Post by Jazzsnip> > > > Gore got the most votes in 2000.
Press;
Times;
Post by m***@prodigy.netPost by JasminePost by luminosPost by Jasminethe
Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post]
Now those are real reliable, unbiased, and scientific sources of
information, aren't they. LOL
OK nut case, what ARE reliable, unbiased, and scientific sources -
Horowitz's rag? Fox News?!
Try the NORC themselves. Unlike you, they never made the claim that
Gore won. That is you mis-stating the results of the study.
The NORC said that there were 180,000 disputed ballots.
".... plans to produce a database that will describe in detail the
180,000 Florida ballots that didn't register a vote on machine counts
- including both undervotes (no vote for president recorded) and
overvotes (two or more votes for president)."
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/press.asp
The review found that the result would have been different if every
canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation
that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a
statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and
there was no mechanism in place to conduct one." Martin Merzer, "Review of
Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount," Miami Herald,
April 4, 2001.
The is COMPLETELY false for several reasons.
1) The review did NOT check every disputed ballots, thus it could NOT say
that the result would have been different.
The NORC said that there were 180,000 disputed ballots.
".... plans to produce a database that will describe in detail the 180,000
Florida ballots that didn't register a vote on machine counts - including
both undervotes (no vote for president recorded) and overvotes (two or more
votes for president)."
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/press.asp
This is backed up by the Orlando Sentinel. The county by county break down
shows a total of 179,455 disputed ballots.
http://www.co.leon.fl.us/elect/blankspoilFL.pdf
Did you take the time to read the quotes from the study? Did you notice that
they checked 175,010 of those 179,855 ballots??
If you take the time to do the math, then you will notice that there were
4,845 ballots that were not checked. That means 42 to 171 votes are well
within the number of ballots still waiting to be checked, thus is does NOT
prove that Gore won the state of Florida.
2) The recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was NOT an organized
recount as conducted by the NORC. And just like the NORC recount, they did
not recheck every disputed ballots. The recount as ordered violated 3 U.S.C.
section 5, thus Congress was under no obligation to recognize the results.
"As implemented by Judge Terry Lewis, the Florida Supreme Court's decision
gave short shrift to Bush's basic right to judicial review of the thousands
of disputed ballot-interpretation decisions made by (among others) openly
partisan Democratic officials. In a series of late-night rulings hours after
the Dec. 8 decision, Judge Lewis refused to suggest (or hear evidence on)
what chad-counting standard vote-counters should use; assigned hundreds of
untrained counters to plunge into this world of standardless
chad-interpretation, without even requiring that they be nonpartisan;
refused to require that a record be kept of chad-interpretation decisions,
thereby making appeals virtually impossible; ignored Bush's request for a
recount of those hundreds of rejected overseas military ballots; and
shrugged off claims that some Gore votes would inevitably be counted twice."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2000-12-28.htm
3) NO court said that there was not the authority to recount count the
undervote, the problem came when the FSC failed to place an order that would
have had the recount completed in a fair way by the safe harbor date. Both
the Florida Supreme Court (7-0) and the SCOTUS (5-4) said that all recounts
MUST be completed by 12/12/2000.
From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris, 11/21/2000.
"Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate only
if the returns submitted the Department so late that their inclusion will
compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two way: (1)
by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer from contesting the
certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168; or (2) by
precluding Florida voters from participating fully in the federal electoral
process." (reference to footnote 55)
"Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C. § § 1-10 (1994)."
The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf
Also see their decision on 12/11/2000
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346-remand.pdf
"The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the
State's electors to "participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,"
as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also
Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That
statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed
to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12."
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
4) Florida Code does NOT require Bush's permission for a statewide recount.
The fact is that Gore FAILED to file for such a recount. Judge Sauls told
Gore that state law REQUIRED that he file for a statewide recount, and yet
he appeal that decision to the FSC without asking for a full recount.
"Further, this Court would further conclude and find that the properly
stated cause of action under Section 102.168 of the Florida Statutes to
contest a statewide federal election, the Plaintiff would necessarily have
to place at issue and seek as a remedy with the attendant burden of proof, a
review and recount on all ballots, and all of the counties in this state
with respect to the particular alleged irregularities or inaccuracies in the
balloting or counting processes alleged to have occurred."
http://www.quarterly-report.com/election_2000/sauls_opinion.html
"Nobody asked for a contest of the overvotes," Gore lawyer David Boies told
the U.S. Supreme Court in the last hearing.
"The media analysis shows that among those 3,690 overvotes that could be
considered legitimate votes, 6 out of 10 were cast for Gore."
