Author Topic: Now that Gore let the recount cat out of the bag, elections will never be the same. (Read 1867 times)

Thrawn · « **Reply #30 on:** October 03, 2003, 11:32:57 PM »

Uhh, Gore was completely with in his legal rights in Florida to have a selective recount.

From section 102.166 of the Florida Election Code of 2000.

"(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."

You might not like it but it was the law.

midnight Target · « **Reply #31 on:** October 04, 2003, 12:15:54 AM »

Revisionist history? I haven't stated anything that can't be verified. Go for it.

mietla · « **Reply #32 on:** October 04, 2003, 01:11:57 AM »

recount .. yes
manufacturing votes ... no

-tronski- · « **Reply #33 on:** October 04, 2003, 04:40:48 AM »

What ever happened to just ticking a box, and putting it in a ballot box?

As for Florida and the election, I thought the book Stupid White Men had a very interesting take on the subject.

Tronsky

Hortlund · « **Reply #34 on:** October 04, 2003, 06:25:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Uhh, Gore was completely with in his legal rights in Florida to have a selective recount.

From section 102.166 of the Florida Election Code of 2000.

"(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."

You might not like it but it was the law.

LOL Talk about your selective memory Thrawn.... Incidentally there were other paragraphs in that law too, and Gore had no problem ignoring those completely...

Scootter · « **Reply #35 on:** October 04, 2003, 07:04:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
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.

oh God this is so true, and sad really

Scootter · « **Reply #36 on:** October 04, 2003, 07:10:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Uhh, Gore was completely with in his legal rights in Florida to have a selective recount.

From section 102.166 of the Florida Election Code of 2000.

"(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."

You might not like it but it was the law.

Uhh you need to reread 102.166 it states they have the right to "file a written request" and "a statement of the reason".

They are not given an automatic selective recount anywere in the statute.

This is the kind of "read it the way I want it to say" that starts this crap in the first place.

Kieran · « **Reply #37 on:** October 04, 2003, 08:03:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Revisionist history? I haven't stated anything that can't be verified. Go for it.

No, as has already been pointed out, it's what you left out that is relevant here.

Kieran · « **Reply #38 on:** October 04, 2003, 08:05:47 AM »

Didn't say that was illegal, Thrawn, but it WAS a foolish move and cost them the game. You can't very well argue you want to protect the rights of Florida voters equally if you don't recount the votes equally. Legal, yes- Honest, no.

midnight Target · « **Reply #39 on:** October 04, 2003, 10:49:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
No, as has already been pointed out, it's what you left out that is relevant here.

What I left out is not relevent to the SC ruling. The SC ruling was to overturn the Fla. SC ruling which asked for a recount of ALL undervotes. Gores move to recount certain counties was both legal and not a factor in the SC ruling.

strk · « **Reply #40 on:** October 04, 2003, 11:27:30 AM »

IIRC Gore's original request was to the county boards to do manual recounts, per the Florida code. Miami said yes immediately, but one or 2 others dragged their feet for a few days before starting manual recount.

Bush camp filed suit to stop this. That was the first lawsuit filed - and they lost.

Not that it matters, or any vented spleen here going to make a difference. It is kind of funny to see how the right wingers here like to pile on Gore full bore. Kind of makes you think they are not so sure about it all in thier hearts.

It was a big, fast moving, complex mess. It was hard to undersand what was going on from day to day when it happened, and now the dialogue is polluted by partisanship.

Maybe we need to just move on?

strk

firbal · « **Reply #41 on:** October 04, 2003, 11:38:01 AM »

One other thing. The Dems were all about incluion? But didn't they put out a 5 page letter to their people on how to denie the Military absente votes?

Kieran · « **Reply #42 on:** October 04, 2003, 12:07:08 PM »

I dunno, Strk, it was reeeeaaaaal easy to understand IMHO.

Bush won.

Gore conceded.

Gore's people said "don't do that!"

Gore took back concession and asked for recount, but only in the areas he thought would help him.

Bush's people yelled "foul" and filed a lawsuit, which they lost.

Selective recount happened.

Bush won again.

Gore's people said "hey, if we could include dimpled votes that weren't properly punched, we could pick up some votes!", hence the "unreliable voting machine" defense.

Bush's people continue to fight recount.

Selective recount happened again.

Bush won again.

Deadlines came and went (legal deadlines, btw), counties refused to participate in further recounts and were promptly taken to court by the DNC, and it wound up in court yet again. This time the DNC wanted to try to devine the intent of the voter- the most absurd strategy to ever strike an election. Even to this point no push to to include all counties in the state.

DNC pushes case to FSSC to get another recount deadline extention.

Bush people fight all the way to the SCOTUS, SCOTUS decides enough is enough. They determine the rights of all voters could not be protected during the recount. Game over.

That's the high points, but it amounts to:

1. Bush won, and his people were never interested in recounts. Nothing to be gained.

2. Gore lost, and his people kept pushing for selective recount after selective recount, each time changing the rules in more and more absurd fashion. Eventually they might have found a way to win, but the path to winning would have been so convoluted as to render his presidency tainted by the circumvention of election law.

midnight Target · « **Reply #43 on:** October 04, 2003, 12:14:16 PM »

Simply friggin amazing.

1. Gore never lost the hand recount, because it was never completed.

2. The Supreme Court's ruling was tantamount to treason. They bent over backwards to ensure that there guy would win.

3. Quit harping on about the selective recounts. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a complete hand count of the ALL of the States undervotes (about 60,000 ballots).

4. This could have been accomplished in a matter of 3-4 days.

5. The actual count is not relevent to the imorality of the SC's actions.

Hortlund · « **Reply #44 on:** October 04, 2003, 12:24:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The Supreme Court's ruling was tantamount to treason. They bent over backwards to ensure that there guy would win.

[/b]
LOL read the Fla election law. Especially the part about deadlines for recounts. Taramount to treason to uphold the law...yeah..shame on the SC...

It never ceases to amaze me the sort of voulontary amnesia combined with an hysterical distortion of the truth you libs can come up with in situations like these...