Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on October 03, 2003, 11:28:16 AM
-
They are already planing a recount in Ca. And the methods of voteing are already in question.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/10/03/state0351EDT0011.DTL&type=printable
Political activists are planning to scrutinize punch-card ballot results in California's historic recall election, raising the likelihood of a recount if the outcome is close.
But some computer scientists fear more trouble with electronic ballots. With almost one in 10 registered voters using touch-screen machines that don't automatically produce paper printouts, they say a legitimate recount would prove impossible.
County registrars and executives at the companies that sell and update the electronic voting machines say scientists' concerns are overblown and irresponsible.
None of the elections officials who supervise the 50,000 touch-screen machines serviced nationwide by Diebold Election Systems have reported glitches or hacks that have resulted in known miscounts or fraud, said Mark Radke, director of the voting industry division of North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold.
But David Dill, a computer science professor at Stanford University and a leading skeptic of touch-screen voting, is urging voters in the four counties using touch-screen terminals -- Alameda, Riverside, Shasta and Plumas -- to vote with absentee ballots, which use optical scan systems and provide paper ballots. He fears falsification or deletion of votes on touch-screen systems.
"You can't do a meaningful recount if the question is about the integrity of the voting machines themselves," Dill said.
According to a July study by Johns Hopkins and Rice universities, which analyzed Diebold source code that had been posted anonymously on the Internet, any clever hacker could break into Diebold's system, which is based on Microsoft Windows, and vote multiple times.
Researchers found it was theoretically possible to insert "back doors" into software code that would allow hackers -- or insiders -- to change future voters' choices and predetermine the outcome.
In the case of the California recall, Dill said, changing code in a voting machine could make every "no" vote be recorded as a "yes," or vice versa. Every vote for Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock could be recorded as a vote for Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante -- and without a paper record, the voter would never know.
Activists are demanding that ballot machine vendors include printers that produce paper receipts for every ballot, so citizens can confirm that paper results match their touch-screen choices. Receipts would go into a county lock-box for use in recounts.
If voters spot a problem, they could destroy the bad ballot and make sure they've voted properly before leaving the polling station, scientists say.
"It's horrifying and ridiculous that these machines don't have a voter-verifiable audit trail," said Rebecca Mercuri, a Harvard University research fellow who specializes in computer security and voting systems. "These four counties have taken the public's right to a re-count away."
Riverside County registrar of voters Mischelle Townsend said she had "total confidence" in the electronic system used by the county's 650,000 voters. On election day before the polls open, the county tests all 4,250 touch-screens for logic and accuracy, confirming that a "yes" vote is recorded as a "yes," Townsend emphasized.
"The candidates have been very pleased with all our results," said Townsend, who has supervised 19 touch-screen elections and five recounts since November 2000. "The machines have always been adjudicated to be reliable and accurate. There's never been a single incident of what the scientists fear."
Electronic voting advocates acknowledge no system is perfect but say touch-screens are better than older technology. A survey by CalTech and MIT found 6 percent of votes cast nationwide in the 2000 presidential election may not have been counted because of problems with antiquated systems.
Each touch-screen machine has an "integral thermal printer" -- the same technology handheld devices use to spit out credit card receipts. But in their current configurations, the printers cannot produce receipts for voters to verify at the polls.
After polls close, elections officials make another accuracy check. They get printouts for 1 percent of voters in every precinct, and compare the digital record with the printouts.
In some states, margins of less than 1 percent automatically trigger recounts. In California, a recount happens only when a candidate or party demands one.
In a standard recount, officials would simply add up again the results recorded digitally on the machines' memory cards. If a more intense hand recount is ordered, as sometimes happens when the results are extremely close or differ from expectations -- officials would print the digital image of every ballot cast, and count them by hand.
"It's in essence a hard copy of the ballot," Radke said.
But simply recounting printouts wouldn't catch votes that were improperly recorded because of software bugs, malicious hackers or other abuses, activists say.
