It looks like Bush would have won anyway, regardless of the supreme court

[ringmastery]

According to this, under the standard authorized by the florida supreme court, Bush would have increased his margin if the U.S. supreme court allowed the recount to go on.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

The only way Gore would have had any chance was a recount of all the over and under votes in the whole state, and that was not authorized by the florida supreme court.

Only "undervotes" were to be examined.

[trotsky]

1. Does this take into account the "felon" purges?

I'm guessing not.

Also, the overvotes should have been counted under Florida law. Gore won the overvotes going away.

[VolcanoJen]

31. Does this take into account the 3,407 Buchanan votes in Palm Beach?

Oh that's right... in my best James Baker accent, "We cannot divine the intent of the voter."

It's safe to guess that thousands in Palm Beach intended to vote for Gore, but were too confused by the ballot to be successful.

Utter horsecrap, this talk of Bush winning legitimately.

[Cicero]

36. Who's fault is that?

It's safe to guess that thousands in Palm Beach intended to vote for Gore, but were too confused by the ballot to be successful.


Can't blame the brothers Bush for everything, tempting as though it may be. The design of the ballot was approved by Democrats, and there was plenty of time for public comment on the design before the election took place.

Also, wasn't there a huge number of Buchanan votes in the 1996 Repub primary in Palm Beach?

Later,

[kentuck]

38. Why does it have to be somebody's "fault"??

The point being that those were votes that Buchanan himself said he did not get. The question, rather than trying to find fault, is what should have been done about it??

[leesa]

48. Wrongo buddie. Generally a Jewish population doesn't vote for

A Jew hater. The ballot was specifically designed to be confusing.

[VolcanoJen]

50. You've got to be kidding me.

And don't even get me started on Teresa LePore.

[are_we_united_yet]

52. Much later I hope

[liberalhistorian]

54. Well, I'm a college-degreed

paralegal and the daughter of two teachers, and even I had trouble understanding that particular ballot when I saw a sample of it. Katherine Harris and Jeb Crow knew exactly what the fuck they were doing, and they did it very well, frankly. It ain't no coincidence that the very state where all these problems happened was the state where the governor happened to be the brother of the candidate.

[TruthIsAll]

56. Here's proof you're wrong, Ringmastery. Nice try. Nice diversion.

Gore would have won the recount under many scenarios even if overvotes were not counted.

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

[Gman]

2. Does this take into account police check points

near African-American polling places?

[bushgottago]

3. It doesn't matter if Bush would have won ...

... because he didn't. The Supreme Court didn't have any way to see into the future and determine who would have won. At best Bush was cheated out of a legitimate victory. but Bush didn't win - he was appointed president illegally.

The Florida Supreme Courth might have determined that no one won and that the Florida vote go to nobody - making Gore the winner.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. If bu$h was cheated out of a legitimate victory

he cheated himself, since it was he who filed the bu$h vs. Gore lawsuit with the Supreme Court, after his minions had tried other ways to thwart a valid vote count.

But then again, maybe it was Cheney who called upon his quail-wasting partner on the not-so-supreme court, Antonin Scalia, to step in and make sure that the vote tallies from Florida stayed where they were.

[Yupster]

37. In that case the Florida legislature

would have named its own slate of electors, and they already said they would name Bush electors.

They would have also done that if the Supreme Court ruled against Bush.

[kentuck]

40. Then the US Congress would have had to accept or turn down....

and they would have been held accountable??

[Yupster]

51. And sincethe congress was Republican

and the Constitution gives the power directly to the legislature, it seems like an easy call.

[nostamj]

4. i think you haven't read Greg Palast...

it was multiple vote fraud and the silly chads were a distraction from the real crime of the PURGES which, to this date, have not been corrected and 10s of thousands MORE are being purged.

[immoderate]

22. Right!

Brother Jeb is preparing new felon lists right now, and in true Bush tradition, they are being withheld form the public!

--IMM

[ramblin_dave]

5. That's not true

The judge overseeing the recount was moving toward including the overvotes as well.

Besides the fundamental issue is who would have won if all the ballots had been counted from the beginning in accordance with Florida law. Answer - Gore.

Gore can't be faulted and thus legitimacy falsely conferred on Bush just because Gore's legal team didn't manage to see through all the scams in order to know where best to apply their limited resources in the time allowed.

[kaitykaity]

6. Does this account for the trashed Democratic

absentee ballots?

Seminole and Martin counties counted 5,000 Republican
absentee ballots while throwing away 3,000 Democratic
absentee ballots.

