MsIvoryTower
I agree that the issue is the weighing of the harm. (An aside to vonK—is the test the simple weighing of the harm, or does the court have to find a large imbalance? It is my impression that it is the latter.)
What harm occurs if she certifies the election? How does it outweigh the harm of court intrusion?
12535. CalGal - 11/17/2000 7:53:56 PM
Jex,
Truthfully, I haven't read all your posts yet because I'm still looking for the Boies press conference from this morning. But I am pretty sure I remember him saying that he didn't want to argue irreparable harm. Let me keep looking.
12536. CalGal - 11/17/2000 7:56:44 PM
Jex,
Here is a summary of Boies legal strategy, from CNN:
Boies said the Gore appeals, to be filed later Friday, will seek answers to two questions:
• When can Harris certify the statewide ballot?
• Should Harris wait for the manual recount tallies from Palm Beach and Broward counties, two Democratic strongholds, before deciding whether to accept or reject them?
According to Bois, Florida law says a statewide certification can be blocked if Harris rejects "a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the outcome of the election."
The Democrats have long argued that the manual recounts could tip the balance for Gore, who currently trails Bush by 300 votes.
Boies and Christopher urged Harris on Friday to wait a few more days, allow the manual recounts to be completed and then tally the statewide votes to see if the final numbers change the election's outcome.
"We obviously would urge the secretary of state to wait the few days that is necessary to get those votes counted (by hand)," Boies said.
Once manual recounting is completed, Harris would be free to decide whether to accept or reject them -- and the Gore camp would then decide if her decision complied with state law, Boies said, leaving open the door for legal challenges after final certification.
He was relying on the law that says certification can be blocked in a specific circumstance due to the outcome being in doubt--no mention of irreparable harm that I see. I'm still looking for any transcript.
12537. MsIvoryTower - 11/17/2000 7:56:52 PM
Dusty
I suppose I have a fundamental disagreement with you: I don't see the harm of the court's intervention. That's what courts are for, someone has a claim, they show some legitimate basis for it (they don't have to prove it before submitting the claim), and the court ajudicates.
In this case, many citizens of the state felt they'd been harmed, their vote had been discarded, or the system was unfair to them. Given the stakes in this certification, the harm would be very great if the court allowed the process to go forward without looking at the issues carefully.
I also disagree that a certification that was allowed and then found to be invalid, or incomplete, wouldn't be a big deal. It'd be a very big deal to undo. Specifically, a harm would have been done, but what would be the remedy?
12538. Dusty - 11/17/2000 7:56:54 PM
CalGal
I don't think they argued irreparable harm. I specifically recall the MS lawyer saying he wouldn't.
I haven't read enough to know whether they did or didn't. I read the NYT article, and the court decision, and didn't see any mention of it. So your statement sounds correct.
Hence my question. If it isn't irreparable harm (which doesn't seem justified) what is the reason?
The stated reason "maintain the status quo", sounds unbelievably lame.
Surely there is something else.
12539. jexster - 11/17/2000 7:57:39 PM
The irreparable harm argument further....given the statutory policy that elections be decided as expeditiously as possible under the circumstances, and given the shameless games K has been playing with elections boards (letters, threats, public warnings, and I think a TRO application) all designed to delay the recount and make her deadlines credible concerns, Boies surely would have said certification would delay or cause uncertainty to the efforts of the canvassing boards.
12540. CalGal - 11/17/2000 7:58:51 PM
Dusty,
See above. The reason is that Florida law allows for certification to be blocked in specific circumstances. The FSC appears to have maintained the status quo over the weekend in order to determine if this is one of those circumstances.
Keep in mind, too, that the SecState has to wait until all the absentee ballots are counted, and the counties have up to a week from today to do that. So it's not like tomorrow is an absolute legal deadline that they've kept her from.
12541. jexster - 11/17/2000 7:59:04 PM
That's the nuts of the test Cal. If a party is not likely to suceed on the merits and the egg is about to get scrambled (evidence that he stole the eggs), the effect is to preserve the status quo.
12542. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:07:50 PM
Cal- lorida law does not specify any reasons for delay in certification I don't think. Its a matter left to the discretion of the Secty of State presumably to enable compliance with other provisions of the statute where performance is likely to exceed the deadline. She might also, if she were acting in other than an arbitrary and capricious manner, want to satisfy herself that the canvassing boards have a reasonable plan to finish their work as soon as practicable, that adequate safeguards are in place etc.
The problem is Kathy's twisted and biased reading of the statute. She uses her discretionary power to certify w/in 7 days to gut the substantive and mandatory provisions of the law which deal with the law's main purpose - expressing the will of the people.
Not very much different than if Gore wins and she, hating Gore, decides not to certify so she could go on a junket to Europe for two months
12543. Dusty - 11/17/2000 8:08:20 PM
MsIvoryTower
I suppose I have a fundamental disagreement with you: I don't see the harm of the court's intervention.
I do, but that's really not the issue is it? I ask this in all seriousness. I don't think the courts get to intervene anytime there intervention doesn't cause harm. I would hope that courts have to show that lack of action would cause harm. (Obviously, we are only discussing peremptory action; of course courts can rule on the legality of past actions.)
That's what courts are for, someone has a claim, they show some legitimate basis for it (they don't have to prove it before submitting the claim), and the court ajudicates.
If I claim that the next President of the United States might do something illegal, so I would like injunctive relief, I would be laughed out of court.
Courts routinely adjudicates on past matters brought before them. Injunctive relief is rarer, and, I believe requires a tougher standard.
In this case, many citizens of the state felt they'd been harmed, their vote had been discarded, or the system was unfair to them. Given the stakes in this certification, the harm would be very great if the court allowed the process to go forward without looking at the issues carefully.
I also disagree that a certification that was allowed and then found to be invalid, or incomplete, wouldn't be a big deal. It'd be a very big deal to undo.
Why is this a big deal? I truly understand that it is a political big deal, and I really think that the courts are being wimps, and trying to avoid having to deal with the issue, but we don't expect courts to act like wimps.
12544. Dusty - 11/17/2000 8:08:37 PM
(cont)
I do understand that there are political implications to letting the certification happen, but I haven't heard the legal, or financial harm. (As an aside, what are the permissible classes of harm? I'm sure financial is included—I'm guessing that political is not included. Any others?)
12545. CalGal - 11/17/2000 8:10:24 PM
I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but fed court turned Bush down, too.
12546. Dusty - 11/17/2000 8:11:27 PM
CalGal
Boies is clever, but he's blowing smoke. If certification can be blocked simply because a recount might produce a different answer, then virtually any election certification could be blocked.
If he prevails on that bs reason, we are all screwed.
12547. Dusty - 11/17/2000 8:13:02 PM
Well, thanks for the discussion on this issue. I'm played out. I'm ready to turn to a different issue.
12548. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:13:11 PM
Baker & Co say this at least 30 times a day . He said the Bush camp remained confident that Katherine Harris, the secretary of state who had called for an end to hand recounts, acted lawfully and with "proper discretion."
Never discuss facts, never mention the tortured interpretations of statute she depends on, never mention what is really going on, the sham she's playing out.
12549. milkmaid - 11/17/2000 8:14:09 PM
Of course Baker isn't going to say any of those things. Duh.
12550. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 8:14:51 PM
Alfraud
12551. CalGal - 11/17/2000 8:15:06 PM
Dusty,
Good luck. My guess is we'll be consumed by this for a while longer.
. If certification can be blocked simply because a recount might produce a different answer, then virtually any election certification could be blocked.
No, you have to have a reasonable belief that the outcome might be different. 10,000 votes rejected by a machine in an election that has a 300 vote spread could certainly be considered a reasonable belief.
12552. CalGal - 11/17/2000 8:17:31 PM
What I am truly gleeful about, and it shames me, is that Bush won't be partying this weekend. Even if he wins ultimately, that's worth some brownie points.
It was just so annoying watching him and Baker say, firmly, that they expected the election to be wrapped up on Saturday.
They lost their Saturday. Ha.
12553. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:20:47 PM
A certification can be blocked as follows
(1) Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest.
4)(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested.
The following also is relevant.
) Any other cause or allegation which, if sustained, would show that a person other than the successful candidate was the person duly nominated or elected to the office in question or that the outcome of the election on a question submitted by referendum was contrary to the result declared by the canvassing board or election board.
12554. Cellar Door - 11/17/2000 8:22:05 PM
I'm just glad to see the Borg Queen (Harris) done in.
12555. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:23:02 PM
Well, I mentioned that early this morning, CalGal, and the only mistake I made was saying "at the ranch in Waco" and all hell broke loose....shades of Janet Reno and frying babies.
He's only upset that a proper party down atmosphere can't be attained; it's like the kids in College Station mourning the fact they can't have a bonfire.
12556. Dusty - 11/17/2000 8:24:05 PM
Welcome milkmaid!
12557. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:24:28 PM
Yes there does have to be a reasonable basis for concluding that a different outcome could happen. Once requested, and once granted, the Secty of State has no basis to stop the counts, no power to challenge the decision itself, its conclusive on her unless wild and crazy in which case she could go to court. Once granted IOW she has no authority to stop a recount that is properly undertaken. So she uses her discretionary powers as an end run
12558. CalGal - 11/17/2000 8:26:13 PM
Jex,
That last reason you cited sounds familiar. I think that might have been what Boies was referring to. In any event, I think they were very wise to stay away from irreparable harm.
12559. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 8:30:57 PM
Bush up by 449.
12560. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:31:11 PM
Further irreparable harm to Gore - statute requires Harris to get the results to the state canvassing commish ASAP and commission then immediately determines the electors based on that result.
It would make it harder if those results were satisfied to protect the Gore position if it has merit as it appears to
12561. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:32:17 PM
So, drudge reports that Bush leads by 478 with a lot of the overseas votes counted...55 out of 67 counties counted.
If true, this is depressing.
12562. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:32:23 PM
149 votes ain't gonna cut it Rose unless the machines freed most of the chad from the ballots - a big OOOPS
12563. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:33:02 PM
...and oh so sorry I forgot to say Capital D drudge.
12564. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:33:40 PM
neither will 178....most were estimating a 300 vote boost. But I bet its easier to estimate how much Bush would get than what Gore might get from a ballot examination
12565. Cellar Door - 11/17/2000 8:34:20 PM
Oh yes the All Holy Pope Matt Who is Without Sin.
12566. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:36:35 PM
I'd bet he did talk at least in general terms about the harm he'd suffer as he is required to do that. He may have been much more specific about the lack of harm to if injunction granted.
12567. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:37:31 PM
Hey Cellar...I agree with you, he's slime. I was just posting what is on his site.
12568. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 8:37:40 PM
There is an absolute, 100% reason I know that Bush is going to win. On election night, the French News Service called the election for Gore.
12569. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:39:19 PM
Oh sure, Rosie...the French. Friggin' FOX said Bush was the winner...
12570. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:39:35 PM
Judge Labarga told Palm Beach plaintiffs that if he had to deny them a remedy it would be the hardest decision he has ever made.
Old folks...about the best plaintiffs you can find
12571. Cellar Door - 11/17/2000 8:40:06 PM
"Voulez-vous couche avec moi, ce soir?
Voulez-vous couche avec moi? "
12572. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:40:58 PM
This is bad. Gore's people told some black voters to "vote on every page" They followed instruction to the letter and double punched.
12573. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 8:41:25 PM
Stop calling me Rosie. My name is Electric.
I worry that this election will weaken whoever becomes president.
The Clinton legacy.
12574. ranheim - 11/17/2000 8:43:09 PM
Like father - like son?
Three men on a lifeboat with a problem : there is only enough food for one of them.
So Dean Rusk, JFK , Mayor Richard Daley are holding a serious conversation. They are unable to come to an agreement. So Mayor Dailey proposes a vote by secret ballot. Dailey won : 8 votes to 2.
12575. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:44:27 PM
Turns out the court did not use extraordinary power to issue the stay. They did it as soon as they received a certificate from the court of appeals that they had received a proper notice from the lower court.
Still, an unusual thing to do it without motion
12576. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:44:39 PM
A Rosie is a Rosie is a Rosie.
A Rosie by any other name would smell as foul...you will never be electric, unless you're struck by lightning.
12577. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 8:46:10 PM
The freepers are posting articles that say that the Florida Supremes would have held the hearing tomorrow except that they all are going to the big football game.
12578. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:46:14 PM
a tough motherfucker just like Pop...just the man for White House Chief of Staff
12579. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:47:38 PM
jex:
Who will be GWs COS....Poppy?
12580. CalGal - 11/17/2000 8:48:09 PM
Hey, I found the text for the press conference!
Boies/Christopher Press Conference
Here's where he discusses the fact that he doesn't see any irreparable harm, which is what I remembered:
On the matter -- one follow-up, sir, one follow-up, sir. On the matter of the certification, can you explain again, perhaps in lay person's terms, why you're not seeking a preliminary injunction to stop certification? That's both a legal question and a political one.
BOIES: Well, from a legal standpoint, there are two grounds that we are going to seek relief from. One of those grounds, that is the contest of the election on the grounds that it involves a rejection of a sufficient number of votes to cast the results of the election in doubt, is something that can only be considered after you have the certification. So that if we want the court to consider that issue, we either have to direct that exclusively to the certification that took place as of 5 p.m. on Tuesday, or it would apply to both that certification and the certification that's expected on Saturday. So you have to make a choice there.
The second issue is that I think you can only get a preliminary injunction if you can show that there is going to be some kind of irreparable harm. I think that since the Supreme Court has the power to vacate any certification, if it concludes that it is inconsistent with Florida law, and since the electors aren't going to meet, nothing is going to happen over the weekend except maybe some premature partying, I don't think that the Florida Supreme Court would necessarily view that as irreparable injury.
12581. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 8:49:23 PM
JudY: Don't you have some third-rate, backyard opera event to go to?
I'm leaving to get back on the road to pick up kids at Friday night events. Wife just had an accident with our second car. No one hurt.
12582. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:51:44 PM
Slide:
You can't afford the events I attend.
12583. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:53:30 PM
Clinton legacy? You mean the Bush legacy don't you? Its Bush who is fouling the air with spin, trying to create angst, denying people their vote, instead of respecting the laws - peddling slanders about recount until you get the result and other half baked Texas cornbread.
Gore's legacy for being such a god awful campaigner that despite all the advantages, he couldn't manage an 8 point whuppin of that nimrod
Clinton legacy? Yesterday's news Rosie. I wonder when you silly wingnuts will get over it?
12584. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:56:29 PM
jex:
Rosie has 5 kiddos...he needs those vouchers!
12585. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:59:09 PM
Sorry...I hope no one WAS hurt, Rosetta...sorry to gig you when there's been an accident involving your wife and the car.
12586. Dusty - 11/17/2000 9:12:43 PM
CalGal
Hey thanks!
Glad to see it matches my understanding.
12587. jexster - 11/17/2000 9:17:25 PM
Jjon - Unfortunately those defective, fundamentally disordered genes have 5 chances to infect future generations
12588. jexster - 11/17/2000 9:21:03 PM
I challenge any and all to identify one single election dispute assertion or position that James Baker has advanced that is well-founded in fact or in law in other words one that passes the smell test for shit.
Here's another whopper!
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) _ Texas' manual recount law permits county officials todetermine whether a voter intended to select a particular candidate on a punchcard ballot _ a rule that Gov. George W. Bush has protested in Florida, saying it is subjective.
Texas state law also allows county officials to count ``pregnant chads'' _ part of a punchcard ballot that has an indentation but was not punched all the way through _as a vote.
We do it in California too.
12589. Cellar Door - 11/17/2000 9:25:48 PM
The Bush campaign theme song (revised version).
Sung in 4-part harmony by Bush, Baker, Hughes, and Harris to the tune of the Byrds' "Turn, Turn, Turn."
To every voter,
Spin, spin, spin
There is a pundit,
Spin, spin, spin
And a time to play Oval Office back in Austin.
(Verse 1)
A time to lie,
A time to distort,
A time to contrive
Things the press will report
A time to obstruct,
A time to appeal,
And a time for us to doctor absentee ballots.
(Verse 2)
There's a black woman,
Spin, spin, spin
Tell her the poll's closed
Spin, spin, spin
And make sure that the black folks who voted
Don't get their votes counted.
A time to inflame
A time to divide
A time to rouse rabble, and time to hide.
A time to get wasted
And time to get straight
And time once again to fall off the wagon
(Refrain: There's an election....)
12590. jexster - 11/17/2000 9:44:04 PM
Cal -
Actually, David Boies has yet to appear on any pleading. He's only just been admitted by the Supreme Court to appear pro hac vice for Gore.
No one has filed anything with the Supreme Court. I heard that Gore, the Demo Party and Broward County filed a notice of appeal. In CA, at least, a stay must be separately requested and must contain copies of the order appealed from and summarize the grounds supporting the stay.
So the court had before it no appellate brief from Gore et al discussing with points and authorities the merits of the case or the need for a stay (injunctive relief) of the trial court's decision.
Further, the demos have never filed a TRO or preliminary injunction request anywhere. They filed a motion for a permanent injunction against Harris for her half assed tactics.
12591. jexster - 11/17/2000 10:02:09 PM
To ask the court to stay a lower court order does either involve irreparable harm or waste of some kind. Perhaps he didn't even bother with a stay request before the appellate court on his reasoning. So much mo betta then, so much worse for Bush that the Sct took it upon itself.
He's going to try to straighten out the lower court, make it apply the correct law and ask for a remand for further proceedings. Looks like that's what he's thinking and so technically he's not asking the Sctcourt to enter judgment on the injunction motion. The trial court will do that.
12592. jexster - 11/17/2000 10:09:33 PM
Anyway, a stay and an injunction accomplish the same thing...if there isn't a showing that there's some likelihood of prevailing on the merits and no apparent harm in allowing the judgment to remain in force, then there's no reason for the court to stay its hand or that of the trial court.
12593. Al D - 11/17/2000 10:20:58 PM
Von
Jex - I generally don't read what you write because you are such a
hack. But I read, "Hack Whore" in your last post and want to express
my revulsion for this level of discourse from someone who is on my
side of the issue.
You should read jexter more often; for him, this is mild..
12594. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 10:34:42 PM
Bush now leads by 652 with four counties (all Republican) left.
Supposedly hundreds of military overseas absentee ballots have been disqualified by Alfraud's Democrats for technicalities.
12595. jonesatlaw - 11/17/2000 11:44:56 PM
Rosie- a fact for your not so Rosie scenario- most of the military votes will be going to counties where the GOP control the canvas board.
But never mind the facts- foam away and have a nice weekend.
12596. CalGal - 11/17/2000 11:50:15 PM
Jex,
You are right. I just read up on this whole thing, and the FSC was acting on its own.
From the Times:
The Gore campaign promptly filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court, but did not expressly ask for an order to block Ms. Harris's planned certification. Democratic lawyers were later elated that the high court, the only branch of state government dominated by Democratic appointees, later did so on its own.
12597. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 12:07:58 AM
My question about all these dimpled and pregnant chad business is about the possibility of revotes. If say, Palm Beach County, is counting a ballot with a dimpled chad for Gore and no other votes as a vote for Gore are they also disqualifying ballots with a missing chad for Gore and a dimpled chad for someone else?
12598. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:13:48 AM
I don't think so.
12599. AceofSpades - 11/18/2000 12:17:33 AM
Which is inconsistent. If a dimple shows intent, then it shows intent in all cases.
12600. joezan - 11/18/2000 12:21:31 AM
Can anyone answer this:
Are the decisions of the individual hand counters and monitors being monitored - either immediately or otherwise?
12601. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:25:09 AM
Joe,
I believe they are monitored by a representative from each party and they are then photographed. But it's been a while since I heard that.
Ace,
I don't see how. If there are no other marks, the dimple could signify intent--but they are set aside because there is still debate over that.
If there is a dimple and another chad completely punched out (or hanging) then it seems pretty clear what happened.
BTW, Fox News is saying that the Republicans are very unhappy at the returns for absentee ballots. They expected more of a boost, apparently.
12602. altitude /w attitude - 11/18/2000 12:26:00 AM
I understood they were being observed by a democrat and a republican.
12603. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:27:09 AM
Ha. 1100 absentee ballots were tossed out. No signatures, or postmarked late.
12604. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:31:13 AM
What I don't understand is this: is Harris just flat out stupid? State law says that ballots must be postmarked by Election Day, but earlier this week she issued a memo telling election officials that so long as the ballot was signed and dated by election day, go ahead and count it--even if it wasn't postmarked.
She is being openly defied by many county election officials--but what I'm wondering is why the hell she's being so blatant about things? Clearly, she thinks it will benefit Republicans (although it could obviously benefit both parties). But why give the further impression of pandering?
12605. jonesatlaw - 11/18/2000 12:34:52 AM
Vets who do AI use latex gloves that are long enough to go up to their armpits when implanting the bull semen in the cow. I heard that Baker has ordered a box to protect his suit when he stands behind Harris. That's the only explanation I can come up with for her actions.
12606. jonesatlaw - 11/18/2000 12:35:47 AM
His lips hardly move either.
12607. joezan - 11/18/2000 12:37:52 AM
Cal:
No...I mean their totals.
IOW, say I'm one of the folks (either dem or repub) who are sitting there inspecting these ballots. During my shift, I get through, say, 3,000 ballots. And I "find", with a little help from my fingernail, or whatever, 20 more votes foe my man. Meanwhile, everyone else at my table finds 5, total.
Is there any way of reviewing my count - is there anyone keeping track of the individual counters who find the extra votes, or manage to "find" double-punched ballots that rule out what could've been a vote for the other guy?
12608. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:41:11 AM
Joe,
You can't "find" them while two people are staring at you and a camera is photographing your every move. Sorry, toots, but I don't think these counters have much interest in going to jail.
They'd have to look at a ballot, figure out it was a good one to punch, punch it--all while being scrutinized.
It amazes me how cheerfully people will consider fraud by folks making some $10/hour.
And yes, I am quite sure that they track every single vote, as well as who counted it. The Republicans would insist on it.
12609. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:43:25 AM
And this cracks me up: some Republican hack is complaining about the "fraud" in counting absentee ballots. They're unsigned, but what the hell, count 'em anyway.
12610. joezan - 11/18/2000 12:50:43 AM
Cal:
If you're right (and I've heard nothing that confirms you), then I will bet my right hand that individual counters will be identified who have found highly disproportionate numbers of "mistakes". I have no doubt the shenanigans are being played from both sides.
But, again - if it can be shown that there were shenanigans going on in the recounts, then I suspect that wold be very good grounds to discount the re-count.
12611. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:52:36 AM
Joe,
You've heard nothing about the fact that every counter is monitored by a representative of each party and that everything is filmed? Are you serious?
12612. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:54:32 AM
Besides, Joe, they have already counted a small percentage of the votes, and except the one complaint (which they have no proof of, despite the fact that the entire counting was filmed--how curious) there have been no charges of fraud. There are plenty of battles about whether or not a dimple is proof of intent, but nothing else.
And again--what the hell is it with you guys that you would so cheerfully accuse regular people of voter fraud--particularly of such a dangerous nature? Do you think these people want to risk jail time? It's all on film.
12613. joezan - 11/18/2000 12:59:14 AM
Of course I have - don't be dense. And please - we see only wide-angle shots of a large room. It's not like Vegas, where there's a camera zoomed in on each counter's hand.
But as these folks count the ballots, their piles are taken away, placed into a bag with a bunch of other ballots, and put away.
What I want to know is this:
Is there some way, after the count is finished, of reviewing joezan's work and comparing it to others who have counted from the same district?
If not, that is a serious flaw.
12614. Shannon - 11/18/2000 1:00:27 AM
From MSNBC:
Republicans circulated a letter dated Friday from Navy Capt. E.M DuCom, deputy director of the military postal service, who said military mail is required to be postmarked. But he added, “There are instances when time constraints do not allow for proper postmarking/cancellation of the mail. The last flight may be departing the ship and the mail has to get on it.”
Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. Poor military people just have to get the mail out in a rush and can't be bothered to postmark it. Give me a break.
If it's late, it's late. Too bad. If I don't get to the polls by closing time, I don't get to vote.
And what mail has to be on the last flight so badly that they can't do a postmark? Fax, email, anyone?
12615. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:02:31 AM
You can't e-mail or fax a vote, Shannon.
But I do agree - if it ain't postmarked, it ain't a vote.
12616. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:03:24 AM
Shannon,
Yes, she's amazing lax about deadlines much of the time, isn't she? It's bizarre. Did she think she wouldn't be scrutinized?
Joe,
Whatever the "serious flaw", it is with handcount procedures in Florida. But I think you're pretty paranoid if you don't realize that a procedure that is widely regarded throughout the country as more accurate would also have to be legitimate in order to have achieved that level of acceptance.
12617. Shannon - 11/18/2000 1:04:36 AM
I know you can't fax a vote. I got the impression from that quote that whole shipments of mail are routinely not postmarked because they've just gotta be out NOW. I find that rather dubious. If our military really does have stuff so critical it can't wait for a postmark going out snail mail, we're in pretty bad shape.
12618. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:08:54 AM
Cal:
Yeah.
And the fact that this is THE most important election, and that numerous cases of voter fraud and malfeasance are being reported from both sides all over the country - you can just ignore these... explain them away with your unshakable faith in the integrity of the electorate?
Please.
12619. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:10:48 AM
Where did I say anything about unshakeable faith in integrity?
12620. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 1:18:22 AM
According to the AP, the big county that has yet to report absentees is Duval which was the largest county for military absentees.
Wasnt the county where LBJ manufactured votes in his 13 vote Senate election victory in 1948 also called Duval?
12621. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 1:31:01 AM
CG, #12601:
"If there are no other marks, the dimple could signify intent--but they are set aside because there is still debate over that.
If there is a dimple and another chad completely punched out (or hanging) then it seems pretty clear what happened."
If there's a dimple for candidate X and a fully-punched-out hole for candidate Y, there's a reasonable argument to be made that the voter must have first attempted to vote for X, but changed his mind in mid-stream and decided to vote for Y, instead.
But, by the same argument -- if there's a dimple for candidate X and no fully-punched-out holes at all, the voter must have first attempted to vote for X, but changed his mind in mid-stream and decided to vote for nobody, instead.
You can't have it both ways.
12622. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:34:00 AM
Stumbo,
Oh, yeah. That works. I'm going to vote for....Gore? Naw, forget it. They're all a buncha bums.
12623. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:34:39 AM
Cal:
And again--what the hell is it with you guys that you would so cheerfully accuse regular people of voter fraud--particularly of such a dangerous nature? Do you think these people want to risk jail time?
These "regular" people are being instructed by extremely partisan party hacks of both stripes on how to inspect ballots. One story I heard on MSNBC today described the instructions democrat counters in PBC received from a group of demo lawyers, who all but advised that they cheat. Now, I'm not saying that repubs are not getting the same exact advice from their side.
What I am saying is that it's naive, and maybe a little ingenuous, to imply that there is anything approaching neutrality in the counting.
What is going on is a game of one-upsmanship. And the later into the game we get, the more ballots are being contested, and the longer it is taking. Come on - you understand the dynamic; the R's have been told that Gore is going to come away from these counts with the lions share of the change. The D's hear that in a district thought to be 80% Gore, Bush actually nets 5 votes.
This isn't some local county commisioner contest - it's THE BIG ONE. And now, it's the BIGGEST of the big ones.
There is no way this process is being handles objectively at the ground floor - I sure wouldn't be able to maintain my objectivity were I down there counting.
12624. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 1:37:43 AM
Joe - My understanding from what has been said and from the TV images is that there are no individual counters. There teams of two counters and two observers. If the two counters cannot agree on a ballot it is put aside and referred to the county canvassing commission. If one of the observers has an objection it is raised with the canvassing commission, noted and may be used in later law suits. The PBC commission chair said that in the first two precints maunally recounted, an average of ~1,800 ballots, ~260 & ~280 ballots where referred to the commission. The three member commission met with lawyers for each major party and went over these ballots. In one precint the lawyers objected to three ballots and in the other two ballots.
12625. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 1:38:42 AM
Joe - My understanding of the story about the Dem training was not for counters but for observers and perfectly in keeping with the role of the observer.
12626. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:39:41 AM
uhhh....disingenuous...
12627. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 1:40:10 AM
Regarding the purported rejection of ~1,000 absentee ballots for missing postmarks; this is a hell of a time for the Dems to get all strict constructionist about the timing of including ballots.
12628. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:40:10 AM
These "regular" people are being instructed by extremely partisan party hacks of both stripes on how to inspect ballots.
So what? You were accusing them of acting on their own, punching out chads, and doing this all in front of cameras and witnesses, when getting caught means jail time. That's entirely different from a hack looking over their shoulder and saying, "That's a vote for Gore."
What I am saying is that it's naive, and maybe a little ingenuous, to imply that there is anything approaching neutrality in the counting.
No, that's not what you said at all. You said that it was entirely likely that the counters themselves were guilty of fraud--and that their counts should be checked to ensure it. In the first place, I imagine they are checked--if not, take your gripe to the people who set up handcount procedures. In the second place, who the hell is going to risk going to jail to fake even one vote, much less enough to make a conclusive difference?
This isn't some local county commisioner contest - it's THE BIG ONE. And now, it's the BIGGEST of the big ones.
So what? It's the same people involved. The same lives at risk doing the counting. You're silly if you think that they would all cheerfully risk their lives as they know it on the offchance that they could inspect a single ballot, determine that it's a candidate for manipulation, and punch it--all under the eyes of a camera and a Republican.
12629. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:41:49 AM
uhhh....disingenuous....
12630. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:42:37 AM
Regarding the purported rejection of ~1,000 absentee ballots for missing postmarks; this is a hell of a time for the Dems to get all strict constructionist about the timing of including ballots.
That's ridiculous. No one in Florida, Dem or Republican, asked to extend the time the polls were open. That's the like analogy. Why not let 1000 registered Democrat voters come on in and say, Hey! I'm a little late, but I'd like to vote for Gore!
12631. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 1:47:09 AM
Bush up by 760 (overseas absentee vote: 1057-597), with "65 of 67 counties updating," according to CNN.
What does "updating" mean? Updated? Or merely still in the process of updating, with more to come from those counties?
I'm with JV, though -- the Dems will probably find, manufacture, beg, borrow, and steal enough votes in PBC to win. Esp. since they'll know what the required target is.
Dubya, we hardly knew bya.
12632. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:47:54 AM
I think it means they submitted updated totals.
12633. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 1:49:00 AM
Well, actually the Democrooks are suing in Palm Beach county to give the people who couldnt figure out how to correctly punch a hole in a piece of paper another chance to vote in the near future.
12634. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:51:23 AM
I believe the voters are filing, not the Dems.
I wonder if you could just collect affidavits from all the people who say they voted for Gore.
12635. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 1:53:06 AM
CG:
If that's your position, then
"If there is a dimple and another chad completely punched out (or hanging) then it seems pretty clear what happened."
should be taken to mean that mere dimples don't mean a damn thing.
Right?
12636. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 1:53:28 AM
Stumbo - No way. Broward County is projecting out to about 170 plus Gore votes and Broward is bigger and more Democrook than Palm Beach. No way do they make up 700 plus votes in Palm Beach hook or crook. Gore should do himself a favor and concede next Monday.
12637. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:54:10 AM
Cal:
I have no idea what you're talking about.
vonK:
All the more questionable. What they were told (in response to a query) was, "Any pencil mark - any little scratch, indentation - whatever - that's one for Gore. When you see one for Bush, turn your head".
These are the people who are supposed to be observing to insure integrity?
Now, as I said - I'm sure it's going on on both sides. But the vast majority of the observers are Democrats, and that just plain stinks.
12638. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:56:37 AM
Joe,
I am saying that you have switched your beef. You were first declaring fraud by the counters, now you are just saying that the overseers are hacks and will do their best to tilt the scales.
Stumbo,
I have no idea what you are talking about.
12639. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:00:53 AM
CG, #12632:
Yes -- but updated partially, or updated completely?
12640. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:02:35 AM
Stumbo,
My understanding is that they were complete, but that's from TV.
12641. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:04:16 AM
No way. Broward County is projecting out to about 170 plus Gore votes and Broward is bigger and more Democrook than Palm Beach.
Does Broward have punch ballots? I forget. In any event, they have more rejected votes, I think, and that's really where the difference is. The general consensus is that PBC has the most Gore votes to be found in a handcount.
12642. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:04:20 AM
Then how comes we don't know the DeVol total?
12643. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:04:39 AM
In any event, they have more rejected votes,
the "they" is PBC.
12644. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:05:33 AM
Joe,
Two counties haven't responded yet. And I'm not sure that this is correct, it's just what CNN is reporting.
12645. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:06:12 AM
BTW - I am rotating 3 or 4 different spellings of the "D" county, because I have only actually ever seen it spelled out once.
12646. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:07:00 AM
I think it is Duval.
12647. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:08:51 AM
I've been resisting the conclusion that either side is trying to steal the presidential election, if only because it sounds so intemperate. But based on the statements made by the two candidates on national television last night, it does seem to me that Al Gore is seeking an equitable outcome while George W. Bush is trying to grab the presidency of the United States with minimal regard for law, precedent, or elemental fairness.
More Weisberg
I too resisted. I resisted through the assinine claims of a Buchanan Neo Nazi cell operating out of the Jewish Community Center in Palm Beach. I resisted waves of nausea when Baker told us what a mench Ford was for conceding the inevitable, and through the lie that Nixon didn't mount a serious election contest albeit with Tricky Dicky deniability.
I resisted until Bush filed that hypocritical, silly Federal suit giving lie to the man of truth and his last snake oil salesman slogan, something about trust. I was totally overcome when Bush unleashed the Hack with her transparent campaign to distort and subvert the Florida elections laws.
12648. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:08:56 AM
CG, #12638:
Either we assume that a dimple implies voter intent, or we assume it does not. We can't assume that it implies something if it's the only indentation on the ballot, and that it implies nothing if it isn't.
And your (or anyone's) estimation as to whether "that works" is irrelevant. The standard for what constitutes a valid punch oughta be the same, in all cases.
12649. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:10:55 AM
CalGal - So they come up with more than 4 times as many extra Gore votes as Broward. Right.
12650. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:10:56 AM
(When in doubt, spell it the way Mr. 59 spells it)
12651. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:12:12 AM
jex:
It's mensch.
12652. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:12:20 AM
Buchanan actually has a home in Palm Beach County. Maybe people voted for him because they know and like him personally.
12653. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:13:06 AM
Stumbo,
Alas. The court disagrees with you. Myself, I think dimples are questionable. But given that they are allowed to determine the intent of the voter, your standard is meaningless. It's not each chad, it's the combination of all selections for that particular office and how the combo signifies intent.
12654. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:13:57 AM
Butter,
I can only tell you that it is widely expected that PBC will come up with more votes, and that is not with any suspicion of fraud.
12655. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:14:25 AM
BFS, #12636:
Wanna bet?
12656. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:15:25 AM
Er, BFW, not BFS.
12657. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:17:14 AM
Stumbo:
Either way, it looks like you were cursing him out in shorthand.
12658. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:17:58 AM
My question about all these dimpled and pregnant chad business is
about the possibility of revotes. If say, Palm Beach County, is
counting a ballot with a dimpled chad for Gore and no other votes as
a vote for Gore are they also disqualifying ballots with a missing chad for Gore and a dimpled chad for someone else?
Good question. There, as I understand it, is first the question of what the dimpled chad appears to indicate. At least that's how the Dept of Elections here in SF used to deal with it. [Sometimes the hole does not punch at any corner despite your best efforts. Some of the SF equipment was a bit warped and this happened to me more than once. I always checked my chad] This situation differs by the very nature of the equipment, of the firm punch you have to make in order to have a chance of registering the vote.
Your point however is a good one nonetheless. Once a chad has been determined to be a vote, ie its indent is more pronounced, then another vote is a double punch. On the other hand, another punch might be considered evidence of a mistake on the first. I have no idea how they are handling this. I have only heard that the counters look for other dimples in other races where they doubt after the inspection of the vote itself.
12659. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:19:04 AM
CG:
Alas, indeed.
Hence my bet offer to BFW, above. Again, I'm with JV in expecting Gore to come out on top.
12660. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:19:39 AM
Further, even to get Broward and Palm Beach counted, the Florida Supreme Court will have to allow recounts in the GOP counties. Its over.
12661. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:22:12 AM
IOW, say I'm one of the folks (either dem or repub) who are sitting
there inspecting these ballots. During my shift, I get through, say,
3,000 ballots. And I "find", with a little help from my fingernail, or whatever, 20 more votes foe my man. Meanwhile, everyone else at
my table finds 5, total.
Not saying its impossible but you miss a couple key points. One person picks up the ballot, examines it and holds it up for the other sitting opposite while two observers from each party look on. Second, its not easy, I assume by design, to punch those holes even with the bit of wire the Elections Dept used to include with their absentee ballots. You need a fine point and sharp helps. Not easy with a pen or pencil. Must be that thin and sharp.
12662. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:22:14 AM
JoeZ:
Heh. Well, actually, I was, for not being cynical enough.
12663. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:22:24 AM
Butter,
No, they don't have to. They should, ideally, to keep everyone settled. But they don't have to. Gore requested a recount, as is his right. Bush did not. His strategy was to hold firm, delay, and hope like hell that public opinion pressured Gore to concede once the SecState declared Bush the winner on Saturday. He lost that battle, and now he'll look pretty silly asking for a recount when the time for it is over. But Gore has already said he'll go for it.
That said, Gore is still expected to do well in a state recount--which is why Bush refused it. Most of Bush's counties are scanned, which means they have a much lower error rate (2 out of 1000 as opposed to 30 out of 1000, I believe).
12664. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:22:49 AM
jex:
Do you have any info on what kind of review, if any, is made of the individual counters and observers - regarding proportionality?
12665. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:28:14 AM
It's funny--Shields and Gigot had the same exchange that Joe and I just went through. Gigot went on and on about fraud; Shields says, that is such bullshit. Quite apart from the fact that these people are by and large fairly respectable souls, there's the fact that it is heavily scrutinized and it's incredibly risk.
Gigot then shifts (just as Joe did) to the officials overseeing it and their bias.
Which is a whole different animal, of course. Nice backpedaling.
12666. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:29:59 AM
I don't know. Might be a good check. But its done in teams roughly at the same time with 2 observers so I think the chances of the Lee Nails punch is rather hard to do.
As I have said, CA Elections Departments hop on this right off the bat. They hire hundreds to examine all ballots the machine rejects on the very first count. Only the most casual candidate observers (try to find volunteers for that task!), if any at all. I'd imagine that it wouldn't cost too many manhours to do what you suggest since the examiners only record agreements and there's simply no time to be alone with a ballot. Straining at gnats but then Bush has been doing his level best to conjure all sorts of fanciful evils. The steady drumbeat of bull does influence some but is wildly exaggerated.
12667. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:30:09 AM
Cal - Message # 12663:
Most of Bush's counties are scanned, which means they have a much lower error rate (2 out of 1000 as opposed to 30 out of 1000, I believe).
True. But remember - the counties now re-counting are THE large Demo counties. The rest of the state is, for all intents and purposes, Bush's. So, even should Gore come out 1-2,000 ahead, I'm sure we could find at least that many for Bush in the rest of the state.
12668. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:31:27 AM
No, CalGal,¡¡with the current Bush league it would take a quote-unquote miracle for Gore to catch up even in the counties under consideration. If by some odd chance he does AND the Fla. Supreme Court orders Katherine Harris to extend the deadline, she would likely argue that additional counties could recount their votes. That would generate net Bush votes and give Florida back to Bush. A Supreme Court decision that Harris should extend the deadline for the Dummocrook counties and only the Dummocrook counties would be laughable and be ignored.
12669. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:31:52 AM
I'd say there's a better chance, a many times better chance that a poll worker could pre-punch than one of these poor sods could post-punch under the set ups I've seen on TV.
12670. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 2:32:34 AM
Joe - The counters are there to actually count the ballots; the observers are there to protect the interests of their party. Every ballot is counted by two people who are observed by one observer from each major party within an open room with many video cameras. The process is a rigorous one designed to prevent fraud. It works very well, from what I have read from elections experts.
12671. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:32:39 AM
BFwhatever:
X-Post.
12672. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 2:33:35 AM
And Joe, it is Bush who has rejected re-counting the state by hand, not Gore.
12673. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:35:03 AM
Butter, Joe:
Again--all the experts (and that includes Gore and his team, who made the offer) expect that a state wide recount still gives the advantage to Gore. You're welcome to argue with them all.
Besides, there is no guarantee that the courts would allow a statewide recount--even if Gore agrees to it, which he has said he would.
12674. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:36:20 AM
Kathleen has no standing to argue for or to request any recount. In fact, she has no authority whatsoever under the statute WRT recounts. She doesn't supervise them. She doesn't approve them. She doesn't set standards. Nothing.
Her's is a magisterial function in which the GOP has suddenly discovered unfathomable substantive depth.
I can't believe how BAD, how slip shod that judge's decision was.
12675. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:36:48 AM
vonK:
I know that.
I don't know why you mentioned it, but I know that.
12676. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:38:27 AM
jex:
Maybe we believe this fantasy because Florida's (Demo) Attorney General said she's da man?
12677. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:38:29 AM
I still don't get the "this county has a higher percentage of Jews, hence it can't have a higher percentage of Buchanan voters" argument, BTW.
The more Jews there are in any locale (as long as they're not an overwhelming majority), the more antisemites there are. (And this holds for pretty much any ethnic group.) An unfortunate fact, but a fact nonetheless.
So, if those antisemites happen to accept the dearly-departed TS's theory that Buchanan is one -- they'd tend to vote for him, no?
12678. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:38:34 AM
vK - As Mister Understated, Warren Christopher, candidly admitted WRT the recount, "our expectation of winning on recount is but an educated guess, more guess than education"
Its possible that the second machine pass dislodged a good bit.
12679. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:38:37 AM
Butter,
A Supreme Court decision that Harris should extend the deadline for the Dummocrook counties and only the Dummocrook counties would be laughable and be ignored.
No, that's not the issue. A candidate has 72 hours to request a recount after an election. Gore requested the recount of the four counties. Bush did not. The deadline for these requests is past--and unlike the deadline for turning in tallies, it's not something that has any grounds for extension.
So the courts could easily say "Hey, you played your hand wrong" to Bush and still legitimately allow Gore to do his recount. All while allowing the deadline extension on the grounds that the counties were not given legitimate time to do a recount that they are legally obligated to do.
I think most people would agree that a state count is better--but the FSC could very legitimately decide against it without being inconsistent.
12680. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:40:22 AM
Stumbo,
It amuses me no end to see anyone argue that Buchanan's votes might be real. Quite apart from the fact that any such voters would be screaming for attention--and getting it--no one seriously and credibly disputes the fact that something is awry in the results.
12681. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:41:02 AM
CalGal -- A¡¡statewide recount is a net plus for Gore. Just not nearly enough to overtake Bush.
But I take back my argument that Gore should concede for his own good. He should sue everybody. Cause when he cant hide behind Butch Renos skirts anymore, hes gonna need all the court experience he can get. Probably end up as Willie Hortons bitch out at Marion.
12682. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:41:16 AM
Cal:
The experts also said that Gore would pick up a couple thousand votes in Broward.
It doesn't look like he'll get a couple hundred.
12683. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:43:51 AM
Joe,
The experts said no such thing. He'll get a couple hundred, I should imagine.
But really, what's your point? I've said several times that Gore might not win the recount. That's no argument for not having it.
12684. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:45:16 AM
Well it defies common sense now doesn't it Stumbo. In fact, there is no factual basis for it. The supposed Reform Party registration was not in fact Reform at all. The county is liberal, heavily Jewish, and Buchanan spent no time or money there.
Its odd but very true that states, counties, cities, wards even precincts have consistent voting patterns year to year, race to race. People tend to live in areas where those of like mind also wish to live. Not a politically conscious choice but very real.
The following calculates the odds of such an anamoly in PBC at 1 in 10,000 Here
12685. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:46:12 AM
Cal:
In recent days the wisdom has changed.
But last week, it was indeed the wisdom that Gore would net a couple thousand more votes in both Broward and PBC.
12686. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:47:00 AM
CG:
I've seen a few folks who claimed to have knowingly voted for Buchanan, in PBC, pop up on various CNN forums.
(I have no idea whether they're being truthful, of course.)
12687. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:49:16 AM
Joe,
I've been following this from the beginning, and there have rarely been any serious numeric estimates from either one. Certainly not after the 1% recount that they all did.
Stumbo,
Um. Of course some people voted for Buchanon. But not 3400 worth. They'd be coming forward in droves.
12688. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:50:58 AM
Cal:
You are repeating every tired argument as to the reasons Gore will win the hand count. You may not really believe it, but either way, I'm not suggesting that you do.
I'm just arguing - same as you.
Chill.
12689. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:51:27 AM
Jex:
Get back to me when you can spell "anomaly," never mind define it.
12690. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:52:11 AM
Cal:
Right.
But the "experts" were also experts before the 1% recounts.
12691. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:52:46 AM
County by county there is a steady correlation between Republican votes and Buchanan votes, uniformly negative one for Gore. In every county, except Palm Beach which is off scale as an outlier, a freak.
12692. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 2:54:01 AM
I thought that Gore should have conceded yesterday and the Dems could move on to ensuring that they control the Congress in '02 and the WH in '04. Now the FSC taking it on itself to enjoin Harris from certifying the election changes things somewhat. Gore has said that he will abide by any Florida result that includes the manual recounts of at least Dade, Broward, and PBC; he should stick with this whether or not the Repubs ever agree. He should also now refrain from conceding until Harris certifies the election. If she includes the manual recounts and Gore loses he should unambiguously call for the country and his party to recognize the legitimacy of the Bush Presidency. If the manual recounts are not included he should issue a bare concession and the Dems should refuse to cooperate with an illigitimate president.
It is fascinating that Bush ran as a uniter, a person willing and able to cross party lines to reach reasonable compromises that enable the people's business to be conducted. Yet given his first opportunity to show off these skills he cannot even bring himself to show up for a photo op with his opponent, much less propose or accept a compromise that would enable us to conduct the people's business. Rather it is Gore, this paragon of the politics of division, who offers to support a complete recount of Florida, who proposes that the two men meet to moderate the tone of the discussion, who offers to rule out any court challenges. Fascinating.
12693. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:55:21 AM
CG:
"Droves" = each CNN talk show would feature two of them?
12694. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:55:30 AM
CalGal, there is a deadline for turning in ballots. If the F.S.C. decides to adopt some specious argument that that does not apply to some counties, the only grounds will be that it will be more important to count ballots than to uphold some silly rule. But in that case, Harris will say that she will accept recounts from any county; the GOP will petition for recounts past the 72 hour deadline on account of the change in the rules; GOP counties will grant their requests; Bush will gain enough votes to win; Harris will certify them and the Dummocrooks would have to sue to not count those votes. (any reversal of position embarrasment would go both ways).
Now, given the shamelessness of the bought and paid for scum on the Florida Supreme Court, its possible (but unlikely) they would overule Harris on those vote counts. But in that case, with more counted votes for Bush than for Gore, the Florida State legislature would send the GOP electors to the college.
12695. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:57:14 AM
Oh jeez, Stumbo Spell Check, Queen of the Spelling Bee.
