2 ms·
I agree that there should be strict, well-defined standards for which votes count, and the examples you mention shouldn't count. However, "is readable by a mac
by tomp 11y ago
I agree that there should be strict, well-defined standards for which votes count, and the examples you mention shouldn't count.
However, "is readable by a machine" is not a well-defined standard, and is IMO way too strict; it's more than likely that a panel of human readers would all agree on which name is written on a ballot, without it being readable by a machine.
- maxlybbert 11y agoI'm not saying it's a good standard. I am saying that it's a standard that Scalia proposed, and I will concede that it sidesteps a few complications. But it's also not as rigorous as it should be. Two machines may disagree on how readable a particular ballot is, even if both machines are operating within specified tolerances.