[kodi]

7. sorry but the facts do not support your link

All the reports from the press showed that had a recount of the entire state of Florida, including first time counts (and not “recounts”), on under votes, AND over votes, the latter required by law, but not even counted before the SCOTUS stopped the recount, Gore would have won.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?pagewanted=2

Note that the majority SCOTUS decision made explicitly clear that the over-riding of Florida state laws (to allow a state-wide recount, under the situation of Bush v. Gore) concerning elections was not to be construed for any other case as to the SCOTUS’s position on states rights. The SCOTUS overturned the Florida Supreme Court because the SCOTUS said that other state’s voters would be aggrieved because of the ruling of the Florida court. If that is not a federal usurpation of states rights, I do not know what the hell is. That the conservatives on the SCOTUS ruled in this case contrary to how they did in every other case involving states rights issues is the reason so many consider their decision purely political and not based upon the judicial philosophies that they expounded upon in their earlier comments from the bench and which they hold now.

The consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected last November. Those included so-called under votes, or ballots on which the machines could not discern a preference for president, and over votes, those on which voters marked more than one candidate.

The examination then sought to judge what might have been considered a legal vote under various conditions — from the strictest interpretation (a clearly punched hole) to the most liberal (a small indentation, or dimple, that indicated the voter was trying to punch a hole in the card). But even under the most inclusive standards, the review found that at most, 24,619 ballots could have been interpreted as legal votes.

The numbers reveal the flaws in Mr. Gore's post-election tactics and, in retrospect, why the Bush strategy of resisting county-by-county recounts was ultimately successful.

In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of under votes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. An approach Mr. Gore and his lawyers rejected as impractical — a statewide recount — could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.

Another complicating factor in the effort to untangle the result is the overseas absentee ballots that arrived after Election Day. A New York Times investigation earlier this year showed that 680 of the late- arriving ballots did not meet Florida's standards yet were still counted. The vast majority of those flawed ballots were accepted in counties that favored Mr. Bush, after an aggressive effort by Bush strategists to pressure officials to accept them.

A statistical analysis conducted for The Times determined that if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore's favor in some of the situations studied in the statewide ballot review.

But Mr. Gore chose not to challenge these ballots because many were from members of the military overseas, and Mr. Gore did not want to be accused of seeking to invalidate votes of men and women in uniform.

If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of over votes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.

For example, using the most permissive "dimpled chad" standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin.

But the dimple standard was also the subject of the most disagreement among coders, and Mr. Bush fought the use of this standard in recounts in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami- Dade Counties. Many dimples were so light that only one coder saw them, and hundreds that were seen by two were not seen by three. In fact, counting dimples that three people saw would have given Mr. Gore a net of just 318 additional votes and kept Mr. Bush in the lead by 219.
Using the most restrictive standard — the fully punched ballot card — 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.

All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.

The Florida Supreme Court urged a statewide recount and ordered the state's 67 counties to begin a manual re-examination of the under votes in a ruling issued Dec. 8 that left Mr. Gore and his allies elated.

The Florida court's 4-to-3 ruling rejected Mr. Gore's plea for selective recounts in four Democratic counties, but also Mr. Bush's demand for no recounts at all. Justice Barbara Pariente, in her oral remarks, asked, "Why wouldn't it be proper for any court, if they were going to order any relief, to count the under votes in all of the counties where, at the very least, punch-card systems were operating?"

The court ultimately adopted her view, although extending it to all counties, including those using ballots marked by pen and read by optical scanning. Many counties immediately began the effort, applying different standards and, in some cases, including over votes.

The United States Supreme Court stepped in only hours after the counting began, issuing an injunction to halt. Three days later, the justices overturned the Florida court's ruling, sealing Mr. Bush's election.

Now, it is clear that Bush is in the White House, or somewhere on his ranch in Texas. But had the Florida Supreme Court’s directions been followed, neither Gore’s nor Bush’s wishes in the recount matter, nor then Gore would have won.

It can be contested that had the Florida Supreme Court accepted Gore’s recount request, he would have lost, and if the Florida Supreme Court had accepted Bush’s request, Gore would have lost as well.

However, the media consortium showed that had “over votes” been counted, Gore would have won under any of the examination methods used. And this is what the Florida judge involved in the case was demanding and what the Florida Supreme Court was demanding, viz., a recount that INCLUDED over votes.

The issue has been what the results would have been had not the SCOUTUS intervened and had the Florida Supreme Court’s order had been followed. In this case, Gore would have won.

These are irrefutable facts, and it is clear that the SCOUTUS handed the presidency to Bush, not the electorate.

on edit: i pulled this up from my old files. excuse the lack of quotation marks.