Stumbo in the words of the Moron in Chief, its hard to misunderestimate your rapier-like wit. Betcha it worked wonders for you in 7th grade.
12696. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:57:39 AM
Joe,
????
Don't be silly. In fact, I think there is a good chance that Gore won't win the recount. Just because I don't think your reasons are the reasons doesn't mean that I don't think reasons exist.
As for Broward vs. PBC, no one ever seriously predicted that Broward would have more. Several people, before the 1% counts, said that the potential was there, because it was so much bigger. But others looked at the amounts of rejected ballots and said that it was most likely PBC had more.
Gore had the right to ask for the recount. That's really all there is to it. Your complaints about what some people might have said--inaccurate as it is--has nothing to do with it. I personally think he was right to ask for the recount, whether he wins or not. I am by no means sure he will win. I am glad he asked for the recount anyway, if for no other reason than Bush didn't get his way. If he wins, so much the better.
12697. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:58:04 AM
Calgal - I would imagine that Buchanan voters in Palm Beach County would be lying low right now.
12698. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:58:42 AM
vK:
Gore has to resort to such offers, since he's behind on the officially-certified count (and has nothing to lose). Bush doesn't.
12699. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:59:21 AM
Oh, horseshit, vonK!
There are no doubt millions of people out there thinking, WOW! What a magnanimous gesture that wonderful man just made - he's offering to let GW have a re-count of the whole state, and he doesn't even HAFTO!
Do you really want people here to believe you are one of those idiots?
12700. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 3:00:54 AM
Jex:
At least I got to 7th grade. ;-)
12701. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:05:18 AM
Butter,
CalGal, there is a deadline for turning in ballots.
Yes, and it has been ruled--and in fact is obvious just by reading the law--that the deadline can be extended, or that recounts can be submitted.
In fact, all counties met the deadline. Four counties asked to submit a recount. They were denied. The issue isn't the deadline--which can be extended. The issue is whether or not the SecState had the right to deny them the ability to recount, or whether their recount might have a material effect on the outcome.
So it is entirely possible for them to rule that no, she doesn't have that right, and still say that requests for recounts have to be timely. They are two different issues.
But in that case, Harris will say that she will accept recounts from any county; the GOP will petition for recounts past the 72 hour deadline on account of the change in the rules;
I am not sure if you are aware of the different rules involved? If you're just being ornery, fine. But it seems as if you misunderstand. Gore asked for a recount. The recount limit has not been the subject of a single lawsuit. Hasn't even been mentioned. So no, Harris could not arbitrarily lift the limit, because no rules have changed at all.
Now, given the shamelessness of the bought and paid for scum on the Florida Supreme Court, its possible (but unlikely) they would overule Harris on those vote counts.
Given the Harris hackery, I find your denigration of the SC a bit silly. Nonetheless, they wouldn't have to overrule Harris were she to decide to change her mind--because Gore has already quite graciously offered this as an option.
What is less clear is whether or not she has the right to change her mind, or if it is her call to make at all.
12702. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 3:05:19 AM
Both the invalid overseas absentee ballots and the Palm Beach Jews for Buchanan votes will end up being counter talking points for the next couple of years.
But the Dummocrooks will never get away from the letter sent out from one of their lawyer-operatives instructing their minions to concentrate on invalidating ballots from soldiers serving overseas. What complete scumbags.
12703. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:06:26 AM
While the Supremes have come down hard on technical defenses which disenfranchise, the statute's scheme depends on the candidates choosing their counties of opportunity presumably because they know the most about their own vote. Ferinstance, not all counties fall clearly into one camp or the other. The legislature adopted a scheme to narrow potential recounts to areas where net benefits could be realized by depending on candidates. They also limited the time for a recount request which discourages Quixotic vote quests. Where the race is neck and neck or the population very small, it makes no sense to force a recount because those places do not reveal a possibilty of changing the outcome.
Bush knowingly waived his rights, unfortunately not the right to remain silent however.
12704. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:07:14 AM
Butter,
You think? Naw. They want Bush to win, at this point. They'd be out there hooting and hollering for their guy, saying that his voting numbers were legit.
But as I said, no one with any credibility seriously doubts that Buchanan picked up a large number of Gore votes.
12705. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:07:19 AM
Joe - Yep, that's just the sort of idiot I appear to be. I do not believe, as Stumb says, that Gore had to "resort" to such an offer, he could have stood pat and not made such an offer. Now I am not such an idiot to believe that he made the offer without looking at how it would likely play out for him, but, as others are arguing, a manual recount of the entire state may well give the state to Bush and validate what the Bush camp has been saying all along. Gore is willing to take the chance on discovering the will of the people and Bush is not.
12706. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:08:31 AM
But the Dummocrooks will never get away from the letter sent out from one of their lawyer-operatives instructing their minions to concentrate on invalidating ballots from soldiers serving overseas.
????
They've done no such thing. All they have done is ensure that the laws were followed--not Harris' "new" rules. Absentee ballots have always been problematic, with a large number of rejects.
12707. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:09:51 AM
Butterwire - Please refrain from pointless denigration of the FSC and from referring to the hardworking election officials as "demmocrooks" if you would like to be taken as something other than a mindless hack.
12708. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:09:56 AM
Gore has to resort to such offers, since he's behind on the officially-certified count (and has nothing to lose). Bush doesn't.
No, actually, Gore didn't have to. He knew that there was no chance either way of Bush taking the offer. He offered it because he thought he had a good chance of winning still, and because it made him look magnanimous.
12709. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:10:26 AM
Oh, sorry, "dummocrooks".
12710. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:12:57 AM
And the Republicans who mailed absentee ballot requests for voter's in violation of the law? What about that? And the GOP effort to steal the election by denying voters the right to have their voices heard?
Seems to me that the allegations, if true, were just simple guidelines to monitor compliance with the law, something lost on the Bush automoton.
12711. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 3:15:11 AM
Calgal - I was going to argue with you, until I realize that nothing youve said really makes me doubt the strength of my arguments at all and I doubt Im going to make any headway with you, so Im willing to let time sort it out.
But its still over.
12712. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 3:17:53 AM
From FoxNews
Earlier this week, Mark Herron, a Tallahassee lawyer helping shepherd Democratic presidential election lawsuits through the local courts, sent a five-page letter to Democratic attorneys throughout Florida giving them tips on how to lodge protests against overseas ballots.
Such protests must be lodged before the ballot is taken out of the envelope. The letter focused on protesting military ballots, which are assumed to be heavily in favor of Bush, and included a section on military postmarks.
12713. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:18:51 AM
A Tallahassee lawyer for Harris said she would ``follow the law of whateve the Supreme Court sets down.''
I guess its too much to ask that she enforce, not pervert the laws without having to be hauled before the bar of justice.
Seems Katie the Moronic Ambassador-designate to Uzbekestan is anticipating a trip to the wood shed.
I pray for a severe whuppin for the witch
12714. joezan - 11/18/2000 3:18:53 AM
And, you know - I'm thinking about these overseas military ballots that were rejected.
And I'm thinking, Hey! We have the Gore people whining to high heaven about how poor holocaust survivors are denied their vote because of something completely outside their control; and others denied their vote because the machine didn't punch all the way through, and on and on and on...
Now, I want these folks to explain why the vote of a soldier stationed thousands of miles away from home who gets hi/her vote to the ship on time should have his vote denied because the government didn't bother to postmark it.
This seems like a good group to start with....
12715. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:19:11 AM
Butter,
I'm not even arguing with you. I'm just correcting your impressions with what is generally--as in by both sides--considered to be the state of affairs.
As I said to Joe, I'm not even sure Gore will win the recount. I just don't think he'll lose it for the reasons you give, and your justification for doing away with the 72 hour time for requests seems flawed.
Great line by Bill Maher, when told that the recounts can only be done in the event of an "act of God": "We tossed a coin, and it landed on its edge. That's not an act of God?"
12716. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 3:19:47 AM
>>California State Lottery
>>Customer Service
>>600 N. Tenth Street
>>Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Sirs:
On Wednesday evening, November 8, 2000, I stopped at the Circle K
convenience store near my home to pick up a quart of milk, two 12-packs
of Coke, a bag of cheddar cheese flavored Ruffles, some sunflowers
seeds, a Weekly World News, and some rolling papers. I noticed that the
Super Lotto jackpot was $11 million dollars, so I decided to try my
luck. I filled out a play ticket and paid for it along with my other
items.
On Thursday morning, November 9, 2000, I looked in the newspaper for the
results of the previous evening's draw. I read that the winning numbers
were 5, 24, 34, 35, 47, and the Mega Number was 22. When I checked those
numbers against the ticket I purchased at Circle K, I was shocked to see
that I had picked the numbers 4, 23, 33, 34, 46, and Mega Number 21.
This was most disconcerting to me because I had actually intended to
pick the six winning numbers, but, because of the extremely confusing
configuration of the Super Lotto play ticket, I did not do so. As a
result, I did not win the $11 million dollar jackpot. I think this is
unjust because I really could use the money.
Please contact me immediately to remedy this matter. If I do not hear
from you by noon today, I am going to send my good friend, former
Secretary of State and personal attorney, Warren Christopher, to my
local Circle K to monitor all further draws (and to pick up some onion
dip for the chips, which I forgot to buy).
Sincerely,
Al Gore
12717. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 3:20:39 AM
Jex:
On second thoughts, WTF -- I'll pretend that it's your birthday, and grant you a substantive response:
"The county is liberal, heavily Jewish..."
See above. More Jews -> more antisemites, etc.
"... and Buchanan spent no time or money there."
Irrelevant. If they were antisemites already, and believe that Buchanan is also an antisemite, they're likely to vote for him regardless. He's a nationally-known figure; he doesn't need to campaign in each district to get name recognition.
"Its odd but very true that states, counties, cities, wards even precincts have consistent voting patterns year to year, race to race. People tend to live in areas where those of like mind also wish to live."
Yes, they tend to --but there are still minorities who disagree, yet aren't motivated enough to move out. (Hell, I've been living in an ultra-liberal state for the past 4 years, for that matter.)
Buchanan's vote in PBC was less than 1%. No "tend to" generalizations necessarily apply to small minorities.
12718. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:22:26 AM
Well that asshole lawyer should do hard time in Leavenworth for his crimes eh Stumbo?
It would be a travesty if one of those ballots postmarked after election day weren't counted. Downright UnAmurican
12719. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 3:22:46 AM
NEW YORK (AP) --The New York Mets announced
today that they are going to court to get an
additional inning added to the end of Game 5
of the World Series.
The batting, pitching, and bench coaches
for the Mets held a press conference earlier
today. They were joined by members of the
Major League Players Union.
"We meant to hit those pitches from the Yankee
pitchers," said the Mets batting coach. "We
were confused by the irregularities of the
pitches we received and believe we have been
denied our right to hit."
One claim specifically noted that a small
percentage of the Mets batters had intended
to swing at fast balls, but actually swung at
curve balls. It was clear that these batters
never intended to swing at curve balls, though
a much higher percentage were not confused by
the pitches.
Reporters at the press conference pointed out
that the Mets had extensively reviewed film of
the Yankees pitchers prior to the World Series
and had in fact faced the Yankees in inter-league
play earlier in the year.
"The fact remains that some of the pitches
confused us and denied us of our right to hit,"
said the Mets batting coach. "The World Series
is not over yet and the Yankees are celebrating
prematurely."
Major League Baseball has reviewed the telecast
of all the World Series games and recounted the
balls and strikes called by the umpires of each
game.
"While some of the strikes called against the
Mets were, in fact, balls, there were not enough
of them to change the outcome of the World
Series," the commissioner said.
12720. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 3:23:24 AM
Another portion of the Mets legal claim stated
that, based on on-base percentage, the Mets had
actually won the World Series, regardless of
the final scores of the games. "It's clear that
we were slightly on-base more often than the
Yankees," said a Mets spokesman. "The World
Series crown is rightly ours."
The manager of the Mets has remained in
relative seclusion, engaging in some light
jogging for exercise. He has stated that he
believes "we need to let the process run its
course without a rush to judgment."
12721. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:24:49 AM
Butter,
Do you know why the ballots were rejected?
NY Times:
Canvassing boards in counties carried by Mr. Gore invalidated ballots at a far higher rate than those in counties carried by Mr. Bush, in part because Republican-dominated counties accepted ballots postmarked after the election or with no postmarks, while Democratic counties rejected them. Among counties with large numbers of overseas votes, for instance, Broward, Miami- Dade and Orange, which voted for Mr. Gore, threw out more than 80 percent of the ballots, while Escambia, Clay and Okaloosa, which went for Mr. Bush, threw out about 40 percent.
So the Republicans let their overseas voters come to the polls on Wednesday--once they knew the results. And of course, no one has asked Harris to explain why she just willynilly ignored the law.
The Dems didn't invalidate ballots. They just made damn sure their people knew what constituted a valid ballot.
12722. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:28:40 AM
It would be moronic and in poor taste for the Dems to put simplistic roadblocks on the way of accepting votes from the armed forces. Now, if there are a large body of votes that are late marked from bases with other votes that are on time this is another matter, it may be evidence of post facto voting; that people heard how close the vote was and sent off their ballots. But scattered votes with no post mark or ones from non-military bases; e.g., ones posted from foreign posts, should be viewed very leniently.
12723. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:29:59 AM
Oh but they do Stumbo, they do correlate. In fact other regression analyses show similar correlations not only in FL but in all US counties. The smaller the political unit, the stronger the relationship.
Its not surprising that 1600 Buchanan voters live in PBC. But not 3600+. I doubt you'd find many Socialist voters in southwest Virginia. I know you won't find too many Buchananites here in the City and County of SF but a vastly larger proportion of Socialists and Greens.
Its the correlation that is dispositive not the absolute numbers.
12724. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:30:35 AM
But scattered votes with no post mark or ones from non-military bases; e.g., ones posted from foreign posts, should be viewed very leniently.
No, they shouldn't. The law says that they must be postmarked on Tuesday. It's only because of Harris' sudden generosity--after the election, natch--that this is even considered. Mind you, if this were Missouri, I'd say let them come in. But it's not. Sorry. Boot them.
12725. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 3:31:49 AM
Jexter, its not just a Tallahasse lawyer whos targeted the military vote. Thats just exhibit A. The whole Democratic party strategy has been to target the vote of servicemen on technicalities.
I think Buchanan got Gore votes by accident surely. How many?¡¡
Who knows. But that was entirely a mistake with no bad action by anyone. But this wholesale attack on the servicemens vote is a disgrace.
12726. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:33:49 AM
Butter,
Why? Ballots have only been excluded for two reasons: 1) they aren't witnessed and 2) they aren't postmarked.
That's the law. All the Dems did was make damn sure that everyone knew it.
You also haven't mentioned the fact that Harris told election officials after Tuesday to ignore the postmark requirement.
12727. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:33:50 AM
Well, as long a Kul is going to post cutsey analogies; Sen. Harkin, in responding to the Repub claim that hand counting is so much less accurate that machine counting, particularly given that the ballots are designed to be read by a machine made the following analogy:
How many of you have put a dollar bill in a soda machine and had the machine spit the bill back at you? You put the bill back in the machine and it spits it back out. But you take that dollar bill to a teller in a bank and you can get four quarters just like that!
12728. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 3:34:00 AM
Your not even ashamed of yourselves, even now. Incredible.
12729. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:35:30 AM
Butter,
Absentee ballots without witnesses are always invalid. That's true of instate ones as well. Out of country ballots that are postmarked on time will be accepted. What is the problem? They have always been rejected in the past, as well.
12730. joezan - 11/18/2000 3:37:06 AM
Well, I don't know about Repub servicemen and women voting after the 7th.
But the problem with most of the un-postmarked votes has been that, though they were submitted in time, the next mail plane or ship going out was leaving too soon to worry about postmarking. Apparently, this is a very common practice, because they can always postmark them once they get to the US.
I smell lawsuits.
12731. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:38:29 AM
Why is it that no Repubs are calling on Bush to concede, "for the good of the country"? Bush lost the popular vote. The Repubs tacitly assume, by their refusal to agree to a complete Florida recount, that a full manual recount would show that Gore won Florida. Yet the Repubs natter on about how Gore is playing sore loser games and dragging on the process and should simply concede "for the good of the country" without ever considering such action from their own man. Why is this?
12732. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:38:46 AM
KH - I guess you think instant replay, a liberal scheme to prevert football too? Or an appeal to a line umpire corruption of America's past-time? Photo finishes in horse races - next to bestiality.
Following a lawful, uniform practice is all Florida permits. No replay of anything. No vote til we get our result. Just count the first one correctly.
You wignuts really think we're as blissfully ignorant as you are?
12733. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:39:44 AM
Any armed services ballots without postmarks should be accepted as gestures of good faith.
12734. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:40:57 AM
Joe,
If the military is lax in getting their mail out, that's their problem in the future. To the extent that they own up to it and bust their ass to come up with proof demonstrating when they received mail and prove that they received the ballot before that date, fine. In the event that a US military officer swears out an affadavit saying that all mail in bundle X was on a plane or submitted for mail before the 8th, fine. Otherwise, TFB. It would be the functional equivalent of allowing a revote in PBC, which I oppose.
And if they allow a revote in PBC, then accept the ballots.
12735. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:42:08 AM
Any armed services ballots without postmarks should be accepted as gestures of good faith.
I totally disagree. That's why we have the laws. If the military can prove when they got it, sure. But bullshit on this open season just because they're the military.
12736. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:43:48 AM
Hey JoeZ, I'm for all votes counting but really you do it on or before election day and you evidence that you did so by postmark if you live overseas, its the law. No exception provided sorry.
Yet the concept of one election where every legal vote counts somehow eludes the Bushies?
Amazing. First you voted for a half-wit, now you guys are hell bent to imitate him?
12737. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:44:29 AM
To get into tortured sports analogies of our situation:
The Repubs were ahead by three points at the end of the fourth quarter. As time expired a defensive penalty was called on the Repubs and on the ensuing play (a game cannot end on a defensive penalty) the Dems kicked a field goal to tie the game. The Repubs then went to court to get an injunction against proceeding with the overtime, claiming that time had expired and they had clearly won the game. Meanwhile the Dems, after much huddling and several delay of game penalties, are driving toward the goal line.
12738. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 3:45:25 AM
No zan, no lawsuits. The elections over and we will win. We just have to continually repeat how far these scum will go to win an election.
And I repeat...
The Democrats strategy was to target servicemen and womens votes for challenges on technicalities. They know that sometimes military mail isnt postmarked and their lawyers figured that given enough time and money, they could push that to get a couple of hundred soldiers and sailors votes discounted. Does anybody deny this? Is anybody embarrassed by this?
12739. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:46:32 AM
Butter - I can't deny it, I haven't been provided with a cite to evidence of it. If true I am embarassed.
12740. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:49:51 AM
I'd gladly accept all illegal military ballots in exchange for a legally authorized PBC revote even accept unlawful Bush county recounts if Bush would drop his vexatious & baseless legal actions, delaying tactics, the shrill attacks, lies....just let lawful voters have their voices heard
Such a deal
12741. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:50:29 AM
The Democrats strategy was to target servicemen and womens votes for challenges on technicalities.
I deny this. The Democrats strategy was to make damn sure that everyone knew the standards for absentee ballots and to make damn sure that they were enforced. The fact that most overseas ballots are military is just how it works.
But they aren't the ones who made up new rules that favored their team. That was Harris. Do you deny this?
12742. joezan - 11/18/2000 3:51:09 AM
Cal:
I agree precisely with your #12734.
12743. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:51:44 AM
Oh, please, vK, stop the breastbeating. It's bullshit. Are you saying the Dems should have not aggressively ensured that the standards for absentee ballots are enforced? Hell, I'm not even a Dem and I think that's nonsense.
12744. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 3:56:09 AM
"Are you saying the Dems should have not aggressively ensured that the standards for absentee ballots are enforced?"
When it suits them, yes. And when the law clearly says one thing - like in the case of deadlines and such - and that doesn't suit them, they will then oppose it. It is pretty clear.
12745. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:57:03 AM
Joe,
One caveat to 12734 (which I doubt will change your agreement):
I oppose an open revote in PBC; I think it is unfair. What I would support is probably not possible. I would contact everyone in the county who voted and getting an affadavit as to who they voted for. If you contacted most or all people in the county, you would be able to successfully identify people who cheated and discard them. That would, presumably, be the Naderites and the Buchannon folk who would vote for their second choice.
But what would be clear in this regathering was who actually voted for Gore, and that really couldn't be faked.
As I said, it's not possible or realistic, but if it were, I would support that sort of recount.
12746. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 3:57:29 AM
"Are you saying the Dems should have not aggressively ensured that the standards for absentee ballots are enforced?"
When it suits them, yes. And when the law clearly says one thing - like in the case of deadlines and such - and that doesn't suit them, they will then oppose it. It is pretty clear.
12747. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:58:32 AM
Kuligin,
But the law just as clearly says that a candidate can ask for a recount in a time frame that would make both a recount and a timely submission impossible. In fact, if a candidate asked for a recount the night of the election, many counties couldn't get the recount done.
Besides, allowing an extension is lawful--a judge has said so.
12748. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 3:59:24 AM
Jex:
"... they do correlate [...] The smaller the political unit, the stronger the relationship."
I'm not sure what you mean by "they."
But, FYI -- any real correlation between any two variables is more likely to manifest itself in larger samples, not smaller ones.
G'night.
12749. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 4:00:12 AM
Cal - I am saying that the guiding principle should be to count all valid votes accurately. Given the current state of affairs it is the interests of everyone to bend over backwards to ensure that this happens. This means that ballots from the military that are not beyond doubt invalid should be accepted and counted. If they are on their face invalid then efforts should be made to determine if there are mitigating reasons for being invalid.
Yes, the military is a special case. These men and women are not at liberty to chose where they are and when they have access to services that civilians take for granted. They are offering their lives to protect our country, we should ensure that they can participate in the democracy that they are protecting.
12750. jexster - 11/18/2000 4:00:55 AM
The election is truly over, except for servicemen who held other elections after 11/8.
Its the count that's not over. "The election is over" - well duh? Yup the election Bush is shamelessly out to steal, that's over. Yes indeed. But its that pesky notion that all votes count...
12751. CalGal - 11/18/2000 4:01:08 AM
vK,
See #12734.
12752. robertjayb - 11/18/2000 4:02:08 AM
.
12620. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/00 12:18:22 AM
According to the AP, the big county that has yet to report absentees is Duval which was the largest county for military absentees.
Wasnt the county where LBJ manufactured votes in his 13 vote Senate election victory in 1948 also called Duval?
The infamous Box 13 (precinct 13) was in Jim Wells County. George Parr, the political boss alleged to have ordered the dirty deed, was from neighboring Duval County. He was known as the Duke of Duval but was influential/feared across a considerable swath of South Texas.
12753. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 4:04:30 AM
Cal - I read that, but I think that it is an undue burden to place on the military voter. If there is no postmark then we should assume that the lack is innocent and accept the vote. I believe this for two reasons:
1) The military is different and should, particularly in this matter, be treated with defference.
2) To do otherwise looks bad in the court of public opinion and the number of votes is unlikely to be determinative.
12754. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 4:05:44 AM
Crimanie! It's 1AM! I have to go to bed!
12755. jexster - 11/18/2000 4:07:49 AM
What's clear KH is that the primary purpose of the election laws is to assure that the voter's voice cast in lawful ballot, in one election is heard. That does indeed suit democrats and galls Republicans.
Deadlines that make it impossible for the election laws to achieve their purpose and arbitrarily deny citizens their fundamental democratic right, yea, they should be ignored especially when they serve no purpose but to silence the lawful voter and harrass county officials.
You're damned right, that suits democrats just fine.
12756. CalGal - 11/18/2000 4:09:08 AM
vK,
I disagree. For one thing, there is no reason to give special deference to the military. They aren't more equal to the rest of us. And it doesn't look bad. It certainly doesn't look as bad as Harris saying "hey, ignore the postmark requirement"--and not for military only, either.
The burden is not undue; it is reasonable. Get the military to prove it--the whole thing is their responsibility. If they prove it, then accept the ballots even if they lack the postmark.
That's entirely reasonable. And it's not like the Dems invented this law--it's been in effect for as long as absentee ballots--which were pretty much instigated on behalf of the military to start with.
12757. jexster - 11/18/2000 4:11:07 AM
Yes vK time flies when you're havin fun bashin a bushie for democracy.
If you can't tell James Baker he's a fraud and a lier, if you can't howl at Bush's "I trust you" shinola, next best thing find a Bush-shit eater. The gullible goobers don't miss a single dingleberry
12758. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 4:11:10 AM
Everyone in this country should be alarmed by the way the Democrats are denying military ballots from the defenders of our liberty.
12759. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 4:16:52 AM
"Besides, allowing an extension is lawful--a judge has said so."
Then the law should be changed accordingly. But it isn't fair to say Harris made up some laws to suit her own party. My understanding was that the deadline for final counts was a law before the Election began, correct?
12760. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 4:29:44 AM
Oh, CalGal, I see I pasted the wrong comment from you! I meant that the law should be changed if, even on election day, if someone demands a recount there isn't enough time for it to be done!~ Sorry.
12761. Angel-Five - 11/18/2000 5:56:25 AM
Right now the bitter question among thinking people on both sides has largely passed from whether their candidate should take the White House to whether or not it'd just be best for the other side to take it at this point.
Balanced on one side is the almost sure fact that whoever sits in the White House this term is going to be slaughtered. Neither side will have a mandate, neither side will be able to get a significant portion of their agenda through Congress. The presidency lasts for four years but the overwhelming majority of Congress's legislators are going to be up for reelection much sooner than that and they have to deal with the fallout from this election. That means that they are going to be very cautious in judging the wind before they sign on or against either candidates proposed legislation.
And whichever candidate takes the Presidency will be plagued by accusations that they don't belong there and that they got there by fraudulent means. And there's the chance that the economy will take a downturn sometime within the next few years, which is never good for the welfare of the controlling party in Washington.
In balance we have the fact that if our preferred candidate doesn't win in the end, we'll have four years of the other man. And there are large differences between the two, no matter how hard they clung to the middle during the last part of their campaigns.
12762. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 8:09:24 AM
I never watch The O'Reilly Factor because I can't stand the pompous ass but I was searching for info when I first woke up and Fox was re-running the Peggy Noonan screed on O'Reilly...what a woman. Her assertion that Al Gore sent thugs down to Florida to steal the election from the poor widdle Wrepublicans is outrageous. Even Bill O'Reilly seemed taken aback by some of her remarks and pointed out over and over that there are overseers fron both parties to prevent that sort of thing.
This woman is trying to curry favor with the Presumptive President Elect...he should think twice before offering her a job because she's obviously gone round the bend.
What is it about Republican blonds? Most of them seem very vindictive...is it the Colter Factor?
12763. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 8:14:56 AM
Bush up 927 with 66 of 67 counties counted. But Democrats want many hundreds of other military absentee ballots disqualified.
12764. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 8:17:53 AM
Well, you should be mighty happy today, Rosetta...it's all over but the shouting.
Just remember the old adage: Be careful what you wish for....
12765. ranheim - 11/18/2000 8:43:41 AM
I did not get my way in this election as the 3rd party vote was so low. But, I think I may have done OK anyway.
Neither party has a mandate to do anything. That probably means that there won't be any significant changes in rules and regulations telling me how to practice medicine in my own office. And, likely, that means that the paper-work burden shouldered by my wife won't become any more onerous.
In domestic policy, both parties age going to tread carefully. The lack of mandate, again, will make huge changes very unlikely.
In foreign policy I am somewhat more worried. Gore would probably try to create his reputation by involving the USA is some foreign area in which we have no business. On the other hand, many of Bush's advisors were known as hawks during the era of Viet Nam. My two sons are 37 and 35. It is my hope that whoever finally wins the presidency will not involve us in a so extensive a foreign war that mid 30s men have to be drafted.
Now, hopefully, some of you who appear to be true believers will come to your senses and force some significant changes in the two major parties. Both are very flawed from the perspective of a solo GP who lives in the rural south.
12766. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 8:46:33 AM
Unfortunately, it's not over, Judy.
A new wringle is that Al Gore is now using his government telephone to call the editors of many big city newspapers lobbying for them to produce stories that back him.
Unbelieveably tacky.
12767. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 9:18:51 AM
Slide:
And you know this how?
12768. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 9:28:47 AM
In yesterday's Washington Post. Ironically in the Style section.
12769. OhioSTOPAS - 11/18/2000 10:02:08 AM
I agree with Von Kreedon's Message # 12749. An otherwise valid absentee ballot that left the voter's hands on or before November 7 should not be rejected even though, through no fault of the voter, no postmark was affixed. Democratic Party representatives who objected to such ballots should withdraw their objections, even if their objection is legally justified.
12770. Toenails - 11/18/2000 10:03:45 AM
Has anybody heard or seen any in-depth comment on the hand-recount situation in Dade County?
I'm troubled more by this belated decision to conduct a hand count in Dade than by anything else going on down there. I thought that, days ago, Dade had done a preliminary hand-recount and determined that a full-dress hand count wasn't called for.
Now, with news breaking (sometimes) in ways favorable to Al Gore, Dade reconsiders and starts, at the 13th hour, to conduct another count. This one strikes me as far less legitimate and far more arbitrary than the ongoing PBC and Broward counts. It'll also take far longer to complete, so if the Supreme Court of Florida ends up backing the Democratic position, we'll be sitting around a week from now waiting for the Dade returns to come in, with everything on the line.
I agree that Ms. Harris has acted arbirarily and irresponsibly with regard to the ongoing hand-recounts, but, at some point, there has to be merit in her position that the window should be closed.
I also think it's laughable how the positions taken by the several participants on this thread can swing, depending on the desired result. The foreign-absentee debate and the hand count debate involve, in some instances, similar issues/principles, but where the protagonists here stand on those issues seems to depend upon whose ox is being Gored.
12771. Cellar Door - 11/18/2000 10:07:07 AM
12772. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 10:07:30 AM
We'll see how seriously Florida takes this mess when the kickoff takes place...football trumps everything else.
12773. dusty - 11/18/2000 10:21:24 AM
12774. Cellar Door - 11/18/2000 10:36:04 AM
Thomas Jefferson's Great Great Grandson Nails It!
12775. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 10:50:22 AM
I thought the Dade recount decision was based on some lately found ballots or something.
12776. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:06:41 AM
arkymalarky
I thought the Dade recount decision was based upon pressure from the Gore camp to get the deciding member to change his vote. Did I hear that wrong?
12777. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:07:53 AM
JudithAtHome
Well, you should be mighty happy today, Rosetta...it's all over but the shouting.
??? Do you think Bush has it?
I think Gore is almost a lock. I find it hard to believe he will lose it now.
12778. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:10:36 AM
vonKreedon Message # 12753
Excellent points.
If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny watching the sanctimonious "will of the people" supporters arguing to throw out the ballots without a postmark.
What on earth are those servicepeople expected to do? Hang around the post office and watch for the postmark to take place?
12779. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:12:01 AM
CalGal Message # 12726
Why? Ballots have only been excluded for two reasons: 1) they aren't witnessed and 2) they aren't postmarked.
The media is reporting that ballots are being excluded for lack of signature.
12780. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 11:12:59 AM
To tell you the truth, every half hour as I look up from whatever I'm doing to see even more junk cross the CNN screen, I am more bewildered than I was on the morning of Nov 8.
I don't know what is going on....I see that Bush is up by almost 1,000 in Florida and that leads me to believe he is going to take it. Show me the faultiness of my belief and keep in mind, workmen are installing the last windows in my house in 30° weather and the dog is barking incessantly at the guys. I'm frazzled.
12781. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:15:31 AM
Stumbo Message # 12677
I still don't get the "this county has a higher percentage of Jews, hence it can't have a higher percentage of Buchanan voters" argument, BTW.
The argument of people who are statistically deficient. Unfortunately, this comprises a large number of people.
The argument would have some validity, if someone were arguably about the probably of Buchanan carrying the county. But that isn't the argument.
I don't know whether the people pushing this are simply ignorant, or just don't care that the argument is bogus, as long as it sounds like it has a basis. I suspect the latter.
12782. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 11:17:29 AM
Watching the man who said he trusts the people to do the peoples business cry and moan over the people doing the hand recounts and possibly doing "mischief" is almost as funny as your remarks in Message # 12778 , Dusty. It was Bush who ran on a platform of "trusting the people"...were you implying Gore is being nitpicky?
12783. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:19:28 AM
JudithAtHome - 11/18/00 11:12:59 AM
I don't know what is going on....I see that Bush is up by almost 1,000 in Florida and that leads me to believe he is going to take it.
A minor hurdle.
Did you hear this morning that someone put non-Gore ballots in a Gore pile? It appears to have been an honest mistake, but there was an attempt to cover it up.
In any event, how can anyone argue that hand counts are more reliable than machine counts, when people are putting piles of ballots in the wrong stack?
12784. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:23:03 AM
JudithAtHome Message # 12782
Sorry, I am not following your point.
Suppose a serviceman votes (for whomever), well within the time requirement, bring the ballot to the PO (or whatever it is called), and someone in the service PO fails to stamp the post mark.
Two questions:
12785. stostosto - 11/18/2000 11:27:03 AM
Dool Crella,
Neat column.
12786. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:27:09 AM
Stumbo Message # 12648
Either we assume that a dimple implies voter intent, or we assume it does not. We can't assume that it implies something if it's the only indentation on the ballot, and that it implies nothing if it isn't.
Excellent point.
I've been watching some of the hand counting, and it is clear that they are not looking for dimples on ballots with a hole. They need to start over and do it right. (Unless, of course, the metarule is to follow whatever rules favor one's desired outcome, rather than consistent and fair rules.)
12787. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 11:28:11 AM
Why shouldn't it be excluded? When the criteria was set up, it must have been for a reason they decided the ballot had to have a postmark...this surely isn't the only time ballots have been excluded for lacking a postmark. If the postmarks don't matter, why even bother to have that rule...just let people mail them in whenever.
I wasn't commenting on the excluded ballots, just on the way the "will of the people" has been co-opted by both candidates when clearly, they don't give a fig for the actual will of the people. Neither one of them does and you know it.
12788. robertjayb - 11/18/2000 11:36:36 AM
.
CNN reports that AP reports that the Bush lead after all absentee ballots were counted is 926 votes.
12789. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 11:39:35 AM
Okay, Dusty....'splain to me how Roberts post means Gore has it locked up?
12790. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:40:41 AM
"I thought the Dade recount decision was based upon pressure from the Gore camp to get the deciding member to change his vote. Did I hear that wrong?"
I was wrong after looking it up--I could have sworn I'd read it yesterday but all this stuff is beginning to run together--but I certainly didn't read your understanding of the reason anywhere. A member changed her vote--does that automatically mean she was pressured or did you read that somewhere?
12791. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:43:28 AM
Look, there is nothing wrong with handcounts. The GOP in FL is happening to reap the misfortune of the crappy machines being challenged by a Democratic organization that was on the ball. As for absentee ballots, postmarks and signatures are no small things in the current circumstances. It was an established rule, and don't tell me it wouldn't be followed if it were Dem votes that weren't postmarked. Nothing that's being done on the Dem side wouldn't be done on the Rep side if they were quick enough to have thought of it first and paid closer attention to the state laws.
Like Joe's buddy in the restaurant said--you snooze, you lose.
12792. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:44:44 AM
No one will know anything until the hand recount numbers are reported, and I hope the count is finished and those numbers are published no matter what the court decides about whether to enter them into the tally.
12793. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:45:47 AM
I've found the key to this election.
Americans don't like candidates with four letter names. Sure, we've had a few exceptions (Polk, Taft, and Bush) but these are explainable. Bush ran against Dukakis. No further explanation needed. As soon as he ran against a competent candidate, the country turned against what they perceived as a four-letter word. Polk won because his opponent had a four letter name.
In:
12794. ranheim - 11/18/2000 11:46:00 AM
Wonderful story on NPR this morning on my way to a 1/2 day of work.
High priced lawyers and media are being evicted from their hotel rooms in Talahassee. (Some are paying students exhorbitant sums to retain their rooms). The Florida/Florida State football game attendees had reserved these rooms long ago.
One reporter went down to the tailgating football fans and asked "Don't you feel bad about evicting these important people? In both camps of fans the answer was the same, "Hell No! The country will run itself no matter which man is elected. This football game is important!! I graduated from. . . and next year's recruiting of football players will be better should we win this game."
I am hopeful that just one reporter or lawyer really gets this message and understands what those fans are actually saying about what is important to the country.
12795. stostosto - 11/18/2000 11:47:46 AM
Dusty,
I wonder why Buchanan fared so poorly...
12796. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:48:14 AM
Buchanan himself acknowledged that many of those votes likely weren't meant for him. My feeling on that, though, unless the ballot names weren't ordered according to FL law, is that people should examine their ballots more carefully. I think it was a sneaky ballot arrangement, but oh well.
12797. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:50:20 AM
JudithAtHome
Okay, Dusty....'splain to me how Roberts post means Gore has it locked up?
I don't know what a "Roberts post" is.
12798. stostosto - 11/18/2000 11:51:34 AM
arky,
Ace has repeatedly said that Buchanan had a greater number of votes in Palm Beach in 1996, and that Palm Beach has a high number of people registered for the Reform Party. I have not seen this refuted or attempts to dismiss it as a valid explanation for the above average number of Buchanan votes. Perhaps you have?
Ace is partisan, but I don't think he makes things up.
12799. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:53:21 AM
arkymalarky
Buchanan himself acknowledged that many of those votes likely weren't meant for him.
I saw Buchanan say this. Many people are referring to this line. Most fail to note that he went on to say that, despite this, they are legally his votes.
(I'm not accusing you of being selective, as I don't have any reason to think that you saw his interview. I trust that you are repeating what others have stated.)
12800. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:54:14 AM
I'm saying that Buchanan himself right after the election reports said he knew he didn't garner all those votes in PBC. That's all I know about it. Since then, my understanding is that he's taken a "tough snot" approach, which I basically agree with, but I haven't heard him reverse his earlier claim that that many PBC voters would have supported him.
12801. stostosto - 11/18/2000 11:54:25 AM
Sorry, it's not the Reform Party, but some other organisation that is the Florida branch of the Reform which has a high number of registered adherents in Palm Beach. According to Ace.
12802. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:55:09 AM
Yeow! I mean that that many PBC voters would not have supported him.
12803. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 11:57:52 AM
Dusty:
It was the one directly above mine: Message # 12788 .
12804. OhioSTOPAS - 11/18/2000 11:59:09 AM
stostosto:
1. Buchanan got votes in the 1996 Republican Primary. He wasn't running as a third-party candidate.
2. Palm Beach County has about 15,000 registered in a party called the "Independent Party". The Reform Party has only 300-something members. Republican spinners making the point you discussed have tried to blend the two parties, but I think they're different. However, I'm not sure what this "Independent Party" is.
12805. Jonesatlaw - 11/18/2000 12:01:46 PM
The Democrats strategy was to target servicemen and womens votes for challenges on technicalities. They know that sometimes military mail isnt postmarked and their lawyers figured that given enough time and money, they could push that to get a couple of hundred soldiers and sailors votes discounted. Does anybody deny this? Is anybody embarrassed by this? Well the CinC made it clear that they were to get absentee ballots to Florida pronto. The postal service expidited the mail, pulling all absentee envelopes and sending them ahead of other mail so that they could make the deadline. They did this for military mail only, because it came into predictable PO's, civilian overseas ballots got no such special treatment, in part because they weren't concentrated in any one point of entry.
Hardly a scheme to supress the military vote. I agree that if there is some means of insuring that the votes were cast pre-election, they should come in, but it is hardly fitting to argue that the law should be ignored, and military ballots counted when they've gotten special treatment already, and "they're too stupid to vote" has been the rallying cry of the GOP.
12806. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 12:01:53 PM
Buchanan also said, in that first interview, that he wouldn't want votes that were not meant for him but were castr for him by mistake. He may have later changed his tune but when I heard that on Nov 8, I thought it was his nicer, gentler twin speaking.
12807. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:02:48 PM
stostosto
If I had to bet, I'd bet that some people intending to vote for Gore, actually marked their ballot for Buchanan. I have no trouble believing that some people are that stupid, or lazy.
However, I believe the statistical arguments are being waged to make the argument that the error is so large that something must be done about it.
Many of those arguments are disingenuous, and/or mendacious.
I, myself, did a quick calculation to show that statewide percentages applied to PBC suggested an error of 2000 votes for Buchanan that may have been meant for Gore. However, this was done in the context of all other things being equal, which they are not.
12808. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:05:01 PM
JudithAtHome
Buchanan also said, in that first interview, that he wouldn't want votes that were not meant for him but were cast for him by mistake.
It isn't his call. (I hope.)
I still cling to the belief that we are a nation of laws—although my belief is being challenged.
12809. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 12:08:40 PM
Dusty:
We are a nation of laws. In this situation, though, it seems some laws are more equitable than others...or so some wouls claim.
I know it isn't Buchanans call...I just thought it was a very human statement coming from a source one wouldn't expect to be that way.
12810. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 12:09:15 PM
...would claim...my fingers are frozen!
12811. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:09:20 PM
JudithAtHome
Sorry, I thought you were asking me to explain how my conclusion followed for Roberts post. I saw the robertjayb post, but it came after, so I didn't understand what you meant.
Bush has less than a 1000 vote lead. There are lots of scenarios in which Gore can more than make up that lead. The Gore camp is pursuing several, and it appears that the FSC is sympathetic to the Gore camp. It isn't much of a leap to think that one of the scenarios will prevail
12812. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 12:09:27 PM
"I have no trouble believing that some people are that stupid, or lazy."
Or old and have difficulty seeing or problems with motor skills--but piss on them. They've had their say in this country long enough. In AR they had a news segment on a 101 year old man who was voting in his 80th election. He'd always voted Democrat, the old codger. Too bad they didn't have butterfly ballots in AR, so he could be taught when to hang up his voting rights.
12813. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 12:10:18 PM
"I still cling to the belief that we are a nation of laws—although my belief is being challenged."
What laws have been violated thus far?
12814. stostosto - 11/18/2000 12:11:11 PM
OHIO
Thanks, that's the first attempted rejoinder I've seen of Ace's take.
I do think the butterfly ballot was truly idiotically designed, and based on its look alone it would be likely to lead to an overvote for Buchanan. But by how much?
Buchanan's vote in a primary wouldn't be irrelevant when judging his chances of getting a given number of votes in the 2000 election. How's the correlation between Buchanan 2000 and Buchanan 1996 in other Republican precincts, I wonder. That might give a clue.
12815. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 12:11:25 PM
Good one, Arky...."give me your tired, your poor but keep those to stupid and lazy to vote!"
12816. stostosto - 11/18/2000 12:11:51 PM
Correction
"Republican precincts" should have been "Floridian counties".
12817. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:14:18 PM
OhioSTOPAS
1. Buchanan got votes in the 1996 Republican Primary. He wasn't running as a third-party candidate.
So what? The hysteria has been that PBC is populated by Holocaust survivors who wouldn't think of voting for Buchanan. The 1996 votes for Buchanan prove otherwise.
Again, as I pointed out above, the demographics of PBC mean that Buchanan's chances of winning PBC are statistically indistinguishable from zero. However, that does not mean that a fraction of a per cent is impossible.
12818. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:15:57 PM
OhioSTOPAS
2. Palm Beach County has about 15,000 registered in a party called the "Independent Party". The Reform Party has only 300-something members. Republican spinners making the point you discussed have tried to blend the two parties, but I think they're different. However, I'm not sure what this "Independent Party" is.
Actually, I think you mean registered independent, as opposed to registered in the Independent party.
I agree, there has been a disingenuous conflating of the two groups.
12819. Jonesatlaw - 11/18/2000 12:16:04 PM
"independent party" is a misnomer. Look at the FLA ballots. Almost all of the minor party candidates are petitioned in as Independents- so for Florida classifications they are lumped together. The larger figure inludes the socialists, all three camps of them, the old reform party renegades, the Buchanan reform party folk and "I don't give a damn I don't want to belong to any party that would have me as a member" independents.
12820. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 12:16:43 PM
Dusty:
Maybe those Buchannan voters in '96 were voting straight ticket....for Republican anyone, just so they are Republican.
12821. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 12:18:28 PM
"The 1996 votes for Buchanan prove otherwise."
No they don't. They prove that a lot of Republicans in PBC, of no one knows what political, religious, gender, or age stripe, who'd have voted to have him their candidate then would vote for the chosen Republican candidate in 2000. It's completely irrelevant to this election.
12822. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:19:36 PM
arkymalarky
What laws have been violated thus far?
FL has a law instructing the Secretary of State to certify the election a certain number of days after the election.
The FSC, ab initio, has changed this. I've yet to hear a valid reason why.
12823. Jonesatlaw - 11/18/2000 12:21:45 PM
Dusty- the time to certify the election is ten days post reciept of the absentee ballots. It hasn't passed yet. The Saturday deadline that the FSC has stayed was one entirely of Harris' making, not one of Florida law.
12824. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 12:22:45 PM
Um, Dusty, a court exercising its judicial powers is following the law. The FSC has not violated a law by establishing a priority of a court review of the law allowing hand recounts over the SoS's legal power to certify an election.
12825. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:23:57 PM
JudithAtHome
Maybe those Buchanan voters in '96 were voting straight ticket....for Republican anyone, just so they are Republican.
Maybe they did.
Some have argued that it is impossible to believe that so many people voted for Buchanan. I am simply pointing out the evidence to the contrary. I don't particularly care why they voted for Buchanan—I'm just saying that the argument that they couldn'd have is contradicted by facts.
12826. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:25:30 PM
Jonesatlaw
Dusty- the time to certify the election is ten days post reciept of the absentee ballots. It hasn't passed yet.
This is the first time I have heard this. Do you have a cite?
12827. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 12:26:34 PM
They called in droves to the county in a panic that they'd miscast their votes, Buchanan himself said he didn't think there was any way he could have gotten that many, some ballots had two holes and had to be discarded. What more do you want, Dusty?
12828. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 12:26:49 PM
Dusty:
I know exactly what you mean...look at how many voted for Bush here in Texas for Governor; I've said they couldn't possibly be that gullible but the facts say otherwise!
12829. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:28:28 PM
arkymalarky
No they don't. They prove that a lot of Republicans in PBC, of no one knows what political, religious, gender, or age stripe, who'd have voted to have him their candidate then would vote for the chosen Republican candidate in 2000. It's completely irrelevant to this election.
I'm not arguing that every vote for Buchanan was intended for Buchanan.
Surely you've heard the argument that it is inconceivable that so many people could have voted for Buchanan. It is that argument I am refuting.
12830. joezan - 11/18/2000 12:30:54 PM
A5 - Message # 12761:
I agree with much of what you say. However, the following is not true, wrt GWB, anyway:
And whichever candidate takes the Presidency will be plagued by accusations that they don't belong there and that they got there by fraudulent means.
Of all the stories and accusations of fraud we've heard (and I'm talking about the entire country - not just Floriduh), the vast majority have been in Democrat districts. Certainly, the most newsworthy ones have been - blatant vote buying in Milwaukee; people voting past closing time in heavily Democrat KC & St. Louis; PBC voting machines showing up in cars and on e-bay, etc.
