|
 ow
precise was the major-media recount of 175,010 rejected ballots
from last year's presidential race in Florida? Consider some of
the factors that played a role in the final product.
The National
Opinion Research Center, which conducted the study for the New
York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal,
and other media organizations, hired 153 "coders" to examine
the disqualified ballots. NORC asked the coders if they viewed themselves
as Republicans, Democrats, or independents. Thirty percent said
Republican, 36 percent said Democrat, and 30 percent said independent.
As it turned out, according to NORC, self-identified Republican
coders were more likely than Democrats to see a vote for George
W. Bush. Self-identified Democratic coders were more likely than
Republicans to see a vote for Al Gore.
It also mattered
whether a ballot was examined by a man or a woman. "The odds
of a coder seeing a mark for Bush were somewhat higher for male
coders than for female coders," says Kirk Wolter, the NORC
statistician who oversaw the effort. The same was true for Gore.
"The odds of seeing any mark at all for Al Gore were also somewhat
higher for male coders than female coders," Wolter says.
Aside from
those differences, there were simple differences of opinion among
the teams of three coders who examined each ballot. Studying the
results, the Washington Post wrote, "When researchers
from the National Opinion Research Center looked at a ballot, especially
a punch card, they did not always see the same thing. For every
two ballots on which the researchers unanimously saw a potential
vote for Bush or Gore, there was another ballot on which someone
saw a vote for Bush or Gore and someone else didn't."
In other words,
in one out of every three ballots which contained a discernible
marking, the three coders couldn't agree on what it was.
The coders
were also hindered, Wolter says, by not being allowed to actually
touch the ballots. In the study, the ballots were handled by local
elections officials (as they were in the actual recounts last November
and December). The coders were just allowed to look at a ballot
that someone else was holding. "Our view of dimples was less
reliable, perhaps, than a canvassing board's view of dimples,"
Wolter says.
Take all that
together — disagreements on a significant number of ballots,
differences traceable to party affiliation and gender, and less-than-ideal
study conditions — and you have a recount that is simply not
precise enough to come up with exact vote totals in a race as close
as the 2000 presidential election.
Using the raw
data supplied by NORC, the Washington Post came up with scenarios
in which Bush won by 225 votes, 430 votes, and 493 votes. The paper
also came up with scenarios in which Gore won by 60 votes, 107 votes,
115 votes, and 171 votes. But the number of ballots about which
coders disagreed, or which were affected by some sort of coder bias,
was far greater than any of the vote margins in any of the media
scenarios.
Which means
that Gore partisans who claim the recount proves Al Gore actually
won Florida are wrong. It also means that Bush partisans who claim
the recount proves George W. Bush actually won Florida are wrong.
What the media recount proves is that the election procedure in
place in Florida in November 2000 was actually pretty good: Count
the votes by machine on election night. Count them by machine again
if the margin is close. Declare a winner, with a tightly limited
time for the loser to contest the results. When that time is over,
certify the winner and close the books. Don't change the rules after
the fact — and don't go off on a wild goose chase for a level
of certitude that cannot be achieved in a 6,000,000-vote election.
Though that's certainly not what they intended, the media recounters
proved it can't be done.
|