[democrat in Tallahassee]

8. Yes, but the judge here in tallahassee was going to order over AND

undervotes counted; his notes were released last year. gore should be president

[ringmastery]

13. I don't understand

How could a judge in Tallahassee overrule the Florida Supreme Court? Didn't the Florida Supreme Court rule that only undervotes would be counted and under the Palm Beach dimpled chad standard?

When the results came back and Bush wound up on top as the original link states, wouldn't the Florida Supreme Court have awarded Florida's 27 electoral votes to Bush?

Yes, Gore rightfully won the presidency if all the votes were counted, but that's irrelevent in the legal discussion. The FL supreme court authorized only a counting of undervotes.

[kaitykaity]

19. No, the Florida Supreme Court authorized a recount

to "determine the intent of the voter." That's what Florida
law requires, and that's all it says. It was within the
lower court judge's realm to decide the other issue.

[ringmastery]

21. and that lower court judge wanted a recount

of all the over and under votes?

Do you have a link I can read? I've never heard of this.

[kaitykaity]

25. Try these.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=%22undervotes%22+%22overvotes%22&as_q=%22Judge+Terry%22&btnG=Search%A0within%A0results

http://www.janrainwater.com/htdocs/DissingDemocracy.htm

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20011120Letters.html

[punpirate]

24. Florida law is clear on the subject....

Regardless of the type of vote irregularity, the law states that the vote shall be counted if the intention of the voter can be clearly determined. Republicans tried to assert that, for example, a voter who had punched or marked for a candidate and also circled the same name constituted a spoiled ballot.

There were enough of those type of ballots in the areas using the so-called "butterfly ballot" that those alone would have turned the election to Gore.

As I recall, the Florida Supreme Court was in the process of ruling on a lower court judge's denial of counting over-votes, and was, shortly before the final Supreme Court "decision," in the middle of writing an opinion calling for a recount in accordance with state law requiring the intention of the voter to be considered.

And, as someone mentioned, the news consortium's study said, in a conclusion not well-advertised, that if Florida law had been strictly adhered to in the counting, Gore would have won.

Cheers.

[Cleita]

9. Bush would have been installed, no doubt, no matter what

was counted. The system was set up to be confusing and conducive to failure. You really don't think Jebby really won the gubernorship twice do you? Perhaps though the misery we have been put through will reverse this, I hope.

[yankeedem]

10. What horse hockey

"The newspapers' review did not include the approximately 110,000 "overvotes" -- ballots cast for more than one candidate."

In other words, the standard that was most favorable to Gore. Many voters were in doubt as to who they voted for due to the confusing ballots wrote Al Gore's name in. The obfuscation continues. Never mind the minority purges and minorities who were harassed getting to the polls.

[MikeG]

11. The Florida state legislature was going to declare W the winner anyway.

And they had the votes and the legal right to do it.

[kentuck]

16. So that would have made it "legal" ???

But not necessarily right or ethical?

[MikeG]

27. The constitution leaves the electoral power with each state legislature.

Remember, they used to pick Senators.

Of course its unethical and wrong. Think they would have cared?

[Yupster]

41. Exactly

many things are not moral, but are not illegal either. I certainly wouldn't want laws based on morals, because then the question would become "who's morals."

[ringmastery]

18. yeah

there would probably have been 2 sets of electors sent to the house, and since the house was a republican majority, wouldn't they have selected bush anyway?

I'm unclear of the constitutional procedures when there are a disputed set of electors.

[Yupster]

44. The Republican legislature was going to choose a set of electors

who was going to select the other set?

The Constitution on the subject says

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors ... "

Doesn't say anything about elections. In fact, S Carolina never even had an election for president until 1868.

[shance]

30. False Mike. The Supreme Court was going to rule in FAVOR of the

continuing recount for Gore, not to mention the over 100,000 overvotes that would have easily handed the state to Gore.

[MikeG]

33. Which the Republican state legislature was going to overturn.

Regardless of the vote count.

[shance]

39. A Republican State Legislature cannot overturn a Supreme Court verdict

n/t

[spotbird]

12. The link is to an April 2001 story.

The issue has been settled since then.

Many,many more people voted for Gore in Florida than *, among sensible people there is no debate.

[Yupster]

46. No doubt in my mind

Many more people went to the polls intending to vote for Gore than for Bush. I think that's a given.

[kentuck]

14. I can't believe it......

Do we need to rehash the facts on this all over again?? :shrug:

[spotbird]

17. They will keep trying.

Maybe it is themselves that they need to convince.

[wyldwolf]

20. Try this article originally in NewsDay

http://www.fair.org/articles/media-recount.html

[PaDUer]

23. Who did you vote for?

What state are you from?