Yeah - if GWB wins, people will whine about the electoral process. But that won't last long. It's the law of the land, and nothing Bush has done or could do touches it. On the other hand, the Gore folks are frantically petitioning the electors to switch -a net loss for Gore whichever way the worm turns.
As far as hand-counts, Bush has been entirely consistent in his insistence that they not continue -even after it becomes "obvious" that he will "certainly" lose unless there is a statewide hand count. And imagine how the worm will turn should this hand-count proceed, and he still manages to win. The implications of that are bound to be more than strong enough to overcome any whining about his losing the popular vote.
Now, the only other way Bush wins is if the FSC rules in his favor on Monday. I don't see that happening. But considering that there is not one Republican in that august body, that would only serve to cement Bush's legitimacy.
12831. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:31:29 PM
arkymalarky
They called in droves to the county in a panic that they'd miscast their votes, Buchanan himself said he didn't think there was any way he could have gotten that many, some ballots had two holes and had to be discarded. What more do you want, Dusty?
How many times do I have to say it?
I am not, repeat not, arguing that everyone who punched the hole for Buchanan intended to vote for Buchanan.
Let's assume, arguendo, that every single person who voted for Buchanan, intended to vote for Gore.
What action would you propose?
12832. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:34:02 PM
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people are just whining. But I leap to the conclusion that the people who are whining about the Buchanan vote have a proposed action in mind, orther than just a desire to whine.
If it is simply a desire to whine, I'll be happy to drop the issue.
12833. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:34:22 PM
Dusty,
Absentee ballots don't have to be turned in until a week later.
The media is reporting that ballots are being excluded for lack of signature.
Lack of witness signature, usually. But they are equally invalid if they don't have the voter's signature.
And you are incorrect that the law has been ignored. The fact that counties are allowed to do manual recounts has already been determined to mean that the SecState is not required by law to certify on any given day.
12834. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:39:10 PM
Dusty,
Florida judges can statistically reassign the vote. They've done it before.
I said earlier that,if it were feasible, I would want to see everyone who voted in that county revoting for President. Not by walking into a polling booth, but by a concentrated effort to contact every single person and getting a new ballot from them (presumably, only for President).
Given the lack of motivation for the Gore and Buchanon voters to switch their vote to the other, it would be very easy to determine the real count for Gore (which is the only intent of the revote).
As I said, impractical. But it would work.
12835. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:42:14 PM
12836. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:44:09 PM
CalGal
The fact that counties are allowed to do manual recounts has already been determined to mean that the SecState is not required by law to certify on any given day.
I didn't hear this. When was it concluded?
12837. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:45:41 PM
CalGal
I said earlier that,if it were feasible, I would want to see everyone who voted in that county revoting for President. Not by walking into a polling booth, but by a concentrated effort to contact every single person and getting a new ballot from them (presumably, only for President).
I'd like a stairway to the moon. Equally infeasible. What's the point of harping on it?
12838. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:48:55 PM
Dusty,
You said it wasn't possible. It is possible. Much more possible to a stairway to the moon. Besides, you've managed to ignore what I said about statistical reassigment. I doubt it will happen, statistical reassignment--but only because I think the Florida court will be reluctant to be the ones to determine the election. Not because there isn't precedent that this case falls squarely into.
I didn't hear this. When was it concluded?
Judge Lewis' decision, which was not appealed.
12839. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:49:29 PM
Also, it is a reasonable interpretation of election law, which he spelled out in his decision.
12840. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 12:52:55 PM
"I am not, repeat not, arguing that everyone who punched the hole for Buchanan intended to vote for Buchanan.
Let's assume, arguendo, that every single person who voted for Buchanan, intended to vote for Gore.
What action would you propose?"
Aright, aright. I gotcha now. I don't propose any action at all. I think the hand recount is fair because of the established flaws of the particular machine the counties used, not because of the ballot design--which I still think was a sneaky trick to play on old people. Gore offered a statewide recount--maybe Bush should have taken him up on it.
12841. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:55:23 PM
CalGal
You said it wasn't possible. It is possible.
It isn't possible.
We have the names of people who voted, but 10,000 (I believe in PBC—I recall the number but I'm not certain of the location) did not vote for President.
Are you suggesting that some people who did not vote for President get a second chance?
Besides, you've managed to ignore what I said about statistical reassigment.
No, I didn't. If you think failure to respond equates to ignoring, I'll have to post much more often.
12842. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:57:31 PM
arkymalarky
I don't propose any action at all.
Closure :)
I was beginning to get paranoid over my inability to make a point—I feel better now:)
12843. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:02:51 PM
Dusty,
Are you suggesting that some people who did not vote for President get a second chance?
No, the machine only counted them as showing no vote. That is not the same as saying they did not vote. You're the one talking about stats; you tell me how likely it is that even 1% of those 10,000 decided not to vote for President?
So yes, I am saying that they could revote.
You asked why I kept "harping on" something that was impossible--doing a recount. Not only wasn't it impossible, I wasn't "harping" on it. What is "harped" on by many here is the PBC issue and discussing solutions. I gave you two. You dismissed one as completely impossible, which is incorrect (it's just infeasible) and ignored the other and then said asked why I was harping on something that had no solution?
Given that I had offered an eminently possible solution, I mentioned it as something you apparently didn't review.
12844. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 1:10:31 PM
Why not flip a coin and get on with one of them starting to pick people to run the country?
Just don't let Alfraud or Billy Daley furnish the coin.
12845. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:16:38 PM
Cal:
No, the machine only counted them as showing no vote. That is not the same as saying they did not vote. You're the one talking about stats; you tell me how likely it is that even 1% of those 10,000 decided not to vote for President?
If you don't see that the current situation might very well influence these people to now cast a vote for president - either way - and thus invalidate the whole thing...
12846. Dusty - 11/18/2000 1:17:33 PM
CalGal
No, the machine only counted them as showing no vote. That is not the same as saying they did not vote.
Fair point. But I'd bet a lot of money that a hand check will show that the vast majority of these ballots did not contain a vote for President.
You're the one talking about stats; you tell me how likely it is that even 1% of those 10,000 decided
It isn't a statistical question.
I find it easy to believe that some people walked into the voting booth to vote for some or several local races, and declined to vote for President. It happens all the time.
12847. Dusty - 11/18/2000 1:22:17 PM
CalGal
You asked why I kept "harping on" something that was impossible--doing a recount.
I didn't refer to a recount. That is obviously possible. It has been done.
I am referring to your fanciful notion that we can get an affidavit from hundreds of thousands of people, including some people who declined to vote for president the first time around.
I'll bet some are dead now. What do you do with them?
You dismissed one as completely impossible, which is incorrect (it's just infeasible) and ignored the other and then said asked why I was harping on something that had no solution?
It is less possible than a stairway to the moon. But let's not nitpick - if you prefer infeasible, so be it. Why don't we talk about feasible alternatives?
12848. stostosto - 11/18/2000 1:27:12 PM
"Why not flip a coin and get on with one of them starting to pick people to run the country? "
That's the most reasonable statement I have seen ES make.
I've been thinking, given that there is no way that any method of counting will be 100% precise, this election is probably a statistical tie, i.e. the margin of votes may be well within the error margin of any counting method, not just in Florida, but nationwide.
So, the fairest thing to do is call it a tie, and flip a coin.
Hey, why not do what Peres and Begin did in Israel, split the term between the two contestants?
A similar arrangement is agreed upon at the European Central Bank, where present chairman Wim Duisenberg announced at the start of his term, that he would step down after five years (of a stipulated nine year term) to give way for the French candidate. That's a bit of quintessential EU political horse trading -- always count on the French to deliver that in abundance.
12849. Cellar Door - 11/18/2000 1:29:15 PM
"I'll bet some are dead now. What do you do with them?"
Say they're Republicans.
12850. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:30:18 PM
Dusty,
My point is that I did discuss a feasible alternative, which is statistical reassignment. Which you ignored. And have still ignored.
And I meant "revote", not "recount"--but under the circumstances described. It is not all that feasible, but it is not impossible.
Joe,
What percentage of people do you really think didn't vote at all?
Gore would, presumably, come out of a PBC revote (under the terms described) with a substantial number of extra votes. This is after you exclude the Nader people who thought they could get away with changing their vote. You could also take away a small percentage for those who truly didn't vote--but it'd have to be something like .001%.
12851. Dusty - 11/18/2000 1:30:32 PM
Electric Slide
Why not flip a coin and get on with one of them starting to pick people to run the country? 
12852. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:33:10 PM
It has been done.
I am referring to your fanciful notion that we can get an affidavit from hundreds of thousands of people, including some people who declined to vote for president the first time around.
I'll bet some are dead now. What do you do with them?
You mark them as dead. As I just mentioned to Joe, the percentage of people who didn't vote is miniscule. A good number of people who didn't vote would still say that they didn't vote (some folks are ornery).
12853. Dusty - 11/18/2000 1:34:06 PM
CalGal
My point is that I did discuss a feasible alternative, which is statistical reassignment. Which you ignored. And have still ignored.
Statistical reassignment is different than your proposal to get an affidavit from every voter. It is the latter I have said is impossible.
Which you ignored. And have still ignored.
Some of us feel that thinking and homework makes sense before shooting off one's mouth. My apologies for taking so long to opine on it. Stop telling me that I am ignoring it.
12854. Dusty - 11/18/2000 1:35:49 PM
CalGal
As I just mentioned to Joe, the percentage of people who didn't vote is miniscule.
So what? The number of people who didn't vote far exceeds the margin of difference. On what basis do we put the election in the hands of people who couldn't make up their mind?
12855. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:37:47 PM
Your responses have ignored it. All you would have had to say is that you hadn't heard of it--and since you have clearly not heard of a great deal of stuff involved in this and have asked about it, why not just ask about it?
It's not like I think you're going to agree with the reassignment, but it's well within Florida law and has been done as recently as two years ago.
12856. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:38:59 PM
The number of people who didn't vote far exceeds the margin of difference.
No. The number of ballots that the machine marks as not having voted far exceeds the margin of difference.
The number of people who truly didn't vote for President, even after having stood in line to vote, is miniscule. I've made that distinction once already; try to keep it in mind.
12857. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:39:30 PM
Cal:
My point has nothing to do with the numbers who actually decided not to vote for prez, which is impossible to determine at this late date in any case.
And there's the rub.
If the numbers are that insignificant, then what court would allow them?
But in this election, such an "insignificant" number may very well make all the difference, thus inflating its significance to mammoth proportions.
It would never stand up.
12858. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:40:49 PM
It is the latter I have said is impossible.
Again, it is not impossible. It is just unlikely.
Put another way, if Bush were offered a choice between a straight revote and the method I outlined, he would be an idiot not to take my method. Given that there is still a small risk that a revote would be ordered, it's worth remembering that he'd be better off making sure that the Nader Traders didn't switch sides.
12859. Toenails - 11/18/2000 1:41:48 PM
If the Democrats win the legal battle in the FSC, it'll be, essentially, because the court believes that conflicting state laws concerning (1) time of certification of ballots and (2) hand-recounting of places with legitimate counting irregularities have to be resolved in favor of extending the time --mainly because the deadline requirements don't make sense for heavily populated counties.
But isn't it a substantially different question whether a county ought to be required at least to BEGIN its hand recount before the normal certification deadline? I think the legitimacy of the Dade County procedure is much more suspect than what has been going on in Broward and Palm Beach Counties.
The Republican lawyers might be loathe to detract from their principal legal position at Monday's argument to take this into account, but it should have been at least a footnote in their brief.
12860. Dusty - 11/18/2000 1:43:41 PM
CalGal
This is after you exclude the Nader people who thought they could get away with changing their vote.
How do you "exclude" the Nader people. Do you mean let them change their votes, because it doesn't matter, or do you have some way of identifying them to preclude them from your "revote"?
You could also take away a small percentage for those who truly didn't vote--but it'd have to be something like .001%.
Your percentage equates to 4 people in PBC. I agree that we should look at the ballots to see who truly didn't vote, but if I am correct that the machine count was 10,000, the hand count will be many thousands.
12861. jexster - 11/18/2000 1:44:25 PM
With Florida Supreme Court precedents in his favor, Gore sits in the catbird seats WRT his campaign to have every vote count.
But will the end really be clear after an FSC ruling either way on Monday?
The chances aren't good, not at all as Allegations of Republican Vote Fraud Surface in Seminole County
- Republican campaign workers spend 10 days "correcting" thousands of invalid absentee ballot applications in Seminole County registrar's office
- Former Republican State Chairman admits Democrats have solid case to throw out ballots
- In the likely event that the thousands of illegally cast ballots cannot be identified, a substantial likelihood exists that all Seminole County absentee ballots will have to be invalidated.
12862. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:45:19 PM
Joe,
Gore would get a substantial amount of votes in the revote and it should be able to withstand the subtractions due to potential number of people who decided to vote the second time--which, as I said, would be small.
There are, what, 3700 Buchanan votes and 29,000 rejected ballots (although maybe less after a recount)? The revote would properly apportion the Buchanan votes to Gore (say 2000/1700) and all the rejected ballots would go their various ways--they would have been examined to provide a sense for the proportion expected to go to each candidate.
Gore would either come out way ahead, or Buchanan voters were really more prevalent in the county.
12863. Dusty - 11/18/2000 1:45:40 PM
CalGal
Your responses have ignored it.
I've addressed your affidavit solution. Are you now contendign that they are related in some way?
All you would have had to say is that you hadn't heard of it--and since you have clearly not heard of a great deal of stuff involved in this and have asked about it, why not just ask about it?
I never said I hadn't heard of it. Stop making things up.
12864. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:47:50 PM
Do you mean let them change their votes, because it doesn't matter, or do you have some way of identifying them to preclude them from your "revote"?
You don't preclude them. And you don't let them change their votes.
You know how many people voted for Nader the first time. You should expect that same amount the second time (with a tiny percentage of the rejects thrown in).
I agree that we should look at the ballots to see who truly didn't vote, but if I am correct that the machine count was 10,000, the hand count will be many thousands.
Again. The machine count said that these were no votes--but that does not mean the voter had no intention of voting. The only issue is what percentage of people went into the booth with the intent not to vote for President. That's going to be tiny.
12865. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:48:44 PM
Cal:
You're dreaming.
12866. Dusty - 11/18/2000 1:49:16 PM
CalGal
Again, it is not impossible. It is just unlikely.
How is it possible? How do you identify the people who didn't vote the first time? What the legal implications of revoking the rights of those who have died in the meantime? Why do Nader voters get to vote for Bush or Gore?
Or Browne Voters. Or Hagelin voters?
12867. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:50:18 PM
Toe,
The SecState made it very clear that no recounts would be accepted and delays would not be tolerated. Given that this wasn't cleared up until Thursday and they voted to recount on Friday, I think that counts as a reasonable delay.
In a situation where no such confusion existed, I would agree with you.
12868. Dusty - 11/18/2000 1:51:03 PM
CalGal
Again. The machine count said that these were no votes--but that does not mean the voter had no intention of voting.
Why are you saying it again? You act like you are trying to persuade someone. I've said twice that I agree with your point.
12869. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:53:36 PM
Joe,
Don't be silly. I said that already several times, and I'm neither calling for such a procedure or offering it as the only option. But everyone is saying that it is impossible to accurately capture a revote. It is not impossible at all. It's just more work than a straight revote. However, it would more accurately capture the real problem--the Gore/Buchanan confusion.
I wouldn't support a straight revote, although if it were announced I'd probably feel cheerful for Gore.
12870. jexster - 11/18/2000 1:54:09 PM
Let's review the bidding.....
- FSC relies on recent precedent and permits every vote to count - perhaps 1000 votes out of over a million recounted?
- Thousands of Seminole County ballots thrown out for vote fraud - assume a conservative 10% net gain for Gore, say 500 votes
- PBC butterfly ballot defect - another 2000-2500 votes per statisticla analyses from MIT, UCBerkeley, Carnegie Mellon University
Now either Gore will win both the popular and electoral vote or Bush will take the electoral vote AND everyone will know that he stole the election and is not the legitimate President of the US.
In the latter case, look for an Uninaugural to salute the UnPresident
12871. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:55:40 PM
Dusty,
How do you identify the people who didn't vote the first time?
You don't need to.
What the legal implications of revoking the rights of those who have died in the meantime?
You wouldn't. Besides, the number of people who died is as miniscule as the number of people who didn't vote.
Why do Nader voters get to vote for Bush or Gore?
Or Browne Voters. Or Hagelin voters?
They don't get to vote for anyone else--the deception would be equally obvious. I just covered the situation that people would obviously worried about. Likewise, Buchanan voters couldn't vote for Bush.
12873. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:01:12 PM
Cal:
Now you're spinning while you dream.
Doesn't that keep you awake?
12874. PsychProf - 11/18/2000 2:01:49 PM
"What the legal implications of revoking the rights of
those who have died in the meantime?"
HaHa...
12875. Dusty - 11/18/2000 2:02:52 PM
CalGal Message # 12838
Dusty I didn't hear this. When was it concluded?
CG Judge Lewis' decision, which was not appealed.
Here is a discussion of the ruling:
I see nothing in the discussion indicating that the SecState doesn't need to certify on any given day. I would have thought it would have been important. Are you saying it is in the decision itself, but not important enough to mention in the story? If so, I will search to find the ruling itself.f
12876. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:03:41 PM
PP:
Why, we let their widow/widower take their place at the polls.
...worked for Mel Carnahan.
12877. PsychProf - 11/18/2000 2:05:50 PM
RIP will now be Recount Individual Preference.
12878. Dusty - 11/18/2000 2:06:12 PM
CalGal
Dusty How do you identify the people who didn't vote the first time?
CG You don't need to.
Meaning what? That people who didn't vote for president on November now get to vote for President. This doesn't trouble you?
You need to let this go. It is unworkable.
12879. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:06:14 PM
Joe,
????
I'm not dreaming at all. The problem interested me last week, so I chewed on it a while. Is it possible to come up with a method that would accurately capture the real intent of the votes in question? I think it would. Is it also possible? Sure.
Given that I've said three times that I don't think it very likely, I don't see why you'd waste posts saying I'm spinning. Instead, consider whether such a method would indeed have a good chance of capturing the true vote for Gore (which is the one in dispute). If it addresses the problems you would otherwise see in a revote, then say so and be done with it. Agreeing with that doesn't mean that it's any more likely.
12880. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:08:06 PM
That people who didn't vote for president on November now get to vote for President. This doesn't trouble you?
They would have to have voted in the first election. Does it trouble me that a few people who said, A pox on all their houses! in the first election now say, "Hm. I'll vote for [fill in the blank]]"? No. The issue of the revote is really to get the results for Gore. Bush will get the same amount of votes plus a small percentage of faulty ballots.
12881. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:08:51 PM
WRT revote, I share CG's concern hastening to add however, that a revote is a statutorily specified remedy for a situation in PBC county which is beyond good faith dispute.
There is another remedy and that is statistical adjustment of the vote. While such a remedy is highly reliable and would more than meet the stringent burden of proof requirements, outside of a bunch of stats geeks, scientists, and other highly educated & intelligent observers [like me, like Ace, like Rosie], this remedy would have even less widespread support among the unwashed masses & Limbaugh lumpen proletariat
12882. Dusty - 11/18/2000 2:09:51 PM
Hmmm the link didn't take. I'll try again:
Here is a discussion of the ruling:
ruling discussion
12883. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:10:25 PM
and I apologize for ommitting PscyhProf from the stats geek category :)
12884. Dusty - 11/18/2000 2:11:42 PM
CalGal
They would have to have voted in the first election.
They did. Just not for President. Why on earth should these thousands of people get another chance to vote for President?
12885. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:11:58 PM
Dusty,
He said that manual recounts were allowed. He said that populous counties had the right to recount, even if it took them longer than the time allowed.
By definition, that means that the SecState can allow the recounts to go past the certification if needed.
Besides, it's already known that an act of God could delay results and the SecState would not be able to certify.
12886. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:12:58 PM
Just not for President. Why on earth should these thousands of people get another chance to vote for President?
There aren't thousands of them, Dusty.
12887. AceofSpades - 11/18/2000 2:13:14 PM
2,800 felons are illegally registered in Miami-Dade alone, due to Moter Voter's lack of a requirement of proof of eligibility to vote.
In Broward County, they've already found 69 felons who illegally voted.
It's estimated that thousands of illegal non-citizen aliens have illegally registered to vote in Miami-Dade alone.
Oddly enough, Democrats don't seem to care much about this sort of voting "irregularity," and they fight any attempt to put anti-fraud provisions into Moter Voter.
I wonder why?
12888. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:13:55 PM
And the GOP continues to play fast and loose with the facts & law
They said the law requires counties to file by deadline unless natural disasters or malfunctioning balloting equipment prevented vote tallies. The counties did not raise such problems, therefore Harris rejected hand recounts, they said.
No there is nothing in the law about this.
12889. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:15:09 PM
Well Ace, I say if you have proof go for it. Its not my business to search for your votes when you won't bother now is it?
12890. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:15:27 PM
Ace,
Cancelled out by all the people who registered by motor voter and weren't on the roles.
But I think it's good they are eliminating them.
12891. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:16:41 PM
But if you want to prove your felons argument, we can discuss the thousands of Floridians, mostly black and latino, who were wrongly identified as felons in a mass campaign to purge the rolls of felons whose conviction hadn't been purged
12892. AceofSpades - 11/18/2000 2:17:28 PM
"we can discuss the thousands of Floridians"
Tens of Floridians, actually, dipshit.
12893. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:20:03 PM
Meanwhile Tom Delay, God have mercy his shriveled blackened soul, has been talking about funding studies aimed at challenging the Florida Electors.
Fine. President Gore won't mind
12894. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:21:29 PM
Jesus, this is such nonsense. (speaking of press conference)
If there is evidence of people taping chads back on, then it's been filmed. If observers saw it, then the cameras saw it. Just find it.
You should also easily be able to find tape on the ballots themselves. So demand it and be done with it.
They are basically coming on TV and accusing the counters of voter fraud.
12895. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:22:27 PM
No Ace several thousand wrongly identified.
You worry about your votes, I worry about mine.
But time's awasting now isn't little man and youse guys have been wasting time kicking against the goads with bogus lawsuits in Federal court, endless spin parades from the Texas Fun Bunch etc
Now wonder your boy's breakin out all over with superating pustules!
12896. AceofSpades - 11/18/2000 2:22:31 PM
"If there is evidence of people taping chads back on, then it's been filmed. If observers saw it, then the cameras saw it. Just find it."
You're such an idiot.
There are one or two cameras in the room, moron. This is not Las Vegas with a camera directed at each counter.
But keep claiming that "everything" is filmed, Cal. If it makes you feel good.
12897. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:22:55 PM
Besides, one would think with all this rampant fraud, Gore would be getting more votes.
12898. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:22:59 PM
My prescience in these matters is amazing...
12899. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:23:37 PM
12898 is to 12894.
12900. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:24:17 PM
Ace,
Well, you certainly make the notion of chatting with you seem pleasant. I'll pass, thanks.
12901. AceofSpades - 11/18/2000 2:24:31 PM
"Besides, one would think with all this rampant fraud, Gore would be getting more votes."
Idiot.
No, one would think without fraud that Gore would gain approximately as many votes as Bush.
But that isn't the case, is it?
12902. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:24:59 PM
If the stumblin bumblin Bush performance in his first post election crisis any indication, a trailer if you will for the new release Mister Moron Goes to Washington, I'm lookin forward to a fun 4 years
12903. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:25:12 PM
Joe,
Prescience?
12904. AceofSpades - 11/18/2000 2:25:44 PM
"Well, you certainly make the notion of chatting with you seem pleasant."
Well, you're an idiot. You've seen television. I assume you noticed there was a single nonmoving camera in the room.
This doesn't stop you from asserting that "everything is being filmed." Because you're a moron.
12905. Dusty - 11/18/2000 2:26:22 PM
CalGal
By definition, that means that the SecState can allow the recounts to go past the certification if needed.
Your interpretation, not what the decision said. You jumped over me for not knowing what was happening, and it turned out that i simply failed to read your mind. My bad.
Besides, it's already known that an act of God could delay results and the SecState would not be able to certify.
This isn't an Act of God. Are you pretending otherwise? Or just reporting non sequiturs?
12906. Dusty - 11/18/2000 2:27:06 PM
CalGal
There aren't thousands of them, Dusty.
Cite please.
12907. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:27:19 PM
I say put up or shut the fuck up with these stupid assed allegations fresh from the spin dryer...taping chads back on!
Call your witnesses you have observers, let's roll
12908. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:28:33 PM
But some friendly advice, best get crackin on Seminole county before you know it the entire absentee vote in this heavily GOP counted is gonna be deep sixed for vote fraud, admitted vote fraud.
12909. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:30:53 PM
HaHaHa!
38 convicted felons in Miami/Dade voted absentee. 32 were registered Democrats.
But let's throw out military votes with no postmark.
HaHaHa!
12910. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:31:23 PM
Dusty,
You misunderstand. If an act of god allows the certification date to be passed, then it is clearly not the law in all situations that the date be met.
No, it is not an "interpretation". That is what he said. She couldn't "arbitrarily" reject late ballots.
Cite? How many people go into a voting booth and deliberately don't vote for President? Don't be absurd. For that matter, you've said it was "thousands" when it clearly isn't. So I could just as easily ask you for a "cite".
Or, we can agree that the number is very small--certainly not in the thousands in PBC--and reach an agreement of a fairly small number. Then, in the revote, some group of people will attest that they didn't vote and don't do so this time, either. If that number is less than the agreedupon number, you subtract a percentage of it from each of the leaders votes.
12911. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:32:05 PM
Joe,
It is my understanding that both are being thrown out. So where's the problem?
12912. AceofSpades - 11/18/2000 2:32:29 PM
"How many people go into a voting booth and deliberately don't vote for President? Don't be absurd."
I guess all those milllions of people who talk about the "None of the Above" choice are just blowin' smoke.
12913. AceofSpades - 11/18/2000 2:33:44 PM
"It is my understanding that both are being thrown out. So where's the problem?"
Because they also voted at the polls in thousands, and we can assume they voted Democratic in equal proportion to the Dem votes in the absentee ballots.
12914. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:33:51 PM
I wonder if the reason they have the governor of Montana talking about this is because the state doesn't specifically encourage hand recounts?
12915. Dusty - 11/18/2000 2:37:28 PM
CalGal
No, it is not an "interpretation". That is what he said. She couldn't "arbitrarily" reject late ballots.
Read it again. The issue was the November 14 deadline, not the certification deadline. Different matter entirely.
12916. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:37:34 PM
Cal:
I have not heard that there is any consistent checking of votes to assure that convicts are not voting en masse.
And I don't think that even you will argue that these votes would tend to cancel each other out.
12917. Dusty - 11/18/2000 2:40:41 PM
CalGal
For that matter, you've said it was "thousands" when it clearly isn't. So I could just as easily ask you for a "cite".
I'm looking for one, but I haven't found it yet. I clearly recall, when they were discussing the thousands of double punched ballots, that someone reported there were also ten thousand unpunched ballots. I haven't yet found confirmation, and I'm going to stop looking, because it is only relevant to proposal for a revote. Until a single intelligent person buys onto it, I'll change subjects.
12918. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:48:24 PM
Not that anyone on either side appears the least interested in achieving an efficient resolution of the Florida mess but what with the hand recount suits, the PBC butterfly suits, the Seminole County absentee ballot suit and lest I forget - the soon to be notorious Taped Chads(!), the Florida Supreme Court should take jurisdiction of all disputes ASAP and appoint a Special Master to report on all under detailed instruction as to what the FSC sees as controlling legal principles.
But who is interested in an efficient resolution anyway?
12919. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:51:06 PM
HaHaHa!
38 convicted felons in Miami/Dade voted absentee. 32 were
registered Democrats.
But let's throw out military votes with no postmark.
HaHaHa!
No let's throw both out.
12920. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:51:33 PM
Dusty,
Unpunched ballots does not mean the voter didn't intend to vote. Hence the whole chad issue.
That said, if thousands of voters turned in ballots with not even the slightest indentation, then that number should also be counted separately. Then there should be an equal (or close to equal) amount in the revote. If there aren't, the bulge will appear elsewhere, and can be eliminated.
12921. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:52:36 PM
I have not heard that there is any consistent checking of votes to assure that convicts are not voting en masse.
I really don't have much opinion of it one way or the other--but in any event, it is a problem with Florida election law. If they want to do a check and eliminate them, fine by me.
12922. Dusty - 11/18/2000 2:54:33 PM
CalGal
Unpunched ballots does not mean the voter didn't intend to vote. Hence the whole chad issue.
Maybe you need to report this a 4th or 5th time.
Or you could talk about something new.
12923. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 2:57:01 PM
I'm sure there are very few Republican felons. They must all be Democrats for Gore...especially the ones on death row.
12924. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:57:13 PM
Dusty,
I thought so, too. But you keep on bringing them up as if they are relevant. There are not thousands of ballots with not a single indentation on them.
If there are, however, then they can be handled just as Nader votes are handled.
12925. Dusty - 11/18/2000 2:57:39 PM
My opinion on statistical reassignment—A remedy that should be generally avoided. Under rare circumstances, it might be the best approach. I can envision situations in which it would be justifiable. Formulating a consistent set of rules covering when it would be permissible, and when not permissible sounds like a major task. I have no interest in talking it on. However, none of the reasons I can think of for permitting it apply here.
12926. Dusty - 11/18/2000 3:00:07 PM
CalGal
I thought so, too. But you keep on bringing them up as if they are relevant.
I keep bringing them up because you haven't identified how to exclude them. ou seem to think the numbers are insignificant. You are wrong.
12927. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:01:46 PM
Dusty,
Are we talking about honest to goodness no votes? As I said, I think they are a miniscule amount. But if a lot of votes have no indentation at all and must be considered a no vote, then I've told you how they can be "counted" again--by the voter saying that they didn't vote the first time.
12928. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 3:06:14 PM
The Democrats are hard at work stealing this election, people.
12929. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:06:58 PM
If anyone is interested in participating or observing yet another discussion of our Great Election Crisis, you should check out the Politics boards at FindLaw.com (registration required)
Lotsa lawyers discussing the legal shit
12930. Dusty - 11/18/2000 3:09:27 PM
CalGal
Are we talking about honest to goodness no votes?
Yes.
As I said, I think they are a miniscule amount.
I understand. And I disagree.
Let's move on.
12931. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:09:36 PM
Rose,
I appreciate the power of the Stolen Election line but you guys gotta realize that allegations without factual support are just more horseshit.
There is only one party out to steal the election and that's the guy who has been trying like hell to prevent all votes from being counted chips falling where they may.
That man is George W. Bush and he's fighting so hard because he knows that if every vote is counted, he's headed back to his armadillo ranch
12932. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:13:13 PM
Dusty,
However, you didn't acknowledge that if they were a large amount, they would still be accounted for. And I moved on long ago; you keep on responding.
12933. Al D - 11/18/2000 3:13:20 PM
The Secretary of State's decision to certify on Sat. without encluding the hand count was upheld by a court. The SC said she was to hold up certification until they had a chance to review. Could it be that they would rather give the bad news to very rabid Dems. on Monday, a few hours before Monday night football, when all but political nerds will have better things to do than worry about politics?
12934. Dusty - 11/18/2000 3:14:53 PM
Let's talk about something serious.
Bush votes have been found in the piles of Gore votes.
The Bush people went through a lot of whining about insignificant issues, but this one is major.
Comments?
12935. Dusty - 11/18/2000 3:15:50 PM
CalGal
However, you didn't acknowledge that if they were a large amount, they would still be accounted for.
I have no idea what this means.
12936. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:17:11 PM
I was just coming to post on that. The only claim that seems credible is the Lepore accusation. On the plus side, all of her attempts have been caught by counters, Dem and Republican alike.
12937. Al D - 11/18/2000 3:17:14 PM
Dusty
Would that surprise anyone? There is a lot a stake here. Gore's sanity.
12938. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 3:17:49 PM
The Criminal Party is working overtime this weekend to produce "useable" ballots for Gore.
12939. Cellar Door - 11/18/2000 3:18:20 PM
You mean only Tipper's kisses are holding him together? LOL!
12940. Cellar Door - 11/18/2000 3:19:05 PM
"The Criminal Party is working overtime this weekend to produce "useable" ballots for Gore."
Republicans are voting for Gore? Fabulous!
12941. Al D - 11/18/2000 3:24:14 PM
Jonesatlaw has made the point that Bush did not ask for a recall in the entire State because he felt he would lose ground. One of the talking heads made the same point; his reasoning was that Repubs. were much less likely to make mistakes, being of a higher class of people and much better educated. Gee, I guess I won't join the Libertarian Party afterall. Haven't you all noticed how much more intelligent a certain poster's posts have been since he/she regestered as a Republican?
12942. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:32:25 PM
Has anyone noticed that the pre tags don't work?
12943. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:36:53 PM
Burton pretty much put the accusations to rest, btw. Except the Lepore one, but even then that sounds iffy. Careless, more than criminal. But the rest of them seem to be groundless.
12944. ElliottRW - 11/18/2000 3:39:02 PM
Has anyone worked out a scenario that will legitimize the eventual "winner"? Or is it too late for that?
12945. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:40:21 PM
Hey, Elliot. Aren't you in Georgia? I hear Atlanta had a power outage, or something.
I think the recounts will legitimize the winner. Maybe with a statewide recount--which Gore supports.
12946. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:40:51 PM
On the other hand, that takes it as a given that the FSC will allow the handcounts to be accepted, and that is by no means certain.
12947. MsIvoryTower - 11/18/2000 3:45:48 PM
AlD
The claim that republicans are smarter than dems fell by the wayside when republican house leaders began whining about all the lost votes for their Bush baby due to media calls in Fla 8 minutes before the polls closed.
Seems like a projected 10,000 republican voters left the lines en masse.
No claim to intellectual superiority can be made in the face of such massive stupidity.
et.al
Georgie Porgie leads by almost 1000 votes now! Goodness, I think we may see the light at the end of the tunnel soon.
12948. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:45:49 PM
Miami Herald story on convicted felons voting
It is much, much better this year than in years past. Some of the people who voted have been voting since the 70s, too. So it's not like it was a recent and deliberate attempt to defraud.
That doesn't make it right, but it's also hardly suspicious. And it sounds like they are scrubbing them.
12949. ElliottRW - 11/18/2000 3:45:57 PM
CalGal,
I'm in Alabama. Which means I don't talk about politics very much, for fear of retribution. But no power outages.
I hope you're right about the recounts.
12950. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:47:04 PM
Oh. I knew it was something that began with an A and had lots of As as well. Alabama, Atlanta--one of those southern places.
12951. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 4:31:05 PM
How soon do you think we're see a "VOTING FOR DUMMIES" (Florida Edition) joke book for sale?
12952. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/18/2000 4:33:17 PM
Sweep those stolen ballots under the rug;
nobody, but "the cleaning people" will know. 
12953. Al D - 11/18/2000 4:46:53 PM
MIT
I make no claim for Republican superiority intellectually, and absolutely not in regard to you. Have I not already agreed with you as to voters not voting due to media reports? I merely report the perception, and perception is often taken as reality.
On an other point. It is argued (excuse the passive voice-I wish not to offend) that since the Bush forces did not express their desire for a full recount before the Friday following Nov. 7, the law precluded that option. Well and good, for I have respect for the law.
The law also called for a recount since the margin was slim. Well and good yadda, yadda, yadda.
Absentee ballots have been dis-allowed for good legal reasons. No arguement from me. Not, satisfied with a machine recount, Dems. asked for a hand count, well their right within the law.
Now, Fl. law states that hand counts must be in by one week after the election. The Secretary of State said she would follow Fl. law and her decision was uphelp by a lower court. Given all this, wouldn't you want the Supreme Court to follow the law and uphold her decision? If not, I would like your opinion as a student of law.
12954. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 4:49:43 PM
The Democrats are the enemy.
12955. LadyChaos - 11/18/2000 5:07:40 PM
AlD,
Fla. law makes no statement as to when the hand recounts are due. If it was that clear, we would already have a certified result. The law allowing canvassing boards discretion to commence hand recounts is obviously on a collision course with the law on when certification is to be made, and that is why the Fla. Supreme Court has gotten involved.
My prediction, though, is that the Court will decide that the law grants executive discretion to the Secretary of State to determine when the vote should be finally certified. As we already know from the Elian Gonzalez case, only an abuse of executive discretion will lead a court to overrule an official decision. And abuse of discretion is a difficult standard to prove; as long as reasonable people disagree on the proper course of action, it is unlikely that a court will intervene.
On the other hand, the Dems could argue that Harris has been set on slamming the door shut on the election results from the beginning, that her determination not to include amended had recounts has been arbitrary and politically motivated. But the Republicans can validly argue that a court should not speculate on the political motivations of an executive when carrying out her official duties, and that indeed the decision of when to finalize the vote count is essentially the responsibility of the political branch of the State government.
12956. Toenails - 11/18/2000 5:32:11 PM
12955 Lady C:
Thanks. A nice, rational, coherent summary of where we are.
12957. labwabbit - 11/18/2000 5:53:31 PM
Ahhh...the Dems are finding out, by the latest count, that a hand job just isn't as good as...
...a good cigar.
12958. Al D - 11/18/2000 5:58:24 PM
LadyChaos
Good to see you on the Mote, and I agree with what you say. I stand accused and plead guilty of a slight mis-statement of the case. What Dems. will argue if they don't get their way is almost beyond belief. I cannot imagine them accepting a SC ruling that did not go their way.
12959. dusty - 11/18/2000 6:01:21 PM
Roland Evans on CNN is summarizing an interview with Daschle. He praised him for excoriating Dershowitz who called Harris a crook. Glad to hear it.
12960. joezan - 11/18/2000 6:10:08 PM
Cal - Message # 12903:
Joe,
Prescience?
Yes - wrt outrage and lawsuits over the military ballots.
BTW - sorry so long getting back to you. I was out at Duncan Hollow, sledding with my girls in blizzard-like conditions. Looks like we're back to good, old-fashioned Michigan winters following a coupla low snow years.
Apparently, the ozone hole is fixed.
Someone tell Al Gore he can go home now.
12961. joezan - 11/18/2000 6:13:10 PM
My, my, my...
While the leader of the Free World is over in Vietnam making sure that every American soldier is accounted for, the presumptive heir is back home, trying to make sure that they are not accounted for.
12962. Cellar Door - 11/18/2000 6:16:11 PM
What Pugs. will argue if they don't get their way is almost beyond belief. I cannot imagine them accepting a SC ruling that did not go their way.
12963. Cellar Door - 11/18/2000 6:17:55 PM
"Roland Evans on CNN is summarizing an interview with Daschle. He praised him for excoriating Dershowitz who called Harris a crook. Glad to hear it."
You would be. Speaking of crime, have Evans & Novak ever met a CIA-funded murderous Head of State they didn't like?
12964. labwabbit - 11/18/2000 6:18:05 PM
Do you live in Florida?
Did you Vote?
Are you Old?
Then you may be suffering from
Electile Dysfunction
When you inserted your pointer into the hole
next to the candidate's name, did you have
trouble inserting your pointer firmly?
Did you feel a lack of energy when you
tried to push your pointer all the way in?
Then, chances are, you have
ELECTILE DYSFUNCTION
This condition usually affects elderly Democrats
who reside in Palm Beach County.
The Pfizer Company has developed a new
medication for Florida Retired people who
can't get their pointer into the hole.
It's called
Vote-agra
from the makers of Viagra
(Mark Martin's new sponsor)
Get some today so you'll be ready
the next time you feel the urge to Vote!
12965. Al D - 11/18/2000 6:19:30 PM
Little sir echo, how do you do, how do you do...
12966. joezan - 11/18/2000 6:21:55 PM
jex - Message # 12919:
HaHaHa!
38 convicted felons in Miami/Dade voted absentee. 32 were registered Democrats.
But let's throw out military votes with no postmark.
HaHaHa!
No let's throw both out.
**********************************
12967. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 6:24:38 PM
Saw (on local TV) a great political poster at a demonstration at the White House today.
AL GORE INVENTED THE HANGING CHAD
12968. joezan - 11/18/2000 6:27:29 PM
Cal:
My pre tags worked fine in Message # 12966.
12969. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 6:28:32 PM
Another read:
TRUST ANOTHER MOBSTER DALEY TO BE HONEST WITH A BALLOT BOX?
YEAH, RIGHT!
12970. dusty - 11/18/2000 6:29:30 PM
joezan
Actually, they didn't.
12971. OhioSTOPAS - 11/18/2000 6:31:58 PM
Taping chads back into holes to deny votes to Bush?
I can't believe someone would make such a stupid allegation.
It is DEFINITELY time for George Bush to concede if the members of his party are reduced to this.
12972. dusty - 11/18/2000 6:37:26 PM
OhioSTOPAS
How does it compare to the allegation that Harris is a crook?
12973. joezan - 11/18/2000 7:01:14 PM
Dusty:
I only used the pre tags to center my
"dividing line". I wanted to see whether
it was true that they weren't working.
To the extent that they hold the margins
as posted, they worked fine.
12974. dusty - 11/18/2000 7:08:00 PM
joezan
Let's discuss this in Try the Mote or Technical - I pointed out the problems there.
12975. dusty - 11/18/2000 7:16:41 PM
Fox is reporting that a cousin of Jeb and George was involved in the decision to call FL for Bush.
12976. LadyChaos - 11/18/2000 7:33:25 PM
Re: Message # 12966,
Whether States can legally disenfranchise convicted felons is destined to become the next hot topic in constitutional law. Thus far, there has never been a Supreme Court validation of a State depriving persons of a fundamental constitutional right based on a change in legal status. Until now, most people have simply assumed that States have the power to disenfranchise felons. I predict that the Supreme Court will ultimately disagree.
12977. joezan - 11/18/2000 8:09:17 PM
LC:
What's your point?
In Florida, they can't vote.
12978. CalGal - 11/18/2000 8:27:43 PM
Dusty,
That's been known for some time. Did they announced that they canned him, or something?
12979. ElliottRW - 11/18/2000 8:46:04 PM
Re: Palm Beach Errors
Smart people tend to have higher error rates when performing extremely simple tasks. This was discovered by IBM in the '60s when they found that the best computer punch-card machine operators had the lowest IQs.
For this reason, it's not at all obvious that the high error rate in Palm Beach is due to lower intelligence. Rather, the problem is that the voters were expecting a task even simpler than the one they were presented with.
12980. jexster - 11/18/2000 8:50:05 PM
NBC Nightly Newss Trashes Bush Allegations of PBC Chad Shennanigans!!!
Leading with Lyin Karen Hughes BULLSHIT about PBC vote count dishonesty, NBC then proceeded to put the allegations in a toilet and took a huge dump on them.
"Bush frightened" "As if on cue, immediately after Hughes' news conference, GOP observers went to microphone"
BUT wait! NBC had already interviewed these people!! GUESS WHAT THEY SAID?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????
If I wanna see clowns, I'll go to the circus where ACE is sucking elephant dick in Ring 3
12981. jexster - 11/18/2000 8:51:21 PM
STOP THIEF!!!
12982. joezan - 11/18/2000 9:11:23 PM
jex:
Put the big red crayon down, and take a deeeeeeep breath...
There - isn't that better?
12983. jexster - 11/18/2000 10:21:59 PM
Remember you heard this from me first on 11/8/00 on the Mote.
Legal Precedents Favor Gore in Monday Hearing
Televised live, 2 pm., one hour oral arguments (unheard of!)
Monday...Monday...MONDAY!!!
No more bullshit from the Texas Fun Bunch. Time for court boyz!
12984. jexster - 11/18/2000 10:22:42 PM
Ya know Joe, what would I do if I didn't have you fuckin clowns to shit on?
12985. joezan - 11/18/2000 10:24:03 PM
The hue and cry are being raised over the military ballot issue. Prominent Democrats agree - re-count them.
Pat Caddell, Demo pollster, contributing consultant to The West Wing, and Shining Light of Objectivity in the Battle of the Talking Heads, has had it. He wants the military votes counted - with no caveats. He also says that current handcount projections do not get Gore enough votes to overcome Bush's 930 vote lead, let alone what Bush will gain if the late postmark votes stand, and that if a full state handcount were to be held, everything outside the three counties currently being counted is Bush's.
12986. joezan - 11/18/2000 10:26:28 PM
toys.
Hey jex - NEWSFLASH!
We don' need no steenkeeng court ruleeng.
Gore will not get enough votes in the handcount.
12987. jexster - 11/18/2000 10:51:24 PM
That could well be JoeZ...but then how do you account for all the tortured clownishness comin out of Texas?
MONDAY>>>MONDAY!!!!!!!!!!
And what we don't get from the count, we will when the Seminole absentee ballots are shit canned on account of GOP vote tampering
12988. dusty - 11/18/2000 10:52:00 PM
jexster
Learn to pick up your toys.
12989. joezan - 11/18/2000 11:27:57 PM
WILL THESE PEOPLE STOP AT NOTHING!!!!!!!!
Now they're eating the evidence!
STOP, THIEF!
12990. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 11:44:28 PM
I can't believe we've done almost 1,000 in less than 2 days (or close to it).
12991. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 11:50:26 PM
I'd love to stay for the millennial run but I'm too sleepy so I'm going to bed...congrats to whomever lands it.
12992. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:53:38 PM
I think it should be me, actually, but it's no fun when there's not a conservative around to snatch it from.
12993. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:57:16 PM
I feel like we'll know a lot more Monday afternoon, and it's frustrating not to be getting any real new information. I will not watch the talking heads tomorrow morning, because it will just make me mad.
12994. joezan - 11/19/2000 12:02:42 AM
Too bad, Arky...
12995. joezan - 11/19/2000 12:03:11 AM
You could've had...
12996. joezan - 11/19/2000 12:03:40 AM
the pleasure of....
12997. arkymalarky - 11/19/2000 12:03:47 AM
I say we take bets on what scenario is most likely to play out. What do you think, Joe?
12998. joezan - 11/19/2000 12:04:04 AM
preventing me from...
12999. arkymalarky - 11/19/2000 12:04:10 AM
Hmm?
13000. joezan - 11/19/2000 12:04:27 AM
getting my...
13001. arkymalarky - 11/19/2000 12:04:35 AM
?
13002. arkymalarky - 11/19/2000 12:05:10 AM
Phooey.
13003. joezan - 11/19/2000 12:05:27 AM
second ever Millennial....
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
(loser)
13004. arkymalarky - 11/19/2000 12:08:55 AM
Heh heh heh. But look--it was the unlucky 13000, which is, of course, why I let you have it.
hope concerned doesn't see this
13005. joezan - 11/19/2000 12:16:59 AM
Arky:
What scenario?
If Bush gets his way (extremely unlikely), he will win.
Gore has gotten his way. He's wringing the ballots out for the last possible vote, and it doesn't look like he'll get enough.
And if the late military votes are counted he can forget it for sure.
13006. arkymalarky - 11/19/2000 12:21:55 AM
Well, there are well over a million votes to be counted if you add Miami-Dade and PBC. And they're not going to count absentee ballots that didn't meet the preestablished criteria for being accepted.
