Odd how EVERYTHING was going with in the direction of the Bush camp, in every direction where legal recourse was exausted, especially when illegal changes were made through no fault of the voter on the applications for ballots, so the voters should not be disenfranchised. Should then the voters who punched their ballots in the belief that they were voting be punished because the chads did not completely disengage from the ballot? We are not talking about dimpled ballots, or pregnant chads... we are talking about clear punches where the chad may have flipped back over the hole punched.

If you listen clearly you will have heard and understood this point.

Why should these voters be disenfranchised due to an error which is no fault of their own? They should have checked for hanging chads you say? But then those voters who sent in their ballot requests were supposed to check to make sure that the information on their forms were correct before signing weren't they?

The Bush camp cannot have it both ways now can they? Or should they, because, after all, Jeb promised Georgie he would "give" him Florida. And a gentlemans agreement is all that is needed down there in the south where the laws of the land and big government is not appreciated.

I'm waiting for all of the excuses and explainations justifying why the decision of the Florida supreme court should not be followed, besides the fact that Bush should win.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Answers

Its only a hit and most likely a bunt. He will end up stranded on First when the US Supremes send in the Star Relievers for the Shills on the Fla SC.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

It’s back to the alligator farm Cherri. Those Billy-Bob’s on the Florida Supreme Court have already had their hands slapped by the Big House. This time around it will stick.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Cherri,

I'm going to wait until I read the actual decision to make a definitive response, but there appears to be a pattern here. The Florida supremes haven't even responded to the first slap on the wrist from the US court, leading me to wonder if they even plan to. If this decision -- as I suspect -- is another case of judicial activism, they've made an already bad situation even worse.

Florida has a very liberal, activist Supreme court that obviously *disagrees* with the US Supreme court (and the Florida legislature, and the Martians, and about anyone else you care to name[g]). But even if that's the case, there shall be no "constitutional crisis" here, because the US court trumps the Florida court, period.

So ... unless the Florida Supremes have pulled a legal rabbit out of their hats, be assured that the US Supreme Court will smish them in due course, quite possibly in emergency session.

I'm so sure of this that I'm going to advance a theory that I honestly didn't want to believe before now. I think the Florida court is so reactionary, and so biased, that they made this decision KNOWING that it would be reversed -- but hoping that, in the meantime, some furious counting could be done to give Gore the lead (and thus, an edge in the PR game).

If I'm right, THAT'S why they added those partial recounts, which have already been excluded and decertified elsewhere, to Gore's count. It gives him a leg up.

So ... here's the scenario: the US Supremes take the case. They say, "Florida, what in the HECK are you doing? Decision reversed, orders vacated, you are thumped, go away!"

... but in Florida, the Democrats holler: "Look! See?!? Gore's now ahead by 3 votes! WE KNEW IT! He actually won Florida, we just needed to count the votes .. .. . !"

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Florida has a very liberal, activist Supreme court that obviously *disagrees* with the US Supreme court

WHY are they Liberal? activist?

and Florida has a Republican Party which feels it perfectly OK to tamper with absentee ballot requests. A Party which hires firms like Checkpoint to do nothing more than racial profiling exclusion exercises which denies voters their right to vote. A Party which on their own website sells crap saying Sore Loserman.

Who is jerking who here Poole?

Ever going to comment on the salon.com link I posted? didn't think so.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

This is most peculiar. The USSC vacates the prior decision and throws out the recount votes for Gore, and asks the FSC "Just where did you get the authority to do this anyway?"

And the FSC ignores the USSC, puts the vacated votes right back, and throws in a bunch more besides. And to do so, they are obliged to overrule a *finding of facts* by the lower court, and do so *without the facts*. Prima facie, this decision was made on purely political grounds. The primary question the Gore lawyers were asked was, "Can we find enough Gore votes in the time remaining?"

I suspect Stephen is right. By the time the USSC can overrule this "judicial legislation", the Dems will be claiming that they "won" after all by counting non-votes as Gore votes like MAD over the weekend. THEN they will claim the USSC picked the president. This decision is really a scorched-earth, "If we can't have it nobody can" sort of decision.

What's ironic is that by strictly following the letter of the law, Harris was blasted as hopelessly partisan. By *making* law in their favor, the FSC is being called "impartial". Only in politics.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Cherri,

The bat was corked.

Gore is out, he is ejected from the game, and he has to serve a three game suspension.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Implying the Gore team somehow cheated and the FSC on their side? You're getting lazy, J. Surely you can do better than that!

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Doc,

They have a well-known history of activism, as well as constantly being at odds with the legislature. And judicial "activism" is generally defined as making law from the bench instead of interpreting law.

