MsIvoryTower
I agree that the issue is the weighing of the harm. (An aside to vonK—is the test the simple weighing of the harm, or does the court have to find a large imbalance? It is my impression that it is the latter.)
What harm occurs if she certifies the election? How does it outweigh the harm of court intrusion?
12535. CalGal - 11/17/2000 7:53:56 PM
Jex,
Truthfully, I haven't read all your posts yet because I'm still looking for the Boies press conference from this morning. But I am pretty sure I remember him saying that he didn't want to argue irreparable harm. Let me keep looking.
12536. CalGal - 11/17/2000 7:56:44 PM
Jex,
Here is a summary of Boies legal strategy, from CNN:
Boies said the Gore appeals, to be filed later Friday, will seek answers to two questions:
• When can Harris certify the statewide ballot?
• Should Harris wait for the manual recount tallies from Palm Beach and Broward counties, two Democratic strongholds, before deciding whether to accept or reject them?
According to Bois, Florida law says a statewide certification can be blocked if Harris rejects "a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the outcome of the election."
The Democrats have long argued that the manual recounts could tip the balance for Gore, who currently trails Bush by 300 votes.
Boies and Christopher urged Harris on Friday to wait a few more days, allow the manual recounts to be completed and then tally the statewide votes to see if the final numbers change the election's outcome.
"We obviously would urge the secretary of state to wait the few days that is necessary to get those votes counted (by hand)," Boies said.
Once manual recounting is completed, Harris would be free to decide whether to accept or reject them -- and the Gore camp would then decide if her decision complied with state law, Boies said, leaving open the door for legal challenges after final certification.
He was relying on the law that says certification can be blocked in a specific circumstance due to the outcome being in doubt--no mention of irreparable harm that I see. I'm still looking for any transcript.
12537. MsIvoryTower - 11/17/2000 7:56:52 PM
Dusty
I suppose I have a fundamental disagreement with you: I don't see the harm of the court's intervention. That's what courts are for, someone has a claim, they show some legitimate basis for it (they don't have to prove it before submitting the claim), and the court ajudicates.
In this case, many citizens of the state felt they'd been harmed, their vote had been discarded, or the system was unfair to them. Given the stakes in this certification, the harm would be very great if the court allowed the process to go forward without looking at the issues carefully.
I also disagree that a certification that was allowed and then found to be invalid, or incomplete, wouldn't be a big deal. It'd be a very big deal to undo. Specifically, a harm would have been done, but what would be the remedy?
12538. Dusty - 11/17/2000 7:56:54 PM
CalGal
I don't think they argued irreparable harm. I specifically recall the MS lawyer saying he wouldn't.
I haven't read enough to know whether they did or didn't. I read the NYT article, and the court decision, and didn't see any mention of it. So your statement sounds correct.
Hence my question. If it isn't irreparable harm (which doesn't seem justified) what is the reason?
The stated reason "maintain the status quo", sounds unbelievably lame.
Surely there is something else.
12539. jexster - 11/17/2000 7:57:39 PM
The irreparable harm argument further....given the statutory policy that elections be decided as expeditiously as possible under the circumstances, and given the shameless games K has been playing with elections boards (letters, threats, public warnings, and I think a TRO application) all designed to delay the recount and make her deadlines credible concerns, Boies surely would have said certification would delay or cause uncertainty to the efforts of the canvassing boards.
12540. CalGal - 11/17/2000 7:58:51 PM
Dusty,
See above. The reason is that Florida law allows for certification to be blocked in specific circumstances. The FSC appears to have maintained the status quo over the weekend in order to determine if this is one of those circumstances.
Keep in mind, too, that the SecState has to wait until all the absentee ballots are counted, and the counties have up to a week from today to do that. So it's not like tomorrow is an absolute legal deadline that they've kept her from.
12541. jexster - 11/17/2000 7:59:04 PM
That's the nuts of the test Cal. If a party is not likely to suceed on the merits and the egg is about to get scrambled (evidence that he stole the eggs), the effect is to preserve the status quo.
12542. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:07:50 PM
Cal- lorida law does not specify any reasons for delay in certification I don't think. Its a matter left to the discretion of the Secty of State presumably to enable compliance with other provisions of the statute where performance is likely to exceed the deadline. She might also, if she were acting in other than an arbitrary and capricious manner, want to satisfy herself that the canvassing boards have a reasonable plan to finish their work as soon as practicable, that adequate safeguards are in place etc.
The problem is Kathy's twisted and biased reading of the statute. She uses her discretionary power to certify w/in 7 days to gut the substantive and mandatory provisions of the law which deal with the law's main purpose - expressing the will of the people.
Not very much different than if Gore wins and she, hating Gore, decides not to certify so she could go on a junket to Europe for two months
12543. Dusty - 11/17/2000 8:08:20 PM
MsIvoryTower
I suppose I have a fundamental disagreement with you: I don't see the harm of the court's intervention.
I do, but that's really not the issue is it? I ask this in all seriousness. I don't think the courts get to intervene anytime there intervention doesn't cause harm. I would hope that courts have to show that lack of action would cause harm. (Obviously, we are only discussing peremptory action; of course courts can rule on the legality of past actions.)
That's what courts are for, someone has a claim, they show some legitimate basis for it (they don't have to prove it before submitting the claim), and the court ajudicates.
If I claim that the next President of the United States might do something illegal, so I would like injunctive relief, I would be laughed out of court.
Courts routinely adjudicates on past matters brought before them. Injunctive relief is rarer, and, I believe requires a tougher standard.
In this case, many citizens of the state felt they'd been harmed, their vote had been discarded, or the system was unfair to them. Given the stakes in this certification, the harm would be very great if the court allowed the process to go forward without looking at the issues carefully.
I also disagree that a certification that was allowed and then found to be invalid, or incomplete, wouldn't be a big deal. It'd be a very big deal to undo.
Why is this a big deal? I truly understand that it is a political big deal, and I really think that the courts are being wimps, and trying to avoid having to deal with the issue, but we don't expect courts to act like wimps.
12544. Dusty - 11/17/2000 8:08:37 PM
(cont)
I do understand that there are political implications to letting the certification happen, but I haven't heard the legal, or financial harm. (As an aside, what are the permissible classes of harm? I'm sure financial is included—I'm guessing that political is not included. Any others?)
12545. CalGal - 11/17/2000 8:10:24 PM
I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but fed court turned Bush down, too.
12546. Dusty - 11/17/2000 8:11:27 PM
CalGal
Boies is clever, but he's blowing smoke. If certification can be blocked simply because a recount might produce a different answer, then virtually any election certification could be blocked.
If he prevails on that bs reason, we are all screwed.
12547. Dusty - 11/17/2000 8:13:02 PM
Well, thanks for the discussion on this issue. I'm played out. I'm ready to turn to a different issue.
12548. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:13:11 PM
Baker & Co say this at least 30 times a day . He said the Bush camp remained confident that Katherine Harris, the secretary of state who had called for an end to hand recounts, acted lawfully and with "proper discretion."
Never discuss facts, never mention the tortured interpretations of statute she depends on, never mention what is really going on, the sham she's playing out.
12549. milkmaid - 11/17/2000 8:14:09 PM
Of course Baker isn't going to say any of those things. Duh.
12550. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 8:14:51 PM
Alfraud
12551. CalGal - 11/17/2000 8:15:06 PM
Dusty,
Good luck. My guess is we'll be consumed by this for a while longer.
. If certification can be blocked simply because a recount might produce a different answer, then virtually any election certification could be blocked.
No, you have to have a reasonable belief that the outcome might be different. 10,000 votes rejected by a machine in an election that has a 300 vote spread could certainly be considered a reasonable belief.
12552. CalGal - 11/17/2000 8:17:31 PM
What I am truly gleeful about, and it shames me, is that Bush won't be partying this weekend. Even if he wins ultimately, that's worth some brownie points.
It was just so annoying watching him and Baker say, firmly, that they expected the election to be wrapped up on Saturday.
They lost their Saturday. Ha.
12553. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:20:47 PM
A certification can be blocked as follows
(1) Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest.
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.
The following also is relevant.
) Any other cause or allegation which, if sustained, would show that a person other than the successful candidate was the person duly nominated or elected to the office in question or that the outcome of the election on a question submitted by referendum was contrary to the result declared by the canvassing board or election board.
12554. Cellar Door - 11/17/2000 8:22:05 PM
I'm just glad to see the Borg Queen (Harris) done in.
12555. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:23:02 PM
Well, I mentioned that early this morning, CalGal, and the only mistake I made was saying "at the ranch in Waco" and all hell broke loose....shades of Janet Reno and frying babies.
He's only upset that a proper party down atmosphere can't be attained; it's like the kids in College Station mourning the fact they can't have a bonfire.
12556. Dusty - 11/17/2000 8:24:05 PM
Welcome milkmaid!
12557. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:24:28 PM
Yes there does have to be a reasonable basis for concluding that a different outcome could happen. Once requested, and once granted, the Secty of State has no basis to stop the counts, no power to challenge the decision itself, its conclusive on her unless wild and crazy in which case she could go to court. Once granted IOW she has no authority to stop a recount that is properly undertaken. So she uses her discretionary powers as an end run
12558. CalGal - 11/17/2000 8:26:13 PM
Jex,
That last reason you cited sounds familiar. I think that might have been what Boies was referring to. In any event, I think they were very wise to stay away from irreparable harm.
12559. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 8:30:57 PM
Bush up by 449.
12560. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:31:11 PM
Further irreparable harm to Gore - statute requires Harris to get the results to the state canvassing commish ASAP and commission then immediately determines the electors based on that result.
It would make it harder if those results were satisfied to protect the Gore position if it has merit as it appears to
12561. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:32:17 PM
So, drudge reports that Bush leads by 478 with a lot of the overseas votes counted...55 out of 67 counties counted.
If true, this is depressing.
12562. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:32:23 PM
149 votes ain't gonna cut it Rose unless the machines freed most of the chad from the ballots - a big OOOPS
12563. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:33:02 PM
...and oh so sorry I forgot to say Capital D drudge.
12564. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:33:40 PM
neither will 178....most were estimating a 300 vote boost. But I bet its easier to estimate how much Bush would get than what Gore might get from a ballot examination
12565. Cellar Door - 11/17/2000 8:34:20 PM
Oh yes the All Holy Pope Matt Who is Without Sin.
12566. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:36:35 PM
I'd bet he did talk at least in general terms about the harm he'd suffer as he is required to do that. He may have been much more specific about the lack of harm to if injunction granted.
12567. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:37:31 PM
Hey Cellar...I agree with you, he's slime. I was just posting what is on his site.
12568. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 8:37:40 PM
There is an absolute, 100% reason I know that Bush is going to win. On election night, the French News Service called the election for Gore.
12569. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:39:19 PM
Oh sure, Rosie...the French. Friggin' FOX said Bush was the winner...
12570. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:39:35 PM
Judge Labarga told Palm Beach plaintiffs that if he had to deny them a remedy it would be the hardest decision he has ever made.
Old folks...about the best plaintiffs you can find
12571. Cellar Door - 11/17/2000 8:40:06 PM
"Voulez-vous couche avec moi, ce soir?
Voulez-vous couche avec moi? "
12572. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:40:58 PM
This is bad. Gore's people told some black voters to "vote on every page" They followed instruction to the letter and double punched.
12573. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 8:41:25 PM
Stop calling me Rosie. My name is Electric.
I worry that this election will weaken whoever becomes president.
The Clinton legacy.
12574. ranheim - 11/17/2000 8:43:09 PM
Like father - like son?
Three men on a lifeboat with a problem : there is only enough food for one of them.
So Dean Rusk, JFK , Mayor Richard Daley are holding a serious conversation. They are unable to come to an agreement. So Mayor Dailey proposes a vote by secret ballot. Dailey won : 8 votes to 2.
