Author Topic: Now that Gore let the recount cat out of the bag, elections will never be the same. (Read 1859 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #15 on:** October 03, 2003, 03:12:18 PM »

Before I bother to look this up, how about a little honesty?

"November 9: Manual recounts are requested by or on behalf of the Gore campaign under 102.166 in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Volusia counties.

November 11: Bush and several voters commence federal lawsuit (Siegel v. LePore) to halt manual recounts because of alleged equal protection and other constitutional violations."

Was the November 9th request a suit like the one so verbosely stated on November 11th or not?

midnight Target · « **Reply #16 on:** October 03, 2003, 03:26:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Before I bother to look this up, how about a little honesty?

"November 9: Manual recounts are requested by or on behalf of the Gore campaign under 102.166 in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Volusia counties.

November 11: Bush and several voters commence federal lawsuit (Siegel v. LePore) to halt manual recounts because of alleged equal protection and other constitutional violations."

Was the November 9th request a suit like the one so verbosely stated on November 11th or not?

Not trying to hide anything.. here is a link to 102.166 for more details.

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0102/SEC166.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0102->Section%20166

AKIron · « **Reply #17 on:** October 03, 2003, 04:35:27 PM »

I couldn't find your snip there MT, was that the site you were quoting?

AKIron · « **Reply #18 on:** October 03, 2003, 04:41:16 PM »

OK, here's a few things that happened on the 13th that your post neglected to mention MT:

MONDAY, NOV. 13

9 a.m. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris orders all counties to finish their recounts by the 5 p.m. Tuesday deadline.

10 a.m. Volusia County sues to extend certification deadline. Lawyers for Palm Beach County, Gore campaign join suit. Bush lawyers join Florida to block extension.

1 p.m. U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks in Miami rejects Bush’s attempt to stop manual recounts in Florida.

2-3 p.m. Harris issues legal opinion on Palm Beach recount conflicting with one Tuesday by Attorney General Butterworth.

4 p.m. Gore appears on television, says it’s important to “spend the days necessary” to determine the winner.

7-8 p.m. A hand recount of 4,000 ballots in Broward County finds no big problems. County rejects full recount. Dem ocrats vow to appeal.

Maybe you're one o' them sophististicated omitters that miko spoke of in another thread?

BEVO · « **Reply #19 on:** October 03, 2003, 04:41:47 PM »

Dec 15th: they continued to do a manual recount to see who really won...... even though it wouldn't change the outcome........ Bush still won.

mietla · « **Reply #20 on:** October 03, 2003, 05:04:17 PM »

Didn't that hold recounts even well into a summer 2001, months after Bush was in office?

FTndr · « **Reply #21 on:** October 03, 2003, 05:05:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Not trying to hide anything.. here is a link to 102.166 for more details.

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0102/SEC166.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0102->Section%20166

Not try'n to be PIA here and maybe I'm missing something (most definetly not an expert) cuz I didn't read the entire statute... or do any indebth research

"that a candidate for retention to judicial office was retained or not retained by between one-quarter and one-half of a percent "

Does "judicial office" refered to here encompass federal seats ?

ra · « **Reply #22 on:** October 03, 2003, 05:15:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
December 8: In 4-3 split decision, Florida Supreme Court rules for Gore, ordering a statewide manual recount of undervotes to begin and adding 383 votes to his total.

This is the decision the SC ruled against. Explain the Equal protection to me again please. Who were we protecting again? Certainly not the people of Fla. who may have undervoted.... shame on the SC.

Florida law required all recounts to be completed withing 7 days of the election. That law APPLIED EQUALLY to all counties. Some counties wanted the deadline extended because they had their head up their butts. Election laws cannot be changed during the election, the the bogus FLA Supreme Court ruling was overturned by the US Supreme Court.

And, in what possible way could Gore have won a recount?

ra

midnight Target · « **Reply #23 on:** October 03, 2003, 05:22:27 PM »

The Fla SC called for a hand count of the undervotes. The US SC denied this based on the 14th Amendment. This is as bogus a ruling as the SC has ever made.

Whether Gore would have won or not is irrelevent. The SC's ruling was still wrong.

AKIron · « **Reply #24 on:** October 03, 2003, 05:34:20 PM »

The democrats demanded recount after recount and attempted to circumvent the established election laws by suing for an extension. I have little doubt they would have continued these shenanigans as long as they were allowed or 'till the "count" came out in their favor. I think that the point of this thread is that they have now established the precedent.

An action likely to have more serious repercussions, for both parties, was the disappearing act they performed that I mentioned earlier.

Hortlund · « **Reply #25 on:** October 03, 2003, 06:29:20 PM »

wtf is this for real?? Are the dems actually trying to spin it so that it wasnt Gore who started the whole bloody recount mess?

This is surreal almost on a kafkaesque level...

mietla · « **Reply #26 on:** October 03, 2003, 06:40:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
wtf is this for real?? Are the dems actually trying to spin it so that it wasnt Gore who started the whole bloody recount mess?

This is surreal almost on a kafkaesque level...

Yeah, Gore was just sitting there, minding his own business and then suddenly boom Bush dragged him to court.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #27 on:** October 03, 2003, 07:45:34 PM »

I think they will dispute every election they lose now. That way when they lose they can claim that "the man" did them in. And it will gain them many votes from the "tinfoil helmet" crowd, which appears to be their core demographic these days.

Kieran · « **Reply #28 on:** October 03, 2003, 09:02:04 PM »

Wow MT, talk about revisionist history. In a few years that yarn might work; way too early now.

The Dems lost the second they went for selective recount. You cannot argue you have ALL the voters of Florida in mind when you only want to recount SOME of them. Oh, the some that are Democrat, especially. That they lost the recount and then went to court to get indentations counted as votes was the cherry on the sundae. I suppose the Republicans could have stood by and allowed the Democrats to cheat their way into a win, and that would have been ok. Ok, cheat is a strong word... let's try "totally disregard election law". It was one of the most blatant and pathetic grabs for power I have seen in my 41 years.

In the end, the SC made the only ruling they could have under the circumstances.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #29 on:** October 03, 2003, 10:05:36 PM »

Quote

And it will gain them many votes from the "tinfoil helmet" crowd, which appears to be their core demographic these days.

Thats FUNNY!!!!:rofl

Just my 2 cents....i was appauled when there was talk, during the election, about the "Dimpled chads" and the thaught of somone trying to determine the "Intent of the voter"

Just two more cents....since this whole thread was started upon the california recall vote

You know....if the ACLU and other org. would use the money they spend on lawyers to buy the "proper" voting machines and donate them to them to the state to get certified....they wouldnt have to worry at all about VOTER DISENFRANCISEMENT or whatever....rewhoopeediculus