Man v. Machine - Election 2000: A Race Oddity

quarterly-report.com

Political Commentary
by James R. Audet

Bush v. Gore:

	Man v. Machine	Election 2000
	Election 2000: A Race Oddity	Home Page
	by James R. Audet

We now have the answer. The 2000 presidential election was not about chads or dimples, the Declaration of the Rights of the Florida Constitution nor Article 2 of the United States Constitution. It was about one thing. Error. Man made error. Inherent, often self-destructive, error.

The evidence adduced in the Circuit Court of Leon County Judge N. Sanders Sauls has revealed the winner of Florida's popular vote for president. It is George W. Bush, Jr. (Judge Sauls' Ruling). However, it is strictly a legal victory. We will never know the intended vote of every voter in Florida. That is a mathematical impossibility.

This is a bittersweet victory for Bush. His election will bear an annotation in the history books. The 2000 presidential race was compromised by an imprudent reliance on imperfect technology.

Florida law calls for a machine recount of votes when the separation between candidates is less than 0.5 percent. This took place. In addition, local canvassing boards have the discretion to conduct manual recounts. Pursuant to Vice President Gore's demand, hand recounts took place in the predominately democratic counties of Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Volusia. In accordance with November 21st Order of the Florida Supreme Court, the canvassing boards of these counties sought to determine the presidential preference of those ballots that did not register a machine vote for president.

Gore's attorney, David Boies, argued that a hand count would produce a more accurate result. The evidence showed that there was little difference whether punch ballots were counted by hand or by computer. Both methods were shown to contain error that was not quantified. For the American public, the trial raised the following question: Which count is more accurate?

Palm Beach voters found ingenious ways to complete their ballots. Trial testimony showed that machine counters were incapable of reading the myriad of ways that voters marked their ballots. Testimony also disclosed that an accurate hand count was frustrated by hanging, pregnant, and dimpled chads that are routinely ignored by the counting machines. The Palm Beach Canvassing Board examined 15,000 ballots by hand. During the examination, the Board revised its standards for what constituted a vote a number of times. This destroyed the integrity of the count. By changing its criteria for voter intention, the board was required to re-start its examination from the beginning. This it did not do. Consequently, the count was scientifically invalid. It was proper for Judge Sauls to sustain the Secretary's action to ignore the revised count of Palm Beach.

The Florida Supreme Court gave the benefit of the doubt to people instead of machines. What we have learned from the trial is that a hand count appears no more accurate than a machine count. The trial proved that there is error in vote casting and ballot counting. However, Plaintiff Gore failed to quantify mathematically, the error in these separate processes. Likewise, he failed to introduce evidence as to the alleged presumption of accuracy favoring a hand count.

Neither a machine nor a hand count is able to meet a degree of accuracy -- which, paradoxically, was not defined at the trial -- that is required in an election this close. However, the calculation is straightforward. A 1000 vote error in 500,000 votes is 0.2 percent. On a county by county basis, 100 to 1000 times that accuracy was needed. Neither side introduced evidence to show that machines or humans are capable of such accuracy. On the other hand, the trial disclosed that a different group of three people would have arrived at different numbers for the tallies in Palm Beach. These fatal errors gave Judge Sauls a substantive basis to dismiss Gore's claims of inaccurate vote counts.

It is clear that the various systems used to record and count votes failed the elective process. Who is responsible? The citizens of Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties for not properly executing their ballots? Various Florida Boards of County Commissioners who were too cheap to install up to date voting equipment? The Florida legislature? The American people? Yes, we all are responsible. Although there is blame to go around, it is irrelevant to this election. Whether we rely on technology or people to count the votes, the current electoral system is so flawed that deciding close elections is problematical.

Gore claims that a reliance on computers for counting ballots subordinates man to machines. Regretfully, this is a fact. We are inferior to our machines, because that is the choice we have made.

No way, scream the anti-technologists. They cite fictional dramas such as, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Failsafe, as examples of what happens to life when men subordinate decision-making to computers. Their understanding is wrong. The message of these works is that computers fail because an imperfect creature built them. Computers simply mirror the errors of their human builders.

We are the schizophrenic Hal 9000 computer in 2001. We are the burnt out computer in Failsafe.

If one ignores technological limits, an overload may cause system breakdown. Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties suffered balloting errors as recent as two years ago, yet, they carelessly ignored systemic problems. Because of their misfeasance to duty, the new Administration will struggle for credibility.

It is clear that the latest computer technology that minimizes voter input error should be immediately deployed. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court's benchmark of "the will of the people" mandates such a response.

We built our machines to improve balloting and counting accuracy, not to substitute them for imperfect human beings. Nevertheless, based on the protests of "one man, one vote," Al Gore, we are told to throw the machines away because the count did not show him the winner. America's alleged "technology" Vice-President dismisses the evidence of error in hand counts and presses forward with his court challenges. Gore, who once claimed to be an inventor of the Internet, now professes an ignorance of science. His position is no different from the hypocrite who complains about the blinking clock on his VCR, but has no time to read the instruction book. Gore's endless legal challenges leaves one with the impression that he wishes to have the undervote ballots recounted until he wins a plurality.

Boies wanted Judge Sauls to fashion an equitable remedy, because equity demands we favor men over machines. Wonderful words; flawed premise. There was no evidence presented of machine miscounts. On the other hand, there was evidence of conflicting standards for the manual recounts. Since the purpose of a count is to determine a winner, counting standards must be uniform. Bush and Gore are obliged to accept the certified results.

The situation demands a man of intellect, of courage, of honor to step to the microphone and admit defeat.

Eight years of Bill Clinton have taught us that the purpose of politics is to win. Personal honor is nothing more than a useless commodity if one loses. The word, "honor," has been shredded from a principle to a moronic topic for vitriolic partisan wrangling. Nevertheless, political spin can not change the inherent need of most people to possess it. Its acquisition requires one to acknowledge his shortcomings and then fight like hell against handicaps, foibles, and prejudices. A grasp of error is the first step to "being" a human being and is the foundation on which personal honor is built.

An understanding of imperfection -- a prerequisite for mercy -- is a necessity in a leader. The Framers of the U.S. Constitutional understood that human beings are predisposed to deny error and fault. To protect the Republic from misguided and iniquitous leaders, they wrote various safeguards into the Constitution. Gore's ignorance of voter error suggests that he has little appreciation for the constitutional processes he challenges.

Because he has made it so, the loss of the presidency will be a crushing blow to Al Gore. Although his legal challenges are styled to make him appear as a patriot, Gore wears a threadbare cloak. What shows through David Boies' handiwork is an ambitious man with a predisposition to hypocrisy and a malleable sense of honor.

It is time for Al Gore to terminate his legal challenges and concede Florida and the Presidency to George W. Bush, Jr. By accepting the error-ridden results, Gore can elevate himself above the computer and prove to America that he is an honorable man.