12575. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:44:27 PM
Turns out the court did not use extraordinary power to issue the stay. They did it as soon as they received a certificate from the court of appeals that they had received a proper notice from the lower court.
Still, an unusual thing to do it without motion
12576. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:44:39 PM
A Rosie is a Rosie is a Rosie.
A Rosie by any other name would smell as foul...you will never be electric, unless you're struck by lightning.
12577. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 8:46:10 PM
The freepers are posting articles that say that the Florida Supremes would have held the hearing tomorrow except that they all are going to the big football game.
12578. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:46:14 PM
a tough motherfucker just like Pop...just the man for White House Chief of Staff
12579. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:47:38 PM
jex:
Who will be GWs COS....Poppy?
12580. CalGal - 11/17/2000 8:48:09 PM
Hey, I found the text for the press conference!
Boies/Christopher Press Conference
Here's where he discusses the fact that he doesn't see any irreparable harm, which is what I remembered:
On the matter -- one follow-up, sir, one follow-up, sir. On the matter of the certification, can you explain again, perhaps in lay person's terms, why you're not seeking a preliminary injunction to stop certification? That's both a legal question and a political one.
BOIES: Well, from a legal standpoint, there are two grounds that we are going to seek relief from. One of those grounds, that is the contest of the election on the grounds that it involves a rejection of a sufficient number of votes to cast the results of the election in doubt, is something that can only be considered after you have the certification. So that if we want the court to consider that issue, we either have to direct that exclusively to the certification that took place as of 5 p.m. on Tuesday, or it would apply to both that certification and the certification that's expected on Saturday. So you have to make a choice there.
The second issue is that I think you can only get a preliminary injunction if you can show that there is going to be some kind of irreparable harm. I think that since the Supreme Court has the power to vacate any certification, if it concludes that it is inconsistent with Florida law, and since the electors aren't going to meet, nothing is going to happen over the weekend except maybe some premature partying, I don't think that the Florida Supreme Court would necessarily view that as irreparable injury.
12581. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 8:49:23 PM
JudY: Don't you have some third-rate, backyard opera event to go to?
I'm leaving to get back on the road to pick up kids at Friday night events. Wife just had an accident with our second car. No one hurt.
12582. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:51:44 PM
Slide:
You can't afford the events I attend.
12583. jexster - 11/17/2000 8:53:30 PM
Clinton legacy? You mean the Bush legacy don't you? Its Bush who is fouling the air with spin, trying to create angst, denying people their vote, instead of respecting the laws - peddling slanders about recount until you get the result and other half baked Texas cornbread.
Gore's legacy for being such a god awful campaigner that despite all the advantages, he couldn't manage an 8 point whuppin of that nimrod
Clinton legacy? Yesterday's news Rosie. I wonder when you silly wingnuts will get over it?
12584. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:56:29 PM
jex:
Rosie has 5 kiddos...he needs those vouchers!
12585. JudithAtHome - 11/17/2000 8:59:09 PM
Sorry...I hope no one WAS hurt, Rosetta...sorry to gig you when there's been an accident involving your wife and the car.
12586. Dusty - 11/17/2000 9:12:43 PM
CalGal
Hey thanks!
Glad to see it matches my understanding.
12587. jexster - 11/17/2000 9:17:25 PM
Jjon - Unfortunately those defective, fundamentally disordered genes have 5 chances to infect future generations
12588. jexster - 11/17/2000 9:21:03 PM
I challenge any and all to identify one single election dispute assertion or position that James Baker has advanced that is well-founded in fact or in law in other words one that passes the smell test for shit.
Here's another whopper!
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) _ Texas' manual recount law permits county officials todetermine whether a voter intended to select a particular candidate on a punchcard ballot _ a rule that Gov. George W. Bush has protested in Florida, saying it is subjective.
Texas state law also allows county officials to count ``pregnant chads'' _ part of a punchcard ballot that has an indentation but was not punched all the way through _as a vote.
We do it in California too.
12589. Cellar Door - 11/17/2000 9:25:48 PM
The Bush campaign theme song (revised version).
Sung in 4-part harmony by Bush, Baker, Hughes, and Harris to the tune of the Byrds' "Turn, Turn, Turn."
To every voter,
Spin, spin, spin
There is a pundit,
Spin, spin, spin
And a time to play Oval Office back in Austin.
(Verse 1)
A time to lie,
A time to distort,
A time to contrive
Things the press will report
A time to obstruct,
A time to appeal,
And a time for us to doctor absentee ballots.
(Verse 2)
There's a black woman,
Spin, spin, spin
Tell her the poll's closed
Spin, spin, spin
And make sure that the black folks who voted
Don't get their votes counted.
A time to inflame
A time to divide
A time to rouse rabble, and time to hide.
A time to get wasted
And time to get straight
And time once again to fall off the wagon
(Refrain: There's an election....)
12590. jexster - 11/17/2000 9:44:04 PM
Cal -
Actually, David Boies has yet to appear on any pleading. He's only just been admitted by the Supreme Court to appear pro hac vice for Gore.
No one has filed anything with the Supreme Court. I heard that Gore, the Demo Party and Broward County filed a notice of appeal. In CA, at least, a stay must be separately requested and must contain copies of the order appealed from and summarize the grounds supporting the stay.
So the court had before it no appellate brief from Gore et al discussing with points and authorities the merits of the case or the need for a stay (injunctive relief) of the trial court's decision.
Further, the demos have never filed a TRO or preliminary injunction request anywhere. They filed a motion for a permanent injunction against Harris for her half assed tactics.
12591. jexster - 11/17/2000 10:02:09 PM
To ask the court to stay a lower court order does either involve irreparable harm or waste of some kind. Perhaps he didn't even bother with a stay request before the appellate court on his reasoning. So much mo betta then, so much worse for Bush that the Sct took it upon itself.
He's going to try to straighten out the lower court, make it apply the correct law and ask for a remand for further proceedings. Looks like that's what he's thinking and so technically he's not asking the Sctcourt to enter judgment on the injunction motion. The trial court will do that.
12592. jexster - 11/17/2000 10:09:33 PM
Anyway, a stay and an injunction accomplish the same thing...if there isn't a showing that there's some likelihood of prevailing on the merits and no apparent harm in allowing the judgment to remain in force, then there's no reason for the court to stay its hand or that of the trial court.
12593. Al D - 11/17/2000 10:20:58 PM
Von
Jex - I generally don't read what you write because you are such a
hack. But I read, "Hack Whore" in your last post and want to express
my revulsion for this level of discourse from someone who is on my
side of the issue.
You should read jexter more often; for him, this is mild..
12594. Electric Slide - 11/17/2000 10:34:42 PM
Bush now leads by 652 with four counties (all Republican) left.
Supposedly hundreds of military overseas absentee ballots have been disqualified by Alfraud's Democrats for technicalities.
12595. jonesatlaw - 11/17/2000 11:44:56 PM
Rosie- a fact for your not so Rosie scenario- most of the military votes will be going to counties where the GOP control the canvas board.
But never mind the facts- foam away and have a nice weekend.
12596. CalGal - 11/17/2000 11:50:15 PM
Jex,
You are right. I just read up on this whole thing, and the FSC was acting on its own.
From the Times:
The Gore campaign promptly filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court, but did not expressly ask for an order to block Ms. Harris's planned certification. Democratic lawyers were later elated that the high court, the only branch of state government dominated by Democratic appointees, later did so on its own.
12597. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 12:07:58 AM
My question about all these dimpled and pregnant chad business is about the possibility of revotes. If say, Palm Beach County, is counting a ballot with a dimpled chad for Gore and no other votes as a vote for Gore are they also disqualifying ballots with a missing chad for Gore and a dimpled chad for someone else?
12598. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:13:48 AM
I don't think so.
12599. AceofSpades - 11/18/2000 12:17:33 AM
Which is inconsistent. If a dimple shows intent, then it shows intent in all cases.
12600. joezan - 11/18/2000 12:21:31 AM
Can anyone answer this:
Are the decisions of the individual hand counters and monitors being monitored - either immediately or otherwise?
12601. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:25:09 AM
Joe,
I believe they are monitored by a representative from each party and they are then photographed. But it's been a while since I heard that.
Ace,
I don't see how. If there are no other marks, the dimple could signify intent--but they are set aside because there is still debate over that.
If there is a dimple and another chad completely punched out (or hanging) then it seems pretty clear what happened.
BTW, Fox News is saying that the Republicans are very unhappy at the returns for absentee ballots. They expected more of a boost, apparently.
12602. altitude /w attitude - 11/18/2000 12:26:00 AM
I understood they were being observed by a democrat and a republican.
12603. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:27:09 AM
Ha. 1100 absentee ballots were tossed out. No signatures, or postmarked late.
12604. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:31:13 AM
What I don't understand is this: is Harris just flat out stupid? State law says that ballots must be postmarked by Election Day, but earlier this week she issued a memo telling election officials that so long as the ballot was signed and dated by election day, go ahead and count it--even if it wasn't postmarked.
She is being openly defied by many county election officials--but what I'm wondering is why the hell she's being so blatant about things? Clearly, she thinks it will benefit Republicans (although it could obviously benefit both parties). But why give the further impression of pandering?
12605. jonesatlaw - 11/18/2000 12:34:52 AM
Vets who do AI use latex gloves that are long enough to go up to their armpits when implanting the bull semen in the cow. I heard that Baker has ordered a box to protect his suit when he stands behind Harris. That's the only explanation I can come up with for her actions.
12606. jonesatlaw - 11/18/2000 12:35:47 AM
His lips hardly move either.
12607. joezan - 11/18/2000 12:37:52 AM
Cal:
No...I mean their totals.
IOW, say I'm one of the folks (either dem or repub) who are sitting there inspecting these ballots. During my shift, I get through, say, 3,000 ballots. And I "find", with a little help from my fingernail, or whatever, 20 more votes foe my man. Meanwhile, everyone else at my table finds 5, total.
Is there any way of reviewing my count - is there anyone keeping track of the individual counters who find the extra votes, or manage to "find" double-punched ballots that rule out what could've been a vote for the other guy?
12608. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:41:11 AM
Joe,
You can't "find" them while two people are staring at you and a camera is photographing your every move. Sorry, toots, but I don't think these counters have much interest in going to jail.
They'd have to look at a ballot, figure out it was a good one to punch, punch it--all while being scrutinized.
It amazes me how cheerfully people will consider fraud by folks making some $10/hour.
And yes, I am quite sure that they track every single vote, as well as who counted it. The Republicans would insist on it.
12609. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:43:25 AM
And this cracks me up: some Republican hack is complaining about the "fraud" in counting absentee ballots. They're unsigned, but what the hell, count 'em anyway.
12610. joezan - 11/18/2000 12:50:43 AM
Cal:
If you're right (and I've heard nothing that confirms you), then I will bet my right hand that individual counters will be identified who have found highly disproportionate numbers of "mistakes". I have no doubt the shenanigans are being played from both sides.
But, again - if it can be shown that there were shenanigans going on in the recounts, then I suspect that wold be very good grounds to discount the re-count.
12611. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:52:36 AM
Joe,
You've heard nothing about the fact that every counter is monitored by a representative of each party and that everything is filmed? Are you serious?
12612. CalGal - 11/18/2000 12:54:32 AM
Besides, Joe, they have already counted a small percentage of the votes, and except the one complaint (which they have no proof of, despite the fact that the entire counting was filmed--how curious) there have been no charges of fraud. There are plenty of battles about whether or not a dimple is proof of intent, but nothing else.
And again--what the hell is it with you guys that you would so cheerfully accuse regular people of voter fraud--particularly of such a dangerous nature? Do you think these people want to risk jail time? It's all on film.
