Illustration A highlights the votes for presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, across the various counties in Florida. It is visually evident that the results from Palm Beach doesn't fit. This suggests a statistical abnormality.

Palm Beach county is the primary focus of the Florida controversy. On Thursday, Nov. 9th, observers from the Bush camp noted that in 1996, approximately 16,000 voters improperly punched their ballots. Precinct officials voided the these ballots. In the 2000 election, an estimated 19,000 voters incorrectly punched their ballots.

The Bush camp stated there wasn't a single challenge to the ballot used in the 1996 election; that no one challenged the format of the 2000 ballet prior to the election; and that the Democratic representative signed off on the 2000 ballot. This is partially incorrect. A number of voters expressed concern with the 2000 ballot. Election officials actually distributed a "warning" later in the day. Voters and candidates made a similar challenge in 1984. A federal review reported the system flawed in 1988. The question plaguing the nation today is how 35,000 people made a fatal mistake on their ballot without an official taking notice? Is this a conspiracy?

No. It isn't a conspiracy. This is the election we uncovered the bifocal bias. Illustration B (at right) shows a sample ballot used in the Palm Beach county. The format is referred to as a "butterfly" ballot.

The reason there were 35,000 voided ballets and not a single complaint is that voters were unaware they had make an error. As there wasn't a single challenge to the 2000 ballet prior to the election demonstrates one cannot anticipate the possibility for error by visually inspecting the ballot. These are errors of commission. As some people vote only once every four years, the lack of familiarity with the procedure acts to increase the margin of error.

My father recently underwent laser eye surgery. As a result, he no longer needs his bifocals. He told me how difficult it was to use a computer because of his glasses. When his eyes transitioned from the screen to the keyboard, he frequently lost his place. The shift in eye position while looking through the variable lense presented a considerable challenge.

A similar phenomenon occurs when people wearing bifocals attempt to punch a butterfly ballot. They focus and select a name. As they track with their hand across the ballot to the punch hole, the shift in eye position can cause them to loose their place on the page.

This is particularly problematic for right-handed people who try to punch the hole associated with a name listed on the right side of the ballot (similarly for left-handed people who attempt to punch the hole corresponding to a name listed on the left side of the ballot).

Illustration C (above) demonstrates how this is a problem for a right-handed voter. Although the voter had focused on the candidate's name, when sliding his/her hand to the left, the hand covers the name. As shown in the illustration, the voter can be drawn to one of the incorrect holes by the visible arrows. For a voter wearing bifocals, the probability of making this mistake is even greater.

This might be one of the reasons why Florida law prohibits such a design. The Bush camp stated that a Democratic supervisor oversaw the operations in Palm Beach. This is irrelevant. One key question is why the state's election commission didn't investigate the high number of voided ballots in the 1996 election. An important point to remember is that much of this problem results from voter apathy. Illustration D lists the five states with the lowest voter turnout. Arizona, home to Senator John McCain, faired the poorest as only 37% of their eligible electorate participated (source: USA TODAY, 11/10/00).

George W ran a campaign he characterized as Compassionate Conservatism. Bush's team is now demonstrating little compassionate on the ballot issue. They claim people should have studied the ballot more carefully, should have asked questions or taken more time. In essense, they consider the voter to be stupid. This is not the case. People were unaware they had made an error. In many cases, a voter's failing eyesight caused the problem. In the two elections, over 35,000 people made an error but didn't know it. Th election officials from both parties failed to design a "user-friendly" ballot. This level of accidental mistakes now becomes significant to the outcome of the general election.

We now hear calls for a "re-do" in the highlighted counties. The critical test in ordering a new election in Florida developed over many years, yet is heavily influenced by a state Supreme Court ruling in 1998. The court stated a new election would be justified if a judge found there were "substantial unintentional failure to comply" with election rules and a "reasonable doubt" that the election didn't express the will of the people.

Critics of the Palm Beach ballot claim the format was "deceptive" because candidates weren't listed vertically, as state law dictates, and that officials did not place the Democrats in the second position (the order corresponding to the results in the previous election).

It is important to point out that all of the 19,000 voters who had their ballot disqualified didn't incorrectly mark the presidential option. Many voters made their fatal mistake on one of the subsequent choices. For example, while attempting to vote for Bond Issue X (a measure listed on the right side of the ballot), a right-handed voter can easily punch the hole for a candidate running for a local district office. As this would result in double voting for that particular office, the computer automatically voids the entire ballot.

Before technological advancements in the voting booth such as the punch card system, voters marked their ballots by hand. The precinct officials read the ballot line by line. Under this system, the official only invalidated the doubled-marked selection, not the entire ballot.

Under closer inspection, the investigators will find that a high percentage of voters registered a legal and valid vote for the Office of the President. Their voice should not be discarded due to an error in voting on a subsequent issue or candidate.

back

© Copyright 2000 Infoimagination