Author Topic: Now that Gore let the recount cat out of the bag, elections will never be the same. (Read 1826 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #75 on:** October 05, 2003, 02:06:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by k2cok
It's funny how no repubs here will comment on strks link.

Looks like dirty tricks are OK as long as it's their guy benefiting.

I believe the reason why republicans go to such extremes to defend Bush is that deep down they know he's a fraud, they just won't openly admit it.

I don't comment on everyone's bs, though occasionally I will call bs on comments like your's above.

k2cok · « **Reply #76 on:** October 05, 2003, 02:57:20 PM »

Alright, I'll admit the "dirty tricks are OK" comment was B.S., the rest stands.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #77 on:** October 05, 2003, 03:10:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
If the recount was Statewide... how could Bush be harmed?

According to the media organizations in Florida who (which?) counted the votes as an academic exercise, he wouldn't have been harmed at all. GWB won. Even the Miami Herald said so...

midnight Target · « **Reply #78 on:** October 05, 2003, 03:37:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
According to the media organizations in Florida who (which?) counted the votes as an academic exercise, he wouldn't have been harmed at all. GWB won. Even the Miami Herald said so...

And we step back to the ethics question. If the SC was wrong, the final total doesn't matter.

Kieran · « **Reply #79 on:** October 05, 2003, 03:46:44 PM »

1. Yes or no, a mandatory machine recount was conducted?

2. Yes or no, Bush won that recount?

3. Yes or no, Gore initiated a selective recount of Democratic strongholds (legal, if underhanded)?

4. Yes or no, Team Gore attempted to change what an allowable vote was more than once in the process?

5. Yes or no, Team Gore eventually tried to include votes that would be (and were) excluded in every other state- the undervote?

6. Yes or no, Team Gore attempted to "guess" the intent of the voter based on the rest of the card, effectively throwing election law out the window?

7. Yes or no, once the ballots were handled multiple times, the floor was littered with spent chads- indicating the cards had been hopelessly corrupted? This made further accurate recounts highly unlikely if not impossible.

8. Yes or no, the emphasis and treatment of the Florida ballots went far and beyond that of every other state in the union, and the FSC allowed the inclusion of ballots that no other state would have included?

9. Yes or no, treating Floridas votes in such a manner is unequal treatment compared to the votes of the rest of America?

10. Yes or no, election officials in one of the counties attempted to take their ballots into a closed room with no observers- and only Democrats?

All of the above has to be considered. No way were all the voters of Florida being treated equally, especially given each county could set standards on their own. Bigger than that, the overemphasis on Florida guaranteed the minimizing of the votes of all other Americans. The SCOTUS made the only choice they could under the circumstances.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #80 on:** October 05, 2003, 03:46:47 PM »

Just agreeing with you MT, that it would not have harmed GWB.

Practical considerations with the timing of inauguration as mandated by the constitution require that the decision be known quickly however. Only 10 weeks to change the administration, and quite a bit to do in those 10 weeks.

midnight Target · « **Reply #81 on:** October 05, 2003, 03:54:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Not much here is clear MT. To be honest I have yet to understand your beef with the SC desicion really. This just reeks of bitterness. And you have targeted the SC desicion to vent your frustration that Bush won. Well, the SC desicion was completely correct, get over it.

And here I thought you would be the first to understand it. I have yet to hear one iota of legal opinion from you however. let me try one more time.

1. The SC decided to vacate the ruling of the Florida SC which called for a Statewide recount of the undervotes in the election. (For a description of undervote look in prior posts).

2. Bush etal. challenged the FLSC and won with the conservative members of the SC voting 5-4 to vacate the FLSC decision based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment...which reads:

Quote

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

3. Citing the 14th implies that the defendant... Bush... was not being given equal protection under the law. NO PROOF was ever given to show that Bush would be more harmed in the STATEWIDE recount than Gore, only that the criterion might change from county to county.

4. If the county criteria for recounting cannot be shown to be unequal to the respective candidates, the SC ruling must be wrong.

