I know what you're saying about mass nouns, Faldage, and I thought it was an honest error on my part. This kind of thing often happens when a term that is unknown to the general population, such as chad, comes into popular use due to an event that looms big in the public consciousness, the questionable winning of the election by George W. being a case in point.

The word chad was certainly unknown to me at that point and I would guess unknown to many here in the States.
However, it is clear in MW that the word can take an 's'--and I do not believe that the editors of MW intended that 's' to only be added to a sliver of a single chad. I think common sense dictates here that the word may be used as the mass noun that you have so correctly pointed out to me, but that the same word may be used for an individual piece. You can have your cake and eat it, too, and I will take your chad and individual pieces known as chad and chads. It seems to be a bit overboard to say that should we slice the individual tiny chad into little bitty pieces, then and only then can we add the 's'. For heavens sake, Faldage: How many occasions would warrant the cutting up of chad?