[mzmolly]

42. I have a guess as to the first question.

;)

[PaDUer]

49. Yes indeed..

they're in the forum tonite.

[benburch]

26. Bullhocky

This was studied long ago and it was determined that, under the standards then in effect, Bush lost Florida by a slim margin.

I really take a jaundiced eye towards postings like this, and consider them to be the essence of "flamebait."

[ringmastery]

28. I don't think you understand what I'm getting at with this thread

I know Gore won.

I want to know if there was any way legally Gore would have been elected president.

Would Florida have counted over-votes if the U.S. Supreme Court didn't stop the recount? Because if they simply counted under-votes, Bush would have still been ahead.

Secondly, would it have made any difference if Gore won a recount of over and under voteS?

The FL legislature would have sent their own electors to washington and with the republicans having the majority in the house, they would select Bush as president, no?

So anyway we look at it, Gore was screwed.

[spotbird]

34. Yadda, yadda.....

It is possible to educate yourself,I suspect you aren't interested in the real tally.

[Enraged_Ape]

59. Florida was legally entreated to count ALL the votes...

undervotes, overvotes and all.

The law in Florida states that all votes are counted wherein "the clear intent of the voter" can be determined.

This was not done in Florida. The overvotes were not counted, period. Upon review, Gore had the vast majority of these votes, but Scalia et al rendered the counting moot when they illegally and unconstitutionally declared the vote tally over.

Gore won Florida. Bush lost. That's all there is to it.

[bobbieinok]

29. see articles by Paul Lukiask at the time

He posted at tabletalk and a few other places.

He spent a great deal of time on this.

[bobbieinok]

32. Paul Lukasiak article on Miami Herald - note pbs link is to 2001 article

First an email from the Miami Herald attacking critics of their story, then Lukasiak's reply that starts...

Dear Mr. Merzer:

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my critique of the Herald's analysis of the Florida undervote.

I must say that I do take offense at your characterization of my work. However, inasmuch as you may have read either a draft version, or a version without footnotes, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I would like to point out that my critique is unlike most others found on the web. I did not criticize the Herald for leaving out the overvotes. I did not criticize the Herald for publishing the "Gore Won" results the second day. On the whole, I criticized what was presented.

And unfortunately, what was presented by the Herald was pure nonsense.

much more......

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010411MiamiHerald.html

[RetroLounge]

35. and you are rehashing an old article tonight why?

sheesh...

RL

[nomatrix]

47. Just watched pictures of the soldiers killed in Iraq

on 60 Minutes after Andy Roony, too emotionally exhausted. Trying to understand why this tonight, maybe because of the long weekend with relatives, and trying to justify how he got installed...

Try this site. Paul L. articles are here including Miami Herald...
http://failureisimpossible.com/sitemap.htm

Sadly, those 806 soldiers would probably be here today, had the coup not been allowed. Listening to Gore's speech the other night, he knows it too.

[Kazak]

43. The controversy is in the votes that were never cast.

Duh.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RC]

55. There is another election coming up.

People need to be reminded of the voter fraud committed by the criminal element of the Republican party. OK?

[stickdog]

53. It looks like bait.

And I ain't biting.

More legal Florida voters -- by far -- went to the polls intending to vote for Gore.

The end.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LibertyorDeath]

58. No Soup For You....2Years

[kiahzero]

60. Yes, Bush would have won under that standard

Gore was an absolute fucktard when he cherrypicked the districts. He should have asked for a complete recount, like Florida law required in the first place.

Your assertion that "the only way Gore would have had any chance was a recount of all the over and under votes in the whole state" is inaccurate.

[left is right]

61. Gore didn't stand a chance in Florida. And I knew it by 12:05 est

1.)At 11:00 there was a news report that reported hundreds of senior Jewish voters were worried that they had mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan because the ballot was an illegal butterfly ballot.
2.)At 12:00 there was a second report that said that African-Americans were reporting that they felt intimidated by police road blocks en route to polling places.
3.)A few days later our local paper printed the infamous butterfly ballot and the voter instructions. The instructions did not match the ballot. They were supposed to punch straight across from candidate's name but Gore's name was actually above the place that they were supposed to punch.
4.)Hanging/dimpled chads. Test this one out for yourself. Take a three-hole punch and try to punch several reams of paper (5-7 sheets at a time.) If you don't empty the chads on a frequent basis it is not too long before the punch only dimples the paper.
5.)Voter purge
6.)Absentee military ballots. A few service men came forward and said that they were handed ballots the day after the election and told to vote for * and they obeyed orders. In my state votes have to be received by election day. However some states do allow for post-marking by election day. None allow for voting the day after election