12613. joezan - 11/18/2000 12:59:14 AM
Of course I have - don't be dense. And please - we see only wide-angle shots of a large room. It's not like Vegas, where there's a camera zoomed in on each counter's hand.
But as these folks count the ballots, their piles are taken away, placed into a bag with a bunch of other ballots, and put away.
What I want to know is this:
Is there some way, after the count is finished, of reviewing joezan's work and comparing it to others who have counted from the same district?
If not, that is a serious flaw.
12614. Shannon - 11/18/2000 1:00:27 AM
From MSNBC:
Republicans circulated a letter dated Friday from Navy Capt. E.M DuCom, deputy director of the military postal service, who said military mail is required to be postmarked. But he added, “There are instances when time constraints do not allow for proper postmarking/cancellation of the mail. The last flight may be departing the ship and the mail has to get on it.”
Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. Poor military people just have to get the mail out in a rush and can't be bothered to postmark it. Give me a break.
If it's late, it's late. Too bad. If I don't get to the polls by closing time, I don't get to vote.
And what mail has to be on the last flight so badly that they can't do a postmark? Fax, email, anyone?
12615. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:02:31 AM
You can't e-mail or fax a vote, Shannon.
But I do agree - if it ain't postmarked, it ain't a vote.
12616. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:03:24 AM
Shannon,
Yes, she's amazing lax about deadlines much of the time, isn't she? It's bizarre. Did she think she wouldn't be scrutinized?
Joe,
Whatever the "serious flaw", it is with handcount procedures in Florida. But I think you're pretty paranoid if you don't realize that a procedure that is widely regarded throughout the country as more accurate would also have to be legitimate in order to have achieved that level of acceptance.
12617. Shannon - 11/18/2000 1:04:36 AM
I know you can't fax a vote. I got the impression from that quote that whole shipments of mail are routinely not postmarked because they've just gotta be out NOW. I find that rather dubious. If our military really does have stuff so critical it can't wait for a postmark going out snail mail, we're in pretty bad shape.
12618. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:08:54 AM
Cal:
Yeah.
And the fact that this is THE most important election, and that numerous cases of voter fraud and malfeasance are being reported from both sides all over the country - you can just ignore these... explain them away with your unshakable faith in the integrity of the electorate?
Please.
12619. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:10:48 AM
Where did I say anything about unshakeable faith in integrity?
12620. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 1:18:22 AM
According to the AP, the big county that has yet to report absentees is Duval which was the largest county for military absentees.
Wasnt the county where LBJ manufactured votes in his 13 vote Senate election victory in 1948 also called Duval?
12621. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 1:31:01 AM
CG, #12601:
"If there are no other marks, the dimple could signify intent--but they are set aside because there is still debate over that.
If there is a dimple and another chad completely punched out (or hanging) then it seems pretty clear what happened."
If there's a dimple for candidate X and a fully-punched-out hole for candidate Y, there's a reasonable argument to be made that the voter must have first attempted to vote for X, but changed his mind in mid-stream and decided to vote for Y, instead.
But, by the same argument -- if there's a dimple for candidate X and no fully-punched-out holes at all, the voter must have first attempted to vote for X, but changed his mind in mid-stream and decided to vote for nobody, instead.
You can't have it both ways.
12622. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:34:00 AM
Stumbo,
Oh, yeah. That works. I'm going to vote for....Gore? Naw, forget it. They're all a buncha bums.
12623. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:34:39 AM
Cal:
And again--what the hell is it with you guys that you would so cheerfully accuse regular people of voter fraud--particularly of such a dangerous nature? Do you think these people want to risk jail time?
These "regular" people are being instructed by extremely partisan party hacks of both stripes on how to inspect ballots. One story I heard on MSNBC today described the instructions democrat counters in PBC received from a group of demo lawyers, who all but advised that they cheat. Now, I'm not saying that repubs are not getting the same exact advice from their side.
What I am saying is that it's naive, and maybe a little ingenuous, to imply that there is anything approaching neutrality in the counting.
What is going on is a game of one-upsmanship. And the later into the game we get, the more ballots are being contested, and the longer it is taking. Come on - you understand the dynamic; the R's have been told that Gore is going to come away from these counts with the lions share of the change. The D's hear that in a district thought to be 80% Gore, Bush actually nets 5 votes.
This isn't some local county commisioner contest - it's THE BIG ONE. And now, it's the BIGGEST of the big ones.
There is no way this process is being handles objectively at the ground floor - I sure wouldn't be able to maintain my objectivity were I down there counting.
12624. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 1:37:43 AM
Joe - My understanding from what has been said and from the TV images is that there are no individual counters. There teams of two counters and two observers. If the two counters cannot agree on a ballot it is put aside and referred to the county canvassing commission. If one of the observers has an objection it is raised with the canvassing commission, noted and may be used in later law suits. The PBC commission chair said that in the first two precints maunally recounted, an average of ~1,800 ballots, ~260 & ~280 ballots where referred to the commission. The three member commission met with lawyers for each major party and went over these ballots. In one precint the lawyers objected to three ballots and in the other two ballots.
12625. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 1:38:42 AM
Joe - My understanding of the story about the Dem training was not for counters but for observers and perfectly in keeping with the role of the observer.
12626. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:39:41 AM
uhhh....disingenuous...
12627. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 1:40:10 AM
Regarding the purported rejection of ~1,000 absentee ballots for missing postmarks; this is a hell of a time for the Dems to get all strict constructionist about the timing of including ballots.
12628. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:40:10 AM
These "regular" people are being instructed by extremely partisan party hacks of both stripes on how to inspect ballots.
So what? You were accusing them of acting on their own, punching out chads, and doing this all in front of cameras and witnesses, when getting caught means jail time. That's entirely different from a hack looking over their shoulder and saying, "That's a vote for Gore."
What I am saying is that it's naive, and maybe a little ingenuous, to imply that there is anything approaching neutrality in the counting.
No, that's not what you said at all. You said that it was entirely likely that the counters themselves were guilty of fraud--and that their counts should be checked to ensure it. In the first place, I imagine they are checked--if not, take your gripe to the people who set up handcount procedures. In the second place, who the hell is going to risk going to jail to fake even one vote, much less enough to make a conclusive difference?
This isn't some local county commisioner contest - it's THE BIG ONE. And now, it's the BIGGEST of the big ones.
So what? It's the same people involved. The same lives at risk doing the counting. You're silly if you think that they would all cheerfully risk their lives as they know it on the offchance that they could inspect a single ballot, determine that it's a candidate for manipulation, and punch it--all under the eyes of a camera and a Republican.
12629. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:41:49 AM
uhhh....disingenuous....
12630. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:42:37 AM
Regarding the purported rejection of ~1,000 absentee ballots for missing postmarks; this is a hell of a time for the Dems to get all strict constructionist about the timing of including ballots.
That's ridiculous. No one in Florida, Dem or Republican, asked to extend the time the polls were open. That's the like analogy. Why not let 1000 registered Democrat voters come on in and say, Hey! I'm a little late, but I'd like to vote for Gore!
12631. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 1:47:09 AM
Bush up by 760 (overseas absentee vote: 1057-597), with "65 of 67 counties updating," according to CNN.
What does "updating" mean? Updated? Or merely still in the process of updating, with more to come from those counties?
I'm with JV, though -- the Dems will probably find, manufacture, beg, borrow, and steal enough votes in PBC to win. Esp. since they'll know what the required target is.
Dubya, we hardly knew bya.
12632. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:47:54 AM
I think it means they submitted updated totals.
12633. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 1:49:00 AM
Well, actually the Democrooks are suing in Palm Beach county to give the people who couldnt figure out how to correctly punch a hole in a piece of paper another chance to vote in the near future.
12634. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:51:23 AM
I believe the voters are filing, not the Dems.
I wonder if you could just collect affidavits from all the people who say they voted for Gore.
12635. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 1:53:06 AM
CG:
If that's your position, then
"If there is a dimple and another chad completely punched out (or hanging) then it seems pretty clear what happened."
should be taken to mean that mere dimples don't mean a damn thing.
Right?
12636. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 1:53:28 AM
Stumbo - No way. Broward County is projecting out to about 170 plus Gore votes and Broward is bigger and more Democrook than Palm Beach. No way do they make up 700 plus votes in Palm Beach hook or crook. Gore should do himself a favor and concede next Monday.
12637. joezan - 11/18/2000 1:54:10 AM
Cal:
I have no idea what you're talking about.
vonK:
All the more questionable. What they were told (in response to a query) was, "Any pencil mark - any little scratch, indentation - whatever - that's one for Gore. When you see one for Bush, turn your head".
These are the people who are supposed to be observing to insure integrity?
Now, as I said - I'm sure it's going on on both sides. But the vast majority of the observers are Democrats, and that just plain stinks.
12638. CalGal - 11/18/2000 1:56:37 AM
Joe,
I am saying that you have switched your beef. You were first declaring fraud by the counters, now you are just saying that the overseers are hacks and will do their best to tilt the scales.
Stumbo,
I have no idea what you are talking about.
12639. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:00:53 AM
CG, #12632:
Yes -- but updated partially, or updated completely?
12640. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:02:35 AM
Stumbo,
My understanding is that they were complete, but that's from TV.
12641. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:04:16 AM
No way. Broward County is projecting out to about 170 plus Gore votes and Broward is bigger and more Democrook than Palm Beach.
Does Broward have punch ballots? I forget. In any event, they have more rejected votes, I think, and that's really where the difference is. The general consensus is that PBC has the most Gore votes to be found in a handcount.
12642. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:04:20 AM
Then how comes we don't know the DeVol total?
12643. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:04:39 AM
In any event, they have more rejected votes,
the "they" is PBC.
12644. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:05:33 AM
Joe,
Two counties haven't responded yet. And I'm not sure that this is correct, it's just what CNN is reporting.
12645. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:06:12 AM
BTW - I am rotating 3 or 4 different spellings of the "D" county, because I have only actually ever seen it spelled out once.
12646. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:07:00 AM
I think it is Duval.
12647. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:08:51 AM
I've been resisting the conclusion that either side is trying to steal the presidential election, if only because it sounds so intemperate. But based on the statements made by the two candidates on national television last night, it does seem to me that Al Gore is seeking an equitable outcome while George W. Bush is trying to grab the presidency of the United States with minimal regard for law, precedent, or elemental fairness.
More Weisberg
I too resisted. I resisted through the assinine claims of a Buchanan Neo Nazi cell operating out of the Jewish Community Center in Palm Beach. I resisted waves of nausea when Baker told us what a mench Ford was for conceding the inevitable, and through the lie that Nixon didn't mount a serious election contest albeit with Tricky Dicky deniability.
I resisted until Bush filed that hypocritical, silly Federal suit giving lie to the man of truth and his last snake oil salesman slogan, something about trust. I was totally overcome when Bush unleashed the Hack with her transparent campaign to distort and subvert the Florida elections laws.
12648. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:08:56 AM
CG, #12638:
Either we assume that a dimple implies voter intent, or we assume it does not. We can't assume that it implies something if it's the only indentation on the ballot, and that it implies nothing if it isn't.
And your (or anyone's) estimation as to whether "that works" is irrelevant. The standard for what constitutes a valid punch oughta be the same, in all cases.
12649. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:10:55 AM
CalGal - So they come up with more than 4 times as many extra Gore votes as Broward. Right.
12650. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:10:56 AM
(When in doubt, spell it the way Mr. 59 spells it)
12651. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:12:12 AM
jex:
It's mensch.
12652. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:12:20 AM
Buchanan actually has a home in Palm Beach County. Maybe people voted for him because they know and like him personally.
12653. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:13:06 AM
Stumbo,
Alas. The court disagrees with you. Myself, I think dimples are questionable. But given that they are allowed to determine the intent of the voter, your standard is meaningless. It's not each chad, it's the combination of all selections for that particular office and how the combo signifies intent.