13007. joezan - 11/19/2000 12:23:25 AM
Arky:
Wanna bet?
13008. arkymalarky - 11/19/2000 12:27:22 AM
Hmmm. I dunno. I'm kind of scared that if I bet it'll jinx Gore. I'm very superstitious here lately. That's why I'm so glad you got the unlucky 13 millennial.
13009. JJBiener - 11/19/2000 2:11:16 AM
Joe - WILL THESE PEOPLE STOP AT NOTHING!!!!!!!!
I thought this would have been clear to you by now. Democrats will do anything to win this election because they are on a mission from God. W. is the political anti-Christ and he must be stopped even at the cost of their most sacred honor. If W. becomes President, life as we know it will end and we will all be thrown into the Abyss.
Well, at least that how they're acting. It could be that they just have absolutely no sense of proportion about this.
13010. JJBiener - 11/19/2000 2:15:24 AM
I am curious how Democrats can claim that the only thing that is important is to determine the "will of the people" when they discard the will of hundreds of voters because a clerk in a military post office failed to stamp the ballots. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they are painfully obvious.
13011. vonKreedon - 11/19/2000 3:18:36 AM
JJ writes, I thought this would have been clear to you by now. Democrats will do anything to win this election because they are on a mission from God. W. is the political anti-Christ and he must be stopped even at the cost of their most sacred honor. If W. becomes President, life as we know it will end and we will all be thrown into the Abyss.
Well, at least that how they're acting. It could be that they just have absolutely no sense of proportion about this.
But of course one could, and many do, substitute Republicans for Democrats and Gore for W. in the screed and be equally accurate.
Why is it that none of the Repubs are willing to touch the issue of at what point W. should concede,"for the good of the nation"? W. has lost the popular vote. W has tacitly conceded that he expects he would lose Florida if a full and fair hand re-count were conducted of the entire state. W. is behind Gore in the electoral college without Florida. Why is it that the Repubs have no exit strategy other than doing whatever it takes to win?
Gore has proposed an exit strategy that would involve him conceding without going to court. The Repubs exit strategy if they lose appears to be to keep the fight going until the next presidential election, and then they whine about how Gore is a sore loser.
Also, I've heard Dems speak about a Gore cabinet as a national unity cabinet, including Powell as Sec. of State, but I've not heard a peep from the Repubs about any concession of cabinet posts to Dems. And this silence from the great uniter who will not even meet with Gore for a tone setting photo op.
And another thing, regarding the allegations of taping chad and punching chad; show me the indictments, these are accusations of criminal activity and I will take them seriously when the courts take them seriously. Until then to my mind it is vicious spin.
13012. clydefo - 11/19/2000 6:12:48 AM
If overseas absentee voters need not comply with the rules, will we allow them to ignore the traffic laws when they are back in the USA?
13013. OhioSTOPAS - 11/19/2000 6:37:25 AM
Von K: The reason no one talks of Bush conceding or having a bipartisan Cabinet, even though he is the popular vote loser, is because Bush is the presumptive winner by reason of his short-lived annointment as President by Fox News and the networks that followed.
Wouldn't the public dynamic of the last two weeks have been different if Florida had never been labeled anything but "too close to call"?
13014. stostosto - 11/19/2000 6:38:43 AM
vonK
Well said.
13016. stostosto - 11/19/2000 7:06:31 AM
If the Republican allegations and implications and hints of partisan vote tampering have any truth to them, there is something fundamentally flawed, indeed rotten, with the American democratic system, and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is entitled to all the pooh-pooing of American lecturing about democracy that he can muster. If indeed there are attempts at fraud in this, the most closely watched vote count in world history, you'd think it'd be unlikely in the extreme for it to go undiscovered. And in the most litigious and incarcerating society in the world for it to go unpunished is equally hard to imagine. Hence, any would-be fraudster would seem to take a grave risk, not only with such supposedly irrelevant (to them) principles as American democracy, but also personally. Even more incredible is the notion of organised fraud by the Democratic Party or the Gore campaign, which some Republicans seem convinced is taking place. Surely, if such a conspiracy was uncovered, the Dem Party would be terminally damaged, and it would be hard to see any remedies short of a total purge of the leadership.
cont.
13017. stostosto - 11/19/2000 7:06:42 AM
On the other hand, if there is no evidence of fraud or tampering, but only Republican concerns and hints, then that's at the least an expression of political distrust bordering on paranoia which is a poor basis for having a functioning democracy. At worst, it's a conscious and cynic strategy to put an end to the vote counting by poisonous propaganda with the hope that it sticks to the public mind.
It's hardly going to strengthen the confidence in the American institions. In fact, it's hard to think of a more divisive strategy.
As I understand it the Bush sales pitch wasn't that he was necessarily a brilliant guy with a lot of experience in governmental affairs, let alone foreign affairs. It was that he was a man that understood how to compromise with political adversaries, who could work out deals on the basis of a common understanding, and that he held the office of President in such high regard that he vowed to restore its honesty and dignity. A man of integrity, focusing on the nation's greater good, and a guy with a good heart.
It simply doesn't add up to me.
13018. clydefo - 11/19/2000 7:23:00 AM
In Seminole County, the Republicans obtained absentee ballot applications that had been voided by election officials. They corrected the errors and resubmitted them as fresh applications, even though the law requires that only a close family member or guardian may submit a ballot application for someone else. Anyone out there familiar with the application form that was used? Might it include the usual statement under oath that the information provided is complete and correct?
13019. OhioSTOPAS - 11/19/2000 7:23:02 AM
George Bush is a uniter, not a divider.
But only if he gets to be the winner.
13020. OhioSTOPAS - 11/19/2000 7:30:42 AM
What I want to know about Seminole County is how non-Republican applications for absentee ballots were treated.
I personally don't view assistance in filling out the application as distinguishable from, say, paying the postage due if the applicant failed to put a stamp on the envelope. (I'm assuming that there is no fraud, and these were genuine voters. There is no suggestion to the contrary that I've heard.) These votes should be counted pursuant to the principle that the voters' actual will should be respected.
But if election officials were calling the Republican party to fill out incomplete Republican applications, while (to concoct an extreme hypothetical) saying "Tough luck, sucker" and throwing incomplete Democratic applications in the wastebasket, there's a problem. But in this hypothetical scenario, the problem isn't that Republican voters had their choice included in the totals - that should NEVER be a problem - but rather that Democratic voters didn't get their choice included.
13021. clydefo - 11/19/2000 8:20:48 AM
If a sworn document is defective and ruled invalid by an elected official, it becomes a piece of trash paper, doesn't it? I recently signed a notarized document in a real estate matter that was incomplete. I wound up having to go through the whole thing again.
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/19/politics/19SEMI.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/19/politics/19SEMI.html
13022. clydefo - 11/19/2000 8:57:59 AM
"What I want to know about Seminole County is how non-Republican applications for absentee ballots were treated." OhioSTOPAS 13020
From NYTimes 11/18/00: "...Ms. Goard has also acknowledged that, in the weeks before the election, she let other incomplete ballot applications from individual voters pile up in her office because she was too busy to notify the people who had sent them that they had been rejected. Ms. Goard said that Florida law does not obligate her to assist voters in completing a flawed application."
13023. OhioSTOPAS - 11/19/2000 9:19:13 AM
Hmm . . . Looks kinda like, "Tough luck, suckers."
13024. Electric Slide - 11/19/2000 9:32:59 AM
Witnesses see Democratic ballot counters in Fort Lauderdale eating chad to stop it from becoming evidence.
The Criminal Party in action...
13025. Toenails - 11/19/2000 9:37:36 AM
I wonder if the deterioration of the discussion on this thread, and the growing decrease in civility, should be blamed on the saturation news coverage coming out of Florida.
We probably could have survived the basic political/legal issue of whether the selective hand-recount was a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, but with armies of press wandering around Florida, looking for "news," we are now getting umpteen side-issue stories that create the impression (perhaps accurately, but who knows?) of total electoral chaos all over the state. Allegations of cheating, inefficiency, bias, etc., abound.
The entire process is becoming so polluted that it doesn't really matter which or how many of these stories bear scrutiny. What will matter in the end is the unavoidable impression that the whole thing smells to heaven.
I think whoever wins, loses. At this point, were I Gore or Bush, I would try to look to the future and would actually hope to emerge from this as the (temporary) loser.
13026. dusty - 11/19/2000 9:52:47 AM
Toenails
I don't think it is that bad (in this thread). I've seen much more acrimony over far less important issues.
The "need" of the press to find a story undoubtedly contributes to some contrived stories, but I'm far happier with the media crawling over the place than the alternative.
13027. dusty - 11/19/2000 9:54:20 AM
Having said that, I think Electric is out of line in 13024
13028. joezan - 11/19/2000 10:03:12 AM
This entire hand count fiasco came about as a result of Democrat claims that inordinate amounts of ballots showed errors. And none of it would have come about had not the Demo phone blitz convinced thousands of PBC residents that they may have voted wrongly.
There is a standard by which it is determined that handcounts should take place, and in the preliminary 1% counts only PBC ballots met the standard, with a change of 39 out of 4,500 ballots. The fact that the hand count of the entire county is so far not producing anything approaching half that number (at last report) is a very good indication, imo, that there was some foul play from the get-go. And, really, there was foul play before that preliminary count even started - the 1% "representative" sample was drawn from 3 precincts which voted for Gore 20-1, 20-1, and 50-1.
Broward and Miami/Dade have caved in to pressure from Democrat lawyers to proceed with hand counts despite the fact that there was nothing to indicate they were needed, and so far Broward has found a miniscule number of ballot errors - certainly nothing near what should have triggered a complete hand count.
Oh...and which have so far resulted in an additional 4 Bush votes.
13029. vw - 11/19/2000 10:03:47 AM
Democrats will do anything to win this election because they are on a mission from God. W. is the political anti-Christ and he must be stopped even at the cost of their most sacred honor. If W. becomes President, life as we know it will end and we will all be thrown into the Abyss
Uhmm ... excuse me. But I believe you might be confused over which party it was that sold it's soul to the Moral majority for votes several years back.
You might want to find another analogy for your next bout of hyperbole.
13030. joezan - 11/19/2000 10:06:14 AM
The reason that Republicans are so nervous about these hand counts, and the reason you are now hearing more and more stories of dirty tricks at the counting tables, is this: Bush is now ahead by 930 votes. The goal is clear, and the challenges are increasing. The arbiters of those challenges are almost all Democrats. Their decisions stand.
Now, the Repubs need to bring forth evidence of the claims of irregularities and fraud - that's true. Mark Racicot indicated that they will, and I have heard no Democrat refutations, except for a bunch of people yelling "nonsense". Certainly, some of the most blatant irregularities - observers placing Bush ballots in Gore piles, people fanning themselves with the ballots and dropping piles on the floor, have not been refuted at all. And we've all seen pictures of chads lying on the tables.
So far, the hand counts have failed to do the two things they were supposed to do: assure a more fair and accurate vote, and show that "thousands and thousands" of people who intended to vote for Gore didn't.
If Bush wins in spite of all this (and he very well may), there'd better be hell to pay for the Gore camp.
And if you have any doubts about what I've posted, ask yourself - Where's Dick Gephardt? Where are all the usual suspects?
Exercising "restraint"?
I don't think so.
13031. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:11:24 AM
The question before this court is as fundamental as it is straightforward: whether lawfully cast and counted ballots are to be included in a vote total that will resolve an issue of paramount national importance — the selection of the president of the United States.... The secretary of state lacks discretion to selectively reject manual recounts as part of Florida's vote tally. Such a rejection is contrary to the Constitution's mandate that the election shall be determined by a plurality of the votes cast. See Florida Constitution, Article VI, Section 1. It is contrary to the statutory requirement that she determine which candidate for president received the highest number of votes. See Section 103.011, Florida Statutes (2000). It is contrary to the scheme of state statutes that authorize manual recounts and enumerate them as part of the official election returns.
13032. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:12:36 AM
It Is Contrary to This Court's Decision in Beckstrom v, Volusia County Canvassing Board
Eat shit,
David Boies
13033. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:15:47 AM
Witnesses see Democratic ballot counters in Fort Lauderdale eating
chad to stop it from becoming evidence.
NBC interviews these "witnesses" before they appeared, as if on cue, just after Karen "Lyin Bitch" Hughes's press conference. All GOP observers, while complaining that the process took too long, said it was fair and honest.
The clowns aka The Texas Fun Bunch are making this up as they go along.
And the situation remains as it was. Go to court if you think you have a case. Go to court and be cross-examined.
Dare 'ya.
13034. clydefo - 11/19/2000 10:19:03 AM
I'm surprised to hear so many people suggest that one of the candidates should concede "for the good of the country". That notion seems odd in the USA. Collectively, we still have a 19th Century "frontier" mindset, IMO. Give them room. Let them fight it out in the street, no holds barred. We want our leader to be a fighter. No respect for a quitter.
13035. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:20:13 AM
I have heard no Democrat refutations, except for a bunch of
people yelling "nonsense"....And if you have any doubts about what I've posted, ask yourself - Where's Dick Gephardt? Where are all the usual suspects?
You've not heard a manufactured spin campaign. That's what you've not heard. Gore doesn't need, nor should he play, the false and deceptive game the GOP is trying to goad him into. He's got the facts and the law on his side.
You also didn't hear NBC Nightly News last night.
Not one of these allegations will come before a court of law. Not one. They are so patently ridiculous, only an idiot would take them seriously.
As a lawyer who loves to cross-examine witnesses, I would give a major body part to chew up even one of these "witnesses".
13036. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:21:16 AM
If I wanna to see clowns, I can go to the fuckin circus.
Again -you'll not see one of these clowns raising their right hand.
13037. dusty - 11/19/2000 10:21:26 AM
Toenails
BTW, I assumed it was obvious, but sometimes the obvious needs stating—if you were thinking about jex when you referred to the increased acrimony, I think most people have learned to dismiss his wacky ravings. I confess I read them on occasion, when the thread is going slow, but I've learned to read them for entertainment value. I'm trying not to brush the entire Democratic organization with the fevered mutterings of the fringe.
13038. dusty - 11/19/2000 10:27:18 AM
joezan Message # 13028
And, really, there was foul play before that preliminary count even started - the 1% "representative" sample was drawn from 3 precincts which voted for Gore 20-1, 20-1, and 50-1.
I'm not sure this is true. I assumed that they would pick a representative sample, so I was surprised when the initial Dade county decision was to decline to hand count, given the change in count.
Then I heard that a non-representative sample was deliberately picked, on the assumption that if that sample didn't show a major difference, there was no point in proceeding. I think the original vote was made on that basis, and people (not on the canvassing board) incorrectly extrapolated, and were surprised at the decision.
(I think the reversal of the decision was due to political pressure.)
I haven't heard definitive arguments on why the non-representative precincts were chosen, but there is a non-nefarious possibility. I'll accept that answer, until I hear evidence otherwise.
13039. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:27:19 AM
"[T]he real parties in interest here, not in the legal sense but in realistic terms, are the voters. They are possessed of the ultimate interest and it is they whom we must give primary consideration. The contestants have direct interests certainly, but the office they seek is one of high public service and utmost importance to the people,
thus subordinating their interests to that of the people. Ours is a government of, by and for the people. Our federal and state constitutions guarantee the right of the people to take an active part in the process of that government, which for most of our citizens means participation via the election process. The right to vote is the
right to participate; it is also the right to speak, but more importantly the right to be heard. We must tread carefully on that right or we risk the unnecessary and unjustified muting of the public voice. By refusing to recognize an otherwise valid exercise of the right of a citizen to vote for the sake of sacred, unyielding adherence to statutory scripture, we would in effect nullify that right. "
13040. dusty - 11/19/2000 10:32:00 AM
I haven't seen any discussion of Bob Bechel's (spelling?) attempt to persuade some Bush electors to switch their vote.
Is this condined by the Gore supporters? Is it playing fair?
Or is everything "fair"?
13041. Toenails - 11/19/2000 10:32:19 AM
Dusty: I wasn't thinking about any one person. There's a lot of it here, and it comes from both sides. It's mostly petty bickering, and I don't guess it really hurts anyone all that much. But the thing I like most about The Mote is that frequently a person can get information -- real information -- and some intelligent, objective comment. Sometimes, on some Mote threads, I'm so intimidated by the depth of knowledge on casual display that I hesitate even to participate in a discussion. (An example of this, on this thread, is the discussion by those few who actually understand principles of statistics.)
So it kind of pains me to see it all fall apart into the usual "so's your old man" bullshit. You can get that anywhere.
13042. joezan - 11/19/2000 10:33:23 AM
jex:
Exactly.
That's why the un-postmarked military ballots have to be re-counted.
13043. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:33:39 AM
Dusty's a fine example of what I am talking about.
There is not one major legal or factual position taken by the GOP since 11/07 that has any merit.
One after another, and we've seen it here and we've seen it in the media, the GOP trots out some half-baked legal theory, or some "substantial" evidence of some "fact" that quickly gets shot to shit.
The Texas Fun Bunch is playing a media spin game. Its comical to see how many try to ape their antics here like Dusty.
Try as they might, folk like Dusty can't handle the truth, can't withstand an examination of their clownish claims. No, what we end up with is shit like Message # 13037
Bring on the clowns!
13044. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:34:58 AM
But don't mind me, I had to much chad for dinner!
Papably ridiculous.
13045. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:35:53 AM
palpably
Lest Stumbo the Spell Check Queen shriek "AH HA!"
13046. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 10:36:11 AM
I want to know if Florida upholds the "no postmark" rule in other elections...the Republicans would be squealing just as loudly if somehow the trend was leaning toward all the military votes going for Gore and having no postmarks and the officials insisted they go through without postmarks so the "military could have their votes".
And by the way, Tom Russert just stuck Lieberman but good...so much for unbiased reporting. He asked Lieberman if he would speak now for the Gore/Lieberman ticket and ask that the unpostmarked ballots be counted so that the people serving their country overseas could be heard. When Lieberman pointed out it was not his place to do so, that it was a Florida legality over which they alone had authority, Russert went next to Bob Dole and said "Well, you have said that the Gore/Lieberman campaign would never accept that those votes be counted." And Dole takes off on a droning path about the poor military being so mistreated by Gore and so on...
I guess the Liberal Media slept in today.
13047. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:38:22 AM
If Bob Bechel wants to lobby electors to switch their votes, that is both fair and lawful.
If Rush Limbaugh wishes to do the same, its both fair, lawful, and comical.
Bring on the clowns!
13048. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 10:40:14 AM
...of course, that is bulldog TIM Russert. Sorry, Stumbo.
13049. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:41:08 AM
If there is no postmark on a ballot, it cannot be determined whether the voter was voting in the election concluded on 11/7 or in another election.
Which election you ask? Why the one that some here have said must not be allowed, Gore's "second election".....you know that "if he didn't didn't win it the first time, try try again"
Spin. Spin. Spin.
Spin stops at the court house door goofballs.
13050. dusty - 11/19/2000 10:41:36 AM
JudithAtHome
I asked you before, but I must have badly phrased my question—how does one support a "will of the people" argument, then throw out the military ballots?
I am NOT asking what the rule is on the ballots. I think I know that.
13051. dusty - 11/19/2000 10:45:13 AM
JudithAtHome Message # 13046
I reread this post three times. What is the bias?
13052. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:45:16 AM
And while Dusty's around, I should remind one and all that this is the same lame Dusty who prattled on about no legal authority ("no controlling legal authority") for the Florida legal proceedings. This silly tirade on 11/8 produced from me the legal authority above, the very same authority now widely reported in the Post, the NYT, and other major national papers as "substantial" and "favoring Gore"
So keep on keepin on...I love nothing more than dumping on you idiots.
And they end up learning a bit about the law.
Win. Win.
13053. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 10:48:34 AM
One of George Bushs campaign brags was about how he good he is at getting the other side to vote his way...it is the basis of his "uniter not a divider" blurb. He has often chortled about his success in getting the Democrats to change their votes here in Texas...seems like poor sportmanship to blast someone from the other side for trying to do the same thing now. (h™)
13054. dusty - 11/19/2000 10:48:37 AM
jexster
And while Dusty's around, I should remind one and all that this is the same lame Dusty who prattled on about no legal authority ("no controlling legal authority") for the Florida legal proceedings.
Please. I am trying to ignore you, but when you directly address me and lie through your teeth, it is a bit much to take.
Please provide a post number to support your moronic claim. I said no such thing.
13055. dusty - 11/19/2000 10:49:44 AM
JudithAtHome
I don't know what you are referring to in Message # 13053. Can you explain?
13056. Toenails - 11/19/2000 10:50:18 AM
The postmark issue could have been largely (and fairly) resolved if these ballots had been marked and dated when received.
Obviously, overseas ballots RECEIVED by --say-- November 9th must surely have been mailed on time. Those received after that date (or some other later date that could be agreed upon as reasonable for establishing the strong likelihood of on-time mailing) would either have to have a valid postmark or not be counted.
Gore supporters' bleating about Holocaust Survivors, and the Bush peoples' similar crocodile tears about the lost votes of Our Men and Women in the Service of their Country are both so spectacularly irrelevant that they would be laughable in any other context.
13057. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:53:48 AM
Exhibit One for JoeZ, want the usual suspects, don't look to the Democrats...
GOP Governors Line Up For Clown Act in Austin
13058. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 10:54:52 AM
Dusty:
To ask Lieberman if he would do something he has no legal authority to do (get them to count the votes) and then turn to Dole and say, well, you were right, he wouldn't do it....that doesn't seem slightly biased to you? Maybe I using the wrong word....maybe when a person sets someone up with a question he can't possibly answer and then turns to someone who is on the opposite side and practically gloats, "You were right! You told me so!!" well, maybe that isn't bias, maybe that is just being a shitheel.
13059. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:54:59 AM
No Dusty...I've played your silly find the message game once, and that was once too often.
I pass. Take my word for it or go piss up a rope. Your choice.
13060. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:56:52 AM
More GOP Bullshit exposed
Texas Hand Counting Method May Look Familiar
13061. dusty - 11/19/2000 10:58:45 AM
jexster
I just reviewed the 49 posts I made on 11/8. There isn't anything remotely like you suggest. I'd like you to apologize.
13062. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 11:00:26 AM
Dusty:
One of us isn't keeping up and I suspect it is my slow typing that is contributing to this.
Re: Message # 13053 I was referring to your Message # 13047
Now, if you are just being obtuse and jacking me around, fine...I can mosey on down the road. But if you are serious that you are unable to understand a single thing I am saying, maybe you need some herbs along with your bran.
13063. dusty - 11/19/2000 11:01:17 AM
jexster
Take my word for it or go piss up a rope. Your choice.
I don't take your word for it.
I checked EVERY single post I made that day.
You are lying.
13064. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:01:38 AM
Preparing for Possible Loss in Court GOP Controlled Legislature Plans to Decide Election on Its Own
13065. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:06:58 AM
I don't apologize Dusty nor do I play your games.
You came in here and cackled about how there was no authority for the Palm Beach challenges nor for the county recounts. If that didn't occur on 11/8 it occured a day or two later.
I quoted for you relevant portions of the Florida Elections statute and the Boardman and Beckstrom decisions of the Florida Supreme Court to which you responded, in effect, that no court would ever buy such a ridiculous argument.
To which I responded "if the Legal Thread is still around, go play there and come back to talk to me"
Then you tried, WRT the Palm Beach controversy, tried to play statistician. A day or two later we also flushed that one down the toilet with statistical studies from UC Berkeley, MIT and others...
Now off with you.
13066. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:07:49 AM
Now, if you are just being obtuse and jacking me around
Nuff said about Dusty.
13067. dusty - 11/19/2000 11:08:05 AM
JudithAtHome
To ask Lieberman if he would do something he has no legal authority to do (get them to count the votes)
According to yuor own words, that isn't what he did. According to your post, Russert asked Liberman if he would "ask that the unpostmarked ballots be counted" (your quote). There is nothing preventing Liberman from doing this. Should he? Probably not, IMHO, but I don't see the question as out of bounds.
and then turn to Dole and say, well, you were right, he wouldn't do it....
Assuming your quote is accurate, you report Russert telling Dole that "you[Dole] have said that the Gore/Lieberman campaign would never accept that those votes be counted"
Russert did not say that Lieberman concluded this, he said that Dole had said it. Unless Russert manufactured the quote (which you haven't alleged) I don't see why reminding Dole of a statement he made is out of bounds.
that doesn't seem slightly biased to you?
Not the way it happened.
...then turns to someone who is on the opposite side and practically gloats, "You were right! You told me so!!"
Read your post again. That isn't what happened.
13068. dusty - 11/19/2000 11:10:26 AM
JudithAtHome
Re: Message # 13053 I was referring to your Message # 13047
The latter post isn't mine.
13069. OhioSTOPAS - 11/19/2000 11:14:42 AM
Senator Fred Thompson was on a roll on This Week.
"The Democrats want felons to vote! The Democrats want everyone to vote unless you're in the military!"
13070. dusty - 11/19/2000 11:15:44 AM
jexster
I don't apologize Dusty
I know you don't. After all, it would be the right thing to do.
You lie through your teeth and don't seem to care.
I'm merely amused when you lie through your teeth about the election.
But I take it personally when you attack me personally.
If you want to concentrate on lying about the election, go to it, and I'll largely ignore you.
But if you make blatantly false claims about me, I don't intend to take such crap.
Put up or shut up
13071. dusty - 11/19/2000 11:17:49 AM
jexster Message # 13065
Your "creative" recollection is flawed.
Do this thread a favor. Stick to discussing the election, and I'll largely ignore you. Continue attacking and lying about me, and I'll respond to every one of your lies.
13072. OhioSTOPAS - 11/19/2000 11:19:29 AM
Jex: George Will just complained that the Gore campaign's brief to the Florida Supreme Court is "harsh".
David Boies should be ashamed of himself.
13073. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:19:57 AM
A senior Bush aide said last week that they expected the two candidates to come out about even in Miami-Dade and Gore to pick up about 100 votes in Broward but potentially 1,000 in Palm Beach. If Gore meets those estimates, he would have about 170 votes more than Bush's current lead--pending any further adjustments to the absentee tallies.
Absentee tally adjustments like throwing out all absentee ballots in Seminole County on account of vote fraud that the former GOP state chairman admits was a serious and substantial problem for Bush.
13074. dusty - 11/19/2000 11:19:59 AM
OhioSTOPAS
That line occurred to me. I didn't post it because it isn't true. I hoped that no GOP person would make the charge, although I'm not surprised. I hope he retracts it.
13075. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:20:51 AM
Now we know why the GOP trotted out their specious allegations of PBC count problems, allegations shot to shit by NBC last night.
13076. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:22:32 AM
Take it however you wish Dusty....I didn't attack you personally until you called me a liar.
Fine by me. Attack to your little heart's desire. No sweat off my b*lls
13077. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 11:23:35 AM
Dusty:
Sorry about attributing a post to you that wasn't yours. However, that post was the reason for my other post. You have said you don't read all of jexsters posts so I guess that was why you were perplexed by mine. I read everyones posts, even those with which I disagree. It's my way of hearing both sides of an argument.
13078. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 11:25:20 AM
Dusty:
The post of yours to which I was referring was Message # 13040 but you knew that, right?
13079. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:25:55 AM
Ohio...
In Chris Mathew's words, "This ain't beanbag, this is Hardball. The Democrats came to play"
The Republicans came to play with themselves, hence the silly spin parade we're tortured with it seems by the hour from Austin. Hence, the Kafka-esque performance by Harris...the allegations of chad eating..chad taping...secret Buchanan cells in PBC...desperate legal ploys in Federal Court...
At bottom, hence the untimely death of I trust you....
13080. dusty - 11/19/2000 11:27:56 AM
jexster
I didn't attack you personally until you called me a liar.
I called you a liar after you lied about me. You claimed I said something, even used quotes, when I hadn't said it.
Now you aren't man enough to admit you made a mistake.
13081. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:29:44 AM
Ohio----
I hear that the Gore Brief is 62 pages long and that oral argument is set at one hour! per side.
I don't know about you but I've been in a few law and motion arguments as we call them in CA in cases far more complex than this one and never have I seen anything like that.
13082. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:30:25 AM
That's right Dusty...I'm not man enough...
Feel better?
13083. dusty - 11/19/2000 11:30:31 AM
JudithAtHome
The post of yours to which I was referring was Message # 13040 but you knew that, right?
No, I didn't. I am sorry you could even think that. I've been looking to see what you could have meant, but didn't find it. I'll look at both post now and see if I now understand what you mean.
13084. dusty - 11/19/2000 11:34:53 AM
JudithAtHome
One of George Bushs campaign brags was about how he good he is at getting the other side to vote his way...it is the basis of his "uniter not a divider" blurb. He has often chortled about his success in getting the Democrats to change their votes here in Texas...seems like poor sportmanship to blast someone from the other side for trying to do the same thing now. (h™)
Are you claiming some parallel between getting legislators to cross the aisle to vote on leglslation, and urging electors to change their vote?
Astounding. That would never have occurred to me.
And your post implies that Bush has blasted Bechel for trying to do this. I hadn't heard this. For these two reasons, I was asking what you meant.
13085. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 11:35:27 AM
Dusty:
You posted that Bob Bechel or however it's spelled was trying to get people to change their votes...I pointed out that was a hallmark of BUSHS Governorship and one of his bragging points in the Presidential campaign...I even put an "h™" after the post which was obviously a mistake as you have taken far more seriously than any little bit of humorous writing deserves.
I am not a contentious person...I try to be nice and sometimes I try to be funny. Evidently, I am failing on both counts today.
13086. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:36:22 AM
Ohio...
I've been lookin for the Gore Brief only finding the intro on the NYT site...let us know if you run across it as I keep looking for it
I glanced at the earlier briefs filed in Judge Lewis's court and they sucked IMO
Contrary to news reports, those were prepared by local counsel. Boies was on the ground but apparently a late addition to the team as he was admitted pro hac vice only this past Thursday or Friday
The intro has whetted my appetite. I love to see first rate lawyers in action....certainly beats watching 49'er games this year!
13087. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 11:37:40 AM
Dusty:
Please lighten up. I know you have a sense of humor. Use it.
13088. dusty - 11/19/2000 11:37:52 AM
JudithAtHome
Sorry, I didn't understand what the h™ signified. It should have been obvious. Sorry I missed it.
13089. dusty - 11/19/2000 11:40:17 AM
JudithAtHome
I hope you can undertand that while reading posts where jexter is lying thoough his teeth at me, accusing me of saying things I didn't say, making up a conversation that didn't occur the way he claims, it is possible to mistake an attempt at humor for a serious point.
13090. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 11:41:32 AM
Anyone:
Last night there was talk on the Mote about "pre tags" causing the screen to be fouled up...what are those and does it have anything to do with the preview function? I've been afraid to use the preview option today...
13091. OhioSTOPAS - 11/19/2000 11:41:50 AM
"The Republicans came to play with themselves, hence the silly spin
parade we're tortured with it seems by the hour from Austin. Hence,
the Kafka-esque performance by Harris...the allegations of chad
eating..chad taping...secret Buchanan cells in PBC...desperate legal
ploys in Federal Court..."
Don't forget "Tom Brokaw made 10,000 Panhandle voters turn around and go home!"
13092. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 11:43:47 AM
ooops....wrong thread.
Dusty:
Yes, I understand and I understand that things are tense around here lately. That's why it's good to have a chuckle now and then; relieves the tight neck and tummy muscle spasms.
13093. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:44:10 AM
Watch the Monday Carnage Live on the Web
13094. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:48:41 AM
Ohio....
Yes the list is endless....only going to prove the lack of substance of the GOP case, a case built on bludgeoning the Democrats into submission, into conceding that which they have not lost and claiming that which they have not won...
But when JoeZ came in here this morning and tried to bootstrap credibility for this nonsense with the ludicrous assertion that it all must be true because the Dems have the great good sense not to act like idiots....I lost it.
13095. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 11:49:37 AM
Ohio:
Re: Message # 13091 Is that the one for which Tom got "omelet" on his face rather than egg?
13096. dusty - 11/19/2000 11:50:17 AM
JudithAtHome
Response to Message # 13090 in Try the Mote
13097. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 11:51:12 AM
Dusty:
Thanks!
13098. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:52:34 AM
The California State Motto Eureka!
I Found IT! The Boies Brief for AL Gore
13099. Toenails - 11/19/2000 12:13:54 PM
dusty, and jexter, (and you to, JudithatHome) I think I speak for most of the rest of us when I say,
Jeez, who CARES?
13100. Toenails - 11/19/2000 12:14:43 PM
And yes, I know it's supposed to be "you TOO"
13101. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 12:17:16 PM
That's an excellent question, Toenails, and the answer is obvious: no one. There is no one posting at this time so what does it matter?
Sorry we haven't been more illuminating today but I don't see many "deep" posts about the election going on, either.
Say soemthing profound...I leave the arena to you!
13102. dusty - 11/19/2000 12:18:17 PM
Toenails
I agree. In fact, I made that point myself, so thanks for agreeing with me.
Now, do you have anything to say about the election?
13103. Toenails - 11/19/2000 12:19:41 PM
No, I'm not going to try to say anything profound. I'm just going to abandon the field, until this is all over with.
Bye, now.
13104. dusty - 11/19/2000 12:19:56 PM
Toenails
To be slightly more specific, I agree to the extent that you are discussing jexter. However, Judith was discussing election issues. Why did you include her in your post?
13105. dusty - 11/19/2000 12:20:44 PM
Toenails
OK bye.
See you in February.
13106. labwabbit - 11/19/2000 12:21:20 PM
something profound,,,
there. i said it. and I'm glad dammit glad i tell you.
(g)
13107. CalGal - 11/19/2000 12:25:02 PM
I don't understand what Toe's problem is. This thread has been positively tame.
I overslept today, dammit, and missed Reliable Sources. I'm such a junkie these days.
But Capital Gang last night was hysterical. I thought those people were going to come to blows.
I have no real issue with some outside hack trying to change electoral votes--my guess is that it won't get to that point, though.
Incidentally, there were probably military ballots in many other states that were rejected for the poststamp problem.
13108. Indiana Jones - 11/19/2000 12:40:36 PM
I have no real issue with some outside hack trying to change electoral votes--my guess is that it won't get to that point, though.
You have no issue with someone trying to get an elector to change his/her vote. But do you have an issue with an elector actually changing?
13109. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 12:42:08 PM
Ah but lab, you were supposewd to say "soemthing" profound!
13110. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 12:45:15 PM
IJ:
There's nothing to say someone can't try to get them to change their vote...has anyone actually changed yet? And are you so certain no one for the other side isn't doing the same thing? I find it highly unlikely that it's not going on both ways...
13111. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 12:49:46 PM
Okay, I have a question about the "fallen chads on the floor"...there is no possible way to say these chads were for Gore OR Bush...who's to say they weren't the chads that were poked for a senator or county commissioner or dog catcher for that matter? The ballots didn't have ONLY Presidential candidates on them, did they?
13112. CalGal - 11/19/2000 12:51:50 PM
Indy,
No, I have no issue with an elector changing, either--although as I said I doubt it will come to that.
I would have a problem with Gore himself trying to change electors--mainly because it looks bad.
13113. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 12:55:33 PM
On Wolf Blitzer just now, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson brought out her "pocket constitution"...I don't know why that struck me so funny!
13114. Electric Slide - 11/19/2000 1:04:13 PM
Stop trying to eat those Florida ballot chads, Democratic criminals!
Save them for eBay auctions. Those chads are going to be valuable some day.
13115. dusty - 11/19/2000 1:09:54 PM
I read the Gore brief.
Not very impressive.
Having said that, it doesn't have to be persuasive, just provide something for the FSC to accept.
I'll have to read the Bush vrief, but I would think that most of the claims in the Gore brief are either irrelevant, or can be countered.
13116. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 1:15:08 PM
I have something that will be valuable on eBay, especially if Gore wins...the Nov 8 edition of my newspaper which says BUSH WINS.
13117. jexster - 11/19/2000 1:23:41 PM
Section 102.166(5), provides: “If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation that could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:
(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts
with the vote tabulation system;
(b) Request the department of State to verify the
tabulation software; or
(c) Manually recount all ballots.” Section102.166(5), Fla.
Stat. (2000)).
On its face, the statute does not include any words of limitation - it provides a remedy for any type of mistake made in tabulating ballots. That plain reading comports with common sense and Article VI Section 1 of the Florida Constitution. An accurate vote count is one of the essential foundations of democracy; it ensures that the peoples’ expressed views are properly reflected in the outcome of elections.
Fancy that. An accurate vote count, an essential foundation of democracy. Fancy that.
13118. jexster - 11/19/2000 1:25:53 PM
I am delighted that Dusty has read the Gore brief and was unimpressed.
I wait with baited breath to learn precisely which points he finds "unimpressive" or even which he disagrees with.
While waiting for Dusty's pearls of legal ledgerdermain, I read on.
Sixty two pages. I can't read as fast as Dusty.
13119. jexster - 11/19/2000 1:28:58 PM
Maybe Dusty quarrels with this point
As this Court has long recognized, the Board must examine each ballot for all evidence of the voter’s intent and make its determination based on the totality of the circumstances. See Darby v. State, 73 Fla. 922, 75 So. 411(1917). This is consistent with the principle, well-established throughout the states, that if a voter has marked a ballot in a manner that cannot be read by a machine, but the voter’s intent can be discerned from the ballot, that ballot must
be counted. Delahunt v. Johnston, 423 Mass. 731, 733-34, 671 N.E.2d 141, 1243 (1996) (the mere “presence of a discernible impression made by a stylus”is “a clear indication of a voter’s intent” even if the chad remains entirely in place on the punchcard); Pullen v. Mulligan, 138 Ill.2d 21, 80, 561 N.E.2d585, 611 (1990); Hickey v. Alaska, 588 P2d. 273, 274 (Alaska 1978).
Since the statute requires canvassing boards to count these ballots,
manual recounts must be available under Section 102.166(5)(c) to allow such
ballots to be counted.
13120. jexster - 11/19/2000 1:30:00 PM
Or maybe Dusty finds unimpressive the Florida Supreme Court's view that the primary purpose of the Florida elections statute is to assure that the voice of the voter is heard.
13121. jexster - 11/19/2000 1:31:07 PM
But I will be late for church if I linger longer awaiting Dusty's pearls....after that a lunch of chad and chad paste
YUM
13122. jexster - 11/19/2000 1:34:23 PM
I can't resist one last shot
The Secretary of State contended that Section 102.166(5) has a much
narrower scope. The Secretary of State’s opinion letters provided no
justification for her constricted interpretation of the statute. Nor could she. There simply is no precedent or support for her approach. Indeed, prior applications of the manual recount provisions of Florida law have not artificially limited the terms “error in the vote tabulation” to machine breakdowns.
First, the language of Section 102.166(5) provides no justification for narrowing the reach of the provision. The Secretary argued (Resp. 20-21) that the term “tabulation” is inherently limited to the use of electronic or electro-mechanical equipment to count votes. But the dictionary definition of the word has no such limitation. The relevant definition of “tabulate,” the verb form of “tabulation,” is “to count, record or list systematically.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary On-Line, (2000).
13123. robertjayb - 11/19/2000 2:01:44 PM
.
A big fan of ZZ Top... 
Whatta guy!
13124. dusty - 11/19/2000 2:05:51 PM
JudithAtHome
On Wolf Blitzer just now, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson brought out her "pocket constitution"...I don't know why that struck me so funny!
What is it about that? A Constitutional question arose at work the other day, and I pulled mine from my briefcase. One of the guys burst out laughing.
13125. dusty - 11/19/2000 2:08:34 PM
Re Message # 13111 JudithAtHome - 11/19/00
I agree. there is no way to determine whether a fallen chad came for Gore, Bush or even the Presidential vote. However, it does speak to the allegation that the chads can come out long after the vote. More evidence that the current system is flawed, although I doubt we will have too many people fighting a change for the future.
13126. dusty - 11/19/2000 2:12:32 PM
One of the better arguments in the brief is the argument that there is a tension (my word) between the deadline for certification and the length of time it seems to take for a hand count. Despite the fact that the brief is arguing that a clearly stated law should be overturned without offering a rebutting law, they may prevail on this point.
Which raises the question: how do they determine how many county employees to use for the hand count? Are they accepting all volunteers? Can they order county employees to do the work? What is the critical path limitation? Why aren't they using more people?
13127. PelleNilsson - 11/19/2000 2:14:50 PM
A hundred posts and no substance.
13128. vonKreedon - 11/19/2000 2:15:16 PM
Dusty - No one, outside of Repub spinsters, has argued that chad will not come completely loose during any recount. In fact the explaination given for Gore closing to 300 votes in the mandatory machine recount is that machine marginal hanging chad come loose, and this is a good thing as it provides a more accurate view of the intent of the voters. The same is also true during a manual recount.
13129. arkymalarky - 11/19/2000 2:27:11 PM
"A hundred posts and no substance."
You must've accidently overlooked mine.
13130. dusty - 11/19/2000 2:27:21 PM
I see that the Bush response extensively responded to this issue. I can only conclude that they agree with my observation that it is one of the better arguments. At least five pages (I'm still reading) of the 64 page response directly address this issue.
13131. arkymalarky - 11/19/2000 2:28:07 PM
I thought all Senators and Representatives got a pocket Constitution.
13132. dusty - 11/19/2000 2:29:43 PM
vonKreedon
Glad to see you agree with me. I made the point that this explained why the recount numbers didn't seem to be random changes from the original many posts ago.
Although I haven't heard any GOP, or for that matter, anyone, make the argument you attributed to "Repub spinsters".
13133. dusty - 11/19/2000 2:31:39 PM
PelleNilsson
A hundred posts and no substance.
Not true. Ironically, one of the best posts came form Jex, once he stopped attacking me and returned to the issue. He linked in the Gore brief for the FSC hearing.
Good stuff.
13134. joezan - 11/19/2000 2:32:42 PM
jex:
Exhibit One for JoeZ, want the usual suspects, don't look to the
Democrats...
Jex, you know this, I know this, and so does anyone else who's paying attention:
As the counts proceed and it becomes clearer that there is nowhere near the number of "missed" Gore votes upon which this preposterous and wholly redundant farce is premised, the Tom Daschles and Dick Gephardts of the world are back in Washington, "attending to business", leaving the righteous outrage and what about us whining to the ubiquitous and long-ago discredited Jesse Jackson. Alcee Hastings is there because he has to be - his district's in the middle of this. But even he was forced to agree with Pat Caddell yesterday that things aren't looking too good for his boy - and when he made his bone-headed suggestion about having re-votes, was forced to hang his head again when Caddell smacked him down on that point.
Meantime, back in DC, the American people are demonstrating outside the Vice President's residence - with not a pro-Gore face to be found. Their numbers have been dwindling daily.
Face it, jex. Your man is being left out to dry by his party.
Give it up, jex - come into the light!
Someone else (Ohio?) asked, Where are the calls for George W. Bush to concede?
Where indeed.
13135. jonesatlaw - 11/19/2000 2:33:12 PM
ZZ Top is some of the best drinkin' & drivin' music ever. Especially the early albums, crank up the stereo and the pick up, and play sign skeet with the empties....
A folkway popular from the southern great plains of Texas all the way to Manitoba.
13136. dusty - 11/19/2000 2:33:34 PM
I think the Bush brief treads on dangerous grounds by emphasizing the $200 a day fine for late filed returns. It may jump up and bite them.
13137. PelleNilsson - 11/19/2000 2:34:10 PM
dusty
If you call linking in an external source "substantial" I'm with you.
13138. vonKreedon - 11/19/2000 2:36:57 PM
Joe - I think it was me in Message # 13011. I'd be interested if you would read and respond to the questions presented in that post.
13139. dusty - 11/19/2000 2:42:34 PM
PelleNilsson
I'll concede that an external source is a thin argument in favor of this thread's content. But discussion of the briefs has now started, and I think it will be extremely interesting.
Mind you, I cannot imagine someone from another country wanting to read the details of the brief, but I believe this is the current most important pending issue.
I'm still reading the Bush brief, and it is getting better. Rocky in spots, but to be expected given the time frame.
They handled the $200 fine issue more cleverly than I expected. It may work to their favor.
13140. joezan - 11/19/2000 2:48:37 PM
Judith - Message # 13058:
To ask Lieberman if he would do something he has no legal authority to do (get them to count the votes) and then turn to Dole and say, well, you were right, he wouldn't do it....that doesn't seem slightly biased to you?
In the first place, didn't you see Gore on national TV magnanimously offering to allow something he had absolutely no authority over - hand counts in every county?
And in the second place:
Sure, Russert was being biased because he wasn't going to let Lieberman (who was all over the place in desparation this a.m.), spin his way out of the fact that his people actively worked to get the votes of American Servicemen and women tossed out, while claimimg that "everyone's vote should count"?
Or perhaps you didn't also happen to catch Mr. Wonderful on his next stop - an interview with that notorious right wing wacko, Sam Donaldson? In that interview, his spinning of the military ballots issue was so transparent - so condescendingly sickening, that poor Sam finally raised his voice in exasperation, asking, "Wait a minute, Senator Lieberman - 60% of the military ballots in Bush-leaning counties were tossed, while only 34% in Gore-leaning counties were!"
And even that he then tried to spin.
13141. dusty - 11/19/2000 2:55:59 PM
Cool.
I note that the Bush brief does use the word "tension":
Indeed, the fact that the
Volusia County manual recount is included in the results here belies the notion that
there is any tension between both certifying and conducting manual recounts within the
statutory time period.
13142. joezan - 11/19/2000 3:05:58 PM
vonK:
Why is it that none of the Repubs are willing to touch the issue of at what point W. should concede,"for the good of the nation"?
Because he's in the lead - he was in the lead after the initial count, after the re-count, and now following the receipt of the overseas absentees. You just do not offer an exit strategy when you're in the lead. It's simply not done.
W has tacitly conceded that he expects he would lose Florida if a full and fair hand re-count were conducted of the entire state.
How has he "tacitly conceded" this? Because he hasn't asked for a hand count of the entire state? Pat Caddell said last night that outside of the three counties currently being counted, Bush wins Florida. And it's beginning to look like he won't need it, isn't it? Gore is on a track to pick up *maybe* an additional 600 votes, once PBC, Broward, and Miami/Dade are done.
Also, I've heard Dems speak about a Gore cabinet as a national unity cabinet, including Powell as Sec. of State, but I've not heard a peep from the Repubs about any concession of cabinet posts to Dems. And this silence from the great uniter who will not even meet with Gore for a tone setting photo op.
For one thing, I haven't heard anything about this from anyone in the Gore camp. For another, let me remind you again: GORE IS LOSING. HE'S BEEN LOSING SINCE DAY ONE. This is the strategy of a loser.
13143. Electric Slide - 11/19/2000 3:12:59 PM
CNN reported that Al Gore has sent more than 500 lawyers and "operatives" into Florida to fight for him.
Who's paying for that?
13144. joezan - 11/19/2000 3:16:49 PM
ES:
I understand he's offering reservations in the Lincoln Bedroom.
13145. joezan - 11/19/2000 3:22:57 PM
Judith:
Okay, I have a question about the "fallen chads on the floor"...there is no possible way to say these chads were for Gore OR Bush...who's to say they weren't the chads that were poked for a senator or county commissioner or dog catcher for that matter?
