0800, Tim May wrote:

[lots of good comments on causality....]

>-- Someone will say that a highway being closed prevented them from 
>getting to the polling place in time, and that there additional vote 
>"would have made the difference." They want a re-vote.

A few years ago, Christie Whitman was busy campaigning for 
governor of New Jersey, and didn't get back home to vote in
a school bond election.  It lost by one vote.
(On the other hand, the local district or state or somebody
ignored their loss in the election and sold the bonds anyway....)

....
>Second, at the time of the "approximately simultaneous" vote on 
>Tuesday, no particular state, no particular county, and no particular 
>precinct had any way of "knowing" that it would be a hinge site. 
>Thus, some people didn't bother to vote, some were careless in 
>reading the ballot instructions, some just made random marks, some 
>were drunk, all of the usual stuff happening in polling places across 
>the country. This despite the estimated $3 billion spent on wooing 
>voters.

The electoral college system means that in almost all states,
except the one or two with the middlest results,
a difference of a small number of votes doesn't change the outcome.
Usually even changing the outcome for a whole state doesn't
change the outcome of the election either, except a few big states.
In Florida, where the vote totals are close to equal,
a small number of changed votes could change the election.
Arguably, the votes on the 19000 spoiled ballots _have_ changed
the outcome of the election, because the vote went into the voting booth
saying "I'm voting for Gore", and the ballot counters tossed those votes
after they were made.

....
>Rules are rules. The time to object is beforehand. Unless extremely 
>serious voter fraud is found, results should not be thrown out when 
>those results are in accordance with the rules. In no cases should a 
>re-vote of a "hinge county" be allowed for less-than-massive-fraud 
>reasons.

I agree that that's a strong point - if any of those 19000 voters
was confused, the time for them to raise the issue was at the poll.
If they _did_ ask "hey, this is confusing, how do I vote for Gore?"
at the polling place, and the poll workers told them what to do
and voided their ballots anyway, then they've got a cause of action.
If they didn't complain, it's much harder to argue.

				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart at pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639