"The only thing this process would show is if your printers were working," said Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit watchdog group California Voter Foundation. "If the machines fail to capture ballots accurately to begin with, the printed images produced after polls close will only produce those erroneous records, and the voter is no longer around to correct it." .
The ACLU is watching closely for evidence of voter disenfranchisement, as is the California Democratic Party, which began soliciting $100,000 this week for a "No More Floridas!" campaign to scrutinize alleged violations.
The computer scientists will be watching as well, looking for statistical anomalies in touch-screen counties.
Threats of a recount worry election officials. Whoever requests the recount must pay for it, but the lengthy process could overlap with some county elections in early November.
"The very thought of a re-count -- it's chilling," said Alameda County assistant registrar Elaine Ginnold. "We're all hoping there will be a huge margin because a recount would plug things up for quite a while
-
Let me see if I understand correctly... the Florida recount was Gore's fault?
-
Yes, if he would have carried his home state, then FLA wouldn't have been an issue :p
Just as it hadn't been an issue in elections passed.
-
If the recount didn't do it, the Democrats definitely opened Pandora's box in Texas when they ran off to avoid a vote, twice.
-
Bev Harris has written a book, _Black Box Voting_, critical of touch screen voting machines. The book was supposed to be released on Wednesday as a free pdf download. However, it appears that the website has been shut down by the ISP over lawsuit threats by Diebold.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Let me see if I understand correctly... the Florida recount was Gore's fault?
YES
Gore brought the lawsuit, and asked for the State Supreme court to change the rules during/after an election. Bush asked for the courts to stop.
Fed. Supreme court stepped in and stopped the lower court from legislating from the bench. The end.
-
I really can't see why we can't vote via the Internet. I know there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth whenever it's brought up. Rather than arguing technical feasibilty the objection seems to be that it would supposedly be unfair to the poor that have no computer or Internet connection.
How much easier would it be for them to go vote at a traditional booth or a library if there were no lines due to most voting at home? I suspect the true objection is that so many nonvoters would begin voting and there must be fear that the majority of them are relatively conservative.
-
I don't think this is true. Anytime there is a close election, there is a recount.
-
Yes, the first two recounts were mandated by law and no one was questioning those. Both went to Bush. Then, an additional count of absentee ballots went to Bush as well.
It's only when the dems started manual and selective recounts (three libs in a closed room), the notion of "voter's intent, to hell with the holes actually punched" came up, and violations of recount deadlines the things started to go whacko.
Bush won day one.
(http://www.raf303.org/mietla/bush_ballot.jpg)
-
IIRC, it was Gore that sued when the Secretary of State announced the deadline as mandated by law would be upheld.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't think this is true. Anytime there is a close election, there is a recount.
Florida's election law required an automatic recount because of the close vote. Gore lost that recount, and lawsuits followed as he tried to dislodge as many loose chads as possible.
-
You guys have been duped by the right wing controlled press.
The actual chain of events...
November 7: Election Day
November 8:Gore retracts the concession because Bush's margin of victory in Florida is slim enough to trigger an automatic recount under 102.141(4) of the Florida Election Code. The automatic recount further reduces the vote margin.
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.
November 12: Palm Beach County manual recount begins
November 13: U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks rejects Bush's plea in Siegel for an order barring hand recounts of ballots.
November 14: Circuit Judge Terry Lewis rules in McDermott v. Harris that Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris may enforce a statutory 5 p.m. deadline for county reporting of returns, but that she may not arbitrarily refuse to include late-filed returns
November 15: After considering submissions from counties still conducting recounts, Secretary of State Harris indicates that she will not consider further returns from those counties.
November 17: On appeal, Florida Supreme Court prohibits Secretary Harris from certifying the election results - as she had planned to do November 18 - until further notice from the court. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit refuses to block manual recounts in Broward and Palm Beach counties.
November 19: Miami-Dade County begins manual recount.
November 21: Florida Supreme Court rules that manual recounts may continue and that the totals must be included in the final results. Court sets November 26-27 as deadline for certifying the election.
November 22: Judge Jorge Labarga rules that so-called "dimpled chads" cannot be summarily excluded from the Palm Beach manual recount.
