The election results II

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
nk.net...
psycholist wrote:

All the sources absolutely did NOT say that. What rubbish.

See: "http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/701007/posts"

Enough said!


That's the most ridiculous, agenda-driven tripe I've read in all this
thread, yet. And you buy it hook, line and sinker? That's really scary.

Bob C.

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

But all the sources said later that if they had done a complete recount,
rather than having it stopped by the Supreme Court, that Gore would have
won.

The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing
for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts
favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law
dictated the election was over.

Recall that the Florida Supremes arbitrarily extended the deadline to
certify the results (to Nov 26). The Bush legal position was that 1)
they had no constitutional authority to do so 2) those action also
violate 3USC5 whereby you have to follow election standards in place
prior to election day (this was regarding the whole chad issue) and 3)
cherry picking only some localities and varying chad standard was a
violation of equal protection.

Contrary to myth, the US Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY held on points 2
and 3. That is, that the standards for a legal vote and clear intent
of the voter were unconstititionally varying day to day as a result of
lower court legal decisions. (see slip op p 8).

Also contrary to myth, the US Supreme Court SEVEN (not 5) Justices
found that the Florida Supreme's action was unconstitutional ("Seven
Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems
with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a
remedy ... The only disagreement is as to the remedy." slip op. p12).

Also contrary to myth is that the decision "stopped the counting". In
fact, what they did was remand the case back to the Florida Supremes.
They said 'your solution violates the constitution and you grossly
overstepped your authority by making up ad hoc election rules, so
issue a new decision/solution.'

By not taking up the issue, the Florida Supremes ended the counting
(of course, there was no practical solution that could both comply
with pre-election day law and the Constitutional and still allow any
sort of legal recounting). Gore still lost with or without the 215
P-B and 168 Miami votes "found" in the process.

When the consortium of news media recounted, only with the gross
assumption that the overvote (2 pres candidates punched) was meant for
Gore did he win.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:46:21 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

But all the sources said later that if they had done a complete recount,
rather than having it stopped by the Supreme Court, that Gore would have
won.

There is nothing wrong with what Gore did. He won, he fought for his
victory, and it was taken away from him by friends of the Bush family.

No, Gore wanted to count and re-count only votes for the counties that
he thought would favor him. And he operated under the assumption that
any "voter" so feeble and stupid that s/he couldn't poke a hole all
the way through a thin sheet of cardboard must ipso facto have
intended to vote Gore.

Your bleat is SO last week. Find a new one.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:04:07 -0500, "psycholist"
wrote:

See: "http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/701007/posts"

Enough said!


That's the most ridiculous, agenda-driven tripe I've read in all this
thread, yet. And you buy it hook, line and sinker? That's really scary.

No, it's really typical.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:01:10 -0600, Reality Check none@ wrote:

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

But all the sources said later that if they had done a complete recount,
rather than having it stopped by the Supreme Court, that Gore would have
won.

The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing
for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts
favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law
dictated the election was over.


Gee, did you forget whose brother was the governor?
Bill Baka

In article ,
Reality Check none@ wrote:

The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing
for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts
favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law
dictated the election was over.

After that election, I spent quite a bit of time reviewing the Florida
election statutes. What Gore did followed FLorida law, and the method
of recounting had been done in Florida for years. This method had been
challenged before in the Florida Supreme Court and upheld.

The US Supreme Court, right or wrong, actually did rule against the
process that Florida had used for about 20 years affecting many
elections. This was not something that Gore's team just made up.

In any case, that's ancient history now, and I agree that it's Gore's
own damn fault that the election was that close.

Todd Kuzma

Todd Kuzma wrote:

In article ,
Reality Check none@ wrote:

The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing
for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts
favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law
dictated the election was over.

After that election, I spent quite a bit of time reviewing the Florida
election statutes. What Gore did followed FLorida law, and the method
of recounting had been done in Florida for years. This method had been
challenged before in the Florida Supreme Court and upheld.