12654. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:13:57 AM
Butter,
I can only tell you that it is widely expected that PBC will come up with more votes, and that is not with any suspicion of fraud.
12655. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:14:25 AM
BFS, #12636:
Wanna bet?
12656. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:15:25 AM
Er, BFW, not BFS.
12657. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:17:14 AM
Stumbo:
Either way, it looks like you were cursing him out in shorthand.
12658. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:17:58 AM
My question about all these dimpled and pregnant chad business is
about the possibility of revotes. If say, Palm Beach County, is
counting a ballot with a dimpled chad for Gore and no other votes as
a vote for Gore are they also disqualifying ballots with a missing chad for Gore and a dimpled chad for someone else?
Good question. There, as I understand it, is first the question of what the dimpled chad appears to indicate. At least that's how the Dept of Elections here in SF used to deal with it. [Sometimes the hole does not punch at any corner despite your best efforts. Some of the SF equipment was a bit warped and this happened to me more than once. I always checked my chad] This situation differs by the very nature of the equipment, of the firm punch you have to make in order to have a chance of registering the vote.
Your point however is a good one nonetheless. Once a chad has been determined to be a vote, ie its indent is more pronounced, then another vote is a double punch. On the other hand, another punch might be considered evidence of a mistake on the first. I have no idea how they are handling this. I have only heard that the counters look for other dimples in other races where they doubt after the inspection of the vote itself.
12659. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:19:04 AM
CG:
Alas, indeed.
Hence my bet offer to BFW, above. Again, I'm with JV in expecting Gore to come out on top.
12660. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:19:39 AM
Further, even to get Broward and Palm Beach counted, the Florida Supreme Court will have to allow recounts in the GOP counties. Its over.
12661. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:22:12 AM
IOW, say I'm one of the folks (either dem or repub) who are sitting
there inspecting these ballots. During my shift, I get through, say,
3,000 ballots. And I "find", with a little help from my fingernail, or whatever, 20 more votes foe my man. Meanwhile, everyone else at
my table finds 5, total.
Not saying its impossible but you miss a couple key points. One person picks up the ballot, examines it and holds it up for the other sitting opposite while two observers from each party look on. Second, its not easy, I assume by design, to punch those holes even with the bit of wire the Elections Dept used to include with their absentee ballots. You need a fine point and sharp helps. Not easy with a pen or pencil. Must be that thin and sharp.
12662. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:22:14 AM
JoeZ:
Heh. Well, actually, I was, for not being cynical enough.
12663. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:22:24 AM
Butter,
No, they don't have to. They should, ideally, to keep everyone settled. But they don't have to. Gore requested a recount, as is his right. Bush did not. His strategy was to hold firm, delay, and hope like hell that public opinion pressured Gore to concede once the SecState declared Bush the winner on Saturday. He lost that battle, and now he'll look pretty silly asking for a recount when the time for it is over. But Gore has already said he'll go for it.
That said, Gore is still expected to do well in a state recount--which is why Bush refused it. Most of Bush's counties are scanned, which means they have a much lower error rate (2 out of 1000 as opposed to 30 out of 1000, I believe).
12664. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:22:49 AM
jex:
Do you have any info on what kind of review, if any, is made of the individual counters and observers - regarding proportionality?
12665. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:28:14 AM
It's funny--Shields and Gigot had the same exchange that Joe and I just went through. Gigot went on and on about fraud; Shields says, that is such bullshit. Quite apart from the fact that these people are by and large fairly respectable souls, there's the fact that it is heavily scrutinized and it's incredibly risk.
Gigot then shifts (just as Joe did) to the officials overseeing it and their bias.
Which is a whole different animal, of course. Nice backpedaling.
12666. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:29:59 AM
I don't know. Might be a good check. But its done in teams roughly at the same time with 2 observers so I think the chances of the Lee Nails punch is rather hard to do.
As I have said, CA Elections Departments hop on this right off the bat. They hire hundreds to examine all ballots the machine rejects on the very first count. Only the most casual candidate observers (try to find volunteers for that task!), if any at all. I'd imagine that it wouldn't cost too many manhours to do what you suggest since the examiners only record agreements and there's simply no time to be alone with a ballot. Straining at gnats but then Bush has been doing his level best to conjure all sorts of fanciful evils. The steady drumbeat of bull does influence some but is wildly exaggerated.
12667. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:30:09 AM
Cal - Message # 12663:
Most of Bush's counties are scanned, which means they have a much lower error rate (2 out of 1000 as opposed to 30 out of 1000, I believe).
True. But remember - the counties now re-counting are THE large Demo counties. The rest of the state is, for all intents and purposes, Bush's. So, even should Gore come out 1-2,000 ahead, I'm sure we could find at least that many for Bush in the rest of the state.
12668. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:31:27 AM
No, CalGal,ˇˇwith the current Bush league it would take a quote-unquote miracle for Gore to catch up even in the counties under consideration. If by some odd chance he does AND the Fla. Supreme Court orders Katherine Harris to extend the deadline, she would likely argue that additional counties could recount their votes. That would generate net Bush votes and give Florida back to Bush. A Supreme Court decision that Harris should extend the deadline for the Dummocrook counties and only the Dummocrook counties would be laughable and be ignored.
12669. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:31:52 AM
I'd say there's a better chance, a many times better chance that a poll worker could pre-punch than one of these poor sods could post-punch under the set ups I've seen on TV.
12670. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 2:32:34 AM
Joe - The counters are there to actually count the ballots; the observers are there to protect the interests of their party. Every ballot is counted by two people who are observed by one observer from each major party within an open room with many video cameras. The process is a rigorous one designed to prevent fraud. It works very well, from what I have read from elections experts.
12671. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:32:39 AM
BFwhatever:
X-Post.
12672. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 2:33:35 AM
And Joe, it is Bush who has rejected re-counting the state by hand, not Gore.
12673. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:35:03 AM
Butter, Joe:
Again--all the experts (and that includes Gore and his team, who made the offer) expect that a state wide recount still gives the advantage to Gore. You're welcome to argue with them all.
Besides, there is no guarantee that the courts would allow a statewide recount--even if Gore agrees to it, which he has said he would.
12674. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:36:20 AM
Kathleen has no standing to argue for or to request any recount. In fact, she has no authority whatsoever under the statute WRT recounts. She doesn't supervise them. She doesn't approve them. She doesn't set standards. Nothing.
Her's is a magisterial function in which the GOP has suddenly discovered unfathomable substantive depth.
I can't believe how BAD, how slip shod that judge's decision was.
12675. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:36:48 AM
vonK:
I know that.
I don't know why you mentioned it, but I know that.
12676. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:38:27 AM
jex:
Maybe we believe this fantasy because Florida's (Demo) Attorney General said she's da man?
12677. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:38:29 AM
I still don't get the "this county has a higher percentage of Jews, hence it can't have a higher percentage of Buchanan voters" argument, BTW.
The more Jews there are in any locale (as long as they're not an overwhelming majority), the more antisemites there are. (And this holds for pretty much any ethnic group.) An unfortunate fact, but a fact nonetheless.
So, if those antisemites happen to accept the dearly-departed TS's theory that Buchanan is one -- they'd tend to vote for him, no?
12678. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:38:34 AM
vK - As Mister Understated, Warren Christopher, candidly admitted WRT the recount, "our expectation of winning on recount is but an educated guess, more guess than education"
Its possible that the second machine pass dislodged a good bit.
12679. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:38:37 AM
Butter,
A Supreme Court decision that Harris should extend the deadline for the Dummocrook counties and only the Dummocrook counties would be laughable and be ignored.
No, that's not the issue. A candidate has 72 hours to request a recount after an election. Gore requested the recount of the four counties. Bush did not. The deadline for these requests is past--and unlike the deadline for turning in tallies, it's not something that has any grounds for extension.
So the courts could easily say "Hey, you played your hand wrong" to Bush and still legitimately allow Gore to do his recount. All while allowing the deadline extension on the grounds that the counties were not given legitimate time to do a recount that they are legally obligated to do.
I think most people would agree that a state count is better--but the FSC could very legitimately decide against it without being inconsistent.
12680. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:40:22 AM
Stumbo,
It amuses me no end to see anyone argue that Buchanan's votes might be real. Quite apart from the fact that any such voters would be screaming for attention--and getting it--no one seriously and credibly disputes the fact that something is awry in the results.
12681. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:41:02 AM
CalGal -- Aˇˇstatewide recount is a net plus for Gore. Just not nearly enough to overtake Bush.
But I take back my argument that Gore should concede for his own good. He should sue everybody. Cause when he cant hide behind Butch Renos skirts anymore, hes gonna need all the court experience he can get. Probably end up as Willie Hortons bitch out at Marion.
12682. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:41:16 AM
Cal:
The experts also said that Gore would pick up a couple thousand votes in Broward.
It doesn't look like he'll get a couple hundred.
12683. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:43:51 AM
Joe,
The experts said no such thing. He'll get a couple hundred, I should imagine.
But really, what's your point? I've said several times that Gore might not win the recount. That's no argument for not having it.
12684. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:45:16 AM
Well it defies common sense now doesn't it Stumbo. In fact, there is no factual basis for it. The supposed Reform Party registration was not in fact Reform at all. The county is liberal, heavily Jewish, and Buchanan spent no time or money there.
Its odd but very true that states, counties, cities, wards even precincts have consistent voting patterns year to year, race to race. People tend to live in areas where those of like mind also wish to live. Not a politically conscious choice but very real.
The following calculates the odds of such an anamoly in PBC at 1 in 10,000 Here
12685. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:46:12 AM
Cal:
In recent days the wisdom has changed.
But last week, it was indeed the wisdom that Gore would net a couple thousand more votes in both Broward and PBC.
12686. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:47:00 AM
CG:
I've seen a few folks who claimed to have knowingly voted for Buchanan, in PBC, pop up on various CNN forums.
(I have no idea whether they're being truthful, of course.)
12687. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:49:16 AM
Joe,
I've been following this from the beginning, and there have rarely been any serious numeric estimates from either one. Certainly not after the 1% recount that they all did.
Stumbo,
Um. Of course some people voted for Buchanon. But not 3400 worth. They'd be coming forward in droves.
12688. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:50:58 AM
Cal:
You are repeating every tired argument as to the reasons Gore will win the hand count. You may not really believe it, but either way, I'm not suggesting that you do.
I'm just arguing - same as you.
Chill.
12689. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:51:27 AM
Jex:
Get back to me when you can spell "anomaly," never mind define it.
12690. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:52:11 AM
Cal:
Right.
But the "experts" were also experts before the 1% recounts.
12691. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:52:46 AM
County by county there is a steady correlation between Republican votes and Buchanan votes, uniformly negative one for Gore. In every county, except Palm Beach which is off scale as an outlier, a freak.
12692. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 2:54:01 AM
I thought that Gore should have conceded yesterday and the Dems could move on to ensuring that they control the Congress in '02 and the WH in '04. Now the FSC taking it on itself to enjoin Harris from certifying the election changes things somewhat. Gore has said that he will abide by any Florida result that includes the manual recounts of at least Dade, Broward, and PBC; he should stick with this whether or not the Repubs ever agree. He should also now refrain from conceding until Harris certifies the election. If she includes the manual recounts and Gore loses he should unambiguously call for the country and his party to recognize the legitimacy of the Bush Presidency. If the manual recounts are not included he should issue a bare concession and the Dems should refuse to cooperate with an illigitimate president.