Any ballot with a double-punch is automatically tossed. So, if someone were to inspect a ballot with one chad punched out for the "other" guy, they might remove the chad for their guy, thus invalidating the ballot.
That's what makes the chads lying on the floors and tables so suspect. In most cases, there is no reason to remove a hanging chad.
13146. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 3:24:30 PM
joezan:
Gore hasn't been losing from day one unless you count leading in popular vote and electoral college votes losing. Gore is "losing" in Florida, which will lead to losing in electoral college votes but that isn't losing from Day One.
13147. dusty - 11/19/2000 3:28:49 PM
One of the positions of the Gore brief is that the hard deadline of seven days is in conflict with the physical impossibility of competing a hand count in that time. They suggest that the legislature must not have intended such an unreasonable alternative.
The Bush response covers this in a variety of ways, but one intriguing way is that the legislative record shows that the legislature explicitly considered making the deadline longer, and making it discretionary. However, they explicitly made it seven days and mandatory, strongly suggesting that is wasn't an oversight, but explicitly considered.
13148. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 3:29:32 PM
joezan:
Your argument about the chads seems a stretch to me...far easier to assume the ones on the floor are there because hanging chads sometimes fall off.
But of course, all those people who are spending their days counting are up to mischief and aren't to be trusted...they are too stupid to vote and are deceitful, to boot. These are the charges made by Ms Hughes and that seems a pretty poor way to let the nation know how much the "indidvidual" means to her boss. Evidently, to him, it's Animal Farm time...some counters are more equal than others.
13149. dusty - 11/19/2000 3:29:41 PM
JudithAtHome
Gore hasn't been losing from day one unless you count leading in popular vote and electoral college votes losing.
According to the Constitution, that is losing.
13150. dusty - 11/19/2000 3:30:42 PM
That is, assuming the count, and recount, and amended counts hold up.
13151. joezan - 11/19/2000 3:34:36 PM
Judy, Judy, Judy....
That was weak.
13152. dusty - 11/19/2000 3:35:40 PM
I think the Bush brief is over-reaching when it argues that manual counts would violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Does anyone catch their argument? I don't follow it.
13153. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 3:38:37 PM
Dusty:
Then what is winning? How can being ahead in all but Florida be considered losing? He has more of the popular vote; he has more electoral votes...
(By the way, my chuckle wasn't at Kay or you for having a pocket constitution; it's because that sounds so much like "pocket fisherman" or one of those amizing Ronco inventions...it just seemed funny. No slight intended...)
13154. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 3:39:31 PM
I don't know if anybody has linked this, yet, but here is a report that exposes major hypocrisy on Republican attitudes toward a manual recount in Florida.
13155. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 3:39:49 PM
joezan:
Being chided by you is like winning a medal...weak or not.
13156. joezan - 11/19/2000 3:39:50 PM
But either way, Judith - how is the vaunted hand count any more accurate, with the will o' the peeples just randomly popping out all over the place?
13157. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 3:40:56 PM
dusty,
Where are the briefs linked?
13158. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 3:41:08 PM
joezan:
The chads pop out in machine counts, too...haven't you heard?
13159. joezan - 11/19/2000 3:41:45 PM
Judith:
Come on, admit it.
Your questioning my assertion that Gore is losing was just stupid.
13160. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 3:42:52 PM
LadyC:
That link didn't work for me...
13161. PelleNilsson - 11/19/2000 3:43:46 PM
Does anyone know when the Florida election law was enacted? Not that it matters in the case at hand but it would be interesting to put its view of the reliability of a machine count in that perspective.
13162. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 3:44:29 PM
joezan:
Oh, you're right...I'm just stupid. Maybe I should just get my little old self down to Florida and volunteer to count chads or better yet, pop them onto the floor.
13163. dusty - 11/19/2000 3:46:43 PM
Lady C (and others)
(For the record, I am no longer using the target=new option. If you want a new window, right-click and select "open in new window")
Gore brief
Bush brief
13164. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 3:47:45 PM
Judith,
Try this one: link.
13165. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 3:49:01 PM
dusty,
Thanks. Another way to open a new window is to hold down the shift key while left-clicking.
13166. dusty - 11/19/2000 3:49:58 PM
Pelle
One of the relevant sections was modified in 1989:
On May 31, 1989, the Florida House passed a bill,
Fla. HB 1362 (1989), that added the new section 102.112, which includes the provision
that “[i]f the returns are not received by the department by 5 p.m. on the 7 th day after
an election and such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be
certified by the department.”
13167. dusty - 11/19/2000 3:50:48 PM
LadyChaos
Thanks, that's even easier.
13168. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 4:03:06 PM
Thanks, LadyC. This is getting more and more like Animal Farm...Orwell would approve.
Hand counts are preferrable to GW in Texas; he signed them into law. But when they concern him directly, they are bad. Hmmmmm.....
13169. Electric Slide - 11/19/2000 4:05:50 PM
Just when I was getting sick of typing "Alfraud," comes...
SORE
LOSERMAN
13170. joezan - 11/19/2000 4:12:27 PM
Yeah, Judy - imagine that!
To wit:
A committee of 12 registered voters, six Republicans and six Democrats chosen by a judge, will carry out the recount in Smith County. Each of the three counties will have its own bipartisan recounting committee. The recount must be completed in all three counties by Nov. 20, said Jane Dees, spokeswoman for the Secretary of State.
13171. dusty - 11/19/2000 4:12:38 PM
Electric
I bet you could post substance if you tried.
13172. dusty - 11/19/2000 4:19:12 PM
LadyChaos
There is definitely some hypocrisy, but not as much as some would argue.
Texas has expressed that hand counts are preferable to machine counts, but the deciding votes for the president are in FL, not TX. The Bush brief argues that FL law prefers machine counts. The argument isn't airtight, but there is no clause in the FL law expressing a preference for hand counts over machine counts. Can I presume you agree that FL law should apply, not TX law?
13173. JudithAtHome - 11/19/2000 4:23:54 PM
Dusty:
Who said Texas law should apply in this case...I thought the link LadyC provided was to point up the irony that Bush signed into law hand counts in his own state but doesn't like that they are being used in Florida.
13174. dusty - 11/19/2000 4:29:02 PM
JudithAtHome
If Lady had said "irony", I would have agreed. But Lady used the term "major hypocrisy". I don't see how an article about Texas law reveals a "major hypocrisy" in a FL election issue unless one thinks that it ought to apply.
Maybe there is some other way to reach that conclusion but I couldn't think of one. Nonetheless, I asked, rather than stated.
13175. joezan - 11/19/2000 4:29:31 PM
I didn't catch all of Meet The Press with Joe L. this a.m., but I'm watching now...
What hypocrisy - what unmitigated, blatant audacity!
RUSSERT: Senator Lieberman - what if the FSC sides with Gov. Bush, and finds - as Judge Lewis did - that SOS Harris was acting within her discretion when she imposed the deadline for certification...does VP Gore have any plans to concede?
LIEBERMAN: Well, I was rather surprised -and disappointed, really - when Gov. Bush turned down VP Gore's offer the other night of a hand re-count of the entire state. If he had only agreed to that..."
Long story short:
"No".
Because Bush rejected an offer from Gore that he had no legal authority to make, let alone see through???!!!
What an unctuous, slimy bastard.
13176. dusty - 11/19/2000 4:31:05 PM
J@home
BTW, thanks for the parenthetical comment about regarding pocket constitution. Now I understand your comment.
13177. dusty - 11/19/2000 4:35:40 PM
joezan
My wife and I used to argue about Lieberman. I thought he seemed generally reasonable, and avoided the partisan divisiveness of many other politicians. (This back when he was my Senator, and I was actively involved in GOP campaigns.)
Her opinion was closer to yours.
She and I are closer to agreement now. I think Lieberman has changed for the worse; she thinks I've finally seen the real Lieberman. In any event, he is hurting his future chances at higher office.
13178. joezan - 11/19/2000 4:39:38 PM
Seems that I spoke too soon:
Broward County has completely changed their criteria for determining voter intent, after it was announced that George W was ahead by 930 votes, and after it was announced that Gore picked up only an additional 88 votes, with 50% of the county counted.
This is blatant election thievery. There is no other explanation. These people had a number in mind when they started, failed to reach it, and are now changing the rules.
You can argue otherwise all you want, but you are full of shit.
13179. joezan - 11/19/2000 4:56:14 PM
vonK:
Incidentally, what do you make of Gore's supposed "exit strategy" following Lieberman's comments on Meet The Press today?
13180. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 4:57:30 PM
dusty,
I only meant to point up the hypocrisy of Republicans decrying hand recounts in Florida while a Republic congressional candidate took advantage of an identical procedure in Texas.
Florida law expresses no preference for either hand or machine recounts. It merely sets out a procedure for challenging a machine count. Once it has been determined through a sampling of precincts that there is a discrepancy between machine and hand results, the statute mandates that a full hand recount shall proceed. To argue that the statutes, taken as a whole, prefer machine counts is to miss the main issue, which is whether the Sec. of State has discretion to ignore amended results based on recounts that are tallied beyond seven days after the election. On this point, as I indicated earlier, there are compelling arguments on both sides.
13181. joezan - 11/19/2000 5:01:56 PM
LC:
But what about the Texas language that specifies a statewide standard, as opposed to Florida, where lack of any standard has turned this into one big clusterf***?
13182. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 5:11:37 PM
joe,
Based on what the Republicans have been arguing, I would say that your point is irrelevant. The Repubs have argued that people are less reliable than machines, end of story. If that's what they're going to hang their hat on, they need to explain why it's acceptable for people in Texas to examine ballots to determine "voter intent" while it's not acceptable for a nearly identical procedure to take place in Florida. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates that States establish uniform standards for hand counts. The Constitution simply gives the States the authority to determine the procedure for choosing their Electors, and the States certainly have the authority to delegate procedural matters to local canvassing boards.
When the Republicans are being philosophically consistent, they usually refer to such matters as "States' rights" and "local control." I find it interesting that they are now running to Federal Court, trying to impose an unknown and unknowable federal standard in an area where the Constitution has absolutely and unequivocally delegated power to the States.
13183. dusty - 11/19/2000 5:13:04 PM
LadyC
You won't be surprised to hear that the Bush lawyers disagree with you:
Petitioners claim (Petr. Br. 43) that manual recounts are preferred to machine
recounts in close elections. That is not true, of course, inasmuch as Florida law
requires an automatic machine recount in elections with a margin of .5 percent or less,
see § 102.141(4), Fla. Stat.; it never requires a manual recount, see § 102.166(4), Fla.
Stat.; it requires a protester seeking a manual recount to show that a mistake occurred,
not merely that the election was close, see § 102.166(1), (5), Fla. Stat.; and it sets out
a full manual recount as the last of three options for the county board if it believes that
there was error in the vote tabulation.
13184. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 5:18:59 PM
dusty,
The automatic machine recount and the "challenge" recount are separate and distinct proceedings. One does not preclude the validity of the other. If the law was intended to favor machine counts, the legislature would have indicated that a discrepancy between machine counts and hand recounts should be resolved in favor of the machine count total.
13185. joezan - 11/19/2000 5:22:42 PM
...and apparently, Florida law also requires that there be ample evidence of machine malfunction or other irregularities.
This has not been shown in any of the counties now doing hand counts. They are all well within the normal range of error.
13186. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 5:26:42 PM
joe,
I have heard others refer to this requirement that there be a showing of "evidence of machine malfunction or other irregularities," but have not yet seen that statute that sets forth this proposition. I have not yet finished reading the Bush brief. Can you point me to the page where the above proposition is cited?
13187. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 5:32:22 PM
Btw,
I think that the Republicans would have a nearly airtight case if Harris had not done nearly everything in her power to prevent the local canvassing boards from commencing their manual recounts before the 7-day deadline. The case may well turn on her conduct before November 14.
13188. jexster - 11/19/2000 5:36:37 PM
I am happy to see a member of the Florida bar here to defend the unassailable against the absurd.
Note too that the Bush Reply plays fast and loose with the truth by mischaracterizing the Gore P&A's for nowhere do the petitioners state some per se rule that manual recounts are to be preferred to machine counts in close elections.
Even though this is the result required in Texas and in many other places and is certainly required here, under Florida law, where the race is close and a local canvassing board, charged by statute with the sole authority to make such a determination, has done so.
But then that's why KH and Bush have chosen to rewrite the statute, now isn't it?
13189. dusty - 11/19/2000 5:38:37 PM
LadyChaos re Message # 13187
The brief addresses that issues.
What do you think she has done to prevent them from starting recounts?
In one case, the recount was delayed becuase one of the canvassing officials was on vacation. How on earth was that approved?
13190. joezan - 11/19/2000 5:41:32 PM
LC:
I'm not reading the law - as we were discussing this, there was a quasi debate going on between 3 lawyers on MSNBC. The lawyer who was presenting the Bush side wrt tomorrows briefs argued this point. The other lawyers agreed, or otherwise did not dispute her.
Also, in the same debate the question of late votes came up, and apparently there is a pretty solid precedent in Volusia County, in a sheriff's election, where 11,000 late votes were allowed because the reason they were late was beyond the control of the voters.
13191. dusty - 11/19/2000 5:42:44 PM
joezan
I agree that the changing of the rules is outrageous.
The Broward county officials have looked at half the ballots so far. What is to prevent them from now picking a method that might maximize their vote?
Rules for accepting questionable ballots should have been determined before they had a chance to look at thousands of ballots, and identify a method that might help them.
Can any of the Gore supporters justify this?
13192. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 5:44:01 PM
dusty,
She issued a letter declaring the manual recounts illegal, for one thing. She also declared before the 14th that she would under no circumstances accepted amended recounts after the 14th. I agree that the canvassing boards did not do all in their power to complete their recounts before the 14th, but clearly they were frustrated in their purpose by Harris's stance on the matter. That's why I think that the case will turn in part on a factual analysis of her conduct, and how it affected the expediency of the manual recounts.
13193. dusty - 11/19/2000 5:47:23 PM
From the Gore brief:
What is more, by providing for manual recounts in close elections, Florida law (like Texas law, see Tex. Elec. Code Section 212.005(d) (“[a] manual recount shall be conducted in preference to an electronic recount”)), expresses a preference for manual counts over machine counts.
13194. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 5:47:34 PM
joe,
Yes, I've heard lawyers bandying that point about, but have yet to see a cite.
jex,
I'm not yet a member of the Florida Bar. One of my professors has worked on the federal case, which allowed me some insight into the federalism aspect of this.
dusty,
I agree that the lack of standards for the hand counts is troubling. Fwiw, I consider myself to be non-partisan in this matter. If enough people had voted for Harry Browne, we wouldn't be in this mess.
13195. jexster - 11/19/2000 5:48:59 PM
Of course you silly thing.
Counties other than Broward have adopted the inclusive standard specifically set out in, among others, the fuckin Texas elections code and required by the Florida circuit court of Palm Beach, standards followed also here in California in the first count.
Another strawman shot to shit.
The Bush people have the unenviable task of defending what is ultimately a losing position, that all votes should not count.
This is why the Florida Secty of State and Bush so desperately wish to rewrite the statute; want the Federal court to take the matter out of the hands of the Florida judiciary; why we're treated to the endless pathetic parade of garbage from Austin daily news conferences, why in sum, the Republicans are making this up as they go along, and why they are very concerned that the Florida Supreme Court will call them to task tommorrow.
13196. dusty - 11/19/2000 5:50:29 PM
LadyChaos
Stating that she wouldn't accept the manual counts after the 14th (as specified by law) isn't exactly a barrier to starting the manual counts; it would be an incentive to get going soon. As Volusia did.
13197. jexster - 11/19/2000 5:50:46 PM
I spoke prematurely LC....still my confidence in your legal skills remain undiminished in any forum, but certainly in this one.....
Defend the honor of your laws, the integrity of your justice, the will of your voters!
13198. dusty - 11/19/2000 5:55:20 PM
LadyChaos
I agree that the lack of standards for the hand counts is troubling.
I'll risk being labeled picky, but I think there is an important distinction between lack of standards, and changing the rules after you've had a chance to see what rule might benefit you.
Most counties do have standards, although there is a problem that the standards might not be uniform.
That is troubling.
But viewing thousands of ballots, then changing the rules goes beyond troubling.
Imagine the alternative: Suppose the GOP proposed counting half the ballots, then pausing to change the rules on how ballots were counted. Would anyone consider that fair?
13199. dusty - 11/19/2000 5:57:32 PM
LadyChaos
Yes, I've heard lawyers bandying that point about, but have yet to see a cite.
I don't think you'll see one. I've read some of the relevant law. It is my belief that it is what was intended, but it isn't the literal reading of the law. I'll be surprised if the GOP prevails upon that point, unless it has been settled in case history, or in the legislative record.
13200. joezan - 11/19/2000 5:58:52 PM
jex:
What are you talking about? There are no standards by which Florida hand counts are conducted. That's not even in dispute. But there are statewide standards in Texas.
How can you sit there defending the system in Florida, when the rules are changing before our very eyes, and the changes all favor Gore?
13201. dusty - 11/19/2000 6:00:13 PM
LadyChaos
Did you see my statistical argument that Browne was deprived of thousands of votes because his name was third on the left, and people may have accidentally punched the third hole (Gore's)?
I don't seriously believe it, largely because Browne supporters aren't that stupid, but it was curious that the Browne vote in PBC with the butterfly ballot was lower than statewide.
13202. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 6:01:42 PM
dusty,
I will fulfill your prediction and call you "picky." It depends, I suppose, on what one means by "changing" the rules. Are they actually changing the standards, or merely clarifying them? I have not seen the reports on that point, so I don't know. I suspect that the problems in Broward county arise more from incompetence than anything else. But in any case, if the standards are being changed in midstream, that is indeed "beyond troubling."
13203. dusty - 11/19/2000 6:04:59 PM
LadyChaos
BTW, it is nice to have you here. I look forward to your insights.
And I agree that the Bush decision to file in Federal Court carries with it major problems. I heard why it was done, but I didn't follow it.
13204. dusty - 11/19/2000 6:08:07 PM
LadyChaos
Are they actually changing the standards, or merely clarifying them?
Changing the standards. The original standards were to exclude "dimpled" ballots. Now that they have seen thousands of ballots, and know that the resulting pickup based upon the existing rules will not produce enough votes for Gore, they have decided to count dimpled ballots.
Statistically, we would expect more Gore dimpled ballots, not to mention the fact that the officials have been able to see the ballots and decide whether this is true.
13205. dusty - 11/19/2000 6:10:51 PM
And to pick up on a prior theme, if a dimple on a ballot signifies clear voter intent, then a ballot with a punch and a dimple also signifies clear intent. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone is going to go back and throw out the ballots with a clear punch and a dimple.
13206. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 6:13:51 PM
dusty,
I had not see that report re: Harry Browne, but it is credible considering everything else that has been publicized concerning that ballot. I would not have expected Browne to do well in Palm Beach County, in any case.
13207. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 6:16:14 PM
dusty,
If the standards for counting ballots was changed in midstream, then that would clearly be a non-arbitrary basis for the Sec. of State to reject the amended results.
13208. joezan - 11/19/2000 6:16:17 PM
It is more than troubling when, with the results largely in from PBC and Broward (or at least enough to accurately project out a substantial Gore deficit), Miami/Dade announces their intended methods of hand counting, and they are to be the most liberal yet. And it is even more troubling when they also announce that their count will not be public, as in the other two counties. No press will be allowed in the room, and the only view will be through one small, intentionally obstructed window.
It is very troubling that 8 of the 9 people charged with determining voter intent on challenged ballots from all three counties are Democrats.
If the FSC does not rule for Bush on these issues alone, it exposes itself as an extremely partisan body, and I sincerely hope Bush will take it to the SCOTUS.
13209. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 6:22:53 PM
joe,
You sound a bit like chicken little. My understanding is that each recounter is assigned observers from both parties, which seems to minimize the potential for shenanigans. Indeed, the very fact that unofficial reports reflect very little change in the outcome should put worries over manipulation to rest.
I agree that the Bush decision to file in Federal Court carries with it major problems. I heard why it was done, but I didn't follow it.
They tried to argue violations of due process and equal protection, but the arguments amounted to little more than an attempt to make an end run around a clear Constitutional delegation of State authority. The federal courts properly found, among other things, that they did not have jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
13210. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 6:24:26 PM
The latter paragraph of my last post was addressed to dusty.
13211. dusty - 11/19/2000 6:31:10 PM
LC
What is the makeup of the Florida legislature, in terms of parties?
13212. dusty - 11/19/2000 6:34:43 PM
There is a Gore response to the Bush brief.
13213. Electric Slide - 11/19/2000 6:45:10 PM
CAUGHT RED-HANDED AT SHENANIGANS WITH HAND-COUNTED VOTES, Sunday, No. 19, 2000
BY STEVE DUNLEAVY
WHEN it comes to dirty fighting in this sun-kissed county, the Dems make Mike Tyson look like a lollipop.
"We have just discovered what we believe to be the most troubling case so far," said Tucker Eskew, Bush spokesman.
He was talking about what happened between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. yesterday.
"Yesterday, we took a handful of ballots at random out of the ballot box under full view of Democrat observers. We quickly found six votes for Bush in the Gore stack," Eskew said.
Republican lawyers immediately approached Theresa LePore and told her what they had found--her response knocked them for a loop.
"Oh, I have heard something about that," Eskew quoted her as saying.
According to Eskew, a young woman counter had called a county worker and said she though she might have miscounted.
"We now know the county worker dutifully reported this to LePore. For some reason unknown to us, LePore did not utter a word to our side," Eskew said.
"It was just dumb luck that we found a bad count at random. One cannot escape a perception of an accidental mistake compounded by the effect of what looks like a cover-up."
13214. LadyChaos - 11/19/2000 6:54:57 PM
dusty,
I don't know exactly, but the legislature has a Republican majority.
13215. dusty - 11/19/2000 6:57:31 PM
Opening sentence of the Gore response:
This Court repeatedly has recognized that “the electorate’s effecting its will through its balloting, not the hypertechnical compliance with statutes, is the object of holding elections.”
Translation: OK, the statute is clear, and it hurts us, so please ignore it.
13216. jexster - 11/19/2000 7:12:21 PM
Dusty what planet are you from?
Maybe you need a nap too.
The argument you lift is hardly Gore's argument at all. As against the incredible contention that the statute and the constitution and court decisions require that the manadatory 7 day period for certification trump all, Gore is stating no more or no less what this very court stated in Beckstrom
To the extent there is a conflict in the statute between the legislature's policy to wrap things up and fully count votes, the former must yield.
Its an ambiguity they are talking about in the first place. Hardly an admission of clarity.
13217. jexster - 11/19/2000 7:13:25 PM
Florida law clearly provides that ballots must be counted even if they are not marked in a manner that may be read by a machine. But the Secretary of State’s approach would have invalidated any ballot that was not machine readable, because there would be no recount remedy for such ballots. That is squarely inconsistent with the statutory
requirement that such ballots be counted. Remarkably, the Secretary recognized this inconsistency, but asserted that Section 102.166(5) overruled sub silentio the longstanding principle -reflected
in this Court’s decisions such as Darby, and in Sections 102.166(7)
and 102.168 - that ballots reflecting a voter’s intention should be counted even if the ballot was not marked in a way that could be read by machine.
13218. jexster - 11/19/2000 7:14:35 PM
and if it takes more than 7 days to follow Florida law and its constitution to determine the will of the voter...so be it.
13219. jexster - 11/19/2000 7:16:27 PM
But of course, Bush doesn't want the will of the voter determined because as reported in the LAT today, Bush advisers believe that at least 1000 votes were cast in PBC alone that were not counted by machine.
Moreover, K Harris is the very last person to complain about delays, she who has spent the better part of a week delaying that very recount.
13220. dusty - 11/19/2000 7:17:31 PM
jexster
The argument you lift is hardly Gore's argument at all.
I lifted it from a Gore brief. Whose argument do you think it is?
13221. jexster - 11/19/2000 7:19:00 PM
I am most pleased however that my posts this morning have yeilded such fruit!
Why I went to mass, to brunch, launched an ad hominem or 2 here, took a nap, and the Mote's still rockin over this!
13222. dusty - 11/19/2000 7:19:56 PM
The Appellees’ argument on this point rests entirely on the assertion that the word “shall” always imposes mandatory obligations.
The Gore camp is arguing about the meaning of the word "shall".
13223. jexster - 11/19/2000 7:20:59 PM
You lifted it from Gore's brief...yes I said that now didn't I?
You lifted it from a discussion of an ambiguity in the statute, not an admission that the statute is clear....its called statutory construction and that's what's happening in this portion of the brief.
13224. Electric Slide - 11/19/2000 7:21:05 PM
I like the new point man for President-elect Bush, Montana governor, Marc Racicot.
He used the phrase "manufacture Gore votes" in Sunday morning interviews this a.m.
13225. dusty - 11/19/2000 7:21:31 PM
jexster
Why don't you simply agree not to address me. Then maybe you will make fewer blunders. (or at least have fewer pointed out)
13226. jexster - 11/19/2000 7:21:49 PM
Now I'm going to the grocery store.....
Have at it. Legal argument de sangre!
13227. jexster - 11/19/2000 7:22:50 PM
I nominate him for Clown of the Week, the man that NBC made look the fool last night.
Rose, slogans get you no where. Facts....Facts...Facts...
13228. jexster - 11/19/2000 7:23:39 PM
Au contraire, Dusty....I love fuckin with you! But I also need to scrounge up dinner...
13229. jexster - 11/19/2000 7:27:21 PM
What is it that Dusty doesn't understand about "out of context" or "ambiguity"...
Let's kill this canard before I buy my beans...
“If two equally reasonable constructions might be found, this Court in the past has chosen the one which enhances the elective process by providing voters with the greater choice in exercising their democratic rights.” Republican State Executive Com. v. Graham, 388 So. 2d 556, 558 (Fla. 1980). See also Stateof Florida v. Martinez, 536 So. 2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 1988) (“the electorate’s effecting its will through its balloting, not the hypertechnical compliance with
statutes, is the object of holding an election”). The Secretary’s construction of the statute was directly inconsistent with this principle.
13230. jexster - 11/19/2000 7:36:59 PM
There is a point in the Gore brief which I doubt the press will pick up but to me its one of the more important ones.
The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of the dispute meaning they will decide in the first instance, whether or to issue a writ of mandamus.
I suggested as much yesterday to wit that if anyone in this fuckin country really wants this to move along, the ScT should do just that. I added the appointment of a Special Master take testimony WRT disputes that arise in the course of the recount in a report to the Court.
Yea me! Yea David Boies!
13231. joezan - 11/19/2000 7:39:05 PM
LC:
My understanding is that each recounter is assigned observers from both parties, which seems to minimize the potential for shenanigans. Indeed, the very fact that unofficial reports reflect very little change in the outcome should put worries over manipulation to rest.
Yes and no. The gains we hear about are uncontested ballots - those that both counters agree go to Gore or Bush, and that are counted as such. But there are, according to all reports, hundreds of challenged ballots in Broward alone -those upon which no consensus was come to in the hand count, and which are placed in a separate pile for later determination by the panel I mentioned above - the 8 democrats and 1 republican.
You see? The more ambiguous or liberal the standards, the more challenged ballots there will be. The more challenged ballots there are, the greater Gore's chances.
This is what is so disturbing about the upcoming Miami/Dade count. The standards (at least today's standards - who knows what they'll be tomorrow?) allow challenges on virtually any grounds - dimples, coffee stains, stray hairs - whatever.
And no public or media access?
It's dirty.
There is no getting around it. It's dirty.
13232. joezan - 11/19/2000 7:44:57 PM
jexster:
Shut up, you idiot. I must've heard a thousand lawyers talking about how Lewis could not possibly uphold KH's position. And what happened?
Present your points, take your ritalin, and leave the arm flailing and whistling in the dark to Paul Begala.
13233. dusty - 11/19/2000 7:49:46 PM
jexster
What is it that Dusty doesn't understand about "out of context" or "ambiguity"...
What on earth (or other planet of your residence) makes you think I don't understand this?
The fact remains that the Gore camp is trying to make arguments for rejecting the statute. Your post emphasizes this point. If you weren't so mindlessly insistent on disagreeing with me, you'd realize that your post agreed with my point.
Thanks, even if you didn't mean it.
13234. Electric Slide - 11/19/2000 7:59:06 PM
I hate it when jexster gets this way.
It reminds me of the days when he said Clinton couldn't be, wouldn't be, shouldn't be IMPEACHED.
13235. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:02:32 PM
Context's a bitch unless you can do away with it, eh Dusty?
Read together, Sections 102.112 and 102.166 are most naturally
understood to dictate that all manually recounted votes be tabulated and that certification be delayed pending the completion of a manual recount that was requested on a timely basis. See Acosta v. Richter, 671 So.2d 149, 153-154 (Fla. 1996) (a statute must be interpreted to give effect to all of its clauses “and to accord meaning and harmony to all of its parts”). To instead read Section 102.112 as permitting the Secretary to exclude votes because a manual recount is not final within one week of the election would run afoul of the black-letter rule that a “statute must be read with reference to its manifest
intent and spirit and cannot be limited to the literal meaning of a single word.
13236. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:03:47 PM
Gettin to 'ya Joey?
Havin trouble defending the pile of shit the nimrods at the Texas Fun Bunch done fixed for 'ya!
Too fuckin bad.
13237. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:05:27 PM
Dusty...let me try to put it in a way that even someone of your limited abilities can understand...
As I have shown, you lifted a quote out of context. I supplied the context.
Understand?
13238. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:10:02 PM
How 'bout some more context Dusty? Maybe a side of chad paste?
2. In addition, the Secretary’s position is shockingly inconsistent with “the public policy of Florida” (Bayne v. Glisson, 300 So. 2d 79, 82 (Fla. App. 1974)) and the essential purpose of the State’s election laws: effectuating the will of the electorate. This Court has held repeatedly that, “[b]y refusing to recognize an otherwise valid exercise of the right to a citizen to vote for the sake of sacred, unyielding adherence to statutory scripture, we would in effect nullify that right.” Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So.2d 259,
263 (Fla. 1976). This means that the electorate’s effecting its will through its balloting, not the hypertechnical compliance with statutes, is the object of holding an election. “There is no magic in the statutory requirements. If they are complied with to the extent that the duly responsible election officials can ascertain that the
electors whose votes are being canvassed are qualified and
registered to vote, and that they do so in a proper manner,
then who can be heard to complain that the statute has not
been literally and absolutely complied with?”
A point I have repeatedly made with cites to the Boardman case for a week now.
13239. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:11:57 PM
Indeed who can be heard to complain....
JoeZ, U?
Dusty U?
Have the balls to admit Bush is out and out tryin to steal this election or continue to try to defend it...either way
13240. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:13:53 PM
Context anyone?
Given the force of this principle, it is not surprising that this and other Florida courts have held time and again that even the literal terms of a statute must yield when necessary to effectuate the electorate’s will. See, e.g., Boardman, 323 So.2d at 266 (“What is important . .. is . . . that the will of the people was affected.”).
Of course, that conclusion necessarily applies a fortiori in this case
where, as we explain above, the various provisions of law, when read
together, do not allow the exclusion of manually recounted votes.
13241. joezan - 11/19/2000 8:14:11 PM
jex:
I have no idea what will happen in court tomorrow, and neither do you. I do not hold out a lot of hope for my side based on anything that happens tomorrow. Let's see... 6 demos and 1 indy...
Eh. It don't look so good.
But as I said earlier, no objective body can possibly hold up what is currently taking place as fair, objective, or an attempt to insure that "everyone's vote counts."
You are celebrating the attempted thievery of an election, which I'm sure the FSC will find some reason to uphold.
I place my faith in a higher authority.
13242. sakonige - 11/19/2000 8:16:37 PM
My understanding is that each recounter is assigned observers from both parties...
I guess this is why the news is full of odd-looking pictures of three or four people clustered together and staring fixedly at a ballot one of them is holding up to the light.
13243. dusty - 11/19/2000 8:27:07 PM
sakonige
Yes.
My understanding is that each team has four people. One county employee picks it up and holds it, a second county employee determines who the vote is for, or if it is ambiguous. Two other observers, one form each party, watch. If the second declares it for a particular person, and neither of the observers object, it is placed into a pile for each candidate to be counted in a separate exercise. If any of the four believe it is ambiguous, it is placed into a different pile for the canvassers to review.
13244. joezan - 11/19/2000 8:29:28 PM
jex:
Still whistling in the dark.
Bush's position has not change one iota since day one, and nothing he ahs done indicates otherwise.
He said he didn't want a re-count when he won the first count.
He said he didn't want a re-count when he won the second count.
He said he didn't want a re-count when he won the third count.
With each new count, Gore wants new rules.
Everything Bush has done has been in an attempt to keep the Gore people from reconfiguring things to their liking.
It is Prince Albert who is trying to steal this election.
Again, I ask:
Where are the Gore supporters?
(And you and Jesse Jackson don't count, because no one takes either of you seriously).
13245. Electric Slide - 11/19/2000 8:33:30 PM
Embarrassed Democrats Embarrassed by latest Drudge Exclusive
13246. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:33:57 PM
Bush has been making this entire thing up as he goes along.
Sure he doesn't want every vote counted. Is that some fuckin mystery?
The reason we've seen suits in Federal court; Kafkaesque antics by K Harris; an endless parade of spin conferences in Austin; ludicrous and well trashed allegations WRT Palm Beach County...
You know the reason.
The Bushies know the reason. In fact, one quoted today as acknowledging that if all the votes were counted in Palm Beach county alone Gore would pick up 1000 votes.
13247. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:35:49 PM
You see, at bottom, you idiots have to defend what is in common sense and Florida law, plainly indefensible. And you've squirmed like salted slugs at each and every turn.
I repeat the challenge - not one Bush position, either factual or legal, can survive even cursory scrutiny. We've seen it today here.
We therefore ask this Court to issue an order directing the
Secretary and the Elections Canvassing Commission not to declare the
winner of the Presidential election until they receive the results of manual recounts now underway and then include those results in the “official results”b (Section 102.111).
The starting point in assessing the propriety of this relief is the
extraordinary nature of this case. The right to vote is at the core of our democracy and the President is our nation’s head of state. There is an overwhelming interest in ensuring that every vote is counted.
13248. dusty - 11/19/2000 8:36:02 PM
So far as I have read, the Gore response to the Bush brief is pretty weak. They do make one valid point:
There is no basis for the novel contention that this long-established process
is unconstitutional on its face.
But then, I made that point in Message # 13152
13249. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:39:14 PM
JoeZ...
I have learned never to take a court decision for granted. After a couple dozen where you work your ass off and kick the hell out of the opposition only to see the court bail on you, you learn that.
That said, there is no question that this Court, by its decisions and by its recent actions, is poised to grant Gore a major victory.
I will be surprised if that does not happen. I will not be surprised if it comes to pass in which event only Gore has the potential of picking up a significant number of votes.
13250. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:40:31 PM
NBC Nightly News has analyzed the ballots in Miami-Dade. The Gore precincts have an unusually high number of no recorded votes.
13251. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:42:11 PM
You have only to look at the "factual" allegations spinning forth from Austin and the desperate legal maneuverings of the Bush people to understand why they don't want every vote counted.....
We all know that don't we?
13252. Electric Slide - 11/19/2000 8:44:12 PM
Manufactured Gore votes
13253. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:44:12 PM
NBC Nightly News - Bush losing battle in court of public opinion as well
44% say count ballots however long it takes.
Defending the indefensible is a bitch made doubly bitchy when you have a group of overwrought morons like the Texas Fun Bunch spinning, and spinning and spinning.....
And they're losing in that court too.
13254. Electric Slide - 11/19/2000 8:45:51 PM
That means 56% want it over with, yes.
I believe that Al Gore "invented the initiative in creating the internet."
13255. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:46:06 PM
By my count, my posts this morning are responsible for 7 hours of continuous discussion.
If this isn't a Mote record...
I deserve a medal or somethin right Rose?
13256. jexster - 11/19/2000 8:47:44 PM
No Rose, you missed the news didn't ya?
The other choices - Now
couple days. weeks. etc.
"As long as it takes" wins....if you count all the votes!
13257. dusty - 11/19/2000 8:52:36 PM
jexster
That said, there is no question that this Court, by its decisions and by its recent actions, is poised to grant Gore a major victory.
At least here is a place we can agree. I read the Gore brief—it is weak. I noted that it made one interesting point, and the Bush camp apparently agreed; they spent quite a number of pages trying to attack it.
I think the Bush brief makes a generally persuasive case (with a few odd detours), that the FL law should be applied, hence supporting the Harris position.
However, I suspect that the Court will manage to craft a creative answer that gives Gore a victory.
13258. joezan - 11/19/2000 8:56:56 PM
That's funny, jex.
I just heard on NBC that Gore is losing the PR war.
I really didn't need them to tell me that - all I had to do was count the number of prominent democrats coming out to support him:
Zip.
When you can't get Dick Gephardt to do your dirty work, you're in trouble.
13259. dusty - 11/19/2000 9:05:37 PM
Dade County is using a different approach to their hand count—they are starting by running the ballots through the machine to separate out the questionable ballots from the more certain ones.
This seems eminently sensible. Of course, the Republicans tried to block it.
Why didn't the other counties do this?
It does mean they are less likely to look for ballots with a clear punch and a dimple, but no one seems to care about that problem.
13260. joezan - 11/19/2000 9:14:55 PM
Dusty:
What makes you think they are less likely to look for ballots with a clear punch and a dimple?
13261. Stumbo - 11/19/2000 9:29:46 PM
Highly-unscientific CNN poll...
George W. Bush this morning wore a "ZZ Top" hat while jogging. I think:
It shows he'd be a cool president -- 58%
It shows he's not serious enough to be president -- 22%
I don't even know what "ZZ Top" is -- 20%
13262. joezan - 11/19/2000 9:42:27 PM
...I see the boil is no longer threatening to erupt.
13263. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:07:39 PM
Dusty - I'll say it once again. You can cackle on in conclusory terms about which brief you like and which you don't.
When pressed for details though, you fall either strangely silent or you fall flat on your ass.
JoeZ -
I guess you didn't watch the NBC Nightly News but then may be you did! Maybe you're hallucinating for no such thing was said.
13264. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:09:07 PM
Get Ready for Some Ass Kickin!
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Reuters) - When the case that could decide the U.S. presidency goes before the Florida Supreme Court on Monday, one of the lawyers making the case for Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) will be celebrated litigator David Boies, the man who bested Microsoft.
Democratic sources said Boies, who has also represented Internet song-swap company Napster (news - web sites) and computer giant IBM, would be among five attorneys presenting oral arguments on the vice president's side in the high-stakes case.
The other lawyers on Gore's team include celebrated Tallahassee attorney Dexter Douglass, Bruce Rogow of Palm Beach, Andrew Meyers of Broward County and possibly Paul Hancock of the Florida attorney general's office.
13265. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:09:48 PM
NBC Dateline is now hitting absentee ballot fraud.
Seminole County anyone?
13266. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:12:41 PM
Dateline - GOP pushes margin of illegality and may have crossed line in Florida.
Seminole County absentee ballots to be thrown out?
Okaloosa County also under the gun!
F-R-A-U-D
G-O-P
13267. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:15:28 PM
Nice touch....Bush is suggesting he wants a state-wide manual recount.
MMMM...I thought the Bush brief makes a generally persuasive case (with a few odd detours), that the FL law should be applied
Was this one of those "odd detours" Dusty?
And precisely which Fl laws could you possibly be referring to?
13268. Electric Slide - 11/19/2000 10:20:36 PM
On Veteran's Day, Democratic attorneys were preparing the 5-page memo on how to disqualify military absentee ballots.
Read it at Drudge, right now.
13269. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:26:23 PM
Read this
In Seminole County, a state court judge was expected to rule on Monday whether to hear a lawsuit asking her to throw out the county's 15,000 absentee ballots.
The lawsuit filed by a Democratic resident alleges that the county election supervisor, a Republican, broke the law when she allowed Republican party workers to fill in missing voter identification numbers on some 4,700 requests for absentee ballots. Those applications had previously been rejected because they lacked the information.
Bush won 10,006 absentee ballot votes in Seminole County and Gore won 5,209.
13272. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:31:38 PM
Still readin Rose?
Miami -- When the chairman of Florida's Republican Party needed some advice two years ago on how far the party could go to help Republicans obtain absentee ballots, he turned to the secretary of state for some advice.
Officials for the Republican who occupied the office at the time, Sandra Mortham, said voters or their immediate families had to complete absentee ballot applications. The forms required several bits of personal identifying information.
But this week, Florida's current secretary of state, Katherine Harris, also a Republican, accepted vote tallies from heavily Republican Seminole County, where local election officials acknowledged they allowed Republican campaign aides to correct
errors in thousands of absentee ballots
President Gore?
13273. jexster - 11/19/2000 10:32:31 PM
Now which Florida laws are we followin exactly there Dusty?
hahahahahaaha
13274. joezan - 11/19/2000 10:46:17 PM
jex:
A NE Congressman suggested that the only way the American people will be satisfied that this election was decided fairly is if there is a statewide hand re-count.
Where did you hear anything about Bush suggesting such a thing?
13275. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:24:55 PM
AP says its in the Bush brief....I will check it out.
Meanwhile, Bob Dole joins in Gore position
Bob Dole, former Senate Majority leader and defeated Republican presidential candidate in 1996, told NBC's``Meet the Press'' that it was time to back off and ``follow the law.''
Why just what the main points of the Boies Brief say!
Next thing ya know Ole Dole be filin amicus briefs for Big Al!
13276. Autodaffy - 11/19/2000 11:27:04 PM
Jexter, in Seminole county, I thought the charge is that the applications for absenteee ballots, not the ballots themselves, were completed by election officials. What's the the truth?
13277. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:29:08 PM
Here we go
If, as Petitioners claim (Petr. Br. 22, 24) (quoting §103.001, Fla. Stat.), machine reading of ballots will “predictably misread” the valid ballots cast, the Court will not know which “candidate for ‘President’ receive[d] the highest number of votes” even after the manual recounts in these three counties are completed. There will still be 63 counties which have not conducted a manual recount.
13278. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:32:35 PM
AD - The applications just as the above quotes say.
Invalid applications were fraudulently altered and ballots sent to voters some 4700 returned.
The Florida Legislature (God Bless 'em!) enacted these controls in the wake of the reversal of the Miami mayoral election in 1997 to prevent fraud in voting, ie to make sure that only legitimate applicants received ballots.
Guess they didn't figger on the Grand Old Pigpile committin fraud huh?
yuk yuk yuk
13279. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:36:59 PM
AD - now we're not talkin "chewed chads" here. We're talkin some real shit, which the guilty parties are admitting. No dispute of fact. Only question does the violation of law require shit can of tainted ballots and if those cannot be identified, deep six all Seminole County absentees...(essentially what happened in Miami '97)
Pass me some of that chad glue, eh JoeZ?
13280. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:38:34 PM
bitchin..THANK JOE!
13281. Autodaffy - 11/19/2000 11:40:51 PM
Exactly, huh?
"But this week, Florida's current secretary
of state, Katherine Harris, also a
Republican, accepted vote tallies from
heavily Republican Seminole County,
where local election officials
acknowledged they allowed Republican
campaign aides to correct
errors in thousands of absentee ballots."
13282. Autodaffy - 11/19/2000 11:43:15 PM
Is there some difference between ballots and applications that you done forgot? Exactly, that is?
13283. joezan - 11/19/2000 11:48:31 PM
jex:
#13277 is not asking for a manual re-count of all counties. It is offered as a reason why counting only in 4 heavily demo counties is unfair. Nowhere does Bush ask that manual re-counts take place in the other 64 counties. I read it as Bush sticking to his guns - that there was nothing compelling a manual re-count in the 4 counties where it is taking place.
Nice try, though.
13284. joezan - 11/19/2000 11:52:08 PM
13253. jexster - 11/19/00 8:44:12 PM
NBC Nightly News - Bush losing battle in court of public opinion as well
44% say count ballots however long it takes.
13285. jexster - 11/19/2000 11:56:30 PM
I think I'll bid all good night with one of those chillingly cynical aphorisms lawyers love to comfort one another with
Justice is what the judge had for breakfast that morning
2 P.M EST MONDAY>>>>>>MONDAY>>>>>MONDAY!!!!!!!!!!
13286. joezan - 11/19/2000 11:58:49 PM
test
13287. joezan - 11/19/2000 11:59:32 PM
By golly, he took his toys with him.
13288. Autodaffy - 11/20/2000 12:01:07 AM
No, Jexter, lies are what jackasses retreat with.
13289. jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 12:02:13 AM
For which we are all grateful, if a bit surprised. Night Jex. Look forward to tommorrow.
13290. joezan - 11/20/2000 12:03:40 AM
'Night, Jones.
I'm off to bed, too.
13291. jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 12:26:21 AM
Housekeeping matters- I deleted duplicate posts from Jexster 13270-1. I also deleted a post by conerned- which stated
SORE
LOSERMAN
because I thought it had screwed up the HTML. I was wrong about that and so I include the text here, so that everyone knows it was not the content that was the problem. My apologies concerned.
13292. Electric Slide - 11/20/2000 2:30:02 AM
Clinton attorney Charles Ruff dies in an "accident" at his home.
(...and the coverup continues.)
13293. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 2:47:16 AM
MSNBC is saying that the standards for the three counties are:
- PBC: dimpled counts (pregnant chad)
- Broward: two point of seperation (hanging chad)
- Dade: Not yet decided
Now, since Ms. Harris is the chief executive of the Florida election commission, isn't it her responsibility to at least suggest, if not mandate, a statewide standard if such a standard is needed?
Regarding the purported Texas statewide standard; I have spent over an hour trying to find a link to the Texas hand recount standards, but have failed, so I will have to go from memory. This is no firm and consistent standard, it list everything from a chad hanging by its fingernails to any other mark on the ballot that might indicate the voter's will. It is the same statewide standard that Florida has, only Texas wrote down that you have to examine the ballot for any indication of what the voter was trying to do in some detail and then left it to the discretion of the canvassing boards to apply their common sense to judging the ballots.
MSNBC is also saying that it is unclear how many of the ~1,400 rejected absentee ballots are military, cites Lee county where 29 of 33 ballots are civilian. I do not know if Lee is a county that one would expect large military votes and recognize that the military vote is going to tend to be clumped in specific counties
13294. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 2:59:52 AM
Joe, in Message # 13142, replies to my series of question in Message # 13011 regarding the lack of any Bush exit strategy short of winning or whining, and the lack of any discussion of a Bush government of national unity.
Joe writes regarding the lack of exit strategy, Because he's in the lead - he was in the lead after the initial count, after the re-count, and now following the receipt of the overseas absentees. You just do not offer an exit strategy when you're in the lead. It's simply not done. Of course the only place that Bush is currently in the lead is in the latest results from Florida. Bush is not in the lead in either the popular OR the electoral college votes, but the Repubs seem to be blind to these facts.
Regarding the lack of discussion of a Bush government of national unity Joe has this to say, For one thing, I haven't heard anything about this from anyone in the Gore camp. For another, let me remind you again: GORE IS LOSING. HE'S BEEN LOSING SINCE DAY ONE. This is the strategy of a loser. Here Joe seems to say that talking about a national unity cabinet is the strategy of a loser and so Bush, not being a loser, is of course not going to offer such a thing.