Not entirely correct. Florida statute had long been that when the
results were close that recounts were automatic; in other cases that
close results (county by county) could be challenged and call for a
recount.

That's all well and good. But when those recounts did not result in
enough found votes they wanted yet another chance, and in some cases
with still different standards of voter intent. To quote from the
USSC slip op (p 8):

"The record provides some examples. A monitor in
Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that
three members of the county canvassing board applied
different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499
(Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at
least one county changed its evaluative standards during
the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example,
began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded
counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule
that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen
through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then
abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a
court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal.
This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal
treatment."

This completely contradicts the assertion that some set of orderly
standards were in use at all, let alone for 20 yrs. The changing
process described was a result of several court actions along the way
in which voter intent was constantly redefined.

The Florida Supreme Court you referring to sounds like the 2000 Gore v
Harris. The FSC did not in fact "uphold" anything, but in fact
conjured new ad hoc rules arbitratily extending the verification
deadline.



The US Supreme Court, right or wrong, actually did rule against the
process that Florida had used for about 20 years affecting many
elections. This was not something that Gore's team just made up.

The main thing the FSC did was to arbitrarily set a new certification
deadline. Florida almost certainly did not have a 20 year history of
doing that. The USSC said you have to use the rules and standards in
place prior to election day.

Bill Baka wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:01:10 -0600, Reality Check none@ wrote:

The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing
for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts
favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law
dictated the election was over.


Gee, did you forget whose brother was the governor?

You don't even have to WORK at being an idiot, do you Bill?

Bill "close contest between you and Blair" S.

"Bill Baka" wrote in message
news
I couldn't have said it better. This time I think Bush got in by lying

his ass off and the help of the corrupt Republicans he has on staff.

The next four years could find the country bankrupt, financially if

not morally. This is the first time in, well, forever, that I have

seen a president get something so meaningless on the ballot as a vote

to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages. It looks like the

Vatican is going to run the White house and you know where that goes.

No stem cell research, no abortions, no advancement. Other countries

that are not held back by this bull**** will be taking the lead in

sciences away from us and we will wind up a second class nation after

it shakes out. ****, we put people on the moon 35 years ago and what

have we done since? Blew up a few ****tles, built a half assed space

station, bankrupt the Russian communists, left Castro alone, shake

with fear at China's emerging might and North Korea's atomic bomb and

rocket program. Does Bush worry about that, no, he just wants to keep

the oil pipeline open.

But try explaining any of this to a lower to middle class person in the
midwest. They don't understand and they don't want to understand. And Karl
Rove understands the danger in trying to make them understand.

Hot-button issues are what matter these days; abortion, gay marriage, guns,
and G-d. Democrats better descend to the level of the Republicans, and find
their own Karl Rove, before the next election.

Democrats counted on people voting for their own economic self-interest; the
lower to middle class people that voted for Bush either didn't understand,
or didn't care, that they will be worse off economically. When an economy
collapses, it's always the poor and middle class that are affected first.

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
ink.net...

Hot-button issues are what matter these days; abortion, gay marriage,
guns,
and G-d.

It would be interesting if there was a political party that would be the
guns (pro), gays (anti), God (pro), and grizzlies (anti) party that would
also meet the economic needs of those lower- to middle-class people in those
red regions. What's happening now is that people are voting based on stupid
things like gay marriage, when there's nobody out in their county, and
hurting themselves economically. Money flows like a river out of the blue
regions of the country and into the red ones in the form of taxes --
everytime they vote for a someone who wants to lower taxes in general, and
especially, lower taxes for the rich, they are hurting themselves in the
basics: reducing the quality of their water supply, making sure their roads
in aren't going to be maintained, making their schools worse. They vote
emotionally over symbols, and someone else is laughing all the way to the
bank. This political party would also be pro-balanced budget,
anti-interventionist abroad. To appeal to its constituency, it would
probably be anti-immigrant, too.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky