Thanks the Freepmail on this Howlin. I have not been totally idle.

OK, its late, and I'm probably an idiot, but could you be more clearer as to your point? I don't really follow what your exact thesis is.

An unpunched chad is a valid abstain vote. Why did Katherine count them as machine errors?

Haven't we had enough of this? It's bad enough the media is dredging this up again, why do we need to post it here too?

The thesis (actually the fact) is that the recount consortium found a lot more votes in Palm Beach using the exact same standard Palm Beach used. Same methodology, same ballots reviewed (Palm Beach hand recounted them all), and 2000 more votes. Why? Well either 1) the judges had poor eyesight, 2) the judges didn't see all the close call ballots they should have seen, or 3) the consortium has very poor judgment in deciding what is a vote, or 4) what Palm Beach thinks is the Palm Beach standard, and what the consortium thinks is the Palm Beach standard, are not co-extensive. This tends to be verified by the new votes found in Broward which supposedly used a looser standard.

2,000 new votes is a lot of votes, a lot of votes indeed. This cannot be idlely dismissed as some sort of rounding error.

Because it interests me, and I think I uncovered something not previously reported on. That's enough for me. If not for you, there are always other threads.

Perhaps you should rephrase you post. I am reluctant to guess as to its meaning.

.

Or could it be the fact that every time the ballots are handled, more votes were cast?

On purpose? What does that say about journalistic integrity?

Or how about accidentally? Those ballots were deteriorating every time someone handled them.

All the hand wringing and sniveling will never change the facts. When a candidate has to rely on dimpled chads and sleazy lawyers who alter sworn affidavits it shows what a loser he is. Good riddance to Al Gore and his impeached boss.

Ballot card deterioration represents possibility 5, and not a frivously one at that. Well done.

Er "frivolous."

Thanks for taking the time to clarify, it makes a lot more sense to me now(while typing with a minor Benadryl buzz).

I think you may have found a good point that needs to be explained. Personally I would go with your #3 possibility, because I don't trust the consortium, and they didn't have the degree of scrutiny and accountability that the election supervisors had. So to me your find indicates a zeal on the consortium's part to harvest votes, thus overstating the chances that Gore would have passed Bush. Surprise, surprise, surprise, a little bias in the media recount?

......2,000 new votes is a lot of votes, a lot of votes indeed. ......

Interesting and I'd tend to think it may lie in the #4, that they didn't understand what the standard was thus they were counting apples and oranges as the same. I'd think the PB election officials were fairly consistent thoughout their recount. And I'd also question if it was the same counter doing both PB and Broward for the consortium.

Thanks for you input

It is strange but I watched all the network evening news broadcasts for the past two days and the only one to date to mention this story has been Fox. However; I may have missed it while channel switching.

WAKE UP! President Bush will loose Florida in 2004 unless the concept of "undervotes" is revealed for the lie that it is!

torie there was alot of talk of votomatics in palm beach county you think maybe they slid a couple of ballots together to get the aformentioned dimple? I know that when judicial watch did their intitial recount they found some irregularities with the way the votes where counted in palm beach county I'm paraphrasing but I remember them saying that 153 votes in the certified statewide total where votes for bush that where put on the gore pile. Also did you or anyone else ever find out if this count included the absentee ballots thrown out on glitches. It seems that if the most after every corner or nick is count is a gore lead of 171 bush would have easily passed even that with those ballots.

If you have ever left blank an office on a ballot that you cast, then you have duly voted to abstain -- just like they do in the U. S. Senate.

The difference is that in the U. S. Senate abstain votes ARE counted. In Florida abstain votes are NOT counted.

"The media," libs and dems concocted the lie that there is such a thing as an "undervote" and claimed the abstain votes as "undervotes."

The republicans were to stupid to figure it out, and to embarrased now to admit it.

The good news is that a new phrase has been coined: "To "Gore" an election is to count abstain votes as votes for yourself.

I think you have verified the thesis that handcounts are inherently unreliable.