It is fascinating that Bush ran as a uniter, a person willing and able to cross party lines to reach reasonable compromises that enable the people's business to be conducted. Yet given his first opportunity to show off these skills he cannot even bring himself to show up for a photo op with his opponent, much less propose or accept a compromise that would enable us to conduct the people's business. Rather it is Gore, this paragon of the politics of division, who offers to support a complete recount of Florida, who proposes that the two men meet to moderate the tone of the discussion, who offers to rule out any court challenges. Fascinating.
12693. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:55:21 AM
CG:
"Droves" = each CNN talk show would feature two of them?
12694. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:55:30 AM
CalGal, there is a deadline for turning in ballots. If the F.S.C. decides to adopt some specious argument that that does not apply to some counties, the only grounds will be that it will be more important to count ballots than to uphold some silly rule. But in that case, Harris will say that she will accept recounts from any county; the GOP will petition for recounts past the 72 hour deadline on account of the change in the rules; GOP counties will grant their requests; Bush will gain enough votes to win; Harris will certify them and the Dummocrooks would have to sue to not count those votes. (any reversal of position embarrasment would go both ways).
Now, given the shamelessness of the bought and paid for scum on the Florida Supreme Court, its possible (but unlikely) they would overule Harris on those vote counts. But in that case, with more counted votes for Bush than for Gore, the Florida State legislature would send the GOP electors to the college.
12695. jexster - 11/18/2000 2:57:14 AM
Oh jeez, Stumbo Spell Check, Queen of the Spelling Bee.
Stumbo in the words of the Moron in Chief, its hard to misunderestimate your rapier-like wit. Betcha it worked wonders for you in 7th grade.
12696. CalGal - 11/18/2000 2:57:39 AM
Joe,
????
Don't be silly. In fact, I think there is a good chance that Gore won't win the recount. Just because I don't think your reasons are the reasons doesn't mean that I don't think reasons exist.
As for Broward vs. PBC, no one ever seriously predicted that Broward would have more. Several people, before the 1% counts, said that the potential was there, because it was so much bigger. But others looked at the amounts of rejected ballots and said that it was most likely PBC had more.
Gore had the right to ask for the recount. That's really all there is to it. Your complaints about what some people might have said--inaccurate as it is--has nothing to do with it. I personally think he was right to ask for the recount, whether he wins or not. I am by no means sure he will win. I am glad he asked for the recount anyway, if for no other reason than Bush didn't get his way. If he wins, so much the better.
12697. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 2:58:04 AM
Calgal - I would imagine that Buchanan voters in Palm Beach County would be lying low right now.
12698. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 2:58:42 AM
vK:
Gore has to resort to such offers, since he's behind on the officially-certified count (and has nothing to lose). Bush doesn't.
12699. joezan - 11/18/2000 2:59:21 AM
Oh, horseshit, vonK!
There are no doubt millions of people out there thinking, WOW! What a magnanimous gesture that wonderful man just made - he's offering to let GW have a re-count of the whole state, and he doesn't even HAFTO!
Do you really want people here to believe you are one of those idiots?
12700. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 3:00:54 AM
Jex:
At least I got to 7th grade. ;-)
12701. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:05:18 AM
Butter,
CalGal, there is a deadline for turning in ballots.
Yes, and it has been ruled--and in fact is obvious just by reading the law--that the deadline can be extended, or that recounts can be submitted.
In fact, all counties met the deadline. Four counties asked to submit a recount. They were denied. The issue isn't the deadline--which can be extended. The issue is whether or not the SecState had the right to deny them the ability to recount, or whether their recount might have a material effect on the outcome.
So it is entirely possible for them to rule that no, she doesn't have that right, and still say that requests for recounts have to be timely. They are two different issues.
But in that case, Harris will say that she will accept recounts from any county; the GOP will petition for recounts past the 72 hour deadline on account of the change in the rules;
I am not sure if you are aware of the different rules involved? If you're just being ornery, fine. But it seems as if you misunderstand. Gore asked for a recount. The recount limit has not been the subject of a single lawsuit. Hasn't even been mentioned. So no, Harris could not arbitrarily lift the limit, because no rules have changed at all.
Now, given the shamelessness of the bought and paid for scum on the Florida Supreme Court, its possible (but unlikely) they would overule Harris on those vote counts.
Given the Harris hackery, I find your denigration of the SC a bit silly. Nonetheless, they wouldn't have to overrule Harris were she to decide to change her mind--because Gore has already quite graciously offered this as an option.
What is less clear is whether or not she has the right to change her mind, or if it is her call to make at all.
12702. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 3:05:19 AM
Both the invalid overseas absentee ballots and the Palm Beach Jews for Buchanan votes will end up being counter talking points for the next couple of years.
But the Dummocrooks will never get away from the letter sent out from one of their lawyer-operatives instructing their minions to concentrate on invalidating ballots from soldiers serving overseas. What complete scumbags.
12703. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:06:26 AM
While the Supremes have come down hard on technical defenses which disenfranchise, the statute's scheme depends on the candidates choosing their counties of opportunity presumably because they know the most about their own vote. Ferinstance, not all counties fall clearly into one camp or the other. The legislature adopted a scheme to narrow potential recounts to areas where net benefits could be realized by depending on candidates. They also limited the time for a recount request which discourages Quixotic vote quests. Where the race is neck and neck or the population very small, it makes no sense to force a recount because those places do not reveal a possibilty of changing the outcome.
Bush knowingly waived his rights, unfortunately not the right to remain silent however.
12704. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:07:14 AM
Butter,
You think? Naw. They want Bush to win, at this point. They'd be out there hooting and hollering for their guy, saying that his voting numbers were legit.
But as I said, no one with any credibility seriously doubts that Buchanan picked up a large number of Gore votes.
12705. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:07:19 AM
Joe - Yep, that's just the sort of idiot I appear to be. I do not believe, as Stumb says, that Gore had to "resort" to such an offer, he could have stood pat and not made such an offer. Now I am not such an idiot to believe that he made the offer without looking at how it would likely play out for him, but, as others are arguing, a manual recount of the entire state may well give the state to Bush and validate what the Bush camp has been saying all along. Gore is willing to take the chance on discovering the will of the people and Bush is not.
12706. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:08:31 AM
But the Dummocrooks will never get away from the letter sent out from one of their lawyer-operatives instructing their minions to concentrate on invalidating ballots from soldiers serving overseas.
????
They've done no such thing. All they have done is ensure that the laws were followed--not Harris' "new" rules. Absentee ballots have always been problematic, with a large number of rejects.
12707. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:09:51 AM
Butterwire - Please refrain from pointless denigration of the FSC and from referring to the hardworking election officials as "demmocrooks" if you would like to be taken as something other than a mindless hack.
12708. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:09:56 AM
Gore has to resort to such offers, since he's behind on the officially-certified count (and has nothing to lose). Bush doesn't.
No, actually, Gore didn't have to. He knew that there was no chance either way of Bush taking the offer. He offered it because he thought he had a good chance of winning still, and because it made him look magnanimous.
12709. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:10:26 AM
Oh, sorry, "dummocrooks".
12710. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:12:57 AM
And the Republicans who mailed absentee ballot requests for voter's in violation of the law? What about that? And the GOP effort to steal the election by denying voters the right to have their voices heard?
Seems to me that the allegations, if true, were just simple guidelines to monitor compliance with the law, something lost on the Bush automoton.
12711. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 3:15:11 AM
Calgal - I was going to argue with you, until I realize that nothing youve said really makes me doubt the strength of my arguments at all and I doubt Im going to make any headway with you, so Im willing to let time sort it out.
But its still over.
12712. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 3:17:53 AM
From FoxNews
Earlier this week, Mark Herron, a Tallahassee lawyer helping shepherd Democratic presidential election lawsuits through the local courts, sent a five-page letter to Democratic attorneys throughout Florida giving them tips on how to lodge protests against overseas ballots.
Such protests must be lodged before the ballot is taken out of the envelope. The letter focused on protesting military ballots, which are assumed to be heavily in favor of Bush, and included a section on military postmarks.
12713. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:18:51 AM
A Tallahassee lawyer for Harris said she would ``follow the law of whateve the Supreme Court sets down.''
I guess its too much to ask that she enforce, not pervert the laws without having to be hauled before the bar of justice.
Seems Katie the Moronic Ambassador-designate to Uzbekestan is anticipating a trip to the wood shed.
I pray for a severe whuppin for the witch
12714. joezan - 11/18/2000 3:18:53 AM
And, you know - I'm thinking about these overseas military ballots that were rejected.
And I'm thinking, Hey! We have the Gore people whining to high heaven about how poor holocaust survivors are denied their vote because of something completely outside their control; and others denied their vote because the machine didn't punch all the way through, and on and on and on...
Now, I want these folks to explain why the vote of a soldier stationed thousands of miles away from home who gets hi/her vote to the ship on time should have his vote denied because the government didn't bother to postmark it.
This seems like a good group to start with....
12715. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:19:11 AM
Butter,
I'm not even arguing with you. I'm just correcting your impressions with what is generally--as in by both sides--considered to be the state of affairs.
As I said to Joe, I'm not even sure Gore will win the recount. I just don't think he'll lose it for the reasons you give, and your justification for doing away with the 72 hour time for requests seems flawed.
Great line by Bill Maher, when told that the recounts can only be done in the event of an "act of God": "We tossed a coin, and it landed on its edge. That's not an act of God?"
12716. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 3:19:47 AM
>>California State Lottery
>>Customer Service
>>600 N. Tenth Street
>>Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Sirs:
On Wednesday evening, November 8, 2000, I stopped at the Circle K
convenience store near my home to pick up a quart of milk, two 12-packs
of Coke, a bag of cheddar cheese flavored Ruffles, some sunflowers
seeds, a Weekly World News, and some rolling papers. I noticed that the
Super Lotto jackpot was $11 million dollars, so I decided to try my
luck. I filled out a play ticket and paid for it along with my other
items.
On Thursday morning, November 9, 2000, I looked in the newspaper for the
results of the previous evening's draw. I read that the winning numbers
were 5, 24, 34, 35, 47, and the Mega Number was 22. When I checked those
numbers against the ticket I purchased at Circle K, I was shocked to see
that I had picked the numbers 4, 23, 33, 34, 46, and Mega Number 21.
This was most disconcerting to me because I had actually intended to
pick the six winning numbers, but, because of the extremely confusing
configuration of the Super Lotto play ticket, I did not do so. As a
result, I did not win the $11 million dollar jackpot. I think this is
unjust because I really could use the money.
Please contact me immediately to remedy this matter. If I do not hear
from you by noon today, I am going to send my good friend, former
Secretary of State and personal attorney, Warren Christopher, to my
local Circle K to monitor all further draws (and to pick up some onion
dip for the chips, which I forgot to buy).
Sincerely,
Al Gore
12717. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 3:20:39 AM
Jex:
On second thoughts, WTF -- I'll pretend that it's your birthday, and grant you a substantive response:
"The county is liberal, heavily Jewish..."
See above. More Jews -> more antisemites, etc.
"... and Buchanan spent no time or money there."
Irrelevant. If they were antisemites already, and believe that Buchanan is also an antisemite, they're likely to vote for him regardless. He's a nationally-known figure; he doesn't need to campaign in each district to get name recognition.
"Its odd but very true that states, counties, cities, wards even precincts have consistent voting patterns year to year, race to race. People tend to live in areas where those of like mind also wish to live."
Yes, they tend to --but there are still minorities who disagree, yet aren't motivated enough to move out. (Hell, I've been living in an ultra-liberal state for the past 4 years, for that matter.)
Buchanan's vote in PBC was less than 1%. No "tend to" generalizations necessarily apply to small minorities.
12718. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:22:26 AM
Well that asshole lawyer should do hard time in Leavenworth for his crimes eh Stumbo?
It would be a travesty if one of those ballots postmarked after election day weren't counted. Downright UnAmurican
12719. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 3:22:46 AM
NEW YORK (AP) --The New York Mets announced
today that they are going to court to get an
additional inning added to the end of Game 5
of the World Series.