The Repub position appears to be that the only result that they are willing to consider legitimate is if Bush wins the Presidency; that they are willing to take the country into a legitimacy crisis unless their man wins. Gore has stated that any result that includes the three Florida counties will be considered legitimate by his campaign. In addition, Joe claims that espousing a national unity government is for losers and so not a Bush position. These are ssignificant differences between the two campaigns, and fascinating given the Repub rhetoric about being "uniters".
13295. stostosto - 11/20/2000 4:19:16 AM
The best that could happen is probably for the hand count to be completed but not giving Gore enough extra votes to overcome Bush's lead. Then Gore should concede graceously as he has promised. Bush will then have undisputed legitimacy as President. And the hand count, acknowledged by all parties, will have proven that the American democratic system is not corrupt to the core such as the Bush camp has been implying all along, blaming it on the Democrats.
13296. OhioSTOPAS - 11/20/2000 5:38:24 AM
Sing along with the man in Message # 13261:
"When you're driving down the highway at night
And you're feelin' that Wild Turkey's bite . . .
You might get taken to the jailhouse and find
You've been arrested for driving while blind"
13297. joezan - 11/20/2000 7:15:21 AM
vonK:
Yeah yeah yeah - Gore says lots of things. He was, and still is, bargaining for the moral highground from a position of no power. He was/is behind in the count, and behind in the pr dept, and had absolutely nothing to lose with his offer of a statewide hand re-count - which he has absolutely NO authority to offer. As far as a "government of national unity"... I heard Bush would extend American coastal waters to 100 miles, and rename Cuba Key Extremely Southeast. But I tend to dismiss such fantasies out-of-hand, because I never heard him say it.
And you must've missed where I asked for your thoughts on Gore's "exit strategy" in light of Lieberman's comments on yesterday's 'Meet the Press'?
13298. stostosto - 11/20/2000 9:12:53 AM
Joe
"[Gore] had absolutely nothing to lose with his offer of a statewide hand re-count - which he has absolutely NO authority to offer."
I was under the impression that the most important of the Republicans' objections to the recounts in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade was that these were democrat-dominated, hence would amount to an unbalanced recount. Thus, presumably, if you count the entire state, there will be no such bias. By the Republicans' own professed logic, Gore's proposal would seem to amount to an offer. He could have pressed on for recounting the three democratic counties, taking a 'tough luck' line at Republicans' protestations (since they could have demanded recounts but didn't).
As for Gore's position, well, he is Bush's rival in a practically dead heat which hasn't been called yet. Of course he can make offers.
But so can Bush. Some might even say that making and negotiating offers is an important part of what a President is supposed to do, not least a "uniter-not-a-divider" kind of President.
But Bush ostentatiously has decided simply to be snippy.
13299. Electric Slide - 11/20/2000 9:23:43 AM
If the Chad Has a Dimple, Stealing Votes is Simple.
13300. Fielding - 11/20/2000 9:57:14 AM
Jones:
"ZZ Top is some of the best drinkin' & drivin' music ever."
Is this supposed to be ironic?
13301. Wombat - 11/20/2000 10:07:46 AM
Psst! Don't tell anyone! Gore still leads in nationwide popular vote count (+261,991).
13302. Thoughtful - 11/20/2000 10:13:05 AM
There's one thing I like about W. He makes me feel young -- after all, if his misspent youth lasted until he was 40.....
13303. Electric Slide - 11/20/2000 10:26:32 AM
Here's the latest Florida Demo's slogan muttering:
REMEMBER: ABORT THE PREGNANT CHAD
Isn't it twisted when every pregnant chad is precious to the Criminal Party but every fetus isn't?
13304. CalGal - 11/20/2000 10:30:28 AM
Judge says no new election in PBC.
13305. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 10:34:25 AM
Well, that was expected.
13306. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 10:40:07 AM
joezan:
I see now that you have no trouble calling me stupid when I make the very same claim VonKreeden just made, that Gore is hardly a loser when he is leading in popular votes and electoral votes. Is the reason you responded to VonK so nicely because you were persuaded by my remarks yesterday? I doubt it but then, you're so very comfortably enscounced in the double standard mode that I shouldn't expect anything resembling equal treatment from you.
13307. Indiana Jones - 11/20/2000 10:59:04 AM
Cal (13112):
No, I have no issue with an elector changing, either
This is certainly a "modification" of your opinion from when it looked as though Gore might lose the popular and win the electoral.
3623:
The system was configured so that majority rule didn't count. That means it doesn't matter that the majority of Americans voted for one person, it matters how the majority of the electoral college voted....
Translated: someone who basically lied when they agreed to follow the will of the people? Heavens, such a lovely rule: fuck the system, fuck my promises, do what Indy thinks is best.
And 3662:
If so, they should have considered that possibility [split popular-EC vote] before signing up for the position.
Of course you also posted in 3292 that...
I quite enjoy the fact that I don't give a damn who wins.
Yes, you're clearly an unbiased, neutral observer.
And here's a Rask blast from the past (3626):
Calling the election result invalid because the popular vote is different is like waiting until the end of the Super Bowl, and claiming that the team that lost on points really won because they had more total yards.
Now, if the election result leads to a movement to end the EC, sign me up. But pushing Electors to change their votes? No.
I assume Rask still stands by this? (Hee-hee-hee.)
13308. Dusty - 11/20/2000 11:04:57 AM
stostosto
By the Republicans' own professed logic, Gore's proposal would seem to amount to an offer.
As Joe said, he has no authority to make such an offer.
Suppose I offered you a cabinet position in exchange for some action by you. Your proper response would be that it isn't mine to offer.
Gore cannot offer to override the law; only the courts can do that.
13309. Fielding - 11/20/2000 11:05:03 AM
Steve Dunleavy is a drunk hypocrite. Anybody using his columns to support their position immediately becomes suspect in my book.
13310. CalGal - 11/20/2000 11:36:06 AM
Indy,
You mistake my assessment of the individual's personal morality and my feeling as to whether it's legal or not.
As I recall, you espoused such a person as a hero, or gave him or her other attributes of nobility. The strength of my reaction quoted there was due to disgust with your admiration of them.
I think an elector who changes their vote is scum. No matter who they were going to vote for in the first place. I would not laud any Republican who decided to vote for Gore as a hero.
Yes, you're clearly an unbiased, neutral observer.
A lot more so than the hacks like you, yes. I'm loving the end game, and I think Gore has a better case. Mind you, I made that statement before the election, and before Bush began acting in such a highhanded manner. Obnoxious aristocrats will always win the disapproval of a plebe like me.
13311. CalGal - 11/20/2000 11:40:06 AM
Dusty,
Gore most assuredly had the ability to make the offer. In order for such a statewide count to take place, a court would have to override the 72-hour deadline. Were Gore to oppose such an action, he could delay it further. His offer was, in effect, a statement that he would not object to it--and was, indeed, an offer he had the ability to make. You and Joe are silly indeed if you think that Bush's acceptance of that offer wouldn't allow at least a consideration (and probably an acceptance) of overriding the limit.
BTW, the move to dismiss the suit on the illegal absentee ballots was denied.
13312. glendajean - 11/20/2000 11:44:00 AM
In 1876, it was the offer to end Reconstruction that eventually solved the disputed election.
I think it is time for Gore to concede. He's lost the election.
13313. CalGal - 11/20/2000 11:48:29 AM
Good lord, you people. GJ and Judith are the Gore doom and gloomers, JV leads the "Bush is too noble to win" contingent.
Enjoy the game.
13314. Dusty - 11/20/2000 11:49:50 AM
CalGal
Gore could promise that his campaign wouldn't fight it if Bush asked the court to lift the limit. That's it.
But he tried to grandstand, and made an offer that made him sound magnanimous.
Gore doesn't have the ability to offer a statewide hand count. All he can offer is to not fight it.
13315. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 11:52:56 AM
Indy: "I assume Rask still stands by this? (Hee-hee-hee.)"
I have said several times that the electoral college result is legitimate, and that Gore should discourage any attempts to convince electoral voters to switch votes. You will have to look to the Bush camp for examples of hypocrisy.
13316. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 11:53:07 AM
CalGal:
I don't think GJ and I are doom and gloomers; we're simply facing facts.
13317. CalGal - 11/20/2000 11:56:10 AM
Dusty,
You seem to think that is a rebuttal, rather than a restatement. Gore didn't need to spell out the details. In the event that Florida courts didn't allow the recount (a situation impossible to envision, because who would oppose it?) it wouldn't be his responsibility. Everyone understood exactly what he offered--even you.
Don't bother responding; this is becoming tedious. We're saying the same thing; you're just determined to paint it in ludicrous terms.
13318. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 11:56:11 AM
The more we see of county, state, and secretary of state "discretion", the more it seems to me that an agreement between Bush and Gore for a statewide recount would be workable. It might need some sort of sanction by the Florida legislature, though. But if both camps came on board with an agreement, I can't imagine that a special session to enact such legislation would be difficult.
13319. CalGal - 11/20/2000 12:00:08 PM
Indy,
Incidentally, I still oppose any attempt to change the electoral college. It's a much better idea than any alternative.
I think it would be political suicide for Gore to try to pressure people to switch votes, and I'm pretty sure he's smart enough not to try it.
All:
A Newsweek article points out the similarities in the Bush campaign's behavior now and when they had to get down and dirty with McCain.
Of course, he won then.
13320. CalGal - 11/20/2000 12:03:37 PM
Gore showing gain of 104 votes after two-thirds of Broward precincts counted.
13321. Fielding - 11/20/2000 12:04:11 PM
A modest proposal:
The election is a statistical tie.
Whoever is declared the winner will have one by an infinitesmal margin. Because of the ballot design, nobody will ever know whether certain ballots were attempts to vote for a particular candidate. Because of the ballot design, nobody will ever know how many people voted for a candidate they didn't intend to vote for. In short nobody will ever know who really won.
Because of the close vote in Florida, the winner of the election will be determined largely by the effectiveness in post-election strategy, not the will of the voters.
Because the vote was a statisitical tie, and because nobody will ever know who really won the votes that were cast, and because nobody will ever really know who would have one with a properly designed ballot, and because the election will be decided by post-election partisan manouvering, the actual winner will have no legitimacy. A large segnment of the electorate will believe that the winner "stole" the election.
To me, the most important issue is that we have a legitimate President. I don't think that it will make that much difference who that person is, given that who ever wins will face a fractured congress and will likely get hammered in the 2002 elections.
(Continued)
13322. Fielding - 11/20/2000 12:04:45 PM
A modest proposal, continued:
Accordingly, I favor a process to determine a winner that doesn't smack of partisanship. Something that does not involve a decision from the courts or the badly conflicted Florida Secretary of State.
I propose that Florida have a revote.
The rules would be strict:
1) You can only vote if you voted before;
2) If your ballot is tainted in any way, it gets tossed;
3) All overseas ballots already cast will be counted, including those that were previously tossed for lack of a postmark.
4) A lot of Nader votes will probably go to Gore, but I believe that this is more than compensated by the difficulty of getting "transient and homeless" voters to show up a second time.
5) Both candidates agree on a machine count.
6) Both candidates agree not to ask for a recount.
7) Both candidates agree to drop all legal challenges.
8) Both candidates agree that the loser will concede the election within one hour of the votes being counted.
This is the only solution that gives both candidates a fair chance and doesn't smack of partisanship. That is why it will never happen.
13323. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 12:06:20 PM
I don't think Gore will try to change anyone's votes. But his cronies might. I wouldn't put it past him to stay above the whole thing and say that he "respects every elector's choice to vote their conscience, and believe it would be unseemly to lobby to change that choice", while Dem cronies more or less independently try to do just that. But I really hope that he discourages all efforts and makes a public statement encouraging electors to follow their commitments, and tells his supports to cease any efforts on his behalf.
Turning the EC vote into a lobbying free-for-all would be to replace what is at worst an archaic, slightly distorted formality, and turn it back into the anti-democratic and elitist instutition it was originally designed to be.
13324. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 12:06:28 PM
Joe and Dusty both trot out the notion that Gore's offer to accept a complete recount of Florida is a non-starter, but I have not heard this argument from anyone within the Bush team or from any of the pundits. If this really were an impossibility I would think that someone would have said so.
13325. bubbaette - 11/20/2000 12:06:54 PM
I suggest that Bush and Gore have a slap fight. The first one to cry loses.
13326. Electric Slide - 11/20/2000 12:07:43 PM
Former Democrat, Senator Ben "NightHorse" Campbell (R-CO) was quoted as saying: "If Al Gore is sworn in to the office of the Presidency we will have to change the Presidential song from 'Hail to the Chief' to 'Hail to the Thief.'"
13327. CalGal - 11/20/2000 12:09:57 PM
Ha. It could turn the election into a formality--the real election wouldn't start until the college opened for business.
13328. CalGal - 11/20/2000 12:12:08 PM
Fielding,
Likewise, the Buchanan voters could vote for Bush. I don't think a new election will fly constitutionally, but it's a nice idea.
13329. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 12:17:18 PM
I agree that it would be for the best if Gore conceded at this point. Gore should, IMO, come out and say that given the perception that the Dems are blocking military ballots, and that the Repubs are intent are savaging local counting officials as well as showing every intention of dragging this out however long and viciously needed for them to win, this affair is not something he can in good conscience participate in any longer.
Gore promised to fight with his every breath for working Americans and this concession obviously may appear to be abandoning not only the voters of Florida who are working to ensure a full, fair and accurate count of the votes in that state, but also all the Americans who voted for him nationwide. However, it is apparent that this is only going to get more vicious and destructive and so Al should withdraw to fight another day.
13330. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:18:26 PM
CalGal
Don't bother responding; this is becoming tedious.
I understand you need to have the last word, but I'll decide whether to respond, if you don't mind.
Yes, I understood what Gore offered. Something that he had no right to offer.
And I'll make this point everytime someone mistakenly claims he had the right to offer Bush a statewide hand count.
It is shameless posturing.
Probably good politics, because some people appear fooled, but he will get away with it unless called on it. I'm calling him on it.
13331. CalGal - 11/20/2000 12:21:20 PM
I agree that it would be for the best if Gore conceded at this point.
That's just absurd. Fortunately, Gore isn't of the namby-pamby liberal ilk, but the cheap trashy do anything to win Democrat machine.
He may lose, but to give up now? Idiotic.
13332. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:23:19 PM
Judge denies motion to dismiss Seminole County Suit ... hearing set for 11/27
13333. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:23:58 PM
vonKreedon
I am not saying that a complete hand count (they've already done the recount) is impossible. If I had to bet, I'd bet that it is the most likely alternative.
I'm simply saying that it requires the court (or possibly the legislature) to make it happen, not simply the agreement of Mr. Gore.
13334. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:25:11 PM
Fielding
Nice try.
13335. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:25:26 PM
I understood what Gore offered. Something that he had no right to
offer.
Huh?
Since when do I have to have a "right" to offer something?
And what distinguishes Gore's offer from the request of one of the GOP parties before the FSC that the Court order a statewide recount?
13336. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:27:13 PM
vonKreedon Message # 13329
Interesting, and courageous post.
13337. CalGal - 11/20/2000 12:29:36 PM
Courageous. Jesus, what the hell is it with some folks and "courage"?
There is nothing inherently courageous about bowing out. There is certainly nothing courageous about making a post telling someone else to bow out. It really makes a mockery of the word to use it in that way.
13338. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:30:03 PM
The GOP parties have, in fact, blinked. The Bush Brief strongly hints at a statewide recount.
And.....
Pleadings Filed on Behalf of Bush Supporter in Collier County Claim Statewide Recount "Infinitely More Fair"
13339. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:31:18 PM
"that the Repubs are intent are savaging local counting officials as well as showing every intention of dragging this out however long and viciously needed for them to win, this affair is not something he can in good conscience participate in any longer."
This is courageous?
13340. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 12:32:25 PM
vonK - . . . a full, fair and accurate count of the votes in that state .. .
This is a phrase that has lost all meaning. I can't believe there are still Democrats who claim that this is what is going on.
13341. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:32:53 PM
I don't hear the local county officials crying nor do I see them cringing under the barage of bull emmanating from Austin.
Have I missed something?
13342. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:33:24 PM
Believe it nimrod.
13343. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:33:36 PM
jexster
Since when do I have to have a "right" to offer something?
Check with a lawyer. You might be surprised to learn that, for example, you cannot "offer" to sell the Brooklyn Bridge. Now, a sleazy lawyer might get all anal, and point out that you can make the offer, you simply cannot consummate the deal. But only sleazy people offer that which they cannot deliver.
And what distinguishes Gore's offer from the request of one of the GOP parties before the FSC that the Court order a statewide recount?
You are counting on the fact that most people have not read the brief. This is not a fair summary of the request. (I'll bet you knew that.)
13344. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:34:08 PM
The law is what the justices had for lunch today
13345. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:34:46 PM
I can offer anything I freakin want to Dusty.
And I am a lawyer. Moron.
13346. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:34:59 PM
CalGal
Courageous. Jesus, what the hell is it with some folks and "courage"?
There is nothing inherently courageous about bowing out.
You need to pay closer attention.
I said that Von K's post was courageous, not that Gore bowing out would be courageous.
13347. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:35:49 PM
jexster
I can offer anything I freakin want to Dusty.
I believe you.
13348. bubbaette - 11/20/2000 12:35:50 PM
What was couragous about it?
13349. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:35:57 PM
Gore's offer was a settlement offer. It can be enforced by the Court if it wants to assuming all parties agree.
13350. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 12:36:00 PM
the Repubs are intent [on] dragging this out however long and viciously needed for them to win . . .
An exercise in absurdity. The Republicans wanted to end this last Saturday, but the Democrats have blocked it and prolonged the count in an effort to find enough votes to elect Gore.
13351. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:37:06 PM
Now I for one disagree that the Court, on its own motion, could grant the relief suggested by one of the Bush parties as Bush has waived his right to request a hand count.
13352. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:37:27 PM
toys
13353. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:37:41 PM
bubbaette
Because it is likely to attract opprobrium from the Gore supporters. I had intended to say that, but given that it occurred before I had a chance to type it, I didn't want to sound like post hoc predicting.
13354. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 12:37:47 PM
Cal - The problem that I have now with the, "cheap trashy do anything to win Democrat machine. is the same that I had with this machine during the Impeachment: it loses sight of the longer term strategic goals and principles in favor of winning short term tactical partisan battles.
If Clinton had resigned Gore would have run as the actual incumbent rather than second banana to a guy that, no matter how much the public likes him, has cloaked this administration with the appearance of lying and sleaze. I believe this cost Gore the election.
If Gore concedes now the Bush administration will be cloaked in the appearance of hypocracy and illigitimacy and the Dems will take the Congress in '02 and likely the WH in '04. If Gore drags this out the Dems lose no matter what the outcome. In addition, more citizens get savaged and the political divide becomes even more rigid (if such a thing is possible). Conceding is the right thing for Gore's party, his ideals, and the nation, but I have small hope that this is what he will do. Of course, conceding would also be the right thing for Bush to do, but I have absolutely no hope that that will happen.
13355. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 12:38:12 PM
toys
13356. Fielding - 11/20/2000 12:39:27 PM
Dusty,
If I say that Bush should concede because he is behind in both the electoral vote and the popular vote, with Florida a statistical tie, does that make me courageous?
13357. CalGal - 11/20/2000 12:39:34 PM
Dusty,
I said that Von K's post was courageous, not that Gore bowing out would be courageous.
I know. Read what I said again. I said that vK's calling Gore courageous was silly--but that you saying vK's post was courageous made a mockery of the word. See, sometimes posts have several sentences, Dusty, and you have to read the whole thing.
13358. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:39:40 PM
Interesting Burden of Proof observation:
The Court may order that the results be certified then hear an election contest next week or so.
Roy Black weighs in...K Harris full of shit.
Surprise!
13359. OhioSTOPAS - 11/20/2000 12:40:19 PM
Of course Gore should NOT concede. He's the people's choice, both in Florida and nationwide.
13360. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:40:32 PM
jexster
Gore's offer was a settlement offer.
Are you really a lawyer? It is hard to tell.
Settlement offers are made between parties to a lawsuit. Gore is not suing Bush, nor vice-versa. Both have filed suits against other parties.
Read the briefs. The information is shown at the top.
13361. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:41:06 PM
Oh I apologize Dusty....
I didn't realize that it took courage to post on the Mote.
Interesting concept.
13362. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:41:34 PM
I nominate Von Kreedon for the Mote Medal of Honor.
13363. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:42:17 PM
I nominate Dusty for The Emmett Kelly Clown Distinguished Service Cross.
13364. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:42:24 PM
vonKreedon
Of course, conceding would also be the right thing for Bush to do, but I have absolutely no hope that that will happen.
I largely agree with your post, if by "right" thing, you mean politically expedient.
13365. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:42:57 PM
I nominate Rose for the Rush Limbaugh Silver Star.
13366. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:43:19 PM
I nominate Beiner for the Tom Delay Purple Heart.
13367. CalGal - 11/20/2000 12:44:38 PM
vK,
Oh, please. For one thing, a Clinton resignation would have been a very bad thing for the nation: it would have demonstrated that a dedicated enemy can get results if they just have enough money.
For another, it's pathetic to decide that Clinton's resignation would make things easier for his successor. Clinton did a great deal to make things easier for Gore--Gore just didn't have the personality to take advantage of it.
But overall, I'm really just astonished at your thinking. We're a capitalist, competitive country, dude. If you want useless nobility and do right by your neighbor nonsense, move to Canada.
13368. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:45:01 PM
Settlement offers are made between parties to a lawsuit.
Well last time I checked Gore and Bush are each parties to the lawsuit.
Guess I missed something.
You are so courageous to stand in here and post such garbage.
13369. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:45:51 PM
Fielding -
If I say that Bush should concede because he is behind in both the electoral vote and the popular vote, with Florida a statistical tie, does that make me courageous?
If you had shown, in prior posts, a preference that Bush win, it would be courageous. If JJ posted such a thing, it would be courageous.
You haven't evidenced a preference that Bush win, so you don't get the courageous label for advocating that which you probably have supported.
13370. bubbaette - 11/20/2000 12:45:54 PM
I'm having a courageous lunch of coleslaw and an egg salad sandwich.
13371. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:46:44 PM
JOINT BRIEF OF PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS
AL GORE, JR. AND FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY
13372. OhioSTOPAS - 11/20/2000 12:47:33 PM
I agree with CalGal's statement that "a Clinton resignation would have been a very bad thing for the nation: it would have demonstrated that a dedicated enemy can get results if they just have enough money."
Likewise, a Gore concession now would reward the Republicans' bad behavior.
13373. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:49:13 PM
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
_______________________________________
ANSWER BRIEF OF INTERVENOR / RESPONDENT
GEORGE W. BUSH
13374. bubbaette - 11/20/2000 12:49:39 PM
I also agree that for Clinton to resign would have rewarded an attempted coup.
13375. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 12:49:41 PM
As the Dalai Lama says, "Lose to win." I'm out of here.
13376. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:49:58 PM
I nominate Bubbaette for the Jesse Helms Distinguished Service Cross
13377. Cellar Door - 11/20/2000 12:51:01 PM
"I'm having a courageous lunch of coleslaw and an egg salad sandwich."
Hold the chads!
13378. CalGal - 11/20/2000 12:51:06 PM
I am much relieved to see that Gore's brief discusses the hypocrisy of Harris' accepting some handcounts without machine breakdown but not others. Phew. I was worried I was going to have to call them up and rant at them.
13379. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 12:51:45 PM
One more thing, if Clinton had resigned it is not as if the Repubs would have controlled the WH, that Trent Lott would have become President. No, Al Gore would have been President and would be President now. This would hardly have been a "Republican coup".
13380. bubbaette - 11/20/2000 12:51:52 PM
Jexter
I am honored but must courageously bow out on account of gastrointestinal distress.
13381. CalGal - 11/20/2000 12:51:56 PM
Ohio, Bubba,
Don't agree with me, dammit. I want to be courageous.
13382. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:52:01 PM
I think Al Gore should take his clothes off, put a Bush-Cheney poster around his neck, and run from the White House to the Rayburn Builing and kiss Tom Delay's ass.
Jexster - A Profile in Courage
13383. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:52:12 PM
jexster
Well last time I checked Gore and Bush are each parties to the lawsuit.
Guess I missed something.
Obviously, you did.
Link in a lawsuit in wcich Gore has sued Bush. Or vice-versa.
Are you really a lawyer?
13384. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:52:59 PM
CalGal
I said that vK's calling Gore courageous was silly--but that you saying vK's post was courageous made a mockery of the word.
Please tell me the post number where vonK used the word.
13385. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:53:17 PM
I have to go to the law library to do some legal research.
Bye Dusty.
13386. CalGal - 11/20/2000 12:54:08 PM
As the Dalai Lama says, "Lose to win."
Really? I don't suppose you're prepared to sacrifice your stock options to that notion, are you? You wouldn't be able to live life without work right now had your boss subscribed to that nonsense, that's for sure.
13387. bubbaette - 11/20/2000 12:55:19 PM
if Clinton had resigned it is not as if the Repubs would have controlled the WH
No, so perhaps "coup" is too strong a word.
13388. Dusty - 11/20/2000 12:55:26 PM
jexster
I have to go to the law library to do some legal research.
About time.
13389. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 12:56:09 PM
Dusty- they are both suing the Secretary of State. That makes them parties. Of course, Harris would have to sign off on any settlement, along with any voters that are parties. I'm sure that pressure could be brought to bear on the minor parties, and sock puppet Harris would sign, but the handwritting would look like Baker's.
13390. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:59:02 PM
Burden of Proof Predictions
Roy Black - from my knowledge of this court I predict they will allow manual recounts to proceed and if Gore wins, a statewide recount
Law Professor Nayatal - recount 4 counties only...will enforce statute according to its terms
13391. jexster - 11/20/2000 12:59:53 PM
I leave Dusty's legal education to the distinguished member of the Corn Husker Bar
13392. Dusty - 11/20/2000 1:02:39 PM
Jonesatlaw
Dusty- they are both suing the Secretary of State.
I agree.
That makes them parties.
Each are parties to a suit with a common entity. You seem to be a lawyer with a grasp of the law. If jexter were suing you, and I were suing you, we would both be parties to a lawsuit. Under what circumstances could I make a settlement offer to Jexter? I contend I cannot, at least not without the help of other parties.
Of course, Harris would have to sign off on any settlement, along with any voters that are parties.
I agree. My point precisely. (And I suspect other parties would also have to sign off, such as the court. I doubt that Harris has the authority to suspend FL law.)
13393. clydefo - 11/20/2000 1:04:50 PM
Re: Seminole County absentee ballots.
Anyone know if the ballot application contains a sworn statement from the voter that the information included is complete and correct? If a sworn document is incomplete and rejected by an official, does it become a nullity? Or may someone who is not a family member or guardian of the voter, as required by law, add the missing information and bring the document back to life?
13394. Fielding - 11/20/2000 1:05:42 PM
Dusty:
"If you had shown, in prior posts, a preference that Bush win, it would be courageous. If JJ posted such a thing, it would be courageous."
"You haven't evidenced a preference that Bush win, so you don't get the courageous label for advocating that which you probably have supported."
I disagree strongly. I think that Gore conceding would be a great thing for the Democrats (not that I particularly favor the Democrats), but I am opposed because that is no way to choose a president. Von Kreedon is supporting an "opportunistic" concession. That hardly strikes me as courageous. I support not conceding, even though it will harm the guy I voted for, because I believe that process is more important than outcome.
13395. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 1:07:19 PM
The posture of the lawsuit is not quite the usual one. Bush and Gore are the real parties in interest. (although I can see taking issue with that, as the voters of Florida are really the ones with rights to be vindicated) While ostensibly Harris is the key player, reality is that she would have plenty of legal and political ass coverage were she to approve what the parties agree was legal and just. We're she to stand in the way, Baker's arm would break.
13396. ElliottRW - 11/20/2000 1:07:34 PM
I just read an article, that suggests that the next president could very well be Lawrence Summers or even Janet Reno.
But the scariest part is that Strom Thurmond may actually get a shot at it.
13397. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 1:10:08 PM
CalGal - For one thing, a Clinton resignation would have been a very bad thing for the nation: it would have demonstrated that a dedicated enemy can get results if they just have enough money.
No, it would have demonstrated that there are consequences to violating the law even if you are President.
I am much relieved to see that Gore's brief discusses the hypocrisy of Harris' accepting some handcounts without machine breakdown but not others.
There is no hypocrisy in having different rules for counts that occur before the deadline and counts that occur after. Hypocrisy is when you claim you want a "full, fair and complete count" and then you target military absentee ballots for exclusion.
13398. CalGal - 11/20/2000 1:10:32 PM
Clydefo,
The answer to your first question is yes, I believe. There hasn't been a great deal of coverage of the Seminole county case, but that might change. It alone could screw Bush's pooch.
BTW, I agree with Fielding. The real problem with conceding early isn't so much what it means for one side or the other--it is the fact that the people pushing it don't want the process to play out. Concession before process is a really terrible idea, since it tells the country that our politicians don't trust the process they've sworn to uphold.
13399. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 1:11:42 PM
Ohio - Of course Gore should NOT concede. He's the people's choice, both in Florida and nationwide
If you keep saying this over and over you might actually convince yourself it is true.
13400. CalGal - 11/20/2000 1:12:03 PM
There is no hypocrisy in having different rules for counts that occur before the deadline and counts that occur after.
She told the counties before they were late that they couldn't submit handcounts. She then accepted handcounts.
13401. CalGal - 11/20/2000 1:12:44 PM
You know, I wonder if the reason that Boies and others didn't stress Harris' hypocrisy is because they didn't want to give the Republicans a chance to respond to it. Chances are they didn't think of it.
13402. iiibbb - 11/20/2000 1:13:01 PM
It's funny to me that those arguing that punch card ballots, in which the voter did not follow the instructions by voting only once, punching all the way through, and clearing the ballots of chad, should be counted or examined to discern the voter's "intent"...
...now argue that absentee ballots by our service men, who's ballots were inproperly handled by 3rd parties, or others who may have not followed the absentee instructions,... should now be ignored..
What about their "intent"?
Hypocrites all.
13403. Electric Slide - 11/20/2000 1:16:37 PM
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE CRIMINAL PARTY AT WORK
The Miami-Dade canvassing board voted unanimously yesterday to bar reporters from watching the recount that is scheduled to begin this morning. The Democratic three-member board rejected a request by Republicans to allow a pool reporter representing the press corps to watch the process of reviewing the 654,000 ballots as has been the case in the Palm Beach County recount. The board offered no public explanation.
13404. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 1:17:39 PM
I've got an idea, let us let the voters of Florida decide the election. To hell with handcounts or no, or APO postmarks. Assume that ballots arriving within a given time that would represent expedited delivery through the APO system were in fact mailed by the appropriate date. Screw those absentee ballots that were the result of applications completed by party workers. That's clearly out of bounds- hell the reason the statute was passed was in response to party hanky panky in previous elections.
13405. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 1:19:05 PM
There should be a pool reporter present, with appropriate security at his or her side to insure no claims of fraud based on them, but insuring the public's access to the process.
13406. CalGal - 11/20/2000 1:19:37 PM
iiibbb,
Not all the unpostmarked ballots are military votes. They were also rejected for a lot of other reasons.
Letting someone submit a ballot after the election is the equivalent of holding the polls open for longer. (Something they didn't do in Florida, anyway).
BTW, I believe you can challenge the decision by proving that the ballot was submitted on time--just not mailed on time.
There is no reason to compare the two, though. Florida law allows for handcounts. It doesn't allow for invalid absentee ballots (with a possible exemption for military ballots on postmark alone).
13407. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 1:23:37 PM
Jones - Screw those absentee ballots that were the result of applications completed by party workers. That's clearly out of bounds
If the standard is that every vote is sacred and every effort must be made to determine the intent of the voter, how can you throw out thousands of ballots where the intent of the voter is unmistakable?
13408. CalGal - 11/20/2000 1:24:52 PM
JJ,
It has to be a valid voter. It has to be a registered voter, and one who voted in the time allotted, under the rules given.
13409. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 1:27:43 PM
Slide- I checked the Miami Herald- no mention of exclusion of reporters. The supervisor of elections mentioned that his staff was nervous "Said Leahy: ``It was like opening-night jitters. Some of my staff are not used to the cameras.''
13410. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 1:27:55 PM
CalGal - It has to be a valid voter.
Unfortunately, it is partisans who are determining who is a valid voter based on subjective and inconsistent standards.
13411. Electric Slide - 11/20/2000 1:30:16 PM
Jones: It's in the Washington Post. Howard Kurtz reporting.
13412. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 1:31:23 PM
For the same reason that the Buchanan ballots were thrown out- failure to comply with the law. This is not even a close point.
With the military postmark issue, the voter has done all that is necessary for them to comply with Florida law, and has a reasonable expectation that the third parties entrusted with the ballot will comply with the law in postmarking it. There is no reasonable expectation that someone from the local GOP will complete your application for an absentee ballot. There is no provision in the law for persons other than the voter or a first degree relative to apply for an absentee ballot for a voter, or to even possess one.
13413. rubberducky - 11/20/2000 1:33:00 PM
evidence that the nation is tired of this:
Nov. 19, 2000 | TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- A Fox Network news anchor was arrested and accused of hitting another journalist with his car in an apparent dispute over a parking space.
Witnesses told police that Shepard Smith, who hosts "The Fox Report," ran his car into Maureen Walsh, a journalist for a local cable company, when she tried to save a rare open parking spot for co-workers at the Capitol complex where the media are covering the Florida recount.
Walsh was treated at a hospital for bruises on her legs and released.
Smith, 36, was charged with aggravated battery with a motor vehicle and released on $10,000 bail.
we are driving the news people crazy as they drive us crazy as we drive them...
13414. Dusty - 11/20/2000 1:36:11 PM
Jonesatlaw
I heard from the Montan guy (governor?) that the press would be excluded from the room. I think they are making too much of this. It doesn't sound like an unreasonable rule.
13415. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 1:36:19 PM
Slide- can't find the story at the Post site. Could you link it? I tried to get to the Miami-Dade story but it send you to the PBC story.
13416. Dusty - 11/20/2000 1:41:20 PM
CalGal
I can't believe you did that.
13417. CalGal - 11/20/2000 1:42:31 PM
Dusty,
?????
13418. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 1:43:05 PM
The count should be conducted in the presence of "God and everybody" as an old friend would say. There has to be some way of unobtrusively allowing video and audio monitoring of the count. It is important to nullify the "stealing the election crap" that is floating around.
13419. CalGal - 11/20/2000 1:43:55 PM
Miami isn't allowing filming? That's not good.
13420. Electric Slide - 11/20/2000 1:47:03 PM
Jones: It's front-paged in today's WP headlined: "Miami-Dade Recount Closed to Press; GOP Unhapppy" by Howard Kurtz
13421. OhioSTOPAS - 11/20/2000 1:49:16 PM
For all of the harsh words about the rejection of absentee ballots submitted by men and women in military service, does anyone have any facts?
For example, how many of the 1,420 of overseas ballots that were rejected were from the military? And why were they rejected: no postmark, undated postmark, or other reason?
13422. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 1:49:25 PM
Jones - There is no reasonable expectation that someone from the local GOP will complete your application for an absentee ballot. There is no provision in the law for persons other than the voter or a first degree relative to apply for an absentee ballot for a voter, or to even possess one.
There is a difference between applying for a ballot and filling out an application for someone else to sign and submit. Since the voters believed they were signing a complete application, they had a reasonable expectation that they would indeed receive ballots. When they did receive ballots, they had a reasonable expectation that their votes would count. Had they not received ballots they could have reapplied or voted at their precinct. By throwing out their ballots after the fact you are denying them their right to vote.
13423. CalGal - 11/20/2000 1:51:05 PM
Howard Kurtz' column
I see no mention of this refusal, and this is the only column for today I would find.
13424. Dusty - 11/20/2000 1:56:20 PM
CalGal
Miami isn't allowing filming? That's not good.
I haven't heard that. Where has this been reported?
13425. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 2:00:43 PM
Dusty:
By Slide via Drudge.
13426. Dusty - 11/20/2000 2:03:24 PM
OhioSTOPAS -
For example, how many of the 1,420 of overseas ballots that were rejected were from the military? And why were they rejected: no postmark, undated postmark, or other reason?
I think there has been a lot of unwarranted jumping to conclusions. First, isn't it 1420 absentee ballots? Not all of which are overseas? And there have been a variety of reasons listed; it would be helpful to know how many fall into each category.
13427. Dusty - 11/20/2000 2:05:51 PM
JudithAtHome
Slide is referring to the allegation that the press won't be allowed in the room.
I haven't heard that filming won't be allowed. Haven't the other locations installed a fixed camera in the room?
13428. bubbaette - 11/20/2000 2:14:01 PM
I don't think that they should throw out the ballots based on someone filling in a blank on the application for the ballot, as long as reps from BOTH parties were allowed the courtesy of filling in the missing numbers. If a third party had filled out the application, that would be a different story.
A lot of this could have been avoided (along with the voter registration issues that came up in my state) if government entities had a better "service" ethic. What's so difficult or impossible about returning an incomplete form to be filled out correctly? At least this way, the voter is on notice that they need to take further steps. With the motor voter registration issue in Va., registrations that had incomplete information were evidently discarded and those who filed them were left with the impression that they had taken the steps necessary to register to vote.
13429. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 2:17:46 PM
Bubbaette - With the motor voter registration issue in Va., registrations that had incomplete information were evidently discarded and those who filed them were left with the impression that they had taken the steps necessary to register to vote.
That was one of the objections to moter voter registration in the first place.
13430. bubbaette - 11/20/2000 2:28:18 PM
JJ
When someone sends me incomplete information, I let them know that I need more info, or that what they've sent me is incomplete. Seeing as how the citizens are the owners of government, it doesn't seem to me to be too much trouble. Expecially since we're talking about voting rights, I think it's both lazy and irresponsible to simply trash the registrations with no notice to the person who THOUGHT they were registered.
Now I understand that the Repubs didn't like the idea of moter voter, but it's the law. Just because the state board of elections is a republican entity, does not give them the leeway to ignore the law or to change it administratively. Public employees should be responsive to all the public, not just members of the public who support the incumbent.
13431. CalGal - 11/20/2000 2:35:51 PM
Dusty,
I was only repeating what Slide had said, with a question mark (obviously). I then checked his cite, which was completely incorrect.
13432. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 2:36:44 PM
Bubbaette - When someone sends me incomplete information, I let them know that I need more info, or that what they've sent me is incomplete. Seeing as how the citizens are the owners of government, it doesn't seem to me to be too much trouble.
That is because you are a concientious worker who believes she is providing a valuable service to the public. From my experience you are an exception. Too many public employees see their job as nothing but a meal ticket with benefits and the public which they service is nothing but an inconvenience.
Public employees should be responsive to all the public, not just members of the public who support the incumbent.
Public employees are predominately Democrat.
13433. bubbaette - 11/20/2000 2:39:36 PM
Public employees are predominately Democrat.
I don't know where you get that -- Virginia state employees voted in large margins for George Allen for governor and were about evenly split for his successor, Gilmore.
13434. Electric Slide - 11/20/2000 2:49:14 PM
I'm looking at the newspaper right now. It's in today's Washington Post. Entitled: GOP PROTESTS CLOSING OF MIAMI-DADE RECOUNT TO MEMBERS OF MEDIA" by Howard Kurtz.
It's not part of Kurtz's media column.
13435. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 2:54:42 PM
Bubbaette - I don't know where you get that
I told you, from my experience with government workers.
Virginia state employees voted in large margins for George Allen for governor and were about evenly split for his successor, Gilmore.
My experience with Virginia state employees is extremely limited. In fact I believe it is limited to you. So you can see from my experience, Virginia state employees are 100% Democrat. (g)
13436. CalGal - 11/20/2000 2:56:33 PM
Slide,
Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, I just looked again and can't find it. I suggest you look for it yourself in the online Post.
13437. bubbaette - 11/20/2000 3:16:06 PM
JJ
Believe it or not, I've voted for Republicans -- twice. So all the Virginia public employees you know are about 90% Democrat.
13438. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 3:16:33 PM
So, which side is doing better in the hearing? It all sounds like droning to me...
13439. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 3:19:49 PM
Judith - So, which side is doing better in the hearing? It all sounds like droning to me...
I am taping the hearing in case I have trouble falling asleep tonight.
13440. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 3:23:15 PM
JJ:
Trust me, it will work.....I'm barely hanging on here.
13441. jexster - 11/20/2000 3:34:46 PM
The Bushies are gettin their ass....sensing the mood of the Court, counsel for the Secty of State is practically begging for a statewide recount.
Defending a pile of shit is smelly, messy, and very difficult.
13442. jexster - 11/20/2000 3:35:59 PM
Bush should be feeling like a dimpled chad, the superating pustule that he is.
Marshall of Florida order to Austin to pop that zit.
13443. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 3:42:44 PM
This Carvin fellow seems inept...
13444. jexster - 11/20/2000 3:48:18 PM
Bush's lawyer looks like he shit his pants and can't get to the bathroom
13445. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 3:48:23 PM
Believe me, most lawyers look inept when faced with a hot bench and such patently conflicting statutory schemes. So far, the only judge that has tipped his hand is Chief Justice Wells.
13446. jexster - 11/20/2000 3:49:14 PM
God what an embarrassment.
13447. jexster - 11/20/2000 3:50:35 PM
Lady Chaos - I don't know how many lawyers you've seen....I don't ever look like that...I look like I know what I am talking about,...but then again, I don't go into court with so weak a case...ever
13448. jexster - 11/20/2000 3:51:24 PM
and in fact, I could probably count on one, maybe two hands, the numbers of lawyers I've seen in argument out of hundreds that look so fuckin bad
13449. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 3:52:39 PM
jex - God what an embarrassment.
We know, but we let you post here anyway.
13450. jexster - 11/20/2000 3:53:23 PM
I think and Bush's lawyers obviously think that the entire court has tipped its hand by asking Gore questions about how to get this done by 12/12 and Bush questions going to the merits of their ludicrous statutory interpretation....
That said, things are not always what the tea leaf readers seem to think
13451. jexster - 11/20/2000 3:55:05 PM
Biener you get a pass on that as winner of the Tom Delay Purple Heart
13452. jexster - 11/20/2000 3:55:26 PM
Here..have some of my refried chad
13453. labwabbit - 11/20/2000 3:56:34 PM
jex
Low caseload?
13454. jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 3:59:38 PM
ON the seventh day- Harris rested, having completed the creation of the election...
13455. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 4:00:06 PM
jex,
You're full of shit, of course. Lawyers on both sides of this dispute have, in different ways, a dog of a case to argue. Boiese looked bad arguing that the Sec. of State had a strictly "ministerial" duty. Bush's guys look ridiculous arguing that the statutory provision for hand recounts can be ignored at the discretion of the Sec. of State. The provisions are ridiculously contradictory, and I don't envy either side. I envy the Fla. Supreme Court least of all; they will be pilloried no matter what. If they come down on the Gore side, William Safire will lead the charge in declaring that they were biased. If they go the other way, Gore-ites will accuse them of punting in the face of a lose-lose situation.
13456. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 4:02:48 PM
I don't know about other people here, but I have been appalled at the way the media has kept score as to which judges were appointed by Democrats, and which were not. Our Supreme Court has a reputation for being fiercely independent, and their decision will be respected in Florida's legal community, if not among one-half of the body politic.
13457. OhioSTOPAS - 11/20/2000 4:02:54 PM
LadyChaos, if you're still here:
Does Miami's ex-mayor Xavier Suarez (the master of the absentee ballot) have a position with the Republican Party? I thought I read that somewhere in the last couple of weeks.
13458. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 4:05:32 PM
Dusty - Absolutely agree with your Message # 13426, everyone needs to buy into less spin from the spinsters and be more patient in asking questions and getting answers.
13459. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 4:06:26 PM
jones,
I'm not even sure what Suarez's party affiliation is. I doubt that he will place himself in any position that would make him vulnerable to political stone-throwers. Joe Carollo's announced retirement has come as a political gift to Suarez, and Suarez is already laying the groundwork for another run for mayor.
13460. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 4:07:08 PM
Sorry, I mean Ohio. That last post was addressed to OhioStopas.
13461. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 4:08:04 PM
I should have said:
Dusty - Absolutely agree with your courageousMessage # 13426, everyone needs to buy into less spin from the spinsters and be more patient in asking questions and getting answers.
13462. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 4:09:53 PM
VK:
I read that "spinsters" as unmarried older women...wonder what they had to do with this...? :-)
13463. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 4:10:35 PM
Judith - Well, they do tend to whine like old biddies.
13464. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 4:17:54 PM
VK:
Agreed...
13465. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 4:18:25 PM
My prediction, worth less than $.02, the court will order manual recounts in all counties that use punch cards and give them seven days to certify these recounts. If Dade doesn't use punch cards they may be disallowed from being included due to the very late start in recounting.
13466. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 4:19:11 PM
Am I the only who sees the similarities of the election coverage and Wimbeldon? Advantage Bush. Advantage Gore. Deuce.
Actually this whole thing may be more similar to the 1972 Olympic basketball final between the US and the USSR. The game ended three times with the US winning the first two times and the USSR winning the third and final. The USSR kept calling for a replay until they won. Very similar indeed.
13467. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 4:20:05 PM
I forgot, the court will give them state standards, either any discernible and interpretable mark on the ballot, including the ballot as a whole in the interpretation, or two corners.
13468. alistairconnor - 11/20/2000 4:25:46 PM
What's the score, people? When do you get a decision? Let's see some predictions!!
50/50? who's got better odds?
13469. labwabbit - 11/20/2000 4:28:39 PM
Just when you think it can't get any odder...
13470. rubberducky - 11/20/2000 4:31:13 PM
AC
i see no reason to change my Message # 4
13471. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 4:32:30 PM
Christopher is so thrilled he actually looks alive!
13472. alistairconnor - 11/20/2000 4:32:34 PM
But do you get a new Doofus/Potus today, or next week, or when?
13473. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 4:33:46 PM
AC - See my Message # 13465, I predict within two weeks.
13474. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 4:34:08 PM
What's amazing to me is that we've posted over 13,000 posts in a month.
13475. janjon - 11/20/2000 4:35:13 PM
my prediction - the S.C. will determine that there are fundamental ambiguities in the statute, but that on balance the legislative desire to have all votes legitimately counted (therefore the statutory provisions permitting handcounts) and the time period allowed to determine to have same (which also by implication means that there has to be reasonable time to complete same) outweigh the statutory certification deadline. They also will take into account the need to have time to "contest" the ultimate certifications AND the need to have everything done in a fashion timely to ensure that Florida's electoral votes get counted. Ergo - they will permit a set time period (say seven days) to have the hand counts completed; they also probably will instruct the Secretary of State not to dismiss the hand count results, at least for the reason that she thinks they aren't permissible. I also would hope that they would come down with some standards as to what to do with the various types of chads or dimples, etc., but I don't know whether that particular question is actually before the Court.