And that's not just my opinion, the US Supreme Court themselves, in the earlier decision, said flatly that the Florida court made a decision without basis in the law. Simply put: they INVENTED ("fashioned" was the word they chose) a solution out of whole cloth.

That is clearly what they've done again this case -- even to the extent of ignoring the previous USSC opinion.

No one wants to talk about the real issue in this case, which is personal responsibility on the part of the voters. There were clear instructions posted both on the ballots and in the polling places: check your ballot carefully. Make sure you've marked it correctly and that all punched holes are cleanly done. And so on.

There have been all sorts of theories advanced to support the idea that these spoiled ballots should be counted: maybe the machines had become filled with chads, and the voters couldn't force their chad to punch all the way through?

If so, go back two spaces and read that paragraph again. The voter is required to CHECK THE BALLOT HIM/HERSELF before handing it to the precinct workers. "Hey, my hole didn't get punched all the way!" The precinct workers are supposed to check, and clear, the machine.

And in fact, this happened on election day, quite routinely and normally. This is how it has always worked, even back to the days when hand-written ballots were used. If the ballot didn't clearly indicate a choice, it was NOT counted.

WHY are the rules written this way? Precisely because you cannot determine voter intent when there's no clear mark! You CAN'T! It would be just as possible, in another state, for Republican workers to begin sifting ballots and playing Carnak the Magnificent to gain votes for THEIR candidate. The rules are non-partisan and REQUIRED to ensure fairness.

Why does the Florida court repeatedly refuse to issue guidelines for counting these ballots? It's not bad enough that they make an activist decision with no basis in law, they won't even provide guidelines for the circus! Chaos. Utter chaos.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Stephen:

I think [not that the courts have called to ask what I think] that both you and Flint have interpreted the laws and the rulings based on either YOUR or your favorite pundit's evaluations. There are CERTAINLY other interpretations, and I'm, personally, not willing to suggest that *I* [or even the pundits *I* prefer] am/are qualified to suggest that "Law was made out of full cloth", or "The FSC is playing politics." I don't think Supreme Court judges reach their positions based on their ignorance of law or precedent, neither in the states, nor at the federal level.

IMO, you two are throwing out rhetoric suggesting that you KNOW why these judges made the decisions they made. AGAIN, this rhetoric is parroting the GOP. [Don't even bother to give me the line about how great minds think alike.]

I don't think that the FSC court would be so bold as to IGNORE what the federal courts charged them with in their first ruling. The FSC appointed talking-head clearly stated that the FSC court wouldn't IGNORE the highest court in the land. I'd, personally, be amazed if these folks haven't ALREADY exchanged E-mails and phone calls regarding this clarification.

The concentration of effort here seems to be on the Wells' opinion. What about the others? Is it your opinion that these four live in a vacuum? Even two of the three dissenters stated that they agreed but were concerned that the process couldn't be completed in time.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Just a little more "food for thought" on this one..The Supremers refused to acknowledge a block of the recount:

Gore Supreme Court Excerpts By The Associated Press

Excerpts from the Gore reply to an emergency motion filed Friday to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Bush campaign to halt the manual recounts in Florida.

------

Applicants' request for a stay makes a remarkable claim: For the ostensible purpose of advancing the interests of voters, applicants urgently request this court to stop the counting of votes. Their surprising assertion is that a candidate for public office can be irreparably harmed by the process of discerning and tabulating the will of the voters. This suggestion is contrary to established law, the U.S. Constitution, and basic principles of democracy.

The application should be denied because applicants have no cognizable legal interest that will be harmed by that count, because a halt in the vote-count process can serve only to delay ultimate resolution of the election contest, and because their underlying legal claims lack merit.

Against this background, it is not surprising that applicants have failed to make out any of the showings necessary to justify such extraordinary relief.

------

Granting the stay, by contrast, would cause irreparable harm both to respondents and to the public interest. Halting the count of votes until the case has been disposed of by this court would make it virtually impossible for the Florida courts to complete the review of ballots by Dec. 12, gravely handicapping Vice President Gore's prospects of benefitting from the safe harbor provided by 3 U.S.C. Section 5.

As a consequence, Gov. Bush proposes a grossly inequitable asymmetry: Granting a stay of the vote count would have no bearing on his ability to benefit from the safe harbor, but would substantially undercut Vice President Gore's hope of invoking the provision. Denying the stay application, in contrast, would avoid those dangers while imposing no injury on applicants; it would leave the status quo intact, giving this court an opportunity to address the merits.