The batting, pitching, and bench coaches
for the Mets held a press conference earlier
today. They were joined by members of the
Major League Players Union.
"We meant to hit those pitches from the Yankee
pitchers," said the Mets batting coach. "We
were confused by the irregularities of the
pitches we received and believe we have been
denied our right to hit."
One claim specifically noted that a small
percentage of the Mets batters had intended
to swing at fast balls, but actually swung at
curve balls. It was clear that these batters
never intended to swing at curve balls, though
a much higher percentage were not confused by
the pitches.
Reporters at the press conference pointed out
that the Mets had extensively reviewed film of
the Yankees pitchers prior to the World Series
and had in fact faced the Yankees in inter-league
play earlier in the year.
"The fact remains that some of the pitches
confused us and denied us of our right to hit,"
said the Mets batting coach. "The World Series
is not over yet and the Yankees are celebrating
prematurely."
Major League Baseball has reviewed the telecast
of all the World Series games and recounted the
balls and strikes called by the umpires of each
game.
"While some of the strikes called against the
Mets were, in fact, balls, there were not enough
of them to change the outcome of the World
Series," the commissioner said.
12720. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 3:23:24 AM
Another portion of the Mets legal claim stated
that, based on on-base percentage, the Mets had
actually won the World Series, regardless of
the final scores of the games. "It's clear that
we were slightly on-base more often than the
Yankees," said a Mets spokesman. "The World
Series crown is rightly ours."
The manager of the Mets has remained in
relative seclusion, engaging in some light
jogging for exercise. He has stated that he
believes "we need to let the process run its
course without a rush to judgment."
12721. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:24:49 AM
Butter,
Do you know why the ballots were rejected?
NY Times:
Canvassing boards in counties carried by Mr. Gore invalidated ballots at a far higher rate than those in counties carried by Mr. Bush, in part because Republican-dominated counties accepted ballots postmarked after the election or with no postmarks, while Democratic counties rejected them. Among counties with large numbers of overseas votes, for instance, Broward, Miami- Dade and Orange, which voted for Mr. Gore, threw out more than 80 percent of the ballots, while Escambia, Clay and Okaloosa, which went for Mr. Bush, threw out about 40 percent.
So the Republicans let their overseas voters come to the polls on Wednesday--once they knew the results. And of course, no one has asked Harris to explain why she just willynilly ignored the law.
The Dems didn't invalidate ballots. They just made damn sure their people knew what constituted a valid ballot.
12722. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:28:40 AM
It would be moronic and in poor taste for the Dems to put simplistic roadblocks on the way of accepting votes from the armed forces. Now, if there are a large body of votes that are late marked from bases with other votes that are on time this is another matter, it may be evidence of post facto voting; that people heard how close the vote was and sent off their ballots. But scattered votes with no post mark or ones from non-military bases; e.g., ones posted from foreign posts, should be viewed very leniently.
12723. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:29:59 AM
Oh but they do Stumbo, they do correlate. In fact other regression analyses show similar correlations not only in FL but in all US counties. The smaller the political unit, the stronger the relationship.
Its not surprising that 1600 Buchanan voters live in PBC. But not 3600+. I doubt you'd find many Socialist voters in southwest Virginia. I know you won't find too many Buchananites here in the City and County of SF but a vastly larger proportion of Socialists and Greens.
Its the correlation that is dispositive not the absolute numbers.
12724. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:30:35 AM
But scattered votes with no post mark or ones from non-military bases; e.g., ones posted from foreign posts, should be viewed very leniently.
No, they shouldn't. The law says that they must be postmarked on Tuesday. It's only because of Harris' sudden generosity--after the election, natch--that this is even considered. Mind you, if this were Missouri, I'd say let them come in. But it's not. Sorry. Boot them.
12725. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 3:31:49 AM
Jexter, its not just a Tallahasse lawyer whos targeted the military vote. Thats just exhibit A. The whole Democratic party strategy has been to target the vote of servicemen on technicalities.
I think Buchanan got Gore votes by accident surely. How many?ˇˇ
Who knows. But that was entirely a mistake with no bad action by anyone. But this wholesale attack on the servicemens vote is a disgrace.
12726. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:33:49 AM
Butter,
Why? Ballots have only been excluded for two reasons: 1) they aren't witnessed and 2) they aren't postmarked.
That's the law. All the Dems did was make damn sure that everyone knew it.
You also haven't mentioned the fact that Harris told election officials after Tuesday to ignore the postmark requirement.
12727. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:33:50 AM
Well, as long a Kul is going to post cutsey analogies; Sen. Harkin, in responding to the Repub claim that hand counting is so much less accurate that machine counting, particularly given that the ballots are designed to be read by a machine made the following analogy:
How many of you have put a dollar bill in a soda machine and had the machine spit the bill back at you? You put the bill back in the machine and it spits it back out. But you take that dollar bill to a teller in a bank and you can get four quarters just like that!
12728. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 3:34:00 AM
Your not even ashamed of yourselves, even now. Incredible.
12729. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:35:30 AM
Butter,
Absentee ballots without witnesses are always invalid. That's true of instate ones as well. Out of country ballots that are postmarked on time will be accepted. What is the problem? They have always been rejected in the past, as well.
12730. joezan - 11/18/2000 3:37:06 AM
Well, I don't know about Repub servicemen and women voting after the 7th.
But the problem with most of the un-postmarked votes has been that, though they were submitted in time, the next mail plane or ship going out was leaving too soon to worry about postmarking. Apparently, this is a very common practice, because they can always postmark them once they get to the US.
I smell lawsuits.
12731. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:38:29 AM
Why is it that no Repubs are calling on Bush to concede, "for the good of the country"? Bush lost the popular vote. The Repubs tacitly assume, by their refusal to agree to a complete Florida recount, that a full manual recount would show that Gore won Florida. Yet the Repubs natter on about how Gore is playing sore loser games and dragging on the process and should simply concede "for the good of the country" without ever considering such action from their own man. Why is this?
12732. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:38:46 AM
KH - I guess you think instant replay, a liberal scheme to prevert football too? Or an appeal to a line umpire corruption of America's past-time? Photo finishes in horse races - next to bestiality.
Following a lawful, uniform practice is all Florida permits. No replay of anything. No vote til we get our result. Just count the first one correctly.
You wignuts really think we're as blissfully ignorant as you are?
12733. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:39:44 AM
Any armed services ballots without postmarks should be accepted as gestures of good faith.
12734. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:40:57 AM
Joe,
If the military is lax in getting their mail out, that's their problem in the future. To the extent that they own up to it and bust their ass to come up with proof demonstrating when they received mail and prove that they received the ballot before that date, fine. In the event that a US military officer swears out an affadavit saying that all mail in bundle X was on a plane or submitted for mail before the 8th, fine. Otherwise, TFB. It would be the functional equivalent of allowing a revote in PBC, which I oppose.
And if they allow a revote in PBC, then accept the ballots.
12735. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:42:08 AM
Any armed services ballots without postmarks should be accepted as gestures of good faith.
I totally disagree. That's why we have the laws. If the military can prove when they got it, sure. But bullshit on this open season just because they're the military.
12736. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:43:48 AM
Hey JoeZ, I'm for all votes counting but really you do it on or before election day and you evidence that you did so by postmark if you live overseas, its the law. No exception provided sorry.
Yet the concept of one election where every legal vote counts somehow eludes the Bushies?
Amazing. First you voted for a half-wit, now you guys are hell bent to imitate him?
12737. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:44:29 AM
To get into tortured sports analogies of our situation:
The Repubs were ahead by three points at the end of the fourth quarter. As time expired a defensive penalty was called on the Repubs and on the ensuing play (a game cannot end on a defensive penalty) the Dems kicked a field goal to tie the game. The Repubs then went to court to get an injunction against proceeding with the overtime, claiming that time had expired and they had clearly won the game. Meanwhile the Dems, after much huddling and several delay of game penalties, are driving toward the goal line.
12738. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/2000 3:45:25 AM
No zan, no lawsuits. The elections over and we will win. We just have to continually repeat how far these scum will go to win an election.
And I repeat...
The Democrats strategy was to target servicemen and womens votes for challenges on technicalities. They know that sometimes military mail isnt postmarked and their lawyers figured that given enough time and money, they could push that to get a couple of hundred soldiers and sailors votes discounted. Does anybody deny this? Is anybody embarrassed by this?
12739. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 3:46:32 AM
Butter - I can't deny it, I haven't been provided with a cite to evidence of it. If true I am embarassed.
12740. jexster - 11/18/2000 3:49:51 AM
I'd gladly accept all illegal military ballots in exchange for a legally authorized PBC revote even accept unlawful Bush county recounts if Bush would drop his vexatious & baseless legal actions, delaying tactics, the shrill attacks, lies....just let lawful voters have their voices heard
Such a deal
12741. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:50:29 AM
The Democrats strategy was to target servicemen and womens votes for challenges on technicalities.
I deny this. The Democrats strategy was to make damn sure that everyone knew the standards for absentee ballots and to make damn sure that they were enforced. The fact that most overseas ballots are military is just how it works.
But they aren't the ones who made up new rules that favored their team. That was Harris. Do you deny this?
12742. joezan - 11/18/2000 3:51:09 AM
Cal:
I agree precisely with your #12734.
12743. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:51:44 AM
Oh, please, vK, stop the breastbeating. It's bullshit. Are you saying the Dems should have not aggressively ensured that the standards for absentee ballots are enforced? Hell, I'm not even a Dem and I think that's nonsense.
12744. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 3:56:09 AM
"Are you saying the Dems should have not aggressively ensured that the standards for absentee ballots are enforced?"
When it suits them, yes. And when the law clearly says one thing - like in the case of deadlines and such - and that doesn't suit them, they will then oppose it. It is pretty clear.
12745. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:57:03 AM
Joe,
One caveat to 12734 (which I doubt will change your agreement):
I oppose an open revote in PBC; I think it is unfair. What I would support is probably not possible. I would contact everyone in the county who voted and getting an affadavit as to who they voted for. If you contacted most or all people in the county, you would be able to successfully identify people who cheated and discard them. That would, presumably, be the Naderites and the Buchannon folk who would vote for their second choice.
But what would be clear in this regathering was who actually voted for Gore, and that really couldn't be faked.
As I said, it's not possible or realistic, but if it were, I would support that sort of recount.
12746. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 3:57:29 AM
"Are you saying the Dems should have not aggressively ensured that the standards for absentee ballots are enforced?"
When it suits them, yes. And when the law clearly says one thing - like in the case of deadlines and such - and that doesn't suit them, they will then oppose it. It is pretty clear.
12747. CalGal - 11/18/2000 3:58:32 AM
Kuligin,
But the law just as clearly says that a candidate can ask for a recount in a time frame that would make both a recount and a timely submission impossible. In fact, if a candidate asked for a recount the night of the election, many counties couldn't get the recount done.
Besides, allowing an extension is lawful--a judge has said so.
12748. Stumbo - 11/18/2000 3:59:24 AM
Jex:
"... they do correlate [...] The smaller the political unit, the stronger the relationship."
I'm not sure what you mean by "they."
But, FYI -- any real correlation between any two variables is more likely to manifest itself in larger samples, not smaller ones.
G'night.
12749. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 4:00:12 AM
Cal - I am saying that the guiding principle should be to count all valid votes accurately. Given the current state of affairs it is the interests of everyone to bend over backwards to ensure that this happens. This means that ballots from the military that are not beyond doubt invalid should be accepted and counted. If they are on their face invalid then efforts should be made to determine if there are mitigating reasons for being invalid.
Yes, the military is a special case. These men and women are not at liberty to chose where they are and when they have access to services that civilians take for granted. They are offering their lives to protect our country, we should ensure that they can participate in the democracy that they are protecting.