"Instead of pursuing overvotes, the Gore team sought manual recounts of
undervotes in four counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia
counties."
http://www.sptimes.com/News/111201/Lostvotes/Recount__Bush.shtml
Post by Jazza.. See also, the following article by one of the Washington Post
journalists who ran the consortium recount. The relevant point is made in
Table I of the article.
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
Post by Jazz"The results of the NORC ballot survey are in, and the results are clear and
unequivocal: had the Supreme Court not improperly interfered with the
Florida Supreme Court's ruling that a full state recount be done, Gore would
have won Florida.
Completely FALSE. Once the Florida Supreme Court allowed for Bush to be
certified the winner of the state on 11/26/2000, Congress is NOT required to
recognize ANY OTHER RECOUNT. Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, NO COURT
in the land has the authority to take away a state certification ever if a
recount may prove otherwise.
From The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 12/12/2000.......
"More political than legal"
MARGARET WARNER: Stuart Taylor, weigh in on this. What do you see would be
the reason for, or the benefit to Republicans of the Bush forces to have the
Florida legislature act?
STUART TAYLOR: I think I agree with the thrust of what has been said, which
is it's more a political benefit than legal. There are already Bush electors
sitting - figuratively speaking -- in Washington, D.C. Nothing makes them
disappear. The legislature weighing in is probably a debating point for
people in Congress who want to say, here's another reason we should take the
Bush electors if it ever comes to that.
MARGARET WARNER: So you don't think they're afraid, though, that there could
be a court ordered recount and a court could order the current slate of Bush
electors replaced, say, with a Gore slate?
STUART TAYLOR: I suppose that's a remote contingency. But my reading of the
United States Code provisions, which Congress passed in 1887 on this, is
that it would violate federal law for any court to try and make the slate of
electors that's already certified disappear, and that if you get another
slate certified, the solution is Congress figures out which ones to count
and the courts have no part in it.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/legal_12-12.html
The only way that a recount would make a difference is if Congress wants to
recognize it. It is quite clear that the recount as ordered, i.e. a
standardless partial recount of disputed ballots, by the Florida Supreme
Court would in violation of both Florida and US Code, thus would NOT qualify
as a legal recount under 3 U.S.C. section 5.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/floridahouse.pdf
Post by JazzOn the partial count that the Supreme Court declared absolute, Bush led by
537. But that incomplete tally was the only statewide result that gave Bush
the lead.
FALSE. The Election is NOT over until the Electoral College Election takes
place. Since Bush was already the certified winner of the state, Gore's only
change to win the election AFTER state certification had been granted was to
have the state of Florida disqualified. The Democrats in the US House tried
to do this, but Gore and the Democrats in the Senate would not sign on.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html
Post by JazzThe result, based only on the actual tabulations, and using a uniform state
standard, would have been razor-thin; 60* votes in Gore's favor. That was
the standard that the Putsch campaign argued should prevail if there was to
be a recount.
Gore won.
WRONG. Gore failed to file for a recount that may or may not have proven
that he won. The fact when the Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court
allowed for Bush to be certified, Bush won the state of Florida.
Post by Jazz....A hand count in the four counties alone would have given Putsch the
election (and I would be calling him "Bush" today) by 225. That was what
Gore wanted to do. This election is not without it's little ironies; both
candidates pursued strategies that would have caused them to lose.
Of course, Bush sued to stop the recounts at all, and the state of Florida,
headed by his brother the Governor and Republican campaign manager Kathleen
Harris as Secretary of State, blocked efforts at recount as much as they
could, both legally and beyond. The issue was haggled in the Florida courts,
until it reached the Florida Supreme Court, which ruled that the only fair
way to determine who won Florida was by a manual recount.
YET that court FAILED to order a fair recount of ALL of the ballots.
Post by JazzThat was what the Supreme Court improperly halted: a state-wide manual
recount. They held it up for two days, and then claimed time had run out. In
reality, of course, the actual deadline for certification of votes was six
weeks off-in fact, the day after the supposed Kathleen Harris deadline, 37
other states still hadn't certified their tallies.
Completely FALSE. The certification date under Florida Code is 7 days AFTER
the election. The Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court moved the date to
12 days after the election.
The FACT is Bush was certified by the actions of the Florida Supreme Court
on 11/26/2000. Here is the court case that allowed for the winner of the 4
county recount be become the certified winner of the state.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf
"Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced the certified totals
Sunday night, after a deadline for counties to submit amended returns from
hand recounts passed at 5 p.m. The final tally, according to Harris, was
2,912,790 votes for Bush; 2,912,253 for Gore."