------

A stay would also undermine the public interest by imposing enormous burdens and disruption on overworked public officials in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court noted the extraordinary effort made by public servants in the state during the last month (see slip op. 39 n.22), and over the last 18 hours public employees across the state have already made Herculean efforts to complete the expeditious judicial count ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. To suddenly stay those efforts, only to restart them if this court were to deny review or affirm the judgment below, would seriously disserve the public interest.

------

Even if Gov. Bush is correct in all of his assertions -- and in his further argument that the election contest is somehow ''tainted by the Florida Supreme Court's unauthorized and unlawful rewrite of the legislative structure'' (Stay App. 40), a point that we address below -- a stay would be completely irrelevant to his claimed injury. Gov. Bush can achieve his objective of a conclusive resolution to this dispute by Dec. 12 in only one of two ways: (1) the count can go forward and the courts can enter a final judgment by Dec. 12, or (2) this court can grant review and determine that Gov. Bush is entitled to prevail in the contest by that date. A stay of the count obviously does nothing to advance either of those goals, and thus does literally nothing to avoid the irreparable injury of which Gov. Bush complains.

In this respect, it is important to focus on the particular action ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and the particular relief sought by applicants. That court ordered the review of specified ballots and the adjustment of the certified vote totals in light of that count -- a count the outcome of which will not be known until it is complete. Of course, if that review does shift the vote totals in respondent's favor, the injury to applicants will not be the least bit irreparable:

''There will be time enough for (the applicant) to present his constitutional claim'' to this court ''if and when'' the threatened harm comes about at the entry of final judgment in the contest proceeding. Deaver v. United State s, 483 U.S. 1301, 1303 (1987) (Rehnquist, C.J., in chambers).

------

Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court has determined that Florida law requires judicial tabulation of uncounted ballots. That determination is entitled to considerable deference by this court. Indeed, it may be disturbed only if this court finds a basis in federal law for doing so. Yet, as we explain below in more detail, the two grounds identified by this court in Bush are manifestly inapplicable here for two separate reasons.

To begin with, this court in Bush took pains to make clear that it was not reaching the federal questions in that case. Surely it would not be appropriate to upset the determination of the Florida Supreme Court by affording interim relief here with the drastic consequences just discussed for the balance of the equities among the parties-- when this court in Bush did not even address the questions presented in that case. Slip op. 6.

Second, recognizing the potential concerns articulated by this court in Bush, the Florida Supreme Court exercised great care to ensure that its decision was firmly rooted both in statutes enacted by the Legislature and in long-standing interpretations of those statutes. See pages 13-18, infra.

------

Moreover, even if the Florida Supreme Court's authority was thought to stem from the Florida Constitution, not the statute, exercise of that authority still would not violate Article II. The threshold inquiry under Article II is whether the state constitution ''circumscribed the legislature's authority,'' and here the application of the Florida Constitution must be fully consistent with Article II because there is every indication that the Legislature intended to provide appellate review in contest actions, not eliminate it. Even applicants do not try to explain why the Legislature would want to endow a single circuit judge with final authority to decide these cases. Instead, all indications are that the Legislature intended this statute to be governed by the settled principle of Florida law that the state Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all matters determined in the lower courts unless the Legislature precludes such review.... That, of course, is a principle with which the Florida Legislature is quite familiar.

------

Applicants also argue that Florida cannot treat voters in different counties differently. Stay App. 35. If applicants mean by this to say that every county must use precisely the same methods of tabulation as every other county in the state, they are obviously wrong. As they do in Florida, different counties within states routinely use different equipment and different ballots for the conduct of their elections. This plainly does not systematically ''dilute'' the votes of particular counties in any way that violates the Equal Protection Clause. The only decision applicants cite in support of their argument, O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974), involved incarcerated prisoners who were denied the right to vote altogether based solely on their county of residence. But O'Brien stands only for the unremarkable proposition that voters cannot be denied the right to vote solely because of their county of residence.

Indeed, even if the standard articulated by the Florida Supreme Court were interpreted slightly differently in different counties, permitting each county's canvassing board to conduct its portion of a statewide manual recount of undervotes would not work any impermissible discrimination. It would simply facilitate the completion of the count.

------

Indeed, applicants' arguments that the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court violates due process because it is ''in its basic aspect ... flawed'' and permits effectively standardless recounts are nothing more than claims that the contest and recount procedures of Florida's election code, which mirror those that have long existed in one form or another in numerous states, are on their face unconstitutional. There is no way of rationalizing their position with the fact that the manual counting of ballots under the identical standard has been the rule, not the exception, in this country for most of the period since its founding. And their argument would have the logical consequence that the entire election in Florida, in which many ballots have been included in the certified totals to date only after manual counting, would have to be declared invalid.