12750. jexster - 11/18/2000 4:00:55 AM
The election is truly over, except for servicemen who held other elections after 11/8.
Its the count that's not over. "The election is over" - well duh? Yup the election Bush is shamelessly out to steal, that's over. Yes indeed. But its that pesky notion that all votes count...
12751. CalGal - 11/18/2000 4:01:08 AM
vK,
See #12734.
12752. robertjayb - 11/18/2000 4:02:08 AM
.
12620. ButterfieldSwire - 11/18/00 12:18:22 AM
According to the AP, the big county that has yet to report absentees is Duval which was the largest county for military absentees.
Wasnt the county where LBJ manufactured votes in his 13 vote Senate election victory in 1948 also called Duval?
The infamous Box 13 (precinct 13) was in Jim Wells County. George Parr, the political boss alleged to have ordered the dirty deed, was from neighboring Duval County. He was known as the Duke of Duval but was influential/feared across a considerable swath of South Texas.
12753. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 4:04:30 AM
Cal - I read that, but I think that it is an undue burden to place on the military voter. If there is no postmark then we should assume that the lack is innocent and accept the vote. I believe this for two reasons:
1) The military is different and should, particularly in this matter, be treated with defference.
2) To do otherwise looks bad in the court of public opinion and the number of votes is unlikely to be determinative.
12754. vonKreedon - 11/18/2000 4:05:44 AM
Crimanie! It's 1AM! I have to go to bed!
12755. jexster - 11/18/2000 4:07:49 AM
What's clear KH is that the primary purpose of the election laws is to assure that the voter's voice cast in lawful ballot, in one election is heard. That does indeed suit democrats and galls Republicans.
Deadlines that make it impossible for the election laws to achieve their purpose and arbitrarily deny citizens their fundamental democratic right, yea, they should be ignored especially when they serve no purpose but to silence the lawful voter and harrass county officials.
You're damned right, that suits democrats just fine.
12756. CalGal - 11/18/2000 4:09:08 AM
vK,
I disagree. For one thing, there is no reason to give special deference to the military. They aren't more equal to the rest of us. And it doesn't look bad. It certainly doesn't look as bad as Harris saying "hey, ignore the postmark requirement"--and not for military only, either.
The burden is not undue; it is reasonable. Get the military to prove it--the whole thing is their responsibility. If they prove it, then accept the ballots even if they lack the postmark.
That's entirely reasonable. And it's not like the Dems invented this law--it's been in effect for as long as absentee ballots--which were pretty much instigated on behalf of the military to start with.
12757. jexster - 11/18/2000 4:11:07 AM
Yes vK time flies when you're havin fun bashin a bushie for democracy.
If you can't tell James Baker he's a fraud and a lier, if you can't howl at Bush's "I trust you" shinola, next best thing find a Bush-shit eater. The gullible goobers don't miss a single dingleberry
12758. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 4:11:10 AM
Everyone in this country should be alarmed by the way the Democrats are denying military ballots from the defenders of our liberty.
12759. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 4:16:52 AM
"Besides, allowing an extension is lawful--a judge has said so."
Then the law should be changed accordingly. But it isn't fair to say Harris made up some laws to suit her own party. My understanding was that the deadline for final counts was a law before the Election began, correct?
12760. KuligintheHooligan - 11/18/2000 4:29:44 AM
Oh, CalGal, I see I pasted the wrong comment from you! I meant that the law should be changed if, even on election day, if someone demands a recount there isn't enough time for it to be done!~ Sorry.
12761. Angel-Five - 11/18/2000 5:56:25 AM
Right now the bitter question among thinking people on both sides has largely passed from whether their candidate should take the White House to whether or not it'd just be best for the other side to take it at this point.
Balanced on one side is the almost sure fact that whoever sits in the White House this term is going to be slaughtered. Neither side will have a mandate, neither side will be able to get a significant portion of their agenda through Congress. The presidency lasts for four years but the overwhelming majority of Congress's legislators are going to be up for reelection much sooner than that and they have to deal with the fallout from this election. That means that they are going to be very cautious in judging the wind before they sign on or against either candidates proposed legislation.
And whichever candidate takes the Presidency will be plagued by accusations that they don't belong there and that they got there by fraudulent means. And there's the chance that the economy will take a downturn sometime within the next few years, which is never good for the welfare of the controlling party in Washington.
In balance we have the fact that if our preferred candidate doesn't win in the end, we'll have four years of the other man. And there are large differences between the two, no matter how hard they clung to the middle during the last part of their campaigns.
12762. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 8:09:24 AM
I never watch The O'Reilly Factor because I can't stand the pompous ass but I was searching for info when I first woke up and Fox was re-running the Peggy Noonan screed on O'Reilly...what a woman. Her assertion that Al Gore sent thugs down to Florida to steal the election from the poor widdle Wrepublicans is outrageous. Even Bill O'Reilly seemed taken aback by some of her remarks and pointed out over and over that there are overseers fron both parties to prevent that sort of thing.
This woman is trying to curry favor with the Presumptive President Elect...he should think twice before offering her a job because she's obviously gone round the bend.
What is it about Republican blonds? Most of them seem very vindictive...is it the Colter Factor?
12763. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 8:14:56 AM
Bush up 927 with 66 of 67 counties counted. But Democrats want many hundreds of other military absentee ballots disqualified.
12764. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 8:17:53 AM
Well, you should be mighty happy today, Rosetta...it's all over but the shouting.
Just remember the old adage: Be careful what you wish for....
12765. ranheim - 11/18/2000 8:43:41 AM
I did not get my way in this election as the 3rd party vote was so low. But, I think I may have done OK anyway.
Neither party has a mandate to do anything. That probably means that there won't be any significant changes in rules and regulations telling me how to practice medicine in my own office. And, likely, that means that the paper-work burden shouldered by my wife won't become any more onerous.
In domestic policy, both parties age going to tread carefully. The lack of mandate, again, will make huge changes very unlikely.
In foreign policy I am somewhat more worried. Gore would probably try to create his reputation by involving the USA is some foreign area in which we have no business. On the other hand, many of Bush's advisors were known as hawks during the era of Viet Nam. My two sons are 37 and 35. It is my hope that whoever finally wins the presidency will not involve us in a so extensive a foreign war that mid 30s men have to be drafted.
Now, hopefully, some of you who appear to be true believers will come to your senses and force some significant changes in the two major parties. Both are very flawed from the perspective of a solo GP who lives in the rural south.
12766. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 8:46:33 AM
Unfortunately, it's not over, Judy.
A new wringle is that Al Gore is now using his government telephone to call the editors of many big city newspapers lobbying for them to produce stories that back him.
Unbelieveably tacky.
12767. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 9:18:51 AM
Slide:
And you know this how?
12768. Electric Slide - 11/18/2000 9:28:47 AM
In yesterday's Washington Post. Ironically in the Style section.
12769. OhioSTOPAS - 11/18/2000 10:02:08 AM
I agree with Von Kreedon's Message # 12749. An otherwise valid absentee ballot that left the voter's hands on or before November 7 should not be rejected even though, through no fault of the voter, no postmark was affixed. Democratic Party representatives who objected to such ballots should withdraw their objections, even if their objection is legally justified.
12770. Toenails - 11/18/2000 10:03:45 AM
Has anybody heard or seen any in-depth comment on the hand-recount situation in Dade County?
I'm troubled more by this belated decision to conduct a hand count in Dade than by anything else going on down there. I thought that, days ago, Dade had done a preliminary hand-recount and determined that a full-dress hand count wasn't called for.
Now, with news breaking (sometimes) in ways favorable to Al Gore, Dade reconsiders and starts, at the 13th hour, to conduct another count. This one strikes me as far less legitimate and far more arbitrary than the ongoing PBC and Broward counts. It'll also take far longer to complete, so if the Supreme Court of Florida ends up backing the Democratic position, we'll be sitting around a week from now waiting for the Dade returns to come in, with everything on the line.
I agree that Ms. Harris has acted arbirarily and irresponsibly with regard to the ongoing hand-recounts, but, at some point, there has to be merit in her position that the window should be closed.
I also think it's laughable how the positions taken by the several participants on this thread can swing, depending on the desired result. The foreign-absentee debate and the hand count debate involve, in some instances, similar issues/principles, but where the protagonists here stand on those issues seems to depend upon whose ox is being Gored.
12771. Cellar Door - 11/18/2000 10:07:07 AM
12772. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 10:07:30 AM
We'll see how seriously Florida takes this mess when the kickoff takes place...football trumps everything else.
12773. dusty - 11/18/2000 10:21:24 AM
12774. Cellar Door - 11/18/2000 10:36:04 AM
Thomas Jefferson's Great Great Grandson Nails It!
12775. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 10:50:22 AM
I thought the Dade recount decision was based on some lately found ballots or something.
12776. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:06:41 AM
arkymalarky
I thought the Dade recount decision was based upon pressure from the Gore camp to get the deciding member to change his vote. Did I hear that wrong?
12777. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:07:53 AM
JudithAtHome
Well, you should be mighty happy today, Rosetta...it's all over but the shouting.
??? Do you think Bush has it?
I think Gore is almost a lock. I find it hard to believe he will lose it now.
12778. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:10:36 AM
vonKreedon Message # 12753
Excellent points.
If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny watching the sanctimonious "will of the people" supporters arguing to throw out the ballots without a postmark.
What on earth are those servicepeople expected to do? Hang around the post office and watch for the postmark to take place?
12779. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:12:01 AM
CalGal Message # 12726
Why? Ballots have only been excluded for two reasons: 1) they aren't witnessed and 2) they aren't postmarked.
The media is reporting that ballots are being excluded for lack of signature.
12780. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 11:12:59 AM
To tell you the truth, every half hour as I look up from whatever I'm doing to see even more junk cross the CNN screen, I am more bewildered than I was on the morning of Nov 8.
I don't know what is going on....I see that Bush is up by almost 1,000 in Florida and that leads me to believe he is going to take it. Show me the faultiness of my belief and keep in mind, workmen are installing the last windows in my house in 30° weather and the dog is barking incessantly at the guys. I'm frazzled.
12781. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:15:31 AM
Stumbo Message # 12677
I still don't get the "this county has a higher percentage of Jews, hence it can't have a higher percentage of Buchanan voters" argument, BTW.
The argument of people who are statistically deficient. Unfortunately, this comprises a large number of people.
The argument would have some validity, if someone were arguably about the probably of Buchanan carrying the county. But that isn't the argument.
I don't know whether the people pushing this are simply ignorant, or just don't care that the argument is bogus, as long as it sounds like it has a basis. I suspect the latter.
12782. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 11:17:29 AM
Watching the man who said he trusts the people to do the peoples business cry and moan over the people doing the hand recounts and possibly doing "mischief" is almost as funny as your remarks in Message # 12778 , Dusty. It was Bush who ran on a platform of "trusting the people"...were you implying Gore is being nitpicky?
12783. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:19:28 AM
JudithAtHome - 11/18/00 11:12:59 AM
I don't know what is going on....I see that Bush is up by almost 1,000 in Florida and that leads me to believe he is going to take it.
A minor hurdle.
Did you hear this morning that someone put non-Gore ballots in a Gore pile? It appears to have been an honest mistake, but there was an attempt to cover it up.
In any event, how can anyone argue that hand counts are more reliable than machine counts, when people are putting piles of ballots in the wrong stack?
12784. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:23:03 AM
JudithAtHome Message # 12782
Sorry, I am not following your point.
Suppose a serviceman votes (for whomever), well within the time requirement, bring the ballot to the PO (or whatever it is called), and someone in the service PO fails to stamp the post mark.
Two questions:
12785. stostosto - 11/18/2000 11:27:03 AM
Dool Crella,
Neat column.
