Post #22,582
12/28/01 10:18:46 AM
|
Is it Okay to talk about the Recount yet?
"... the courage that spurred the consortium into existence, a year ago, flagged at the end. Given that the consortium's goal was to catalogue all, or as many as possible, of the votes that had been cast by Florida citizens but not recorded by Florida authorities, one might have expected its members to emphasize the finding that corresponded to its goal. That finding, it turned out, was that, no matter what standard or combination of standards is applied, Al Gore got a handful more votes than George W. Bush.
...
It soon developed, however, that the news organizations had missed a crucial detail: if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had in fact gone forward, the circuit judge supervising it, Terry Lewis, probably would have directed the counting not only of "undervotes" (on which machines could detect no vote) but also of "overvotes" (on which machines detected markings for more than one candidate). The overvotes, according to the consortium's own numbers, would have yielded a hair-breadth victory for Gore. This news was uncovered by the Orlando Sentinel (which got its scoop the old-fashioned way: a reporter picked up the phone and called the fellow) and by Michael Isikoff, of Newsweek, who found a contemporaneous memo from Lewis confirming what he told the Sentinel.
...
In any case, there is no longer any doubt that more Florida voters intended to vote for Gore than for Bush: according to the Times, some eight thousand Gore overvotes, net, were lost because of bad design (the notorious "butterfly" of Palm Beach) or confusing instructions (the two-page Duval County "caterpillar" ballot, which directed voters to 'vote all pages')."
Anyone left who wants to maintain that the "right guy" is in the White House? I suspect no one cares, because a majority in this country (much to the dismay of many generations) no longer cares for democracy.
[link|http://www.newyorker.com/PRINTABLE/?talk/011224ta_talk_hertzberg|http://www.newyorke...lk_hertzberg]
bcnu,
Mikem
-I'd have a sig, but we Americans have to "watch what we say, watch what we do now."
|
Post #22,588
12/28/01 11:17:56 AM
|
No. It's over.
Within the tolerances measurable, it was a tie.
Unfortunately, this is the way it worked out. Gore was no prize either. We were screwed either way.
If you can't stand Bush's policies, cry on your congress critter and senator. That's what they are there for.
Start campaigning toward the next election if you feel that strongly about it. Maybe next time, we won't have to depend on a state full of senile old farts who vote like they drive (slow and sloppy.)
Please give up on the recount nonsense. Bush is in place. His minders are making policy now. The ballots are no longer trustable, if they ever were. The election will be no more trusted if we recount until someone else wins, and we will still look no more or less like a banana republic.
There will be another election (probably) and you can check with Ashton for the year/day/minute countdown. Deal with it then.
Please, no more recounts. It makes pointing out differences between republicans and democrats look sane. Mercy is in order... Please.
thanx,
Hugh
|
Post #22,593
12/28/01 11:37:55 AM
|
And you should especially avoid that type of analysis
since for a lot of us it boils down to, "all the mistaken votes should be counted for Gore, because anybody stupid enough to spoil a ballot is probably stupid enough to vote Democratic."
Use your considerable energy to work for your candidate next election, OK? Better yet, use that energy to work for consistency in ballots and election procedures. Continually flogging that horse is futile. He's dead, Jim.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #22,596
12/28/01 11:48:17 AM
|
Thought I said that... -msg
|
Post #22,619
12/28/01 2:46:23 PM
|
You did. Just weary of circumlocutions.
|
Post #22,605
12/28/01 12:55:59 PM
|
Some find the suspension of the Republic interesting
The fact that the USA is currently being run by a de-facto leader whose cronies managed to prevent a clean election is not something to "get over".
Even if the other turkey would not have been a better choice, he was, in fact, the choice of the majority of the citizens of the United States, even as weighted by the electoral college. I really don't much care which of the two oilmen won - what bothers me is that the process was screwed.
The judiciary bought the administrative branch at the cost of their honor and legitimacy. The legislative is rolling over and playing dead - if they don't get up soon the rule changes will make that condition hard to reverse. In short, we are dangerously close to a single branch govornment. Not something to "get over".
----
"You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #22,610
12/28/01 1:56:16 PM
|
Re: Some find the suspension of the Republic interesting
The fact that the USA is currently being run by a de-facto leader whose cronies managed to prevent a clean election is not something to "get over".