November 23: Miami-Dade County suspends its manual recount; Florida Supreme Court rejects Gore request to require resumption.
November 24: U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Bush's appeal on the legality of the Florida Supreme Court's decision to allow recounts and extend state deadline for certification.
November 26: Secretary Harris certifies election results, giving Bush a 537-vote victory over Gore. Governor Jeb Bush signs Certificate of Ascertainment designating 25 Florida electors pledged to George W. Bush and transmits to National Archives as required by Title 3, U.S. Code, Section 6.
see November 17th
November 27: Gore files election contest action under Election Code section 102.168, challenging vote counts in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Nassau counties; case is assigned to Judge Sanders Sauls.
December 1: U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument on Bush's appeal of November 21 Florida Supreme Court ruling
December 4: U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board, vacating order of Florida Supreme Court and remanding for clarification the Florida Supreme Court's November 21 decision on recount deadlines.
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.
December 9: The Florida Supreme Court denies Bush's application for stay. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta similarly denies Bush's emergency motion to stop the recount, but orders Florida officials not to change his previously certified 537-vote lead. Minutes later, the U.S. Supreme Court, divided 5-4, issues a stay in Gore v. Bush to stop the manual recounts.
December 12: U.S. Supreme Court issues 5-4 decision in Gore v. Bush reversing Florida Supreme Court and ruling that manual recounts cannot be conducted in a constitutional manner in the time remaining.
December 13: Seeing no legal recourse from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gore concedes.
-
"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. "
This shows what a tool Gore is.
And anyway, under what theoretical sequence of events could Gore have won a recount?
ra
-
How is it different from what I've said.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
I couldn't find your snip there MT, was that the site you were quoting?
-
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? ;)
-
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.
-
Didn't that hold recounts even well into a summer 2001, months after Bush was in office?
-
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 :rolleyes:
"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 ?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
And it will gain them many votes from the "tinfoil helmet" crowd, which appears to be their core demographic these days.
Thats FUNNY!!!!:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :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
-
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.
-
Revisionist history? I haven't stated anything that can't be verified. Go for it.
-
recount .. yes
manufacturing votes ... no
-
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
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
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.
The bogus ruling was the coining of the term "undervote" and the decision to count them by the SCOFLA.
BB
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
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... [/B]
Here is a quote from the SC ruling regarding dates...
"The Secretary(of State) declined to waive the November 14th deadline imposed by statute."
Now you are an attorney Hortlund. They in effect admitted that the deadline was "Waivable".
Now tell me how the Fla. SC ruling was set aside by citing the 14th Amendment... huh?
Your great at the vitriol, but short on substance here.
-
Prove she arbitrarily refused to waive the deadline. If you want to use law as your defense, surely you know she was well within her rights in the law to impose the deadline.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Prove she arbitrarily refused to waive the deadline. If you want to use law as your defense, surely you know she was well within her rights in the law to impose the deadline.
Who said it was arbitrary? The quote just proves that it was waivable.
And the SC was not using the law properly when it cited the 14th amendment... why do you keep ignoring the facts?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
"The Secretary(of State) declined to waive the November 14th deadline imposed by statute."
Now you are an attorney Hortlund. They in effect admitted that the deadline was "Waivable".
yeah, I'm an attorney, and you're not, and lesson #1 in law school is along the lines of "dont try to use common sense when you are reading rulings from the supreme court". And dont try to read between the lines.
To cut this short, I dont see the SC saying that the deadline was waivable, I just see them saying that she didnt waive the deadline. To you that may seem to be the same thing, to me its not. Higher courts always try to get rid of the case as soon and as easy as possible. This is because they dont really much like to rule over too wide issues because they are aware of the fact that these rulings tend to become law. That means that if they can cut it on "declined to waive the deadline" they do just that, so they can avoid the very much more complicated "is the deadline waiveable"-question.
ANYWAY, I fail to see the reasoning behind your accusations against the SC, though. I dunno, maybe its because you have missunderstood some aspect of the law, maybe its beacuse I dont know enough about US law. I do know that whenever "normal" people get their hands on a law book and go from there it mostly ends horribly wrong.