13476. labwabbit - 11/20/2000 4:35:31 PM
...and still haven't said anything.
(g)
13477. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 4:38:57 PM
From ABC: "Democratic Attorney General Bob Butterworth sent a letter
today to Florida counties, telling election officials they “should count” overseas ballots that bear no postmark."
Following the earlier discussion, does *this* count as brave?
13478. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 4:40:39 PM
Dem Att. Gen. just ruled that all overseas ballots without postmarks must be counted. Yeah!
13479. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 4:41:09 PM
It's Brave & Principled!
13480. Dusty - 11/20/2000 4:42:06 PM
Richardson (is that his name?) was very good.
Bois was generally very good, but had some rocky moments. The lawyer for the individual votes started out weak, but made some decent points in the end. The other lawyer for the Bush team was inept. He was pitched a hanging curve, and he wiffed it.
13481. Dusty - 11/20/2000 4:43:25 PM
Sorry, that's Barry Richard, not Richardson.
13482. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 4:43:27 PM
Do you mean the grey haired guy? Barry Richard?
13483. stostosto - 11/20/2000 4:43:36 PM
Gee, I love Miami
It's so nice and hot
And eery building's so pretty and white
And I always get into so much trouble
When I'm down there
I know these two old stiffs
Live on the Waterway
That's where I like to stay
When I'm down
In
Miami
Blue day
Best dope in the world
And it's free
Miami
Blue day
Put on your shortie shorts
And your Hawaiian shirt
And come down!
13484. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 4:44:47 PM
Sto3: Don't go dissin' Hawaiian shirts!
13485. ElliottRW - 11/20/2000 4:45:01 PM
Raskolnikov,
Brave or not, it's the right thing to do.
13486. Dusty - 11/20/2000 4:45:22 PM
I am amazed at the general incompetence of the attorney, while thinking that the judges did a very good job.
On more than one occasion, the judges question was essentially, "So what would you have me do?" In many cases, there was no response on point. (Boies excepted)
13487. CalGal - 11/20/2000 4:46:42 PM
All nonpostmarked ballots? That's absurd. I hope he restricts it to military ballots.
13488. stostosto - 11/20/2000 4:47:26 PM
Judith
Who's dissin'? I love'em.
13489. stostosto - 11/20/2000 4:51:57 PM
Oh, I love Miami
It's so hot
And the women down here
Are so impure
I love to hang around
The big hotels
And sleep in the sun all day
I know this double jointed guy
With the circus in St. Pete
He's with me now
He says hello
From Fourteenth Street
In
Miami
Blue day
Best dope in the world
And it's free
Miami
Blue day
Put on your shortie shorts
And your Hawaiian shirt
And come down!
13490. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 4:52:49 PM
Cal:"All nonpostmarked ballots? That's absurd. I hope he restricts it to military ballots."
Are there any non-military ballots without postmarks? How can one get an absentee ballot to the county without a postmark, without being in the military?
And if there are legitimate reasons for those ballots to lack postmarks (from a country that doesn't postmark, for instance) they can just as credibly be included as well.
13491. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 4:53:58 PM
Anyway, I don't think Butterworth is the final authority on this. Counties have jurisdiction, as has been seen by their disagreement with Harris.
13492. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 4:54:39 PM
My friends who live in Greece (an American man married to a Greek lady) send their mail to the states via the US Embassy. Sometimes it arrives sans postmark...
13493. stostosto - 11/20/2000 4:55:06 PM
(Just thought this thread needed a theme song).
13494. CalGal - 11/20/2000 4:55:10 PM
Rask,
I believe there were others, but it could be that they were postmarked late. In fact, if a military ballot is posted late, will it be accepted or no?
I wonder how many more ballots this will give Bush. There were many other reasons ballots were excluded.
13495. CalGal - 11/20/2000 4:55:46 PM
if a military ballot is posted late,
postmarked, I mean.
13496. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 4:59:29 PM
FSC says no decision today, according to CNN.
13497. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 5:00:00 PM
Only a European tourist would be caught dead in a Hawaiian shirt down here!
Guillaberras (sp?) are de rigeur.
13498. OhioSTOPAS - 11/20/2000 5:04:20 PM
I question how many unpostmarked military ballots there are among the 1,400 rejected ballots. I would think not very many, since what I've read about military mail in the last couple of days indicates that sometimes mail is not postmarked due to exigent circumstances like a mail carrier about to leave.
If there is a proportionately large number of unpostmarked ballots, wouldn't that be unusual and suspicious?
13499. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:04:43 PM
LadyC
The song is from 1983.
13500. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:05:40 PM
LadyC
What are you doing here? Shouldn't you be out counting?
13501. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:05:42 PM
You know, the Seminole County story has stayed lowprofile. Wouldn't it be a kick if that was what trumped Bush after all?
13502. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 5:05:53 PM
Dem Att. Gen. just ruled that all overseas ballots without postmarks must be counted. Yeah!
I have to give credit. This is at least a step toward fairness.
13503. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:06:05 PM
vonKreedon
There is a breakdown of the Broward County rejected absentee overseas ballots.
Of the 246 rejected, only two were for no postmark. There were as many rejected for "not from overseas"
WSJ page A28
13504. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:07:03 PM
JJBiener
Big whoop. Two more votes in Broward.
13505. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:07:20 PM
Ha, ha.
That's great if those numbers hold up. He gets to look magnanimous and it doesn't make a difference.
13506. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 5:08:20 PM
Ohio - I question how many unpostmarked military ballots there are among the 1,400 rejected ballots.
The figure I heard was 700-800.
13507. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:09:53 PM
OhioSTOPAS
Based upon Broward, there might not be that many.
The positive spin on the Atty General decision is that it is a magnanimous, fair decision.
The cynical spin is that it might affect only a handful of votes.
13508. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:10:27 PM
x post
13509. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 5:10:52 PM
My understanding is that the military vote is generally clumped in specific counties and that Broward is not one of those.
13510. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:12:21 PM
JJBiener
Is it possible that the number of 700-800 refers to postmark issues rather than solely missing postmarks?
119 of the 246 in Broward contain late postmarks.
13511. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:13:02 PM
vonKreedon
Good point.
That could explain a difference.
13512. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:15:00 PM
But they were also discarded for a number of other reasons, including late postmarks. It won't help Bush all that much. And it is only military, not any other sort of ballot, according to MSNBC.
13513. janjon - 11/20/2000 5:16:10 PM
It was obvious from the beginning (which in this case means two days ago) of this military vote flap that it was mostly just an attempt by the W forces to stir up a froth and try to add ANTI-AMERICAN to the FRAUD charges they've been throwing around in their efforts to discredit the processes going on currently.
I for one hope never to have to see or hear Ret. Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf again in my life.
13514. labwabbit - 11/20/2000 5:16:44 PM
THE PALM BEACH POKEY
You put your stylus in,
You put your stylus out,
You put your stylus in,
And you punch Buchanan out.
You do the Palm Beach Pokey
And you turn the count around,
That's what it's all about!
You put the Gore votes in,
You put the Bush votes out,
You put the Gore votes in,
And you do another count.
You do the Palm Beach Pokey
And you turn the count around,
That's what it's all about!
You bring your lawyers in,
You drag the whole thing out,
You bring your lawyers in,
And you put it all in doubt.
You do the Palm Beach Pokey
And you turn the count around,
That's what it's all about!
You let your doctors spin,
You let the pundits spout,
You let your doctors spin,
And your people whine and pout.
You do the Palm Beach Pokey
And you turn the count around,
That's what it's all about!
You do the Palm Beach Pokey,
You do the Palm Beach Pokey,
You do the Palm Beach Pokey,
That's what it's all about!
13515. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 5:16:51 PM
Dusty - I don't remember if that number was for military missing postmark or all postmark problems. I agree with vonK that Broward is not representative.
13516. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:17:24 PM
My prediction: The Court will jump on the Boies "compromise", allowing the lower court decision to stand, permitting Harris to certify as soon as she wants, but permitting the hand counts to continue, and ordering that a revised certification be issued if the hand count numbers differ (or change the result). They will lift the 72 hour limit on hand count requests for other counties, but they will not order hand counts in other counties.
13517. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:17:56 PM
Incidentally, Florida law does indeed say that unpostmarked ballots are to be tossed. The issue is whether or not they contradict federal law.
13518. janjon - 11/20/2000 5:18:05 PM
Well, the GOP member of the Broward County election board has picked up and left. Going to go see her family. Can't take these 15 hour days any more and has to think of her health. This means that the Broward recount process has now come to a halt while "they" decide how to replace her, etc.
13519. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:22:35 PM
You know, while the courts might ultimately give Harris the ability to run roughshod over her electorate, it's pretty clear that they don't like her much.
Harris asked the Supreme Court to divide the 120 minutes set aside for arguments on Monday into three -- allowing herself, the Democrats and Republicans 40 minutes each to present their arguments. The court rejected her request.
13520. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:22:54 PM
I saw some live transmission from the court proceedings on the evening news here. Damn, did that sound complicated.
13521. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:25:35 PM
GOP member of the Broward Cnty board coming to California saying she ain't comin back. Governor Davis to consider asylum request.
13522. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:26:03 PM
So, what are the chances the handcounts will do the trick for Gore?
13523. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:26:27 PM
oops
13524. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:27:28 PM
(Trying again).
So, what are the chances the handcounts will do the trick for Gore?
In the end, it’s not clear Gore can find enough votes anyway
From MSNBC.
13525. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:29:06 PM
Sto,
Thus far, the counts aren't looking too good for Gore. But Miami hasn't started yet.
You know, it really is true that Dems are more likely to screw up ballots. We just have larger pools of the well less than savvy.
13526. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 5:30:45 PM
Re: Message # 13500,
We have Cuban and Dominican house servants who are paid to do that.
13527. glendajean - 11/20/2000 5:30:54 PM
Sto -- I don't think Gore has any chance to win this election short of somebody finding voter fraud.
I think it's time he wind this down and concede.
The only value out of this is that we now understand the sorry state of elections in this country, and perhaps new systems will be in place with clarified laws.
But this close election is sort of like one of those 500 year floods, highly unlikely and then, bam, the shoreline has moved considerably for a swollen period.
13528. robertjayb - 11/20/2000 5:31:06 PM
.
The Palm Beach County counters are taking Thanksgiving off. What wimps. They couldn't get started and now they refuse to stick with the job.
13529. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 5:31:20 PM
The media needs a lecture on selection bias. While the preliminary counts aren't going well for Gore, this is quite simply because it is primarily precincts with few uncontested votes that have been counted. All the controversial ballots (1 in 6 in PBC) have not been included in the tallies yet. It is *these* ballots that the Gore camp is counting on.
13530. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:31:39 PM
University of Wisconsin statistics professor on Inside Politics has forecast a net increase of between 383 and 819 votes in PBC for Gore.
13531. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:32:13 PM
CalGal
I don't understand how you reach that conclusion. There was an attorney for the Secretary of State present, and he had a big chunk of time. It appears that they had to take it from the Bush side.
Presumably, they ruled that there were two parties, not three. I don't see how that equates to not liking her.
13532. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:33:01 PM
But his conclusion is based only on non-dimpled ballots. If dimpled ballots are counted, he predicts 916 vote pick up in PBC county
13533. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:33:06 PM
Rask,
Gawd, thank you. I have been wondering about that, but no one has mentioned whether or not the precincts with problems have been counted.
GJ,
You've been watching Finian's Rainbow again, haven't you? No more Tommy Steele for you, young man.
13534. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:34:17 PM
Rask, so what would you say the odds are?
13535. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:34:33 PM
There was an attorney for the Secretary of State present, and he had a big chunk of time. It appears that they had to take it from the Bush side.
Um. Yes. That's the point. She wanted to take it from Gore's side as well, but they slapped her down.
13536. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:34:39 PM
Raskolnikov
Yes.
Some people are under the misimpression that the relatively small changes reported so far are representative. I have seen at least one media outlet report this, but I don't recall which one. (I think it was Fox)
13537. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:36:08 PM
Sto - The University of Wisconsin stats professor claims that Gore has a 46% chance of picking up all the votes he needs from PBC alsone.
Rask - what do your calcs show?
13538. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:36:16 PM
CalGal
So why do you think they don't like her?
Do you think court decisions are based upon like/dislike rather than matters of law?
13539. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:38:25 PM
jex
Thank you.
I am thinking of putting money on a draw...
13540. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:38:44 PM
stostosto
So, what are the chances the handcounts will do the trick for Gore?
Highly likely.
But then, I'm cynical.
13541. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 5:39:28 PM
sto: I think Gore has about a 80% chance of passing Bush's current lead in the manual recount process in the three counties. This is based on rough estimates (extrapolated from sample counts and other distribution info from the media) of about 150-200 from Broward, 600 or so from PBC, plus 400 or so from Dade.
Now, if the recount process goes statewide, my money would be on Bush.
Dusty: I have seen it mentioned in a few outlets. My morning paper mentioned it. The MSNBC site Cal linked mentions Broward's set-asides in one paragraph, and I could have sworn I read it elsewhere over the weekend.
13542. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:39:48 PM
Dusty,
Well, it was more amusement than an affirmative declaration of their state of mind vis a vis Harris.
But time and again, she has tried to assume more power and been smacked down. Lewis' first decision was little more than a complete denial of her assertion of abilities (even if he was forced to uphold her "nonarbitrary" decision in the end). I believe the courts have contradicted her reading of the law as well as her standing in the case on almost all occasions; again, this is true even if in the end they refuse to override her decision. They make her go through the motions, rather than granting her the absolute authority she maintains she has.
13543. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:40:15 PM
Oh, no, dusty you're not.
You're pessimist.
13544. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:40:39 PM
sto3
BTW, my comment in Message # 13540 relates only to the three counties in progress.
13545. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 5:41:21 PM
Jex: my calcs are back of the envelope, based more on memories of some of the relevant descriptives and a few hunches. Not at all written in stone.
13546. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:41:33 PM
Some people are under the misimpression that the relatively small changes reported so far are representative.
Almost all of them have reported that. In fact, it was their uniformity on this issue that had caused me to give up hope. I had thought surely they would mention if these counts weren't representative.
13547. Dusty - 11/20/2000 5:42:07 PM
stostosto
Pessimist implies I want Bush to win. I didn't vote for Bush. Cynical implies I expect Gore to manage to find enough votes to overcome the current margin.
13548. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:42:16 PM
The continuing legal instruction of Dusty continues I see...
He's close to understanding that in this particular lawsuit there are two sides and several parties aligned on either side.
13549. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 5:43:20 PM
Once you include the possibility of Supreme Court decisions, the oversees exclusions, and a statewide recount, all bets are off. I couldn't make a prediction about the FSC's decision if my life depended on it, and I have no idea what the likely undercount is for Bush in GOP counties.
13550. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:43:21 PM
Rask,
and once (and if) Gore has passed Bush by way of recounts in those threee counties, what are the chances, Bush will push for a state-wide recount? (I'd say about 100%).
But what are the chances he'd get it?
And what's the chance that Gore will reverse his earlier offer..? I'd say about 100%.
Giggle!
This is amusing.
13551. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:43:54 PM
dammit, Jex, don't use HTML or we'll start a movement.
13552. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:44:01 PM
deemphasise
13553. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:44:27 PM
Too bad I had to drop outta stats this semester....shit I coulda had calcs too!
Interesting though how Rask's and the Univ. of Wisc geek's are similar ie 600 or so from PBC but that's without dimpled chads...
Rask -does your 600 include dimpled chads or no?
13554. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:44:58 PM
CAl -
Whad I do?
13555. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 5:45:18 PM
CalGal - Lewis' first decision was little more than a complete denial of her assertion of abilities (even if he was forced to uphold her "nonarbitrary" decision in the end).
I don't see how you can get this from reading his decision. It was clear to me that she did have the discretion and his only warning was that she could not exercise that discretion arbitrarily. That is very different from how you characterize it.
13556. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:45:59 PM
Sorry, dusty,
I thought you did vote for Bush. But you do want him to win, don't you?
13557. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 5:46:03 PM
Cal:"Almost all of them have reported that. In fact, it was their uniformity on this issue that had caused me to give up hope. I had thought surely they would mention if these counts weren't representative."
Well, these are the same people who thought that Gore's lead in the handcounts of the carefully selected sample precincts could be extrapolated to almost 2000 votes. Rule of thumb: never trust a straight news story when it comes to any sort of numerical analysis.
13558. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:46:08 PM
PMS or PMDD that is the question Horatio
13559. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:46:37 PM
Jex,
You didn't turn off underlining. At least not in IE.
JJ,
Not true. She declared that she could not take late counts for any reason. There were other contradictions as well, but that decision was, like, so a week ago.
13560. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:47:55 PM
Cal: I turned it off in Netscape....go sue Bill Gates
13561. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:48:38 PM
Rask,
I just haven't seen it mentioned anywhere; not just in straight news stories. The only thing that has kept me wondering is Gore's cheerfulness, which I thought would have been dimmed slightly by now if he hadn't known there were more votes coming.
Anyway, I really should understand by now that news reports don't grok this sort of thing. My bad.
13562. christipeters - 11/20/2000 5:48:39 PM
All I can say is, if Bush wins (which I kinda expect), I hope he is kept nice and safe in spite of any silly "elected in a year ending in zero" curses. 'Cause I think a President Cheny would be worse than a President Dubya.
(jmho)
13563. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:50:21 PM
President Lieberman.
Hmmm. I like that.
13564. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:51:06 PM
Christi - but didn't they nominate Cheney to be Georgie's First Nanny?
13565. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 5:51:24 PM
Sto: "and once (and if) Gore has passed Bush by way of recounts in those threee counties, what are the chances, Bush will push for a state-wide recount? (I'd say about 100%)."
I think a SC decision will be in place before this. If the SC doesn't order a statewide recount now, I don't think the Bush camp will have much luck suddenly asking for one when results go against them.
Jex: "Interesting though how Rask's and the Univ. of Wisc geek's are
similar ie 600 or so from PBC but that's without dimpled chads..."
Your UW guy actually did a margin of error. I didn't bother calculating that. I just looked at the number of undercounts in the sample counties representing 1% of the vote, and apportioned the candidates' county-wide vote percent to an extrapolated county-wide undercount figure.
"Rask - does your 600 include dimpled chads or no?"
No. They weren't included as undercounts in the sample recount.
13566. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 5:52:56 PM
Cal - The only thing that has kept me wondering is Gore's cheerfulness
Cheerfulness? He looks positively constipated. I would bet good money that he hasn't taken a shit since election night. Look at his eyes. The pain and the pressure are more than evident.
I am actually beginning to feel sorry for him.
Nah! What was I thinking?
13567. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:54:36 PM
JJ,
I realize you don't believe the media, but in general they say that Gore is having a good time and really managing this project well. I think he's like his boss and hits his stride when he has a big fight.
13568. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:55:01 PM
Rask -
MMmm...without dimpled chads UW is 300 some odd to 800 some odd..he adds 300 for dimpled chads.
13569. stostosto - 11/20/2000 5:55:12 PM
Biener
Perhaps you were thinking: Well, Gore is human in spite of everything...
But, then: Nah.
13570. CalGal - 11/20/2000 5:56:04 PM
Jex,
IE requires toys to be closed with the same tag that they were opened with. So try and match them up, yes?
13571. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:57:57 PM
The chances are the ScT will rule in Gore's favor, the fact that the legal arguments did not "impress" Dusty to the contrary notwithstanding.
It also seems that even if Gore gets a lead, and the chances are he will, it will not be an insurmountable lead. Thus the Seminole absentee ballots and the unpostmarked overseas absentees will come into play.
Further CNN is reporting that the GOP is canvassing to determine if there are any double registrations/double voting - waste of money.
13572. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 5:58:23 PM
Cal - . . . if he hadn't known there were more votes coming.
It is easy to know votes are coming when you have your own people "finding" them.
13573. jexster - 11/20/2000 5:58:59 PM
Cal - you mean a "u" was closed with a "U" and the monopolist's software is too dumb to realize the diff?
13574. jexster - 11/20/2000 6:00:07 PM
It is easy to know votes are coming when you have your own people
"finding" them.
And hard when you have the other guy's people finding them
13575. CalGal - 11/20/2000 6:01:20 PM
JJ,
You have contradicted yourself. First you said he was miserable, now you say that it's easy to be happy when he's fixed the election. Make up your mind.
That said, I still find it a bit unpleasant to accuse the people counting of voter fraud so cavalierly.
Jex,
Did you use /u and /U? Or /u and /i? Could you test it out in Try the Mote and we can see what happens?
13576. Dusty - 11/20/2000 6:02:04 PM
Anyone else willing to make a prediction as to what will happen when the FSC decides?
13577. CalGal - 11/20/2000 6:03:53 PM
Prediction as to what will happen, or what will the FSC decides?
13578. Dusty - 11/20/2000 6:05:20 PM
jexster
You tried to close a u with a /i.
How was Bill Gates supposed to deal with that?
I know—he should have programmed in - If Jexter, then ignore
So should I
13579. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 6:06:22 PM
Jex - In order to actually use HTML tags you need to actually use the tags, not let non-HTML standard nannyware do it for you. You fail to close all the time. Either use the tags or don't, but don't use half the tags.
13580. Indiana Jones - 11/20/2000 6:06:30 PM
Rask (13315): Glad to see you stick by your earlier statements.
Cal (13110): The more I follow your posts, the more I don't think you even have a consistent meaning of language when you debate. Whatever you happen to think at any particular instant, that's what you'll swear up and down is what you've always thought and is correct.
You go from saying an elector who changes a vote is breaking a promise, saying fuck the system, and should have thought ahead about what sort of situations he/she might be in (3662), to saying you have no problem with an elector changing his/her vote (13112), to then saying "I think an elector who changes their vote is scum" (13310).
In fact, in the last post you say:
The strength of my reaction quoted there was due to disgust with your admiration of them. I think an elector who changes their vote is scum.
That is, you back away from making a strong statement earlier and in the very next sentence make an even stronger statement.
And you don't see any contradiction in any of that.
This is a useless defense:
You mistake my assessment of the individual's personal morality and my feeling as to whether it's legal or not.
Asking whether someone has a "problem with something" isn't about narrow legality. It's a very broad question. Moreover, I think the legality of this question isn't even open to debate as electors have changed their votes several times in the past.
13581. Fielding - 11/20/2000 6:07:22 PM
jexster:
You can blame Bill Gates all you want, but it still sucks for me to have to read other people's posts in an unintended format because you didn't close your tags properly. If you don't want to be bothered closing them, then don't use them in the first place.
13582. CalGal - 11/20/2000 6:07:48 PM
Dusty,
In all fairness, PE and Irv have also done the same thing. Netscape treats /u, /i, and /b as equals.
13583. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2000 6:07:57 PM
I see four options for the FSC:
1) They put it all in Harris' lap, upholding her use of discretion. At this point, the recounts continue, they are submitted, Harris rejects them, Gore goes back to the SC, loses, and concedes.
2) More limited. The SC says that Harris can certify, but that certification is not final. The recounts continue, Harris rejects them , and we are back at where we are today.
3) They support Gore, requiring that Harris not use lateness as grounds for exclusion. Bush tries to add the excluded oversees votes. If that fails, it depends on whether Harris comes up with another reason for rejecting the hand recounts. If she does, we are back to where we are today. Either way, Bush appeals to SCOTUS, which declines to get involved.
4) The SC orders a statewide recount. Both sides abide by the result.
13584. Fielding - 11/20/2000 6:09:20 PM
CG:
Yeah, but jexster does it several times a day, every day.
13585. jexster - 11/20/2000 6:12:07 PM
WRT military ballots its the Secty of State who says don't count military ballots without postmarks and the AG who says look at them again.
13586. stostosto - 11/20/2000 6:12:10 PM
Prediction
Florida, final result:
BUSH 2,912,565
GORE 2,912,565
It's a draw. Clinton stays on another term.
13587. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 6:12:38 PM
Rask - 1) They put it all in Harris' lap, upholding her use of discretion. At this point, the recounts continue, they are submitted, Harris rejects them, Gore goes back to the SC, loses, and concedes.
This is my choice.
13588. jexster - 11/20/2000 6:13:07 PM
No I tried to close a u with a u and it worked on netscape. I will now try to close a with an and we will see
13589. jexster - 11/20/2000 6:13:18 PM
No I tried to close a u with a u and it worked on netscape. I will now try to close a with an and we will see
13590. jexster - 11/20/2000 6:14:21 PM
UR right Dusty!!!!
mark this date and time.....a first for everything
13591. JJBiener - 11/20/2000 6:14:54 PM
Jex - There is a thread for this shit. Please take it there.
13592. jexster - 11/20/2000 6:15:09 PM
No sto, I wish....I think in that case they draw lots.
President Gore because God likes him better
13593. CalGal - 11/20/2000 6:15:30 PM
Indy,
You misunderstand the difference in the two discussions. Do I have a problem with someone changing their vote? Sure. Do I think it is legally wrong? No. You were heralding such a person as a hero, and I was disgusted. In the second instance, someone was asking about it in the context of legal options.
Also, in the original discussion you suggested this as a way to give Bush the victory as "the right thing to do", given that he'd won the popular vote (hypothetically). I recoiled from that as a possibility, and I would do the same thing if we hadn't had all this muss and Gore had won the popular vote while Bush had won a clear and uncontested victory in Florida.
But discussing legal options in the current scenario is quite different. I would still think very little of any electoral college member that switched his vote, I would still object strenuously were Gore himself to exhort college members to change. But we're in an endgame scenario now, which means that neither side will have a clean win. As such, it's a perfectly valid legal option to consider, whether I approve of it or not.
13594. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 6:15:45 PM
Jex - It's {u} and {/u}, substitute angle brackets for curly brackets
13595. jexster - 11/20/2000 6:15:57 PM
Hey I didn't start this...back off JJB, you only get one pass for being Tom Delay Purple Heart Winner
13596. Dusty - 11/20/2000 6:16:26 PM
sto3
See Message # 12851
13597. CalGal - 11/20/2000 6:17:30 PM
Jex, dammit, I told you to do it in Try the Mote!!
Fielding, actually, I have just forgiven Jex a great deal because all this time I thought he was ignoring his problems on IE. I hadn't realized he had Netscape, where it is entirely possible to be unaware of these problems.
So Jex, either be more vigalant or use IE, please.
13598. Al D - 11/20/2000 6:17:52 PM
JJ
Hasn't the media told us time after time how interesting and cool gore is in person? I imagine they all know him very well and party with him a lot. I have come to the conclusion that what ever the media tells me is gospel since they would have no axe to grind.
13599. Dusty - 11/20/2000 6:18:00 PM
jexter
Re Message # 13590
We agree on something else.
This is the first time I've ever seen you admit one of your many errors. let's mark this day down.
13600. jexster - 11/20/2000 6:18:15 PM
I hope that Gore wins and that the idiots on Capitol Hill try to block Florida electors and kick this to the House of Representatives
13601. stostosto - 11/20/2000 6:19:08 PM
Dusty
Funny!
13602. jexster - 11/20/2000 6:19:14 PM
I will be more vigilant Cal.
I refuse to use IE on religious grounds.
13603. jexster - 11/20/2000 6:20:58 PM
Dick Armey - I would go to a Gore inaugural because its my duty but I will not stand
Typical republican asshole.
13604. jexster - 11/20/2000 6:44:28 PM
Frank Sesno, reporting from the Gore camp, and David Broder, from the Bush camp, claim that "anonymous sources" on each side are advocating the same end game, that one or the other concede the election claiming he done been robbed. Sesno reports that, on the Gore side, James Daly is leading the "pragmatic" camp.
Or as Dusty and vonK, Mote Red Badge of Courage Winner, would say a "courageous" decision.
13605. Electric Slide - 11/20/2000 7:09:23 PM
My oldest son is going to Inaugural no matter who wins. Good seats, too. His Boy Scout troop has been picked by the Secret Service to be ushers in the stands on Capitol Hill.
You know it's serious with the SS when they want the kid's social security number.
The first thing President-elect Bush is going to do when he becomes president is open up Pennsylvania Ave again across from the White House.
13606. labwabbit - 11/20/2000 7:12:39 PM
The first thing President-elect Bush is going to do when he becomes president is open up Pennsylvania Ave again across from the White House.
Wouldn't be a security issue. The best thing, in the enemy's view, is too make sure he stays in office.
13607. labwabbit - 11/20/2000 7:14:01 PM
...and a congrats to your son for having the opportunity to experience the event.
13608. Al D - 11/20/2000 7:32:16 PM
My prediction is that the Fl. S.C. will prevent Secretary of State from certifing until the recount is complete, give them until Dec. 1 to complete, allow the counties to count ballots that have marks whether chad is loose or not. They will not call for a State recount since Bush did not request one. My opionion is based on the fact that this is an activist court and will not let pass an opportunity to be the King maker. It is doubtful the U.S. S.C. will hear an appeal.
13609. CalGal - 11/20/2000 7:52:33 PM
Rask,
Almost all news sources are referring to Gore's "surprising" or "disappointing" lack of votes in my most recent scan. I wonder if the Gore team isn't alerting them to this possibility because they want it to be a surprise?
Slide,
I found the Kurtz article.
13610. CalGal - 11/20/2000 7:54:35 PM
And that is just so weird about that Broward County person quitting. It's at the point where I wonder if everything is political--has the Bush team figured that a delay will be helpful to them? But if they county can appoint someone new and it can be a Dem, how does that help?
Or did she really not have any political reason for quitting? If so, what sort of Republican is she, dammit? Doesn't she know that now is the time for all good people to serve the party?
13611. dusty - 11/20/2000 8:02:44 PM
Electric Slide
My oldest son is going to Inaugural no matter who wins. Good seats, too. His Boy Scout troop has been picked by the Secret Service to be ushers in the stands on Capitol Hill.
A very memorable event. I trust you will urge him to be properly respectful, even if it is President Gore.
13612. Al D - 11/20/2000 8:08:45 PM
LATE NEWS "FLASH"
Top officials of the State of Florida have issued the following statement:
"We, the people of Florida, are holding this election hostage. When you promise to stop sending us your old people, we will release your
election."
13613. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 8:10:38 PM
13614. CalGal - 11/20/2000 8:14:14 PM
Lady,
I disagree with the guy's title: the margin of error is greater in the entire voting process, not just the recounts. Other than that, I agree with everything he says. Our voting system just won't tolerate a close race.
13615. ranheim - 11/20/2000 8:16:41 PM
With a teacher in the midwest having his class vote absentee in two seperate states + the University (Marquette?) students doing the same thing, there is more wrong with the voting process in the USA than paper ballots.
Edwin Edwards was know to vote graveyards here in LA; just as Mayor Dailey did in JFK's "win" over Nixon.
Voter registration rolls have to be totally over-hauled. There are so many dead people still on registers all over the country that it would make your hair stand on end. (That is my bet! And there is no way to prove it either way as the rolls are in such a state of disarray.) That doesn't count the people who move to new precincts; thus, appearing on two seperate rolls.
A drug salesman that called on me today says that he is being transferred to Houston. In the next election he is going to try to vote absentee in LA (where he is registered now) + vote in person in his new precinct in Houston. I did not try to disuade him. I said "Please! Let me know how you made out!" I predict right now that he will have no trouble voting twice!
13616. CalGal - 11/20/2000 8:19:32 PM
They won't forward absentee ballots, I don't think. If they do, then that's silly of them.
13617. MsIvoryTower - 11/20/2000 8:42:01 PM
I caught most of the oral arguments today. Man, I don't envy those lawyers with that judiciary. They were very aggressive in asking and interupting.
On the whole, I thought Bois handled himself better than the republican lawyers, particularly the one who lead off (can't remember his name now). He was positively hostile toward the questioning judges, which may not play well with them.
Anyway, it was fascinating seeing the oral arguments take place, and be able to actually follow them.
13618. dusty - 11/20/2000 8:43:57 PM
I've stated my overall impression of the lawyers today (not impressive), and still think that the Gore camp has more to be happy about than the Bush camp.
Nevertheless, Barry Richard did a credible job. Had they focused on his theme, they would have been better off. His opening:
Bush campaign attorney Barry Richard: May it please the court, when all is said and done, when questions posed by this court have been asked and answered, we come down to a single, final issue, which is this: What the appellants are asking this court to, and, in fact, what the court must do in order to arrive at the conclusion that they seek, is read a statute that says that returns must be filed by a date and time certain as though it said, "may be filed;" to read a statute that says that the secretary of state may accept late filed returns, as though it says, "must accept late files returned;" to disregard a statute that says that the secretary of state's opinion as to election matters is binding upon all those officers and agents within the election system; and to disregard the well-established and long-standing doctrines regarding clearly erroneous standard and implied repeal.
13619. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 8:45:08 PM
MsIt,
I doubt the judges will take off points for bad form.
I just got back from watching a panel headed by former Fla. Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerald Kogan, and including my Federal Jurisdiction professor. It was totally unenlightening.
13620. dusty - 11/20/2000 8:46:27 PM
Ms IT, do you mean Joseph P. Klock? He was the attorney for the Sec of State.
He was abysmal.
13621. jexster - 11/20/2000 8:48:04 PM
NBC Nightly News again bashed Bush-shit concerning PBC recount calling it over-spun and exaggerated. Featured prominently the statements of the Judge supervising the recount.
13622. dusty - 11/20/2000 8:48:46 PM
Klock's second sentence:
Klock: Yes. And for ease of confusion, perhaps, Mr. Chief Justice, we can refer to it as the commission.
Great start.
I know, I know, he was probably nervous, and it was a slip of the tongue. But it wasn't a good start. And it got worse.
13623. jexster - 11/20/2000 8:50:28 PM
Edwin Edwards was know to vote graveyards here in LA;
Ranheim,
You a homie?
I worked on Bennett Johnston's gubenatorial campaign against EE in 1971 which BJ lost by 4,188 votes.
My father also worked on that campaign in a rural parish where he personally witnessed bags of money coming from Edwards Hdq in Baton Rouge destined for black voters in that parish.
13624. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 8:50:56 PM
Klock was bad. His problem was that he was condescending to the bench. One could chalk that up to lost sleep, but it's still not good.
13625. MsIvoryTower - 11/20/2000 8:53:13 PM
Lady
I've been seeing Kogan on the news circuits for the last several days, he's gotten a lot of air time.
So you don't think Klock's (thanks Dusty) bad form will be counted against him? He was positively rude.
Wrt an earlier comment I saw of yours, the statutory provisions are very badly integrated. I think the legislature that passed those sections surely didn't consider all the problems and possibilities involved in a situation even remotely like this one. Just plan bad statutory writing, IMHO. And I agree with your take that both sides had difficult statutory arguments to make.
13626. jexster - 11/20/2000 8:54:18 PM
I found the third Bush attorney interesting. His style, the overly bombastic, I took as an indication of his take on how poorly the two who proceeded him fared.
Bush lawywers were under the gun from the get-go and virtually begging that the Court allow a manual recount of all counties.
It was a bad day for Bush all around but I've a more charitable view. Their case sucked. The pressure on the lawyers to work miracles with the bag of shit handed them was tremendous. They did well under the circumstances.
13627. ranheim - 11/20/2000 8:55:21 PM
jexster
Born and raised in MN.
Went to medical school in Houston. Met my wife there.
Spent 9 years in the USAF after medical school.
Moved back to central LA; my wife's home town. She has said on many occasions, "I thought that I would never again see Mansura when I left for Dominican as a 16 year old high school graduate."
13628. dusty - 11/20/2000 8:55:23 PM
This part of the exchange was particularly bad. Klock seems to be unable to understand hypotheticals.
Anstead: Let me talk about the seven days, too, and ask for your help, and let's work by way of a hypothetical.
Are you suggesting by the language that has this seven-day deadline, that if we had, for instance, in Dade County, that the election officials down there, after they'd compiled the vote and everything, and they were the only county outstanding, and that there was gross negligence then, that they all went off on vacation to the islands and just let the election returns sit there, and seven days passed, and eight days passed, and nine days, and 11 — you know, and so on, that the secretary of state, because of that seven-day rule then, and the gross negligence of the election officials down there, would simply say, "That's it. Under the language of the legislature, I cannot count the votes from Dade County, the largest county in the state of Florida in the election returns." Is that what the position of the secretary of state is?
Klock: I don't believe so. Of course, that's not the situation we're in now.
Anstead: Well, what is the position?
Klock: There's a case ...
Anstead: When we have a week pass, past the deadline of seven days, we have negligence on the part of the local officials, and they simply have not sent the results up to Tallahassee, what is the obligation of the secretary of state?
Klock: Judge, we don't know that there's a matter of negligence. The court's assuming that.
Anstead: No, I'm saying in my hypothetical to assume it's negligence.
13629. jexster - 11/20/2000 8:55:36 PM
"preceeded him..."
Stumbo you there?
13630. jexster - 11/20/2000 8:57:09 PM
"I thought that I would never again see Mansura
when I left for Dominican as a 16 year old high school graduate."
hahahahaa Mansura!
Sounds like my dad who was in the US Navy and had to move back to New Roads 'cause of the little woman.
I got the fuck outta dodge never really appreciating the charm of the place.
13631. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 8:57:34 PM
Kogan is very well-regarded, obviously. He heads a center for legal ethics, here in Miami. But he's so undistinguished looking that the first time I ran into him (on a campus elevator) I thought that he was a plant maintenance supervisor.
If his comments are any indication of what the Court might be thinking, it seems likely that they will fashion an equitable compromise (similar to what Dusty suggests) to reconcile the conflicting statutory requirements.
13632. dusty - 11/20/2000 8:57:50 PM
LadyChaos
Klock was bad. His problem was that he was condescending to the bench. One could chalk that up to lost sleep, but it's still not good.
Maybe he has a future in advertising (have you seen those hotel ads about getting a good night's sleep?)
His future in the law took a hit today.
13633. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 8:59:50 PM
dusty,
Yeah, Klock really dropped the ball on that hypothetical question. I thought that his response was combative and rude.
13634. ranheim - 11/20/2000 8:59:57 PM
jexster
If you haven't been back for a while, you will be amazed at how False River has grown.
Huge places! Money from Baton Rouge is my understanding. A nice place in the country to water ski; jet ski; drink; wench; and relax.
13635. jexster - 11/20/2000 9:02:00 PM
Not back since '86 with no plans to see it again any time soon....family sold the old homestead on False River where I've many fond fishin and swimin memories...California here I come (20+ years)
13636. MsIvoryTower - 11/20/2000 9:02:41 PM
I didn't see the last republican lawyer make his oral arguments, and it seems I may have missed the best of the bunch. Kogan seems quite competent from what I've seen of his commentary, but he does have a pedestrian look about him.
I was very impressed with the FSC today, though, they asked very tough questions, and put all the lawyers on the spot. Given that everyone had their moment in the hot seat, I still think Bois handled the grilling best of all (of those I saw).
What is the post where Dusty discusses his probable outcome? What is the probable compromise of which you speak Lady?
13637. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 9:03:32 PM
A lot of the lawyers today prefaced disagreement with the bench by saying, "Respectfully, your Honor...." Most appellate lawyers say that you should try to avoid that, because it implies that you don't respect the question that the bench is putting to you.
Btw, dusty, I wanted to mention how much I appreciate the way you've kept tabs on progress, here. You'd probably have to take a pay cut, but you'd make a good lawyer.
13638. jexster - 11/20/2000 9:04:45 PM
God Save the United States, The Great State of Florida & This Honorable Court
I was impressed at how ready the Court was to tackle the case and how well-prepared every justice appeared to be.
This is not a court that will shrink from making the tough call or taking control of the litigation.
13639. dusty - 11/20/2000 9:06:57 PM
Ms IT
Message # 13516
See also:
Message # 13465
Message # 13475
13640. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 9:07:00 PM
jex,
Their clerks are undoubtedly going to be ready for Thanksgiving.
13641. jexster - 11/20/2000 9:07:09 PM
You're too kind LC...but probably right. Dusty's shown far more enthusiasm for some very dry legal issues than most lay persons I know.
If only GWB had as much interest in his own case, his team might be doing much better. The fact that he left it to Baker and went walking with his dogs still makes my head spin.
13642. CalGal - 11/20/2000 9:07:15 PM
Why Gore Should Be President
Gore's advisers had actually begun preparing for a recount battle even before Election Day. Weeks before November 7, Joe Sandler, the Democratic National Committee's general counsel and the lawyer who helped defend Maryland Governor Parris Glendening against a recount challenge in 1994, had convened a team to draft a memo on recount laws in every state that might be close. Late on election night, in the Nashville campaign bunker dubbed "the boiler room," Sandler's memo became Team Gore's initial operations manual. "We knew that [Florida] was going to be a battleground," says one Gore recount staffer. "We knew that the law required the canvass to start the next day. We knew that we needed people there to watch the canvass."
The man had Plan B documented weeks before it was needed. My kind of guy.
13643. MsIvoryTower - 11/20/2000 9:08:29 PM
Do you think their clerks will even see Thanksgiving?
I feel their pain....
Dusty, thanks, I want to read them.
13644. jexster - 11/20/2000 9:09:31 PM
For all the shit the legal system gets, much justified, the courts and lawyers in this mess have done one hella good job. The volume of litigation accomplished over the past week is mind boggling.
At regular lawyer speed 6 months would have been fast.
13645. jexster - 11/20/2000 9:11:26 PM
Yea Cal, Salon made the same point last week and Chris Mathews has positively become a Gore lover over the decisive way he moved on this.
13646. joezan - 11/20/2000 9:12:17 PM
Fielding - Message # 13322:
4) A lot of Nader votes will probably go to Gore, but I believe that this is more than compensated by the difficulty of getting "transient and homeless" voters to show up a second time.
Whew!
(.....I was beginning to think you had no sense of humor.)
13647. MsIvoryTower - 11/20/2000 9:12:37 PM
Dusty,
I agree that the court is most likely to find a compromise much like you propose. I think they'll also set a final date as Boies suggests, so that whatever can be done by that time period is submitted. However, they will not allow Fla's electoral votes to risk being lost by inability to submit their results to the EC by Dec 12.
That's clearly the magic date.
13648. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 9:13:33 PM
Matthews and O'Reilly should be gay biker lovers in Hell for all Eternity if there is any justice in the universe -- with Hannity and Colmes playing tag-team.
Blithering idiots, every single one of them.
13649. jexster - 11/20/2000 9:17:42 PM
Yea LC I think Clinton lost Mathews when he started all that I feel your pain estrogen pap....He's a testosterone kinda guy....
"This ain't beanbag, this is Hardball"
Its easy to get Mathews on your side. Chris es muy macho.
13650. jexster - 11/20/2000 9:19:02 PM
Its also easy to see what turns Cal on Message # 13642
She's so butch!
13651. CalGal - 11/20/2000 9:23:30 PM
Oh, I dunno. I just like people who anticipate all scenarios.
13652. jexster - 11/20/2000 9:28:08 PM
{me too Cal!} Especially POTUSES!
How the Grinch Stole Election Day
Every Chad
Down in Chad-ville
Liked voting a lot ...
But the Grinch,
Who lived just north of Chad-ville
Did NOT!
The Grinch hated voting! He thought it a bore.
Now, please don't ask why. Could be Bush, could be Gore.
It could be his heart bled with liberal mush.
It could be, perhaps, that he listened to Rush.
But I think the real reason his trust was so shattered
Was the great Grinchy view that his vote never mattered.
BUT
Whatever the reason,
Lack of trust, lack of goals,
The Grinch dreaded that day when Chads went to the polls.
He just hated those speeches and negative ads,
And when push came to shove, he just hated the Chads.
He just hated their theme parks, their football-team rooters,
He just hated their gun laws, their barmaids at Hooters.
He just hated their weather, even hated their hate.
And he hated that they were a battleground state.
13653. jexster - 11/20/2000 9:31:34 PM
More How the Grinch Stole Election Day
13654. dusty - 11/20/2000 9:34:04 PM
MsIvoryTower
However, they will not allow Fla's electoral votes to risk being lost by inability to submit their results to the EC by Dec 12.
Absolutely. We were just discussing this very point within our family. The justices practically begged the lawyers for a time line that would allow the maximum time for recounts and still get the votes in on time. I was mildly surprised that the lawyers didn't have a firmer time line to offer.
13655. joezan - 11/20/2000 9:35:55 PM
Hey, vonK:
I just wanted you to know that, after long, thoughtful consideration regarding what you said regarding exit strategies, I wrote Governor Bush with my proposed exit strategy...
13656. jexster - 11/20/2000 9:36:50 PM
So the Chads were left hanging and pregnant and dimpled. And the stress of it all put George Bush among the pimpled!
13657. dusty - 11/20/2000 9:38:20 PM
Thanks, LC and jexter. You made my day.
13658. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 9:44:21 PM
The problem, as noted by Justice Shaw, is that the Court is being asked to draw deadlines out of the air, without any legislative guidance other than the 7-day deadline indicated in the statute. (And how about that? A black liberal judge concerned about judicial overreaching -- Take that, Bill Safire!)
The Court will probably find some "reasonable time" compromise, such as one that allows recounts to be included so long as they are commenced by the end of the initial 7-day period. Such a solution would, of course, bring Miami-Dade's recount into question.
13659. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 9:48:13 PM
Re: Message # 13655,
Very statesmanlike. Such an approach would certainly go far toward dispelling the overgrown frat boy image.
13660. Electric Slide - 11/20/2000 9:58:55 PM
THE CRIMINAL PARTY IS TOO CUTE BY HALF
"I assumed that the news that military ballots without a post-mark would not be accepted as legal was straightforward. Turns out not so.
"Florida's Democratic Attorney-General, Bob Butterworth, has allowed that the ballots can be legal--if they have a valid date on the ballot itself. But, according to NBC News, there's no space on the ballot to record a date! So this concession looks like a total ruse. I promise I will never believe a statement from a partisan appointee ever again."
--www.andrewsullivan.com
13661. Fielding - 11/20/2000 10:02:08 PM
joezan:
(.....I was beginning to think you had no sense of humor.)
Of course I have a sense of humor. In fact, I laugh at almost everything you post. So cut me some slack.
13662. joezan - 11/20/2000 10:06:06 PM
LC:
That's about all the exit strategy Gore deserves. I don't care whether or not he's directly responsible for what's going on down there -there is obviously an all-out scramble to steal this election. I harbor no delusions that the FSC will do anything to change that.
13663. Al D - 11/20/2000 10:12:16 PM
Lady Chaos
A black liberal judge concerned about judicial
overreaching -- Take that, Bill Safire!)
Do you have any doubt she will be able to "draw [a}deadline out of this air"? If one listens to the spinners on the Gore side, there is no doubt they feel they know which way this case will go as they tell saying this court will be fair. Look, this is political, and will be decided in a political manner. No one bothered to respond to my prediction, but I would bet dollors to doughnuts I won't be far from the mark. And the decision will be unanimous which will show the public there was no real problem.
13664. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 10:17:56 PM
Joe - If that is what you can come up with from, "long, thoughtful consideration," then I guess I should not waste my own thoughtful consideration on you, eh?
[Note: the use of the term thoughful in now way is meant to infringe on the copyright held by Thoughful]
13665. vonKreedon - 11/20/2000 10:20:45 PM
I agree with Cal and Matthews, the Gore team has used this opportunity to show that they are better prepared to be President than the Bush team. The Gore team has looked ahead and prepared in ways in which the Bush team failed the test.