Actually, it probably is. Whatever tags, slogans, invective you use, he's still in. The process, fucked as it is, will not be reversed at this point. We, as a country are not going to go to all the other countries we have dealings with, and say "Ah... we just learned how to count, so you've been talking to the wrong dufus... you need to pay off the other dufus now...".
What we can do, is try not to allow this to happen again. I agree with your points about the behavior or the judiciary and the current government. I agree that they need fixing. Badly. Arbitrarily replacing the current dufus is not going to do it. We've lived with inferior presidents before, and will again. We need to get back to a system that the people can trust.
If it can be shown that Bush was involved in something illegal to get elected, than by all means, throw the bum out. It's been done before. If he hasn't done anything but play the game as it is played today, then get over the dufus and fix the game.
just .02
Hugh
|
Post #22,612
12/28/01 2:00:07 PM
|
The danger is ...
with the way the recount was reported by the corporate owned McNews (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and most print media). My problem is that the Recount didn't show what the medja said it showed. They didn't like the outcome, so they changed the question. The reporting might lead some, perhaps many, to conclude that "the system did work after all". It clearly didn't, and that's not something we should forget. If we do, then we deserve what we get.
|
Post #22,614
12/28/01 2:19:28 PM
|
Understood and agreed...
particularly about deserving what we get if we forget about this.
All of it should be remembered and considered while figuring out how to come up with a trustworthy means of voting. Chads, gerrymandering, local law enforcement, federal judiciary, the lot. The end result should be a better means of voting. I'm all for it. I'm all for discussion of the same. I may throw up if there is more crap about going over old ballots again to redeem the last election. That is over.
-H
|
Post #22,613
12/28/01 2:13:30 PM
|
Interesting...
... then get over the dufus and fix the game.
Would you PLEASE tell others that. Damn, Clinton is OUT of office and idiots are STILL going on about him.
|
Post #22,617
12/28/01 2:24:26 PM
|
The operative word
is "idiots" :)
-H
|
Post #22,618
12/28/01 2:44:20 PM
|
Republic not suspended. Film at 11.
The whole point of the complex way our electoral system is set up is to provide a result. As to whether it's the correct result, well --
If we're going to continually rehash hanging chads, are we going to talk about vote-buying in Illinois? Of course not; it favored Democrats. Are we going to talk about never-counted absentee ballots? Of course not; they wouldn't change the result of the electoral college -- which is why they were (quite correctly) never counted -- and given patterns seen in the rest of the country, would very likely eliminate the advantage Gore got in the popular vote (absentee ballots, being mostly from older, active people and military, went very strongly for Bush).
No. Your agenda is clear: recount until Gore wins. Whatever needs to be done, no matter how far-fetched the excuses. If Gore doesn't win, it's vile and bad and cruel and non-democratic and non-republican and any other insult nameable, so it has to be done again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
Gore wins. If not, do it again.
There you go, I just saved you the work of the next ten or so posts, and if you'll just cut and paste, you don't have to type any more.
Balls.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #22,625
12/28/01 3:21:07 PM
|
And there you have it.
Everything relies on the word of one guy who says "I probably would have..."
He didn't.
So, as ordered and as put into the official books, the correct result was obtained. Was it the "right" result. Probably not.
Everyone here seems to think that the system should be tossed because of the flaws that created the "wrong" outcome...and that the system should have been tossed in midstream. Thats sort of like making the rules of the game up while you're playing. That never works in the end.
My hope from all this...that we've seen the last of 1940's voting technology in this country...and that some system is created in its place that does, in fact, make ssure that votes are counted and they are counted accurately. However, given the large scale corruption and idiotic rules in place all over the country...I don't think we'll see that soon.
It would be nice if neither side could bend the rules...as opposed to the current situation on both sides...where cheating has become the norm.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #22,908
1/2/02 7:23:49 PM
|
Correct != right? In a democracy?
I saw this once at a Tea Party.
"Clean cup, clean cup, move down, move down!" That's what we should do, right?
|
Post #22,929
1/2/02 11:40:17 PM
|
In a democracy...
...where the rule of law must be respected.
If you change those rules while the game is being played...then what's the point of having the rules in the first place.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #22,946
1/3/02 9:32:31 AM
|
Ack.
Please don't let's start this again. The FL Supreme Court ordered a recount. The USSC improperly intervened. The rule of law failed.
p.s. Aren't you Republican types supposed to be big supporters of States Rights not being circumvented by the Feds? <vbg>
|
Post #22,959
1/3/02 11:32:26 AM
|
However...
the continuing insistance that somebody may have done this or that to change what had been already ordered in FL is just as disingenuous.