-
Primarily because I believe they were correct about the 14th Amendment- at least as right as interpretations that protect handicapped, sexual orientation, races, etc.
If the recount could not be conducted in a way that was equal to all voters, it had to end. The damaged ballots were beyond reasonable hand recounts.
-
IMHO the supremes had a conflict of interest in decideing the case because the person who they chose would be picing the next justice(s) to sit on the bench. O'Connor and Rehnquist both are very near retirement and it is not inconceivable that they would want to be replaced with conservative justices.
It was also disappointing to see the court split on their ruling 5-4 along their respective partisan lines (Bush 1 appointees notwithstanding)
The whole equal protection argument was thin IMHO - the majority opinion seemed to put the rights of a candidate above the rights of the voters to have their votes counted
And iirc the recount would have come out differently depending on the standard used and locality. lets not forget the butterfly ballot and the 3000 jews voting for buchanan
strk
-
I'm pretty sure if I accidentally voted for Gore in Indiana the vote would have counted.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I'm pretty sure if I accidentally voted for Gore in Indiana the vote would have counted.
I'm pretty sure that if you accidently voted for something other than what you intended, you should have your teaching credentials yanked. :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I'm pretty sure that if you accidently voted for something other than what you intended, you should have your teaching credentials yanked. :D
And maybe your voting rights as well?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
:::::sniped:::::
I do know that whenever "normal" people get their hands on a law book and go from there it mostly ends horribly wrong. [/B]
This sounds like ELITISM to me.
just my 2 cents......
-
Originally posted by AKIron
And maybe your voting rights as well?
No need... the idiots will cancel each other out. :D
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Primarily because I believe they were correct about the 14th Amendment- at least as right as interpretations that protect handicapped, sexual orientation, races, etc.
If the recount could not be conducted in a way that was equal to all voters, it had to end. The damaged ballots were beyond reasonable hand recounts.
So how was Bush treated unfairly? How was Bush harmed by the recount of ALL undervotes? I can cite SC rulings that specify that violation of the Equal Protection covered in the 14th Amendment must be PURPOSEFUL.
The only possible problem with a hand recount of the 60,000 undervotes would be that each County might specify different criteria for the recount. This in no way violates the 14th as each person in said County gets the same treatment. No discrimination can occur across Counties. Thus no one is harmed if the recount continues..... except the Republican Party.
Scandalous.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
yeah, I'm an attorney, and you're not, and lesson #1 in law school is along the lines of "dont try to use common sense when you are reading rulings from the supreme court". And dont try to read between the lines.
To cut this short, I dont see the SC saying that the deadline was waivable, I just see them saying that she didnt waive the deadline. To you that may seem to be the same thing, to me its not. Higher courts always try to get rid of the case as soon and as easy as possible. This is because they dont really much like to rule over too wide issues because they are aware of the fact that these rulings tend to become law. That means that if they can cut it on "declined to waive the deadline" they do just that, so they can avoid the very much more complicated "is the deadline waiveable"-question.
ANYWAY, I fail to see the reasoning behind your accusations against the SC, though. I dunno, maybe its because you have missunderstood some aspect of the law, maybe its beacuse I dont know enough about US law. I do know that whenever "normal" people get their hands on a law book and go from there it mostly ends horribly wrong.
The "waivable" issue is taken from book by Vincent Bugliosi entitled the "Betrayal of America". Mr Bugliosi is a former District Attorney for the City of LA, and the prosecutor of the Manson FAmily. He had a conviction record of 120-1 and was 20-0 in capital crime cases. He also wrote a book blasting the Prosecution in the OJ trial. He is hardly a liberal mouthpiece.
So fear not about us mere "normal" people interpreting the law Hortlund.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
yeah, I'm an attorney, and you're not
Yeah, so am I.
It amazes me Hortlund, how for someone who is supposedly an attorney, how really really poorly you argue. And whole whenever a legal arguement is made you sit back and make some generalistic statement that may or may not have any bearing on the specific matter being discussed.