"Accordingly, on behalf of the state Election Canvassing Commission and in
accordance with the laws of the state of Florida, I hereby declare Governor
George W. Bush the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes for the president
of the United States," Harris said.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/26/presidential.election/
To say the certification date was 6 weeks after the safe harbor date
completely IGNORES the fact that Florida Code say 7 days (which is the
controlling law in the matter), and the fact that Bush was ALREADY CERTIFIED
the winner of the state BEFORE the SCOTUS received Bush vs. Gore.
Post by JazzThe based their decision on the grounds that a state wide recount would do
"irreparable harm" to Bush (the phrase used by third-rate criminal Antonin
Scalia) and they were right: he would have lost the election.
And what would that "irreparable harm" have been? Why, Gore would have won
the election in Florida.
What a no brainier.
"As implemented by Judge Terry Lewis, the Florida Supreme Court's decision
gave short shrift to Bush's basic right to judicial review of the thousands
of disputed ballot-interpretation decisions made by (among others) openly
partisan Democratic officials. In a series of late-night rulings hours after
the Dec. 8 decision, Judge Lewis refused to suggest (or hear evidence on)
what chad-counting standard vote-counters should use; assigned hundreds of
untrained counters to plunge into this world of standardless
chad-interpretation, without even requiring that they be nonpartisan;
refused to require that a record be kept of chad-interpretation decisions,
thereby making appeals virtually impossible; ignored Bush's request for a
recount of those hundreds of rejected overseas military ballots; and
shrugged off claims that some Gore votes would inevitably be counted twice."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2000-12-28.htm
Post by JazzThe NORC report went on to give specific totals for vote counts under the
Statewide count/Prevailing standards __ Gore by 60
With 4,845 ballots left to be checked. That does NOT prove that Gore won.
Post by JazzStatewide count/Custom standard __ Gore by 171
With 4,845 ballots left to be checked. That does NOT prove that Gore won.
Post by JazzStatewide count/ Most inclusive standard __ Gore by 107
With 4,845 ballots left to be checked. That does NOT prove that Gore won.
Post by JazzStatewide count/ Most restrictive standard __ Gore by 115
With 4,845 ballots left to be checked. That does NOT prove that Gore won.[
Post by JazzStatewide count/Bush standard __ Gore by 105
With 4,845 ballots left to be checked. That does NOT prove that Gore won.
Post by JazzThe Supreme Court didn't stop the four-county recount that Gore wanted: they
stopped the statewide recount, claiming there was no time.
So by any standard, a full recount would have given the election to Gore.
The Supreme Court stole the election, and the five justices who voted to do
so belong in jail.
NORC will have the full report available in the near future on their
webpage, at http://www.norc.uchicago.edu
If you are going to cite a study, you have to be sure to READ IT. The NORC
does NOT claim that Gore won the election. They are quite clear that the
could NOT make that determination. Why do you think that a partial recount
proves your point??
"Third, the project does not identify "winners." Its goal is to assess the
reliability of the voting systems themselves, using the highest standards of
scientific accuracy and reliability."
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/promiss.asp
Post by JazzThe Constitution has no provision for this type of event, presumably because
the Founders realized that if a group this corrupt seized control of the
Supreme Court, the Constitution wouldn't mean much anyway. The Founders
foresaw people like Antonin Scalia; they could do nothing but hope there
were enough honest and brave Americans to stop such vermin from stealing our
democracy. We may have disappointed them.
But the Electoral Count Act of 1887 DOES!!!! The fact is that Gore and the
Democrats in the US Senate did NOT exercise their options.
Washington, DC - Congresswoman Barbara Lee today joined members of the
Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to counting Florida's 25 electoral
college votes for George W. Bush.
A formal objection to counting Florida's electoral votes must be presented
in writing, signed by at least one Senator and one Representative, under 3
U.S.C. section 15. Unfortunately, not one single Member of the Senate
submitted an objection, thereby rendering the objection out of order.
http://www.house.gov/lee/releases/01Jan06.htm
Post by JazzThere was more to the report, of course.
The New York Times
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the
Deciding Vote By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER
[...]
More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential
candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000
chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication
of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the
consortium's final tabulations.
...The "undercounts" - that is, ballots in which a preference was obviously
made, but the machines were unable to read where broken up into two
categories, those where no clear preference was evident, and those where it
was. Of those with clear intent, Gore won with at least 46,000 votes more
than Putsch.
Mind you, these aren't "woulda coulda shoulda" votes: these are ballots that
would have been counted if the Supreme Court had not aborted the recount
process in Florida.
Gore would have won.
He would have won by more than 46,000 votes.
The article does NOT say that Gore would have won by 46,000 votes.