Per what was ordered by FL SC...Bush got more votes...regardless of the USSC actions.
IF....and that is an IF...they had been allowed to continue (pretend that the USSC didn't happen for a minute...just pretend)...it is STILL major speculation that an overvote count would have been ordered...and it is even more major speculation that it would have been upheld....considering accounts given at the time telling that overvote ballots were added to existing ballots even after the voter was given another ballot so they could vote correctly.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #22,961
1/3/02 11:43:23 AM
|
I see that "however" and raise you a "but"
It doesn't matter which one won the election. No matter if Gore or Bush ended up in the white house, .... the wrong man would be there.
P.S.
I find it constantly amusing to hear people talk about the rule of law in reference to the most historically corrupt state in our nation as if law actually meant something to those bozos.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #22,962
1/3/02 11:44:15 AM
|
Can I get an Amen on that one!!
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #22,969
1/3/02 12:14:36 PM
|
excuse me??
I find it constantly amusing to hear people talk about the rule of law in reference to the most historically corrupt state in our nation as if law actually meant something to those bozos.
Are we talking about Florida? As historically the most corrupt state in our nation? <shaking head> okayyyyyyy.
|
Post #22,971
1/3/02 12:20:35 PM
|
You're excused
I thought the sentance understandable. What part don't you get?
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #22,994
1/3/02 2:55:24 PM
|
Thought I understood it...
just find it hard to believe. Sure the Miami area was known for corruption a few years ago...but as a state, the most corrupt in the country? Well, I suppose opinions will differ - both in what constitutes corruption and in which is worse.
I guess I just find it hard to believe that Florida is worse in the country. Usually I associate corruption with inefficiency (which for Government == higher taxes). Florida has no state income tax and a sales tax of 6% (iirc).
I suppose Florida could be considered worse than Chicago, New York, and Mass.
|
Post #22,998
1/3/02 3:10:29 PM
|
No backup
At least nothing tangible. I remembered reading a few articles during the recount fiasco that referred to FL as the most historically corrupt state. I think part of it had something to do with all the "land" sold to speculators that turned out to be swamp.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #23,029
1/3/02 5:05:36 PM
|
the historically corrupt phrase
came from the sellout of the electoral college for an end to reconstruction.
thanx,
bill
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #23,099
1/4/02 9:10:11 AM
|
A coupla other data points:
Well, there's Illinois; just sit back and watch a state piss away a relatively high income to kickbacks, cronyism, patronage, no-bid contracts, etc. etc. etc. etc.... Remember, this IS the state of both Richard Daleys!
But Illinois, for all its cruft, is a piker compared to Louisiana....
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #22,977
1/3/02 1:13:59 PM
|
Well I guess florida has been a state longer
but Alaska has only been around the territory and as a state for only a little while and it was born in corruption and flourishes as same. Now living in Florida brings to mind a book called "none dare call it treason" the premise of which that so many stupid decisions cannot be a coincidence. It must be a conspiracy. I have met many of the players both big and small. It is not a conspiracy, they really are that venal and stupid. For real corruption in other states, Louisiana comes to mind in the south and good old Michegan and Illinois in the North. Chi town and Detroit, New York and Boston. Any nominees from the left coast?
thanx,
bill
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #22,979
1/3/02 1:20:20 PM
|
You missed a big one in the South.
North Carolina. I was born there and I lived there for 5 years as an adult. As far as the courts are concerned, I have never seen such corruption as I saw in one Burke County (and I've been to the Soviet Union!)
|
Post #22,626
12/28/01 3:27:29 PM
|
Out of curiousity...
Are we going to talk about never-counted absentee ballots?
What never-counted absentee ballots? The military ballots that arrived without postmarks were counted.
|
Post #22,630
12/28/01 3:44:20 PM
|
Check California, Illinois, and New York
It's not just Florida, where the folks got embarrassed into counting most of the absentee and military ballots. If we're going to talk about overall pluralities, we need to check it all, don't we?
The only thing different about Florida was that it happened, by luck, to be the last one... an extremely close point in an extremely close election. Texas went overwhelmingly for Bush, but I'd be willing to bet that a complete and accurate tally would show more Gore votes than were counted, without changing the result.