-
MT, you keep sighting this "under vote" WTF is that? Dimples, hanging Chad, intent?
Lets not forget Gore tried to have the military vote not counted, knowing they vote Rep. in greater %.
Dems don't like results they sue, In NJ they blow off the law and put in Toracelie(?) with in to few days of election in violation of NJ law, In Ca they are already preparing Law suits
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So how was Bush treated unfairly? How was Bush harmed by the recount of ALL undervotes? I can cite SC rulings that specify that violation of the Equal Protection covered in the 14th Amendment must be PURPOSEFUL.
The only possible problem with a hand recount of the 60,000 undervotes would be that each County might specify different criteria for the recount. This in no way violates the 14th as each person in said County gets the same treatment. No discrimination can occur across Counties. Thus no one is harmed if the recount continues..... except the Republican Party.
Scandalous.
Think bigger... like in the whole state... no, the whole country. Those specific counties in a specific state were receiving more scrutiny (call it "protection" if it makes you feel better) than any other votes in the country. That isn't equal protection. And you honestly don't see any problem with your logic? It's not ok to use the same recount mechanism because votes won't be counted fairly, but you aren't going to use the same criteria for the recount in each county? That's pretty selective outrage.
-
Originally posted by FTndr
This sounds like ELITISM to me.
just my 2 cents......
I dunno..is it elitism to only let pilots fly airliners?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yeah, so am I.
It amazes me Hortlund, how for someone who is supposedly an attorney, how really really poorly you argue. And whole whenever a legal arguement is made you sit back and make some generalistic statement that may or may not have any bearing on the specific matter being discussed.
Oh look...a generalistic statement that has no bearing on the specific matter being discussed...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The "waivable" issue is taken from book by Vincent Bugliosi entitled the "Betrayal of America". Mr Bugliosi is a former District Attorney for the City of LA, and the prosecutor of the Manson FAmily. He had a conviction record of 120-1 and was 20-0 in capital crime cases. He also wrote a book blasting the Prosecution in the OJ trial. He is hardly a liberal mouthpiece.
So fear not about us mere "normal" people interpreting the law Hortlund.
Ok, and this changes what I said in what way? It doesnt change it all does it? Its just you trying to score some point on your source.
"Well, if mr Bugliosi said so, then it MUST be true..." pathetic.
-
In an effort to steer the conversation back to its pre-hijacked status, I present you with the following link
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html
you may now resume your regularly scheduled bickering
strk
-
I'm still pissed off about Harrison stealing the election from Cleveland...
Damn republicans.
-
Not that I hold a grudge...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Oh look...a generalistic statement that has no bearing on the specific matter being discussed...
Oh look...a generalistic statement that has no bearing on the specific matter being discussed...
-
Originally posted by JBA
MT, you keep sighting this "under vote" WTF is that? Dimples, hanging Chad, intent?
Lets not forget Gore tried to have the military vote not counted, knowing they vote Rep. in greater %.
Dems don't like results they sue, In NJ they blow off the law and put in Toracelie(?) with in to few days of election in violation of NJ law, In Ca they are already preparing Law suits
"undervotes" IIRC included all ballots that recorded votes for other offices or statutes but no recorded vote for president.
What Gore tried is irrelevent. The problem is with the SC ruling. A ruling that had nothing to do with Gore's suits about selective Counties or absentee ballots or the price of tea in China.
And you and Kieren keep harping on about the selective request by Gore.... Get over it. The Florida SC took care of that by ordering a STATEWIDE RECOUNT. I am thinking plenty big Kieren, but you seem to be in a mental quagmire. If the recount was Statewide... how could Bush be harmed?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What Gore tried is irrelevent.
Not only is what Gore tried to do relevant, it's the whole point of this thread.
It may be easy to get away with a wild spin amongst those sympathetic to your cause but it's blatantly obvious to those not.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Not only is what Gore tried to do relevant, it's the whole point of this thread.