12786. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:27:09 AM
Stumbo Message # 12648
Either we assume that a dimple implies voter intent, or we assume it does not. We can't assume that it implies something if it's the only indentation on the ballot, and that it implies nothing if it isn't.
Excellent point.
I've been watching some of the hand counting, and it is clear that they are not looking for dimples on ballots with a hole. They need to start over and do it right. (Unless, of course, the metarule is to follow whatever rules favor one's desired outcome, rather than consistent and fair rules.)
12787. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 11:28:11 AM
Why shouldn't it be excluded? When the criteria was set up, it must have been for a reason they decided the ballot had to have a postmark...this surely isn't the only time ballots have been excluded for lacking a postmark. If the postmarks don't matter, why even bother to have that rule...just let people mail them in whenever.
I wasn't commenting on the excluded ballots, just on the way the "will of the people" has been co-opted by both candidates when clearly, they don't give a fig for the actual will of the people. Neither one of them does and you know it.
12788. robertjayb - 11/18/2000 11:36:36 AM
.
CNN reports that AP reports that the Bush lead after all absentee ballots were counted is 926 votes.
12789. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 11:39:35 AM
Okay, Dusty....'splain to me how Roberts post means Gore has it locked up?
12790. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:40:41 AM
"I thought the Dade recount decision was based upon pressure from the Gore camp to get the deciding member to change his vote. Did I hear that wrong?"
I was wrong after looking it up--I could have sworn I'd read it yesterday but all this stuff is beginning to run together--but I certainly didn't read your understanding of the reason anywhere. A member changed her vote--does that automatically mean she was pressured or did you read that somewhere?
12791. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:43:28 AM
Look, there is nothing wrong with handcounts. The GOP in FL is happening to reap the misfortune of the crappy machines being challenged by a Democratic organization that was on the ball. As for absentee ballots, postmarks and signatures are no small things in the current circumstances. It was an established rule, and don't tell me it wouldn't be followed if it were Dem votes that weren't postmarked. Nothing that's being done on the Dem side wouldn't be done on the Rep side if they were quick enough to have thought of it first and paid closer attention to the state laws.
Like Joe's buddy in the restaurant said--you snooze, you lose.
12792. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:44:44 AM
No one will know anything until the hand recount numbers are reported, and I hope the count is finished and those numbers are published no matter what the court decides about whether to enter them into the tally.
12793. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:45:47 AM
I've found the key to this election.
Americans don't like candidates with four letter names. Sure, we've had a few exceptions (Polk, Taft, and Bush) but these are explainable. Bush ran against Dukakis. No further explanation needed. As soon as he ran against a competent candidate, the country turned against what they perceived as a four-letter word. Polk won because his opponent had a four letter name.
In:
12794. ranheim - 11/18/2000 11:46:00 AM
Wonderful story on NPR this morning on my way to a 1/2 day of work.
High priced lawyers and media are being evicted from their hotel rooms in Talahassee. (Some are paying students exhorbitant sums to retain their rooms). The Florida/Florida State football game attendees had reserved these rooms long ago.
One reporter went down to the tailgating football fans and asked "Don't you feel bad about evicting these important people? In both camps of fans the answer was the same, "Hell No! The country will run itself no matter which man is elected. This football game is important!! I graduated from. . . and next year's recruiting of football players will be better should we win this game."
I am hopeful that just one reporter or lawyer really gets this message and understands what those fans are actually saying about what is important to the country.
12795. stostosto - 11/18/2000 11:47:46 AM
Dusty,
I wonder why Buchanan fared so poorly...
12796. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:48:14 AM
Buchanan himself acknowledged that many of those votes likely weren't meant for him. My feeling on that, though, unless the ballot names weren't ordered according to FL law, is that people should examine their ballots more carefully. I think it was a sneaky ballot arrangement, but oh well.
12797. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:50:20 AM
JudithAtHome
Okay, Dusty....'splain to me how Roberts post means Gore has it locked up?
I don't know what a "Roberts post" is.
12798. stostosto - 11/18/2000 11:51:34 AM
arky,
Ace has repeatedly said that Buchanan had a greater number of votes in Palm Beach in 1996, and that Palm Beach has a high number of people registered for the Reform Party. I have not seen this refuted or attempts to dismiss it as a valid explanation for the above average number of Buchanan votes. Perhaps you have?
Ace is partisan, but I don't think he makes things up.
12799. dusty - 11/18/2000 11:53:21 AM
arkymalarky
Buchanan himself acknowledged that many of those votes likely weren't meant for him.
I saw Buchanan say this. Many people are referring to this line. Most fail to note that he went on to say that, despite this, they are legally his votes.
(I'm not accusing you of being selective, as I don't have any reason to think that you saw his interview. I trust that you are repeating what others have stated.)
12800. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:54:14 AM
I'm saying that Buchanan himself right after the election reports said he knew he didn't garner all those votes in PBC. That's all I know about it. Since then, my understanding is that he's taken a "tough snot" approach, which I basically agree with, but I haven't heard him reverse his earlier claim that that many PBC voters would have supported him.
12801. stostosto - 11/18/2000 11:54:25 AM
Sorry, it's not the Reform Party, but some other organisation that is the Florida branch of the Reform which has a high number of registered adherents in Palm Beach. According to Ace.
12802. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 11:55:09 AM
Yeow! I mean that that many PBC voters would not have supported him.
12803. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 11:57:52 AM
Dusty:
It was the one directly above mine: Message # 12788 .
12804. OhioSTOPAS - 11/18/2000 11:59:09 AM
stostosto:
1. Buchanan got votes in the 1996 Republican Primary. He wasn't running as a third-party candidate.
2. Palm Beach County has about 15,000 registered in a party called the "Independent Party". The Reform Party has only 300-something members. Republican spinners making the point you discussed have tried to blend the two parties, but I think they're different. However, I'm not sure what this "Independent Party" is.
12805. Jonesatlaw - 11/18/2000 12:01:46 PM
The Democrats strategy was to target servicemen and womens votes for challenges on technicalities. They know that sometimes military mail isnt postmarked and their lawyers figured that given enough time and money, they could push that to get a couple of hundred soldiers and sailors votes discounted. Does anybody deny this? Is anybody embarrassed by this? Well the CinC made it clear that they were to get absentee ballots to Florida pronto. The postal service expidited the mail, pulling all absentee envelopes and sending them ahead of other mail so that they could make the deadline. They did this for military mail only, because it came into predictable PO's, civilian overseas ballots got no such special treatment, in part because they weren't concentrated in any one point of entry.
Hardly a scheme to supress the military vote. I agree that if there is some means of insuring that the votes were cast pre-election, they should come in, but it is hardly fitting to argue that the law should be ignored, and military ballots counted when they've gotten special treatment already, and "they're too stupid to vote" has been the rallying cry of the GOP.
12806. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 12:01:53 PM
Buchanan also said, in that first interview, that he wouldn't want votes that were not meant for him but were castr for him by mistake. He may have later changed his tune but when I heard that on Nov 8, I thought it was his nicer, gentler twin speaking.
12807. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:02:48 PM
stostosto
If I had to bet, I'd bet that some people intending to vote for Gore, actually marked their ballot for Buchanan. I have no trouble believing that some people are that stupid, or lazy.
However, I believe the statistical arguments are being waged to make the argument that the error is so large that something must be done about it.
Many of those arguments are disingenuous, and/or mendacious.
I, myself, did a quick calculation to show that statewide percentages applied to PBC suggested an error of 2000 votes for Buchanan that may have been meant for Gore. However, this was done in the context of all other things being equal, which they are not.
12808. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:05:01 PM
JudithAtHome
Buchanan also said, in that first interview, that he wouldn't want votes that were not meant for him but were cast for him by mistake.
It isn't his call. (I hope.)
I still cling to the belief that we are a nation of laws—although my belief is being challenged.
12809. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 12:08:40 PM
Dusty:
We are a nation of laws. In this situation, though, it seems some laws are more equitable than others...or so some wouls claim.
I know it isn't Buchanans call...I just thought it was a very human statement coming from a source one wouldn't expect to be that way.
12810. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 12:09:15 PM
...would claim...my fingers are frozen!
12811. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:09:20 PM
JudithAtHome
Sorry, I thought you were asking me to explain how my conclusion followed for Roberts post. I saw the robertjayb post, but it came after, so I didn't understand what you meant.
Bush has less than a 1000 vote lead. There are lots of scenarios in which Gore can more than make up that lead. The Gore camp is pursuing several, and it appears that the FSC is sympathetic to the Gore camp. It isn't much of a leap to think that one of the scenarios will prevail
12812. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 12:09:27 PM
"I have no trouble believing that some people are that stupid, or lazy."
Or old and have difficulty seeing or problems with motor skills--but piss on them. They've had their say in this country long enough. In AR they had a news segment on a 101 year old man who was voting in his 80th election. He'd always voted Democrat, the old codger. Too bad they didn't have butterfly ballots in AR, so he could be taught when to hang up his voting rights.
12813. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 12:10:18 PM
"I still cling to the belief that we are a nation of laws—although my belief is being challenged."
What laws have been violated thus far?
12814. stostosto - 11/18/2000 12:11:11 PM
OHIO
Thanks, that's the first attempted rejoinder I've seen of Ace's take.
I do think the butterfly ballot was truly idiotically designed, and based on its look alone it would be likely to lead to an overvote for Buchanan. But by how much?
Buchanan's vote in a primary wouldn't be irrelevant when judging his chances of getting a given number of votes in the 2000 election. How's the correlation between Buchanan 2000 and Buchanan 1996 in other Republican precincts, I wonder. That might give a clue.
12815. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 12:11:25 PM
Good one, Arky...."give me your tired, your poor but keep those to stupid and lazy to vote!"
12816. stostosto - 11/18/2000 12:11:51 PM
Correction
"Republican precincts" should have been "Floridian counties".
12817. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:14:18 PM
OhioSTOPAS
1. Buchanan got votes in the 1996 Republican Primary. He wasn't running as a third-party candidate.
So what? The hysteria has been that PBC is populated by Holocaust survivors who wouldn't think of voting for Buchanan. The 1996 votes for Buchanan prove otherwise.
Again, as I pointed out above, the demographics of PBC mean that Buchanan's chances of winning PBC are statistically indistinguishable from zero. However, that does not mean that a fraction of a per cent is impossible.
12818. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:15:57 PM
OhioSTOPAS
2. Palm Beach County has about 15,000 registered in a party called the "Independent Party". The Reform Party has only 300-something members. Republican spinners making the point you discussed have tried to blend the two parties, but I think they're different. However, I'm not sure what this "Independent Party" is.
Actually, I think you mean registered independent, as opposed to registered in the Independent party.
I agree, there has been a disingenuous conflating of the two groups.
12819. Jonesatlaw - 11/18/2000 12:16:04 PM
"independent party" is a misnomer. Look at the FLA ballots. Almost all of the minor party candidates are petitioned in as Independents- so for Florida classifications they are lumped together. The larger figure inludes the socialists, all three camps of them, the old reform party renegades, the Buchanan reform party folk and "I don't give a damn I don't want to belong to any party that would have me as a member" independents.
12820. JudithAtHome - 11/18/2000 12:16:43 PM
Dusty:
Maybe those Buchannan voters in '96 were voting straight ticket....for Republican anyone, just so they are Republican.
12821. arkymalarky - 11/18/2000 12:18:28 PM
"The 1996 votes for Buchanan prove otherwise."
No they don't. They prove that a lot of Republicans in PBC, of no one knows what political, religious, gender, or age stripe, who'd have voted to have him their candidate then would vote for the chosen Republican candidate in 2000. It's completely irrelevant to this election.
12822. dusty - 11/18/2000 12:19:36 PM
arkymalarky