We do not have the resources, at this date, to recount the whole country. Our government is a Republic; it's supposed to be a representative Republic, but the Constitution doesn't guarantee that -- only a "republican form of Government." We have a President; that President was chosen by a republican process, and the fact that it went to the courts is irrelevant.
You want to criticize GWB, go right ahead; there's some things I don't like, though I'm an overall supporter. You want to bitch about policies, actions, or anything along that line, and I'll either agree or argue according to which of my buttons you push.
But constantly, continually, repetitively going back to that well is not just fruitless, it's pointless. Among other things, it diverts your energy from what you ought to be doing, which is campaigning for your chosen folks and better electoral processes. And by this time, the point of the continued whining is clear: it has nothing to do with whether the process worked or not, it's simply a non-negotiable demand that Gore won, and no other result will be accepted -- which makes the demander an ideologue with a clear agenda, and therefore as ignorable as a street-corner bum.
What is your local polity doing to ensure a better result next time? Do you know? If not, why not? What suggestions do you have for improving the system? Have you been working in that direction? Did you make suggestions to anyone with some semblance of power to implement them? Did you contribute to people making suggestions you like?
Anything else is opera training for pigs.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #22,632
12/28/01 4:25:18 PM
12/28/01 4:32:26 PM
|
No offense...but you're raising strawmen left and right.
The only thing different about Florida was that it happened, by luck, to be the last one... an extremely close point in an extremely close election.
Actually I believe that's untrue. New Mexico was just as close (and I don't know if it was ever settled.) The difference with Florida was that it had enough electoral votes to make a difference. (Second, New Mexico HAS a method to handle ties - Florida didn't and still doesn't.)
We do not have the resources, at this date, to recount the whole country.
Sorry, I havn't seen anyone demand a recount of every single state. Can you provide a reference? Or are you inventing arguments? BTW: I agree with your assessment that people who keep harping on a decision that they don't like are "an ideologue(r) with a clear agenda, and therefore as ignorable as a street-corner bum". The difference between you and I is that I do not demand that the ideologuer shut-up.
|
Post #22,648
12/28/01 7:52:36 PM
|
No strawmen here -- willow twigs exclusively
>>The difference between you and I is that I do not demand that the ideologuer shut-up.
Hm. In this case, IIRC, mmoffit asked whether it was time to take the subject up again. I have an opinion, and gave it.
And the bit about irregularities in other states is not a strawman; it goes to the heart of the reason the Florida nonsense keeps coming up. The plaintive cries of the complainers always specify that it's all about correcting election irregularities -- but you'll notice that they never want to consider any irregularities elsewhere. Reports of college students bragging that they voted four or more times in Illinois? -- never followed up, either to prove or debunk. I've seen rightwingers claim that if California both counted the absentee ballots and disallowed votes by non-citizens, Bush would have won there -- whereupon Florida would be irrelevant, eh? I don't know. It seems far fetched; but I've never seen anything resembling an analysis.
No, it's all Florida, and it's all one way; miscellaneous variants on "Aha! I found a way to count the votes so Gore won!" And I say again: Entropy goes one way. It's over. Live with it (as I had to live with BC) and campaign for ways to keep it from ever happening again.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #22,664
12/28/01 10:33:17 PM
|
Cute twig
I've seen rightwingers claim that if California both counted the absentee ballots and disallowed votes by non-citizens, Bush would have won there -- whereupon Florida would be irrelevant, eh? I don't know. It seems far fetched; but I've never seen anything resembling an analysis.
No, it's all Florida, and it's all one way; miscellaneous variants on "Aha! I found a way to count the votes so Gore won!"
Grin...don't those two statements contradict each other? Sidenote: no voting irregularities have been prosecuted either inside or outside of Florida that I am aware of. (Several were reported.) I fully expect voting irregularities across statelines (ie: people who live both in NY and FL - and who voted twice) are not being tracked/prosecuted.
|
Post #22,675
12/29/01 12:08:43 AM
|
And it was a dahling sprig, too
The comment about California occurred once, shortly after the election, in a thread similar to this one on another site.
Various analyses of Bush's illegitimacy based on one or another theory of vote counting are a regular staple of leftish "boards" and leftish participants in all boards. The volume isn't comparable.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #22,643
12/28/01 6:54:25 PM
|
You presume too much
You appear to think that everyone is as partisan as you, and so you need not read the text before you reply.