I like Matthews even though he's a mildly misogynistic moderate conservative, at least he has intelligence, passion, and the willingness to see clearly.
13666. OhioSTOPAS - 11/20/2000 10:32:05 PM
Message # 13660:
What does Andrew Sullivan want?
Fairness requires Florida to accept undated absentee ballots in unpostmarked envelopes that arrive up to 10 days after election day?
13667. Al D - 11/20/2000 10:51:42 PM
Bush won the first ballot count; he won the 2nd ballot count; he will win the 3rd ballot count. What he will not win is the 4th count of ballots that are now in dispute. That decision will be made by Democrats, and the outcome is obvious. IMO, the outcome from the S.C. is also obvious and Bush supporters are well advised to be prepared for "defeat".
13668. LadyChaos - 11/20/2000 10:57:36 PM
Al D,
I really don't have a great deal of regard for the contempt you obviously have toward our Supreme Court Justices. As anyone could see from today's oral argument, they are independent thinkers, and have never been known to be politically beholden to any particular faction. This is the Court that has consistently upheld the electric chair, for gods-sake -- hardly a bunch of wacko liberals.
Sorry to say, but they will disappoint your expectations of judicial overreaching. They will have to fashion an equitable compromise between two conflicting statutes, as judges are often called up to do, but they are not likely to reach beyond that.
13669. jexster - 11/20/2000 10:58:04 PM
The Wall Street Journal reports, in line with continuing reports from NBC, that Bush claims of impropriety in PBC vote count are "ginned up".
13670. jexster - 11/20/2000 10:59:50 PM
Al D - I think both sides are beginning to get antsy and anxious. Reports from both about concession end games.
If Bush loses, he'll have only himself to blame. Retreated to the ranch, to the comfort of spot and grazing armadillos
Fuckin moron
13671. jexster - 11/20/2000 11:00:59 PM
AlD - These judges are good as anyone, especially the Bush lawyers, will gladly tell you.
13672. Electric Slide - 11/20/2000 11:04:14 PM
The Criminal Party has complete control of the Florida Supreme Court.13673. Al D - 11/20/2000 11:05:20 PM
LadyChaos
Where did I say they were liberal wackos? They are activists judges who, IMO, will fashion a decision that will favor Gore. Now, if I am far from the mark, I will be the first to admit it, but can you really claim that even the Supreme Court of the U.S. does not decide some issues to advance they view of how society should function?
13674. Electric Slide - 11/20/2000 11:06:46 PM
The law means nothing to the Criminal Party, AlD.
13675. Al D - 11/20/2000 11:10:15 PM
jexster
Please define "good" for me, and also define "fair". And just what do you thing Bush should have been doing the last two weeks? As I pointed out, the only way he can lose Fl. is if a very liberal view is taken of those ballots. Now, since the decision, whether that will be final I have no opinion, will be made by Democrats unless constrained by the Fl. S.C., they is no doubt as to the outcome. It's like a football game. A partisan does not give a shit how his team wins, as long as they win. This is politics, my friend, not golf.
13676. jexster - 11/20/2000 11:10:44 PM
Here's a profile in courage post....
The Problem With Handcounting Is Its TOO ACURATE!
Arguing that a more exacting standard of accuracy than is applied generally results in unfairness.
Wonder if the Texas Fun Bunch will pick up on an argument that has some heft to it?
NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
13677. Al D - 11/20/2000 11:12:37 PM
Lady Chaos
Do you think I am correct in my thinking that all 7 judges will be of the same opinion? Are all tough decisions by appelate or S.C.'s unanimous?
13678. jexster - 11/20/2000 11:16:27 PM
- I don't think Bush should have sent Baker to Florida to proclaim that he wanted the election decided under FL law then run off to Federal Court and try to get the matter taken out of the hands of FLoridians
- I don't think that Bush should have weenied out of taking charge of the first crisis post-election
- I don't think that Bush should have delegated total conduct of this thing to Baker, Rove and the Texas Fun Bunch
- I don't think that the Fun Bunch should have unleashed The Hack Harpy to play her Kafkaesque games with the local canvassing boards
- I don't think Bush should have allowed the Fun Bunch to churn out overspun, after overspun lie from Austin only to have them shot down not by Gore but by the media
- I don't think that Bush should have let the Fun Bunch miss the deadline for recounting his counties.
If I think of anything else, Al, I'll let 'ya know.
-
13679. jexster - 11/20/2000 11:17:53 PM
Do you think I am correct in my thinking that all 7 judges will be of the same opinion? Are all tough decisions by appelate or S.C.'s
unanimous?
Pardon me for buttin in but the decision will likely be unanimous precisely because the decision is easy!
The Bush case is a bag of shit.
13680. jexster - 11/20/2000 11:19:44 PM
Oh yeah, I DO think that Bush got "snippy" when Gore pissed on his parade 11/7 and that he went off pouting like the spoiled child we all know he is.
13681. Al D - 11/20/2000 11:20:22 PM
jexster
An interesting article, but hardly to the point. The rub comes in the subjective judgment about so called dimpled chads. One must decide whether the voter started to vote and then changed his mind, was too weak to punch out the chad, etc. Please don't tell me what Texas does by way of arguement as you have said too many times the State is governed by a moran.
13682. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 11:24:23 PM
13502. JJBiener - 11/20/00 10:05:53 PM
Dem Att. Gen. just ruled that all overseas ballots without postmarks must be counted. Yeah!
I have to give credit. This is at least a step toward fairness.
JJ, now I know why I still like you even though I disagree with nearly everything you say. Good post.
13683. CalGal - 11/20/2000 11:26:41 PM
I must say that all these congratulatory posts on how fine and upstanding the other side is come off as amazingly patronizing. (No, not just you, Jones).
They replaced the lady who quit.
13684. jexster - 11/20/2000 11:26:44 PM
Al its not just Texas...the practice is widespread....In fact, it happens here in California.
Bet you didn't know that.
Yes indeed, the Depts of Election in each punchcard county routinely hire hundreds of low paid workers to remove hanging chad before the first machine pass.
Where no votes are recorded, the workers then examine the ballots to determine "Voter intent" and dimpled and pregnant chads are counted. They call these "remakes"
In fact the same procedure is followed in counties that use scanners, where due to failure to make a full connection or spills or other reason, the machine won't read the ballot.
So insofar as California is concerned, the article is wrong. The initial vote count here approaches the Florida recount in accuracy.
13685. Al D - 11/20/2000 11:27:49 PM
jexster
You think any decision that would go your way to be fair and easy. Perhaps there was no need for oral argument, is that what you believe? Now, I have cooked a great curry chicken and guests arrive momentarily. All of the so called mistakes the Bush team you mention are just your usual nonsense. Please do not confuse your statements of opinion for arguement. As to going to the Federal Court, the jury is still out on that and you know it. We shall soon see when the Fl. S.C. comes in with their very well reasoned decision. If they insist on a very liberal view of dimpled chads, or just leave it up to the counties, will you say that is well reasoned?
13686. jexster - 11/20/2000 11:27:56 PM
Huskerdooo Jonesy...don't wimp out on us!
This ain't beanbag, this is Hardball!
13687. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 11:30:11 PM
jeez Cal- I didn't know I was part of a trend. But I'm in fly over country and not nearly as up to the minute as you folk from the coasts.
13688. jexster - 11/20/2000 11:30:38 PM
Think what you will Al. I gave you an candid and I think very accurate assessment of what I would have done from a professional point of view.
And I'll stick by what I say even if the FSC should give Bush a favorable ruling.
There isn't one sane legal analyst in this country who thinks that the decision to go to Federal Court was a sound one...again, a professional judgement.
13689. Al D - 11/20/2000 11:32:01 PM
13502. JJBiener - 11/20/00 10:05:53 PM
Dem Att. Gen. just ruled that all overseas ballots without
postmarks must be counted. Yeah!
I have to give credit. This is at least a step toward fairness.
I don't think these ballots will be counted unless they have a date, and there is no place for the date. But we will see just how fair and how much folks want every vote to count. I would like to see these chickens hatched.
13690. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 11:33:12 PM
Did anyone see Politically Incorrect Friday night? Bill Maher read "How the Grinch Stole the Election" but it wasn't the one from Slate, it was much funnier. My husband is looking for a copy...what is the PI web address? I've tried every combo and can't get in with any of them...
My husband works in a devout Republican firm and wants things to post on the bulletin board each week that aren't exactly the party line....
13691. CalGal - 11/20/2000 11:33:48 PM
Jones,
Oh, the posts on how fine and upstanding so and so is for their gracious concession of a valid point to the other side are flying fast and furious. Puke, vomit, pfthtsts, bleh, ptooooey.
It shouldn't be considered an extraordinary event for someone with an opposing viewpoint to grant the "other side" a valid point. If it is, then all that proves is that the other person is a hack.
13692. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 11:34:16 PM
Jex- I'm not wimping out. I think that looking to see if the vote was cast as required by Florida law, despite some legal nicety, is consistent with determining the intent of the voter in defective ballots regularly cast at the appointed time for the election. I ask that American voters decide the election; not some of them, but all of them who did their civic duty and voted.
13693. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 11:37:43 PM
Cal- I apologize for not scrolling back far enough. I admit that I scan the posts for HTML screw ups and blatant rules violations, and pass over a good deal of content. I don't have all the time needed to do my host duties justice if I get bogged down.
Any retreat from hackery in this thread is to be commended, since the hacks are posting at a furious rate. [I acknowledge that in some eyes I am included in the latter category]
13694. jexster - 11/20/2000 11:38:01 PM
On Monday a frustrated Garry South, senior strategist for California Gov. Gray Davis -- who could be among the Democratic front-runners in the early race for 2004 -- blasted Gore for blowing a race that was his to lose.
"The wonder of this race is not that it boiled down to several hundred votes in the state of Florida. It's that it was a horse race to begin with. You have unparalleled prosperity, peace and a candidate who's much more experienced running his fourth national campaign. And he blew it, in my judgment. It's pretty deeply ingrained in Democrats that he blew this thing to an empty suit, an intellectually lazy frat rat who just happens to be the governor of Texas."
13695. CalGal - 11/20/2000 11:38:52 PM
Jones,
Heavens, no need to apologize. I was just remarking on the trend and disapproving of it generally, not you specifically.
13696. jexster - 11/20/2000 11:38:55 PM
Just teasin ya Jonesy! I agree with you.
13697. CalGal - 11/20/2000 11:39:16 PM
In fact, I think it's the vK/Dusty syndrome. Terminal earnestness.
13698. CalGal - 11/20/2000 11:39:39 PM
And you do a great job as host.
13699. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 11:40:48 PM
Cal, Jex, no offense taken, this is a rough and tumble thread and you could get far rougher before my feathers are ruffled.
13700. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 11:41:22 PM
Well, never mind my post...I found it on my own.
13701. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 11:42:48 PM
Share Judith, share!
13702. jexster - 11/20/2000 11:42:51 PM
Oh and by the way, I deserve a Captains Courageous Commendation for the above post.
13703. jexster - 11/20/2000 11:43:30 PM
If Dusty's not here, I guess I'll have to go watch Dennis Miller
13704. JudithAtHome - 11/20/2000 11:44:59 PM
I can't share unless I link a video of it...it doesn't have the written transcript up yet. I just went to ABC.com and looked up PI. It's the first offering when that page comes up...it's very funny!
13705. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 11:46:55 PM
Thanks J@H.
13706. Jonesatlaw - 11/20/2000 11:55:36 PM
Judith- Maher was wonderful.
13707. Jonesatlaw - 11/21/2000 12:20:36 AM
Just reviewed snippets of the arguments today before the FSCt. One of the phrases used was "a crafty scheme to skew election results."
So, the Gore people are more clever than the Bush people, and therefore the Bush people should win? We don't want a crafty President? Bush would insure that we didn't have someone who could be called crafty as POTUS.
13708. Jonesatlaw - 11/21/2000 12:25:14 AM
It has been said that Clinton suffers from attention deficit disorder, that he is very intelligent but flys by the seat of his pants too much.
Gore is clearly the anti ADD candidate, almost anal in his attention to detail and planning, even if the planning may prove to be poorly chosen, it is executed well.
Bush seems to have interest deficit disorder. He can focus extensively on one subject to the exclusion of others for a great deal of time. However, few things seem to arouse his interest enought to incite that focus.
13709. JJBiener - 11/21/2000 12:39:58 AM
Jones - Thank you for the nice comment you made to me earlier. I appreciate.
That aside, I think in #13708 you are projecting attributes onto Gore and Bush they way you would like them to be rather than identifying attributes by observation. If you really believe Bush is not calling the shots with Baker and the others, you are being willingly naive. It may be hard for you to believe, but they do have telephones in Crawford, Texas. And you don't even have to climb a telephone pole to use it either.
13710. CalGal - 11/21/2000 12:47:22 AM
Well, unless you decide that you can't believe anything you read, the press presents Bush as uninvolved, turning things over to his team, and Gore as heavily involved. I doubt that Bush is a puppet, but there is little question that he trusts his loyal minions to make the decisions.
13711. Autodaffy - 11/21/2000 12:57:21 AM
Should this case go to the Supreme Court, the presentation of the attorney representing a single voter will become central to its decision. He argued that the value of votes in non-manually recounted counties will be diminished by the decisions by democratically dominated counties to recount. Previously in the orals, it was simply stated by Boies that George W. chose not to ask for recounts statewide. This young attorney pointed out that the value of votes in other counties should not depend on what George W. or anyone else decides. He prepared the perfect overturning of the current trend towards accepting the recount in a few counties and not doing anything elsewhere that the Dems want on grounds of equal protection. The white woman judge who questioned him showed no evidence of so much as understanding his argument, which was constitutionally the most potent presented by anyone today.
13712. AceofSpades - 11/21/2000 1:37:21 AM
I don't understand why so many assume that the onus is on Bush to ask for recounts in all 67 counties.
Since Gore is the one challenging the initial results & automatic recount, it seems to me that *he* should have asked each and every county to recount.
It seems sort of absurd that Gore can just pick his three best counties and ask only those counties for recounts, and on that slim evidence demand that the state be awarded to him. If he wants a recount, then he must ask for it-- and he must ask for a TOTAL recount.
Consider:
Let's say you're running for county dog-catcher. You lose by twenty votes out of 5,000. So you ask three precintcts out of one hundred to recount.
You make up 21 more votes. Now you demand that *you* be certified as the winner of the election.
Whoah-- hold on there, Smokey. It was *you* who sought to challenge the county-wide returns. So it incumbent upon *you* to ask for a county-wide recount, not a recount in three precincts you like.
13713. AceofSpades - 11/21/2000 1:44:24 AM
And this of course is liberals' prefered axiom, because it demands that the *winner* of the election seek recounts himself.
Which, of course, no winner of an election would ever do.
It doesn't occur to liberals that Al Gore, seeking to overturn the results of the entire STATE, had the burden upon himself to seek state-wide recounts. Not recounts in three counties which he carried.
13714. AceofSpades - 11/21/2000 1:46:47 AM
Other thoughts...
Not only did Miami-Dade miss the recount results deadline, they didn't even *decide* to conduct a recount at all until the deadline had passed. They just decided to recount last Friday... a scant three days after the results were *due.*
Deadlines, schmedlines. We're liberals. We don't care about the law.
13715. CalGal - 11/21/2000 2:06:06 AM
Ace,
It's a lovely thought. You'd have a hard time proving that the law demands any such thing.
13716. Al D - 11/21/2000 3:31:45 AM
Ace
Yes, you would have a very hard time; you would have to cite the statute as it is written, which Richards did a nice job of. But it won't mean squat; the decision as to what to do was made when the Fl. S.C. got themselves envolved without being asked. they will run the show, and crown Gore King.
13717. joezan - 11/21/2000 6:54:36 AM
jex:
The Problem With Handcounting Is Its TOO ACURATE!
I bet that's what Gore's thinking, about now.
13718. Electric Slide - 11/21/2000 7:08:27 AM
The Criminal Party's new slogan:
IF THE BALLOT HAS A DIMPLE, STEALING THE ELECTION IS SIMPLE
13719. angel-five - 11/21/2000 7:12:33 AM
So are you.
13720. Electric Slide - 11/21/2000 7:39:56 AM
Al Gore said in December 1999, "I'm not like George Bush. I'll do anything to win."
I see it happening. Democratic operative Bob Beckel admitted on CNN that the Criminal Party has plans to contact electors with the hopes of persuading some Republican ones to vote for Gore.
13721. joezan - 11/21/2000 7:47:21 AM
Good points, Ace (Message # 13712, Message # 13713, and Message # 13714).
I would add that not only did Gore get to pick the counties to recount in - he picked them well in advance of the election.
He had the phone banks set up, the counties chosen, and the message ready well in advance: Did you know that you may have voted for the wrong person?...
Now, CalGal has weighed in with her opinion that this is what she admires about Gore - his having a "Plan B". I'm sure she also thinks "Bugsy" Daley will make a fine Chief of Graft in the Gore WH.
But there was nothing to indicate that any such thing had occurred - no evidence of machine error or fraud - and no one made any such claim until AFTER these phone calls went out. The hand-counts are baring that out BIG TIME.
So much for Plan B.
But what we're witnessing right now is actually Plan C, where the lowest-level operatives in the Democrat party get to pick the winner.
My contention has been that there was no reason - absolutely none - to have a recount anywhere. That is also Bush's contention. And for all the false whining about how it is Bush who is responsible for this thing being decided in the courts - as if he should just sit back and watch the election be stolen! - the Public is not buying.
On every news show I watched last night, the consensus - backed by statements from many Democrats - was that should Gore lose the FSC decision, it's time to pack it up and go home - concede.
No one - absolutely NO ONE suggested Bush do the same should he lose the decision.
So I ask, again: Where are the calls for Bush to concede?
Where, indeed?
13722. Electric Slide - 11/21/2000 8:17:02 AM
New words for political wordswatchers:
First we gain "clymer" as a new metaphor for asshole; I believe in time the word "chad" will come to mean Daleyesque corruption in one form or another.
13723. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2000 8:22:32 AM
Chad Clanton appointed spokesman for Gore's new Recount Committee
The Miami-Dade canvassing board voted unanimously yesterday to bar reporters from watching the recount that is scheduled to begin this morning.
BTW, Florida law specifically calls for all handcounts to be open to the public. I wonder if allowing a camera to shoot through a glass window satisfies this statute.
13724. Wombat - 11/21/2000 8:23:21 AM
By all means accept all absentee ballots from the military, even if they have have no postmark. Then hold them to the same standard as the other absentee ballots. No witness...toss; no signature...toss; not registered...toss.
Note also that Butterworth's statement appears to be the first nonpartisan statement from either side in Florida.
13725. joezan - 11/21/2000 8:46:48 AM
Message # 13724
Yeah - especially as there's no space for the date on the ballots.
You know, I was reading the other day about a trio of folks who jumped 200 ft from the sky, after their hot-air balloon caught fire and ignited their basket.
The writer didn't indicate whether these people survived. But I suppose there's a slight chance at least one of them would survive -though certainly not without some major damage.
Anyway, I'm thinking this is a perfect metaphor for the position Gore is in.
Only, in this case, the balloon is rising.
13726. ranheim - 11/21/2000 8:52:10 AM
An interesting "test" in Baton Rouge this weekend. Several hundred marbles were thrown together; 4 different colors. People were asked to count how many marbles of each color.
You would not believe the differances in counts! "Hand counting" is NOT accurate. When totals are high, humans become tired and frustrated. And they make mistakes. I have no idea why this notion of a hand count is more accurate than a machine has received so much press; and all of it good.
As I recall, did something similar in High School with results similar to the marble count in Baton Rouge.
13727. JudithAtHome - 11/21/2000 8:55:02 AM
People are not sitting there having to count out 12,482; 12,483; 12,485.....they handle stacks of small numbers and then add the totals.
13728. Dusty - 11/21/2000 8:58:32 AM
ranheim
I have no idea why this notion of a hand count is more accurate than a machine has received so much press; and all of it good.
That's a tough one. Let's see if we can noodle this one out: helpful for Gore, good press. Gore's only way to win, positive commentary in the media.
Nope, no linkage there. Must be a coincidence.
13729. ranheim - 11/21/2000 8:58:59 AM
Just the same, tired and frustrated humans are subject to error. An error rate higher than machines.
Were we talking LA politics, I would say the law was written so that a hand count was to be considered the more accurate of the two reflected the opinion of politicians who wanted to rig an election.
13730. joezan - 11/21/2000 8:59:25 AM
...which are nowhere near what the Gore folks claimed they would be.
End this farce.
Now.
13731. joezan - 11/21/2000 9:00:54 AM
13730 was to j@h's 13727...
13732. Wombat - 11/21/2000 9:02:34 AM
If hand counts are so inaccurate, how come most states (including Texas and Florida) call for them as the last resort?
13733. JudithAtHome - 11/21/2000 9:02:44 AM
It's fascinating to see a conspiracy theory at its inception. I wonder how much of this nonsense you guys would be spouting were the boots on the other feet?
13734. Dusty - 11/21/2000 9:03:30 AM
JudithAtHome
You bring up a good point—the marble counting exercise is interesting, but not directly relevant.
So why aren't people testing the real question?
Why aren't there high school math and government classes, college poli-sci, psychology and statistics classes reproducing the actual experiment?
Create some actual ballots, and ask people to count them. Surely the people that manufacture the ballots and counting machines (whose business future is bleak at the moment) would be willing to donate some, if they think their approach is superior.
13735. Wombat - 11/21/2000 9:04:10 AM
Judith:
Just change the names posting. The messages would be the same.
13736. Electric Slide - 11/21/2000 9:06:07 AM
On thing Algore and his band of criminals should consider is what happens to military morale should he win. It's not going to get any better and already many officiers are changing their careers.
But few care until they need the military to be Hessians for the next police action.l
13737. JudithAtHome - 11/21/2000 9:08:35 AM
Wombat:
Unfortunately, I think you're correct.
Dusty:
I think that's a great idea... Message # 13734
Do you think the reason we haven't seen any of these experiments come into play is because Bulldog Daley has rounded up all the high schoolers and college kids in America and is holding them hostage until his guy wins? (h™)
13738. Wombat - 11/21/2000 9:10:20 AM
One thing the military should consider is their oath to the Constitution of the United States. They should also contemplate reconsidering the tradition of serving senior officers not getting involved in politics.
Rosie should contemplate avoiding disquisitions on the military much in the way he avoided the draft. His view is--to say the least schizoid.
13739. JudithAtHome - 11/21/2000 9:11:34 AM
Slide:
Surely you don't think morale will improve if Bush wins and is unable to do a thing for the military because of a divided congress? And don't go spending your tax cut anytime soon, either...it will never see the light of day.
The country is screwed, no matter who wins.
13740. ranheim - 11/21/2000 9:12:38 AM
LA got rid of paper ballots years ago because the politicians of this state all agreed that they could NOT be trusted. Every parish has voting machines.
One can manipulate counts of a voting machine also; but, there has to be two people co-operating to "mis-count" the machine. What happens, is that the back of the machine is opened and the totals are there for all to see. Collusion is the only way that the machines can be mis-counted.
Now hand counts. By humans. You are asking for errors and fraud.
I hate to post and run! But, I'm late for work already.
13741. Wombat - 11/21/2000 9:15:39 AM
Also the putative President Bush would get a quick schooling on the importance of having US troops stationed in various hot spots. The military should not count on a Bush administration bringing them home, nor should they count on a Bush administration cutting back or refusing additional interventions.
13742. ElliottRW - 11/21/2000 9:22:02 AM
ranheim,
Suppose we had a better card reader machine...one that was not frustrated by dimpled/hanging/swinging chad. This better machine would invariably count more votes than the existing machines.
So a county with this better card reader would be better represented in a statewide election than a county with the the old kind. Unfair!
Unfortunately, for this election, the only practical remedy (that I've heard) for this underrepresentation problem is hand recounting. If you have a better approach, speak up.
13743. ElliottRW - 11/21/2000 9:23:58 AM
Judith,
No spending increases, no tax breaks. Alan Greenspan wins!
13744. Dusty - 11/21/2000 9:24:02 AM
ElliottRW
Unfortunately, for this election, the only practical remedy (that I've heard) for this underrepresentation problem is hand recounting. If you have a better approach, speak up.
Do you mean a better approach for the present situation? Or a better approach for the future?
13745. Electric Slide - 11/21/2000 9:26:02 AM
Wombat: Off the topic but I spent three hours last Saturday morning experiencing an old-fashioned Bat Mitzvah at B'nai Israel on Montrose Road in Rockville.
I loved it. Especially the Torah Reading chanting.
13746. ElliottRW - 11/21/2000 9:26:38 AM
Dusty,
For the present situation. For the future, we all get the same machines and the unfairness problem washes out.
13747. Wombat - 11/21/2000 9:28:34 AM
Perhaps both parties will agree on the need to provide enough Federal funding so that every county in the US has either a mechanical or electronic method of recording votes. The states and counties clearly have not placed a great priority on funding this. Even my very well off county still uses a form of punch card.
13748. JudithAtHome - 11/21/2000 9:29:26 AM
I think for the future, we should all have our own personal mind readers accompany us to the polls and sign testaments to our intent. Of course, then you'd have the problem of counting the signatures...
13749. Wombat - 11/21/2000 9:30:27 AM
Rosie:
Speaking on behalf of my people in our part of the world, I am glad you enjoyed the service. Now about this blood libel and Christ-killing thing...
13750. glendajean - 11/21/2000 9:31:32 AM
One good thing that could happen out of this is that we come up with better voting methods and standards. And as many are saying, at least with the old voter machines, one could only vote for one candidate per position.
13751. Wombat - 11/21/2000 9:32:34 AM
Incidentally, there is no such such thing as an "old fashioned" Bat Mitvah. An old fashioned observance of a b'nai mitvah would not include girls.
13752. Fielding - 11/21/2000 9:32:46 AM
Ranheim:
"An interesting "test" in Baton Rouge this weekend. Several hundred marbles were thrown together; 4 different colors. People were asked to count how many marbles of each color."
"You would not believe the differances in counts! "Hand counting" is NOT accurate. When totals are high, humans become tired and frustrated. And they make mistakes. I have no idea why this notion of a hand count is more accurate than a machine has received so much press; and all of it good."
This means that computers are better at counting marbles than are human beings. Now lets put four types of dogs in the room. Do you think a computer can tell the difference between a poodle and a terrier?
Computers are better at keeping track of data than humans, and they don't get tired. But a computer cannot always tell whether a hole has been punched all the way through a card. To do that you need a human being.
13753. OhioSTOPAS - 11/21/2000 9:36:53 AM
Joezan, Message # 13721:
"He [Gore] had the phone banks set up, the counties chosen, and the message ready well in advance: Did you know that you may have voted for the wrong person?...
. . .
". . . no one made any such claim until AFTER these phone calls went out."
Maybe I'm misconstruing what you're saying, but this is not so. Several Palm Beach County voters realized they had voted for the wrong candidate early in the day, and throughout the day voters returned to polling places to request a remedy.
If the Democrats knew the Palm Beach ballot would cause problems, wouldn't they have warned Democratic voters in advance to be careful when voting rather than try to undo the mistakes after the fact?
If they had done so, and every Palm Beach voter had voted correctly for the candidate they intended to vote for and thought they had voted for, the election would be over now and Al Gore would be the president-elect. Do you dispute this? Can you dispute the fact that but for these mistaken votes, George Bush would have lost Florida by now?
George Bush: Elected by mistake.
13754. Electric Slide - 11/21/2000 9:40:20 AM
Wombat: I never blamed the Jews for killing Jesus. Everyone knows it was the Italians.
Sure the Jews were part of the conspiracy to kill their savior but the Romans did the dirty deed and only became revisionist about it in 500 A.D. when they turned Christian.
13755. Wombat - 11/21/2000 9:40:57 AM
George Bush: Elected in error
13756. Wombat - 11/21/2000 9:42:20 AM
Rosie:
I was kidding. If you wish to continue in this vein, let's move it somewhere else.
13757. JudithAtHome - 11/21/2000 9:42:35 AM
Or, as they used to say about babies that were born 7 months after the wedding: GW, elected prematurely.
13758. OhioSTOPAS - 11/21/2000 9:44:20 AM
This candidate finished a clear second in the nationwide voting, losing by over 200,000 votes. While he nevertheless hopes to be elected President in the Electoral College, it is now clear that the narrow lead he clings to in the last remaining state is due solely to voter mistakes that resulted in thousands of votes intended for his opponent to be disallowed or credited to a minor candidate. Nationally and in Florida, the voters decided to make this candidate "the people's second choice".
To hold on to his slim lead in Florida, this candidate has filed frivolous litigation in federal court that seeks to prevent the counting of votes. And this weekend his campaign shamefully resorted to questioning the patriotism of his opponent and members of his opponent's party. How much longer - and lower - will he let this go on?
13759. OhioSTOPAS - 11/21/2000 9:44:22 AM
This candidate finished a clear second in the nationwide voting, losing by over 200,000 votes. While he nevertheless hopes to be elected President in the Electoral College, it is now clear that the narrow lead he clings to in the last remaining state is due solely to voter mistakes that resulted in thousands of votes intended for his opponent to be disallowed or credited to a minor candidate. Nationally and in Florida, the voters decided to make this candidate "the people's second choice".
To hold on to his slim lead in Florida, this candidate has filed frivolous litigation in federal court that seeks to prevent the counting of votes. And this weekend his campaign shamefully resorted to questioning the patriotism of his opponent and members of his opponent's party. How much longer - and lower - will he let this go on?
13760. OhioSTOPAS - 11/21/2000 9:44:50 AM
George W. Bush should concede.
13761. OhioSTOPAS - 11/21/2000 9:45:22 AM
You can say that again.
13762. OhioSTOPAS - 11/21/2000 9:47:19 AM
George W. Bush: The People's Choice*
*(second choice, maybe, but technically second choice IS a choice)
13763. Wombat - 11/21/2000 9:47:54 AM
According to that left-wing rag Newsweek, PBC democrats realized early on Election Day that there were significant problems with the ballot. They sought to warn voters through the course of the day, and set up a phone bank to do so. They also encouraged those who had already voted--possibly in error--to let the electors know of their concerns.
Zan somehow extrapolates this into a vast conspiracy. He--and his fellow partisans--should get a grip. Particularly since if the shoe was on the other foot, he would be screaming the opposite.
13764. Dusty - 11/21/2000 9:48:51 AM
I was thinking (or perhaps hoping) that the FSC would reach a speedy verdict. Now I'm not so sure. Politically, they would be in much better shape if they could wait until next week. Gore votes are mounting up, and given that the canvassing boards are going to work over the weekend, Gore could have his 930 votes by Monday. The Court could hardly vote to exclude hand counts, if the reported hand counts show a lead for Gore. This would give them an excuse to allow hand counts, and the Bush camp would have a tough argument to protest.
If the Court is disposed to disallow the hand counts, they will do it early, probably today. But that would be surprising.
13765. Dusty - 11/21/2000 9:50:29 AM
Wombat
Why Federal funding? Who do you think pays Federal taxes, besides the people that live in counties?
13766. Wombat - 11/21/2000 9:54:43 AM
Dusty:
Because it appears to be--and should be treated as--a "national" problem. Clearly, states and counties have not placed a high priority on updating their voting technology. In most elections it didn't matter. In this one, it did, and exposed the weaknesses of the whole system.
13767. angel-five - 11/21/2000 10:00:56 AM
Outdated and inaccurate balloting equipment, as we've seen, affects the nation as a whole and not just the locality. So despite knee-jerk spasms at the though of spending Federal money and initiating Federal procedures to address the problem, it's clearly the correct path to go.
13768. angel-five - 11/21/2000 10:07:22 AM
We need an electronic system that tallies votes on the fly and also leaves a checkable hardcopy, something you can immediately compare your hard copy to in order to test whether the system is accurately working. The hardcopy needs to be machine and hand readable.
13769. Wombat - 11/21/2000 10:07:47 AM
Another area that could do with some thought is depoliticizing the offices in states/counties that are responsible for administering and overseeing the elections themselves.
13770. Fielding - 11/21/2000 10:07:54 AM
I think Microsoft should develop a prototype automated voting booth, which automatically tabulates each vote, creates a paper ballot for backup tracking and gives the voter a paper receipt. The voting booth would cause each candidate selected to light up, and offer the voter an approval summary.
In exchange for creating and supplying the automated booths, Microsoft gets to post its logo on the outside and inside of the booth.
No more confusion, no more recounts, no more delays. Everyone is happy except the loser.
13771. Wombat - 11/21/2000 10:09:48 AM
Some jurisdictions already have this technology.
13772. Dusty - 11/21/2000 10:11:08 AM
It's clearly not the correct path to go.
I predict, once this election is over, we will return to the moaning about the process, and we will see calls for a national purchase of up-to-date equipment. However, there will never again, in the lifetime of anyone reading, be a national election this close.
So there will be a call to spend billions to prevent something that will never happen again.
We are less than a decade away from an internet or successor to the internet solution, making voting machines obsolete.
13773. ElliottRW - 11/21/2000 10:11:14 AM
Wombat, Angel-Five,
The problem is that counties within a state have different equipment--thus affecting statewide races. Because of the electoral college, the presidential election is actually a combobulation of statewide races. As long as each statewide race is fair, the national election is fair.
I think that each state government should pay for uniform voting within its jurisdiction. But, even if each state chooses a different technology the national election will still be fair.
Of course, if you throw out the electoral college, then it truly is a national issue.
13774. angel-five - 11/21/2000 10:13:30 AM
hahaha, yeah, right. The people who brought us Dos and Winblows should be in charge of making an error-free balloting system. Hoot.
13775. LadyChaos - 11/21/2000 10:17:42 AM
Al D,
Where did I say they were liberal wackos? They are activists judges who, IMO, will fashion a decision that will favor Gore.
On what grounds do you base this conclusion? This is nothing but your own political prejudice speaking. For one thing, Florida Democrats are more conservative than Republicans in some other states. Bob Graham, for example, would probably be more ideologically comfortable with a Rick Lazio than he would be with a John Conyers. But beyond that, you are speculating that some highly respected judges will simply ignore the law and fashion some wacky solution to favor Al Gore. I would like for you to point to the cases where this Court has done any such thing, or shut your festering gob, you twit.
Now, if I am far from the mark, I will be the first to admit it, but can you really claim that even the Supreme Court of the U.S. does not decide some issues to advance they view of how society should function?
Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has written some of its worst opinions based on how it thinks society should function. Conservatives on the Court have been especially egregious in allowing the erosion of the 4th Amendment in the name of the War on Drugs. But none of that means anything in the case at bar before the Fla. Supreme Court.
Do you think I am correct in my thinking that all 7 judges will be of the same opinion?
I have no idea. But I can tell you that unanimous opinions are, as a general rule, usually less ideologically tainted than simple majority, plurality, or dissenting opinions. You can make of that what you will.
Are all tough decisions by appelate or S.C.'s unanimous? No, not by a long shot. But I have no idea why you are asking this or why it should matter.
13776. rdbrewer - 11/21/2000 10:20:29 AM
Is this the right place to promote a new laxative, Chadmucil?
Prediction: It'll be over by Wednesday. The Florida "supreme" court is hog-tied by separation of powers, federal law, and the abuse of discretion standard -- in other words, the law. Once they rule in favor of Bush, Gore will concede.
13777. LadyChaos - 11/21/2000 10:20:40 AM
Al D,
Even the Republicans knew that they didn't have much of a case for going to federal court. Their admitted strategy for doing so was to have a federal appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court "in play," so to speak, in case the situation in Florida went totally against them.
13778. Wombat - 11/21/2000 10:20:44 AM
Dusty:
You mean there won't be any more close elections at any level? That's idiotic. You also are missing the point that the aftereffect of this election will be a great deal of distrust in the process on the part of the electorate. I believe that it is vital to take steps to counter this. Replacing 40-60 year old techology with something more current seems an easy--and comparatively inexpensive--way to go, considering the costs of recounts and court cases, and the costs to the integrity of the process.
13779. Wombat - 11/21/2000 10:21:59 AM
Dusty:
You mean there won't be any more close elections at any level? That's idiotic. You also are missing the point that the aftereffect of this election will be a great deal of distrust in the process on the part of the electorate. I believe that it is vital to take steps to counter this. Replacing 40-60 year old techology with something more current seems an easy--and comparatively inexpensive--way to go, considering the costs of recounts and court cases, and the costs to the integrity of the process.
13780. Dusty - 11/21/2000 10:25:19 AM
Wombat -
You mean there won't be any more close elections at any level?
I said "national".
13781. angel-five - 11/21/2000 10:28:31 AM
It's clearly not the correct path to go.
I predict, once this election is over, we will return to the
moaning about the process, and we will see calls for a
national purchase of up-to-date equipment. However,
there will never again, in the lifetime of anyone reading,
be a national election this close.
So there will be a call to spend billions to prevent
something that will never happen again.
Billions, eh. Can you back that up? And can you give any hard data on your 'round the corner safe Internet voting system'? The last I heard about that it was something that couldn't happen until the Internet was rendered totally secure, which of course it isn't. Two men and one workstation can currently crack the Fed codes in a short period of time, less than two days. Imagine what two hundred men could do.
13782. LadyChaos - 11/21/2000 10:30:42 AM
All of these predictions that the FSC is somehow going to scheme to throw the election to Gore are baseless and inflammatory.
13783. Dusty - 11/21/2000 10:31:26 AM
Wombat
I'm not opposed to improving the way we vote. I think the optical method used in my precinct is quaint and antiquated. The punch card system is worse. I was used to voting machines in CT, and not aware of how backward most of the country is.
But I have a knee-jerk reaction to a call for federal spending. Someone needs to counter the knee-jerk call for federal spending that seems to accompany every mote blowing in the wind.
13784. LadyChaos - 11/21/2000 10:33:45 AM
Federal funding for updated voting equipment seems to be the way to go. The real problem that we are dealing with in this case is that we have voting equipment that is unable to tolerate a certain margin of error. When you think about it, the pre-election polls showing Gore and Bush within two or three percentage points should have provided a warning that the election results were going to be within the two to five percent margin of error of these punch card machines.
13785. LadyChaos - 11/21/2000 10:35:52 AM
dusty,
I'm not for establishing a federal election system. I am for having the federal government return some money to the States so that they can afford new equipment.
13786. Wombat - 11/21/2000 10:38:02 AM
Dusty:
The Mote--and this country--does not lack knee-jerkers of your ilk. I would argue that they tend to lose sight of the forest for the trees. I would also argue that they exert far more influence than is probably healthy for the country as a whole, as did those of the other persuasion in the 60s and 70s.
13787. bubbaette - 11/21/2000 10:41:10 AM
I don't see any problem with having a standardized voting system across the country -- in fact I think it's a good idea. I don't see a problem with fed involvement and funding -- after all, the feds have traditionally been involved with voting even on the state and local level. Fed. funding would overcome the reluctance of poor tax-base locations to update voting equipment due to competing needs.
13788. Fielding - 11/21/2000 10:44:29 AM
New voting equipment should pay for itself with discreet advertising. The mere placement of the phrase "Intel inside" should generate more revenue than the cost of the new machines.
13789. LadyChaos - 11/21/2000 10:49:33 AM
bubba,
The problem with a standardized system is that the imposition of such a system would violate the Constitution. Federal grants to states for voting equipment upgrades are the far better option.
13790. angel-five - 11/21/2000 10:50:06 AM
And if we let defense contractors write their logos on the sides of tanks and jets, hell, we'd damn near be a Libertarian state with an army! (grin)
I cannot, for ethical reasons, condone either Intel or Microsoft getting that sort of government-related advertising.
13791. clydefo - 11/21/2000 10:50:46 AM
Lurking in the shadows...
"A local judge agreed yesterday to hear a lawsuit seeking to throw out the 15,000 absentee ballots cast in heavily Republican Seminole County, Fla."
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/21/politics/21SEMI.html
13792. JudithAtHome - 11/21/2000 10:51:16 AM
Enough with product placement! Just get a damned standardized ballot, for starters.
13793. Fielding - 11/21/2000 10:53:52 AM
A5:
"I cannot, for ethical reasons, condone either Intel or Microsoft getting that sort of government-related advertising."
Why the hell not? They advertise on buses. They advertise on the airwave spectrum. They advertise on billboards. They advertise in publicly owned stadiums.
If the public has an asset (advertising space), then why the hell not use it to raise revenue? Think of it as money for education, or whatever other spending program you believe in.
13794. angel-five - 11/21/2000 10:55:50 AM
But I have a knee-jerk reaction to a call for federal
spending. Someone needs to counter the knee-jerk call
for federal spending that seems to accompany every mote
blowing in the wind.
Yes, you do have a knee-jerk reaction whenever anyone mentions federal spending. But given that everyone here who has seriously argued for federal dollars to help update our ass-backwards balloting systems has also offered good and thoughtful reasons why, you're just reaching for straws if you want to call it 'knee-jerk'.
13795. JudithAtHome - 11/21/2000 10:56:49 AM
Fielding:
Do you also support advertising on the roofs of school gyms? Inside school cafeterias? Sure, it raises some money for the schools but don't you think it is rather insidious?
13796. Raskolnikov - 11/21/2000 10:58:20 AM
This mess is a cry to have a federalization of the national election process. It probably is unlikely that we will have an election this close again, any time soon. But the public's faith in our electoral process has been seriously damaged. This is something democracies cannot afford. If you don't like the Feds giving orders to the states, make it a voluntary grant process.
13797. Fielding - 11/21/2000 11:05:45 AM
JAH:
"Do you also support advertising on the roofs of school gyms? Inside school cafeterias? Sure, it raises some money for the schools but don't you think it is rather insidious?
No, I don't believe that every last inch of potential space by sold for advertising.
Nonetheless, I see no harm in using voting booths for discreet, nonpolitical advertising, if it will produce sufficient revenue to modernize the voting process. By the way, as I recall, the voting booth that I voted in did have a manufacturer's name on it, so it is not like I'm proposing a revolution or anything.
13798. Dusty - 11/21/2000 11:20:54 AM
angel-five
But given that everyone here who has seriously argued for federal dollars to help update our ass-backwards balloting systems has also offered good and thoughtful reasons why, you're just reaching for straws if you want to call it 'knee-jerk'.
Oh please.
What are these "good and thoughtful™" reasons why it must be Federal, as distinct from local spending?
13799. Raskolnikov - 11/21/2000 11:21:16 AM
Cal: apropos of our discussion yesterday, about the media's view that Gore isn't getting the recount numbers he needs. From MSNBC:
"The Gore campaign presumed that the manual recounts in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Broward counties would give it more than enough votes to overcome Bush’s advantage in the absentee votes. But results from precincts counted so far suggested it will be very close. Those figures largely don’t include the questionable ballots at the heart of the dispute: those on which vote counting machines recorded no vote, usually because voters had not punched clear through the small pieces
of paper beside their candidates’ name — the now-famous swinging, hanging, trap-door, dimpled and pregnant chads."
13800. Dusty - 11/21/2000 11:23:10 AM
clydefo
Your link failed
13801. Dusty - 11/21/2000 11:25:35 AM
Raskolnikov
There are 27,000 "no-votes" in the three counties. This is where they will find the 930 Gore votes.
The ones found so far are the few where there was a chad obstructing the scanner, but it has subsequenting fallen off completely. Predictably, a small number.
13802. bubbaette - 11/21/2000 11:25:58 AM
What are these "good and thoughtful™" reasons why it must be Federal, as distinct from local spending?
As you may know, different localities have differing resources. For example, a sparsly populated and impoverished county may decide to concentrate their meager resources on schools or roads rather than investing in voting equipment. Other areas (such as the burbs of Metro DC) are much better funded and might be better able to foot the bill. Therefore, if you're talking about setting uniform standards, there should be some assistance available to those who need financial help meeting the standards. It's really not that difficult to grasp.
13803. CalGal - 11/21/2000 11:29:55 AM
Rask,
You mean they aren't including any of the questionable ones? I thought they were only excluding the pregnant ones. Then why the hell is MSNBC contradicting itself? Things are going extremely well for Gore if he's picked up any votes at all, under those circumstances.
13804. Jonesatlaw - 11/21/2000 11:31:38 AM
Cal- the early counts are really low because they are setting aside the contested votes from the review panels. Still lots of potential presidential votes out there once the questioned ones are reviewed.
13805. Electric Slide - 11/21/2000 11:32:27 AM
The Criminal Party is developing...
Vote Manufacturing in Miami
13806. Dusty - 11/21/2000 11:34:22 AM
bubbaette -
As you may know, different localities have differing resources. For example, a sparsly populated and impoverished county may decide to concentrate their meager resources on schools or roads rather than investing in voting equipment.
Sparsely populated areas need fewer voting machines, because they have have, surprise, surprise, fewer people. The need for voting machines should be, to a first degree of approximation, proportional to the number of taxpayers in the county. Not necessarily true for streets.
I don't know how much voting machines cost relative to streets, but I imagine it is a much smaller amount.
13807. Raskolnikov - 11/21/2000 11:35:38 AM
Cal: I think it varies from County to County. For instance, in Broward, I believe it is primarily dimpled ballots that have been set aside, whereas in Palm Beach, it is almost all questionable ballots.
13808. Jonesatlaw - 11/21/2000 11:36:45 AM
I wonder if it is possible to double blind the system so that the determination of voter intent is not obvious to the observers in the future? Even an alternating system of placing the candidates names on the ballot would work if a bar code scanner or such were used to key the ballot results. That way it should not be obvious to the observer whom the vote was for, and selection bias would be eliminated. That being said, I am not so sure how obvious it is to someone reading an IBM card which candidate is selected without any landmarks to refer to. Does anyone know how the actual punch cards look say Gore vs Buchanan vs Bush?
13809. JudithAtHome - 11/21/2000 11:37:55 AM
Rosetta, you are dupe of Karen Hughes and Karl Rove...they are doing more to create ill will among the people of this country than anything Gore has done.
13810. jexster - 11/21/2000 11:39:05 AM
My kind judges
Practical Results-Oriented Court Gets DOWN!
13811. CalGal - 11/21/2000 11:39:35 AM
Rask,
And thus far, the courts have supported a generous standard, yes? If the FSC only disallows dimpled, will PBC still have a lot of questionables?
13812. jexster - 11/21/2000 11:40:00 AM
As the Wall Street Journal said yesterday, the claims of the Texas Fun Bunch are "ginned up"
As for Rose, she seems to have problems with Gin too.
13813. CalGal - 11/21/2000 11:40:30 AM
Jones,
I heard a counter referring to numbers. Like a Gore/Buchanon double punch was a 4-5, or something like that.
13814. Jonesatlaw - 11/21/2000 11:40:35 AM
Dusty- geography is a factor here as well. Sparsely populated counties in my area of the country are fairly large. Insisting on voting machines might require people to drive considerable distances to vote in the few machines they could afford. One of our counties is larger than Connecticut and has a population of less than 100,000 people. Many other counties in the mountain west and plains are similarly situated.
13815. Dusty - 11/21/2000 11:41:55 AM
Jonesatlaw
Very interesting.
I would hope that we could find a way to eliminate the possibility of dimpled ballots or hanging chads, but your procedure seems d