It may be easy to get away with a wild spin amongst those sympathetic to your cause but it's blatantly obvious to those not.
It is irrelevent to the SC decision. Thought that was clear.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
"undervotes" IIRC included all ballots that recorded votes for other offices or statutes but no recorded vote for president.
What Gore tried is irrelevent. The problem is with the SC ruling. A ruling that had nothing to do with Gore's suits about selective Counties or absentee ballots or the price of tea in China.
And you and Kieren keep harping on about the selective request by Gore.... Get over it. The Florida SC took care of that by ordering a STATEWIDE RECOUNT. I am thinking plenty big Kieren, but you seem to be in a mental quagmire. If the recount was Statewide... how could Bush be harmed?
Maybe your problem was with the SC not supporting Gore MT. My problem was with Gore being underhanded in the whole thing.
-
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. :p
-
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. :p
I don't comment on everyone's bs, though occasionally I will call bs on comments like your's above.
-
Alright, I'll admit the "dirty tricks are OK" comment was B.S., the rest stands.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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: 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :p
right you got us all fingered out, you da man
;)
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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
-
So... let's set aside the SC for a second... are you ok with divining the intent of a voter on an undervote?
-
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.
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.
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.
-
Question for you MT...
Let's assume that the SC decides to invalidate its Florida B v G decision based on constitutional principle.
What is the remedy? Can we make it come out right, or is this discussion of what happened now three years ago just an academic excercise in fulility?
Wait... thats right, it would not have made any difference.... reference the Miami Herald et al.
edit: yeah, yeah, I know,... what happens next time?...
Consider that Benjiman Harrison won and electoral majority from a popular minority when he ran against Grover Cleveland, and there was no such thing as a chad at the time. s**t happens...
-
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.
This is not the same thing as divining the intent of the voter from an improperly coded ballot, and you know it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Question for you MT...
Let's assume that the SC decides to invalidate its Florida B v G decision based on constitutional principle.
What is the remedy? Can we make it come out right, or is this discussion of what happened now three years ago just an academic excercise in fulility?
Wait... thats right, it would not have made any difference.... reference the Miami Herald et al.
edit: yeah, yeah, I know,... what happens next time?...
Consider that Benjiman Harrison won and electoral majority from a popular minority when he ran against Grover Cleveland, and there was no such thing as a chad at the time. s**t happens...
No there is no remedy, and yes of course this is an academic exercise.... Just like almost every other political or religious thread on this BBS..... all I'm doing is enjoying the discussion....
so sue me :)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
This is not the same thing as divining the intent of the voter from an improperly coded ballot, and you know it.
But that is a separate issue. So you are conceeding that the FLSC didn't invent the undervote count?
-
I am not conceding a thing. The tricks the Dems pulled in the recount process made the process unequal. THAT is the point, and why the SCOTUS was involved. NOT that Bush was their boy, NOT because they are Conservative (hah!), but because votes that were cast were being treated differently in place to place. Votes that would be considered disqualified were being allowed through some hocus-pocus mind reading nonsense. THOSE votes, being included, were like counterfeit money, diluting the value of legitimate votes. Not your oversimplified election devices or local rules situation you tried earlier, but the pure and simple shifting of the goal line over and over. That's not a simple or separate issue, but in fact the whole point.
Edit: Deleted "moot". What was I thinking?
-
Nah Kieran, you are concocting a story now. I stated nothing but fact and made my point. No one refuted it. Have a nice night.
-
In regards to the "undervote", if you're to stupid to vote correctly or remember to vote for a Presidential canidate during the Presidential elections, then your vote shouldn't count. It's not that hard people.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Simply friggin amazing.
1. Gore never lost the hand recount, because it was never completed.
Weren't there several 'after the fact' recounts?
2. The Supreme Court's ruling was tantamount to treason. They bent over backwards to ensure that there (their?) 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). [/B]
I wasn't aware that the FSSC had jurisdiction over all of the States in the US.
4. This could have been accomplished in a matter of 3-4 days.
5. The actual count is not relevent
That was the Dem's problem.
-
I win!