I do not think that Gore would have been a significantly better choice.
I never favored recounting until the "right guy" won. I favored finishing a single recount as required under Florida law. Which, no matter how much the Republicans spin the idea of recount after recount after recount, never happened.
I am not upset about the election because of who was selected. The fact that an incompetent boob would be elected was a foregone conclusion. But elections are important anyway.
Continuing to point out the illegitimacy of the current regime has a point - in the last election, neither side cared about a clean election, as long as their boy won. Some of us are attempting to build a constituency for the resumption of the Republic. Attempting to convince certain people that winning a clean election is worth more than wining a dirty election.
----
"You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #22,649
12/28/01 8:11:00 PM
|
Presume? I'm watching things happen.
>>Continuing to point out the illegitimacy of the current regime has a point - in the last election, neither side cared about a clean election, as long as their boy won. Some of us are attempting to build a constituency for the resumption of the Republic. Attempting to convince certain people that winning a clean election is worth more than wining a dirty election.
Bluntly: It ain't gonna happen.
The stakes are too big, and the division is too even in numeric terms. "Win" and "lose" are as far as the mindset goes; qualifiers disappear in the noise. And yes, that's true of both sides, although the R's tend to be somewhat less shrill about it.
The only way to work on the problem is to go after structure: ballot design (and voting methods; same subject), counting methodology, and dispute resolution. If you want to point out that the sitting President got where he is by disreputable means, I'll cheer you on, so long as you indicate that you're doing something that will tend to address the situation without ripping it wide open in midstream. That includes seeing to it that your local governmental organizations, who have to supervise elections, have the funds to implement the suggestions.
I'm fortunate where I am; we're using the OCR mark ballots, which seem to have a much lower error rate, and have some fairly reasonable (though not infallible) dispute resolution methods. If you're in a punchcard district, or (shudder) a voting-machine district, get to work -- and if you're not in either of those, support efforts to fund better methodology for the people who are. And wherever you are, point out to your local officials what dorks the Floridians looked like, and how embarrassing it will be if that mess falls on them next time. That tactic will be light-years more effective than yet another declaration of some obscure recount method that means Gore beat Bush.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #22,667
12/28/01 10:41:13 PM
|
You might want to work on the OCR system....
verify that your officials did not turn off the over-vote check (that the machine can be set up to check for.)
Several Florida districts turned off the over-vote check - no idea why.
The flaw with the OCR system is the same problem that the butterfly ballot has - no way for the voter to verify that who they think they are voting for is the same thing the machine think they are voting for.
An ideal system would use touch screen technology. A caster would be allowed to select who they vote for, with a system showing who they think the voter voted for. If accepted to the voter, the voter would confirm the ballot and then the machine would generate a paper ballot (for recount/confirmation) that would indicate who the voter voted for.
|
Post #22,674
12/29/01 12:05:32 AM
|
Nothing is infallible
My own suggested refinement to the OCR system would be to have a reader on site.
We're not talking huge expenditures here -- one of the cheap gritroller-feed scanners, typically $200 or less at Fry's, would work fine.
The idea is that the voter would complete the ballot, then stick it in the reader. The results of the vote would be shown on a screen, which the voter would then approve -- or not, as the case might be. If the ballot is approved, two things happen: a code of some kind is printed on the ballot to indicate it's already been checked, and the votes are recorded on site. (Yes, the reader would need to be in a sight-limited booth of some kind, to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. When I voted in the Presidential election, such booths were available, but nobody bothered; we all sat around a table marking our ballots. Nobody seemed to have any trouble figuring them out.)
If the votes were not approved by the voter after inspection, the machine would invalidate the ballot somehow -- perhaps by printing on it -- and the voter would take the invalidated ballot back to the poll watchers and get a new one. The invalidated ballot would go into a shredder *immediately*.
Later on, at the official count, if the official tally doesn't match the preliminary one from the voting-place machine, a recount would be necessary. Short would mean ballots had been lost; overs would mean fraud of some sort.
What I'm trying to do here is preserve the primacy of the physical ballot, which (perhaps wrongly) I regard as somewhat more permanent than an electronic record.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #22,692
12/29/01 9:16:34 PM
|
One obscure recount method:
Counting overvotes where the write-in name matches the punch-out name. Nothing subjective (for any save definition of that term) in determining intent (which is what Florida law calls for) there.