AP-NY-12-09-00 1250EST  !--END-->

[Don't ask ME what all this means. I've squandered my life on a degree in Computer Science, and CONTINUE to squander my life on other "nonsensical" goals.]

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Excellent points, Stephen. And you've touched on one of the biggest problem I have with this continual hand recount farce. That is; absence of accountibility for the lack of personal responsibility on the part of the voters... The voter is required to CHECK THE BALLOT HIM/HERSELF before handing it to the precinct workers. A dimpled chad shows a failure to have done so, and in my opinion should result in that ballot being thrown out as a non-vote. End of story. Simple and fair.

As to "Why does the Florida court repeatedly refuse to issue guidelines for counting these ballots?...

One theory I heard put forth was that the FSC realized if they had defined the guidelines beyond what the existing law states, they would clearly be guilty of writing law (as if they aren't already!). In other words, they chose to avoid placing themselves at risk over this issue.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

It seems that the Supremes of the Supreme have now requested that the recounting be stopped. They will hear arguments on Monday.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Here's the scoop on that Supreme of Supremes:

Supreme Court Stops Fla. Recount

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court granted George W. Bush's request to stop ballot recounts in Florida on Saturday, and agreed to hear the Republican's appeal of a Florida court ruling that had resurrected the campaign of presidential rival Al Gore.

By a vote of 5-4, the court agreed to stop counts that began Saturday morning.

AP-NY-12-09-00 1448EST< 

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

After reading this, I expect to see a British drum and bugle core marching in playing "The World Turned Upside Down".

First we have Flint agreeing with Dennis on everything. It makes one wonder if "little" Eddie has been posting using the name Flint.

The MO is choose an answer; then you find references and arguments to support that predetermined answer. Facts are unimportant, only the results.

Thoroughly amused observer

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

It's enough to make you cry.

I am appalled.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Pam:

It looks like Flint has sold his honor for a mess of pottage. I, too, am starting to think that he is "fast" Eddie. I expect a book, Election 2000, from him.

Tomorrow, sausage gravy and buttermilk cornbread. Now, that is important.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

chuckle

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Anita,

Legal opinions are fine, and yes, I have read both sides in this. And ultimately, our opinions are just that: opinions. The USSC will decide WHICH argument is correct.

In a way, then, what I'm doing is stating my opinion about WHICH of these two arguments will be accepted by the USSC.

And yes, I fully expect the USSC to overrule Florida again, too. They SHOULD.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

CD,

following your logic, the 25,000(all sides), absentee ballots cast in Seminole and Martin counties should have been tossed. Why? well here is a Quote:Clark, however, sharply criticized Seminole Supervisor of Elections Sandra Goard. She said Goard "exercised faulty judgment" and broke Florida law by allowing the forms to be corrected.

Now according to said law, law which makes it clear absentee voting is not afforded the same stature as "real" voting, done so IN THE CODE. And based on prior precedence in similar, albeit not as high profile an election as this, ALL the absentee ballots from Seminole and Martin should have been ordered VOID.

With that done, Al Gore wins by 7500+ votes in Florida and the memes go home to bitch and whine once again about how the SC, the NWO, the Liberals etc are destroying our country and making there lives a living hell.

104.041 Fraud in connection with casting vote.--Any person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate or aid in the perpetration of any fraud in connection with any vote cast, to be cast, or attempted to be cast, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(1) Any person who provides or offers to provide, and any person who accepts, a pecuniary or other benefit in exchange for distributing, ordering, requesting, collecting, delivering, or otherwise physically possessing absentee ballots, except as provided in ss. 101.6105-101.694, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) Except as provided in s. 101.62 or s. 101.655, any person who requests an absentee ballot on behalf of an elector is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

104.0515 Voting rights; deprivation of, or interference with, prohibited; penalty.--

(2) No person acting under color of law shall: (b) Deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under law to vote in such election. This paragraph shall apply to absentee ballots only if there is a pattern or history of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude in regard to absentee ballots.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Now it is that last sentence of the last statute which Lewis and Clark determined they would ignore last Friday. While finding illegal acts had been committed, they ruled being this is such a big mess and all, they would decide these absentee votes now have earned same status rights as ballots cast the old fashioned way, in person.

The laws are SPECIFIC. Absentee ballots are NOT the same as regular voting, they are a priviledge and do not hold the same status. Unfortunately in this crazed mess, the laws apparently do not matter much.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

This paragraph shall apply to absentee ballots only if there is a pattern or history of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude in regard to absentee ballots.