Kieran · « **Reply #82 on:** October 05, 2003, 03:58:30 PM »

Quote

3. Citing the 14th implies that the defendant... Bush... was not being given equal protection under the law. NO PROOF was ever given to show that Bush would be more harmed in the STATEWIDE recount than Gore, only that the criterion might change from county to county.

Wrong. The argument is the voters were not being treated equally.

midnight Target · « **Reply #83 on:** October 05, 2003, 04:05:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran

8. Yes or no, the emphasis and treatment of the Florida ballots went far and beyond that of every other state in the union, and the FSC allowed the inclusion of ballots that no other state would have included?

9. Yes or no, treating Floridas votes in such a manner is unequal treatment compared to the votes of the rest of America?

These are the only 2 points that are relevent to the SC ruling.

8. Florida ballots were counted under different criteria than many other States. If this were a logical argument for the 14th amendment exclusion of the recount, then you must logically assume that the entire election was in violation of the 14th. Since most States have different rules regarding recounts there must be unequal treatment of the voters in the Country. This is a silly road to travel and it is a silly reason to vacate the FLSC ruling.

9. See above.

Scootter · « **Reply #84 on:** October 05, 2003, 04:07:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by k2cok
It's funny how no repubs here will comment on strks link.

Looks like dirty tricks are OK as long as it's their guy benefiting.

I believe the reason why republicans go to such extremes to defend Bush is that deep down they know he's a fraud, they just won't openly admit it.

right you got us all fingered out, you da man

Kieran · « **Reply #85 on:** October 05, 2003, 04:33:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
These are the only 2 points that are relevent to the SC ruling.

8. Florida ballots were counted under different criteria than many other States. If this were a logical argument for the 14th amendment exclusion of the recount, then you must logically assume that the entire election was in violation of the 14th. Since most States have different rules regarding recounts there must be unequal treatment of the voters in the Country. This is a silly road to travel and it is a silly reason to vacate the FLSC ruling.

9. See above.

Try again. No other state would count undervotes as votes for a candidate. No other state would attempt to interpret a "no-vote". They are discarded. Doing so only in Florida not only treats the voters differently, it does demonstrably harm Bush. Finally, it changes election law during the process, once again setting Florida voters aside for special treatment amongst the other states.

straffo · « **Reply #86 on:** October 05, 2003, 04:48:46 PM »

I don't see the point in arguing about a recount when the whole vote system is made to insure the domination of a bipolar political system ... at least it's how I see it from 5000 kilometers

When 600 000 citizen can't vote just because they are living in Washington I don't see the need of a recount ...

strk · « **Reply #87 on:** October 05, 2003, 05:05:36 PM »

Quote

Well, the SC desicion was completely correct, get over it.

you must be kidding. Did you read it?

Compare the equal protection argument in that ruling to the supremes equal protection death penalty decisions of late.

Dont forget that it was a 5-4 split, along conservatie/liberal lines.

I really liked the part about if the recount continued it could undermine the legitimacy of the president - ie Bush. They wanted Bush to win plain as day. The court cheapened itself with such a partisan decision.

I think it was a sham, and I didnt even vote for Gore. so there

strk

Kieran · « **Reply #88 on:** October 05, 2003, 05:13:55 PM »

So... let's set aside the SC for a second... are you ok with divining the intent of a voter on an undervote?

midnight Target · « **Reply #89 on:** October 05, 2003, 05:26:39 PM »

Quote

Try again. No other state would count undervotes as votes for a candidate. No other state would attempt to interpret a "no-vote". They are discarded.

Not true.

Quote

Most states (including Texas) allow for manual counts with varying standards for counting undervotes. The Supreme Court presented no relevant precedent for their interpretation of the equal protection clause in this ruling and further stated that this interpretation applied ONLY to Bush v. Gore and was not to be used as precedent in any future case.

From the COWLITZ COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE in Washington State.

Quote

Many overvotes and undervotes are informed voter choices and correctly are not counted by vote counting equipment. Each such ballot not counted by the counters is inspected visually by observers and administrators to verify that it is really an overvote or undervote.