But what it comes down to isn't the exact counting method. That's a red herring that the Bush people put out when it became clear that only a sloppy first count would win Florida. It never came down to the details of a recount - NO RECOUNT WAS EVER COMPLETED, which is a clear violation of FLorida law.
All the noise about hanging chads and subjective counting methods and corrupted counters was just noise, because no recount, using any standard at all, good or bad, was ever completed.
If God himself declared the intent of each voter, it wouldn't have mattered. What mattered was geting enough injunctions to delay the recounts.
The technology wasn't the problem, the politics and lawyering (not even laws) of the counting were. It doesn't matter how good the tech is, there will be counts that are within the margin of error, and require recounting. But in Florida, it apparently is possible (despite laws to the contrary) for the winner of the initial count, if the right authorities are in his pocket, to prevent that recount.
----
"You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #22,700
12/29/01 11:48:12 PM
|
beg to slightly differ
overvotes by florida law must be thrown out regardless. Also the intent of the voter is pre-eminent. These laws are contradictory but both equally in force. ecounts were acheived by only one of the three counties requested by Gore, Broward County(ft Lauderdale) Palm Beach was finished after the deadline but without enough votes to push gore over the top. Dade (Miami) was halted when the next batch to be recounted was the cuban vote, solidly anti democratic ever since bay of pigs and bush would have efinately picked up numbers. The authorities in all three counties including the people who ultimately decided the vote were all DEMOCRATS so pockets were beholden to Gore, not Bush,
thanx,
bill
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #22,897
1/2/02 6:56:11 PM
|
Amen.
|
Post #22,608
12/28/01 1:22:42 PM
|
Got an idea for a new forum: Undead Horses.
A place for controversies that just won't go away, about things that are over and done with, but the interpretation/spin of which amounts to a whole new battle. Such as: Election 2000, whether Microsoft has violated antitrust law, the outcome of the American Civil War, the outcome of the Cold War, and Bill Clinton's place in history.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #22,621
12/28/01 3:01:06 PM
|
There should be a new law on this
that if they are unable to tell the winner and it is so close, that a new election has to be held. It may be possible that some people could change their votes after seeing the results of the first election. Just like in street football when a car is coming, get a "do-over"?
"Before Christmas it is 'Ho ho ho', after Christmas it is 'Owe owe owe'" - Santa Norm
|
Post #22,627
12/28/01 3:31:49 PM
|
What a free-for-all that would be
we'd still, today, be in the middle of the fourth or fifth election. Do you remember the red/blue map? The country is divided, and the divide is over fairly fundamental issues -- not abortion or states' rights, but between urbanites and non-. That isn't going to change soon.
What I'd propose is some variant on flipping a coin. Result would be at least as "valid" as what we have, it wouldn't take as long, and it would be 'way cheaper.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #22,646
12/28/01 7:37:48 PM
|
current law is just fine
In the case of a tie, the state legislature could step in as they have the authority to appoint electors. Once it hits the House/Senate if they feel the legislature oversteped its bounds they can throw out the electors and follow constitutional guidelines which means the representatives and the Senate pick from the top 3. It doesnt matter all eventualities are acounted for in the constitution. This should never have gone to the courts. The courts should have stayed out.
thanx,
bill
who still cant stand either jamoke
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #22,647
12/28/01 7:39:08 PM
|
The courts should have stayed out
maybe it came down to who had the better lawyers or had more clout with the courts?
"Before Christmas it is 'Ho ho ho', after Christmas it is 'Owe owe owe'" - Santa Norm
|
Post #22,668
12/28/01 10:41:52 PM
|
actually, I'm not sure that is possible...
I know that was bounced around a lot - but the legislature determine the method of selection of the electors. Once that method has been determined (direct vote of the legislature/direct vote of the people/etc), I'm not sure the legislature can change that method.
|
Post #22,670
12/28/01 10:53:42 PM
|
one more time
The federal constitution calls for the state legislatures to pick electors. Most states passed laws allowing direct elections so a legislative overturning of a flawed electoral process might be illegal under state law it is perfectly acceptable under federal constitution guidelines. That is why the option of the Senate disallowing electors from a troubled state is on the books. Alcee Hastings tried to get the FLA electors tossed but GOE refused the motion to go to the floor. Frankly I would have liked the exercise to play out to demonstrate to the country how strong we can be, President Denny anyone? :)
thanx,
bill
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
