Machine vs. hand counting

[Frank Cross]

Apropos the selectivity bias of the handcount.  A statewide hand count
might not affect the results too much.  Most of the counties, including the
ones that voted for Bush use opscan ballots, which supposedly miss only 2
of 1000 votes.  By contrast, the punchcard ballots reportedly miss 32 of
1000 votes.
So a handcount of the punchcard ballots, which tend to be in Gore counties,
would produce a lot move votes than elsewhere in the state.





At 10:26 PM 11/12/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>   A hand count where there are optical scanners would not change the
>result as much; my proposal to count all ballots has been available; but
>Bush opposed doing so; I would still argue that the time for asking for the
>hand count ought to be waived; I hope the Gore people would even endorse
>that, and have full count of all votes; then we would have a winner. "John
>C. Eastman" wrote: Paul Finkelman wrote: Is there anyone on the list who
>can make an argument against a hand count where
>the machines failed to count votes?
> Paul,
>     So as between hand count 4 heavily Democrat counties only or hand
>count none, the only course likely to give us an accurate reflection of the
>statewide winner is not to conduct the hand count.
>John Eastman
>Chapman University School of Law
>  --
>Paul Finkelman
>Chapman Distinguished Professor
>University of Tulsa College of Law
>3120 East Fourth Place
>  74104 918-631-3706
>Fax 918-631-2194   paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu
>
Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712