So WHERE is the justification for Lewis and Clark? Are we a nation of laws, or what????? Talk about dimple chads from here to whenever. Point is, at least 2,000 votes are being included in this count which were cast, and ultimately tainted the entire bunch of 25,000 of absentee ballots from Seminole and Martin counties(that we are certain of) ILLEGALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!no technicality, ILEGAL as was the opinion of the judges.

On appeal, they maybe overruled, will it matter then????????????????

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Doc,

The people who tampered with the absentee ballot applications should be punished. But the votes should not be thrown out, because there's no question that votes are valid.

And so ruled the judges in these two cases.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

I'm not sure why you would assume the votes were valid.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Pam:

That's not exactly an assumption. Nobody has alleged that any actual votes were invalid, so the validity of the ballots themselves is not at issue. The court ruled that everyone who wished to receive an absentee ballot and deserved one, got one. That everyone who returned that ballot in good faith had their votes counted properly.

There IS an assumption here, namely that if anyone thought they had been disenfranchised they would have said so and complained. Nobody did. The courts ruled that mistakes happen, that a good faith effort was made to correct a printing (or software) error, that neither this error nor method of correction influenced the vote itself (i.e. that with *neither* error nor correction, we'd have had the same votes cast and counted).

As they say in basketball, "No harm, no foul".

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

CD, following your logic, the 25,000(all sides), absentee ballots cast in Seminole and Martin counties should have been tossed.

Doc- My call for specific [dimpled] ballots to be thrown out was predicated on the fact that these individuals failed to check (as instructed) their ballots prior to handing it to the precinct worker. As a result of this failure, these ballots do not clearly indicate who the individual was voting for.

To extrapolate from this that my logic calls for tossing 25,000 Seminole and Martin absentee ballots for reasons other than the ballot's "readibility" seems quite a stretch. Apples and oranges.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

To the memes,

I am NOT going to bother posting the link since it would not make a damn bit of difference anyhow(based on prior precedence). But them absentee ballots say the same thing as the ballots but even MORE decisively. You don't provide the information potential absentee voter, you get NO BALLOT. At least 2,000 GOP dumbass/blind fools(see it can be used either way), did not put their Voter Regitration number on said absentee application. Rule is, it is tossed, VOIDED, as they WERE till the crimes were committed(what did ya alls forget that part?).

But what happened? Ah the Election official, a voted in servant of the people, a woman with over 2 decades of experience, who sits around all day and reads 4 sections of law, over and over again, allows a Republican Party official full access to commit felonies to the tune of 1900+ times. Who risk her own neck, why? Stupidity? No ARROGANCE, and a clear attitude that they can do anything they damn well please(she is also a Republican).

The tampering laws exist because WE DO NOT KNOW what this Michael Leach did, beyond what he coped to under oath to a lawyer outnumbered by the Leach gang 6 to 1.

Why didn't the Republican Party merely mail out(or freaking call), these voters alerting them to the fact there was a fatal error, but if they acted, they could correct it and still vote? Why didn't they? Because they don't give a crap about what is right.

Law doesn't exist FOR THE FUN OF IT. It exists because there HAS BEEN actual problems before. How do any of you know all this leach guy did was add a number? We don't, thus the LAW. Why do they ask for all that information? Why even bother? Why have voters register? Would you people just like it if every wetback off the boat got a ballot as you assume?

Both judges in these cases, BLEW IT. They looked the LAW in the face and made their own law. They bended and broke under the media strain.

Sorry for the voters affected, a risk they took. Maybe they should change over to a Political Party who is able to mail out an application WITH the damn information next time. And just so you are clear, voting absentee is not a right, it is a privledge and handled as such by Florida Law.

Whine all you want about GORE. Determining chad status, or intent is NOT breaking the LAW as was done 2,000 times in Seminole and Martin counties by the Republican Party and a sitting elected official.

Please do me the courtesy memes, go do at least some research before you again spout off about "it being the voters fault" their votes didn't register. You look the part of idiots I know most of you are not when you spout such ignorant crap. Link was provided, and the search engines are open, go learn.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

My call for specific [dimpled] ballots to be thrown out was predicated on the fact that these individuals failed to check (as instructed) their ballots prior to handing it to the precinct worker.

Now didn't the instructions on the ballot requests state that all of the information should be checked to make sure it was correct before the form was signed? If they didn't check the voter regester number then it was their own fault, after all they were responsible for doing it, they had instructions telling them what to do. If the number was wrong, it was their own fault. Why should the repub party go in and fix it, as they did? Why are they excused for that mistake and someone else allowed to fix the number, when people who's chads didn't completly dislodge are degraded and belittled for not reading the instructions telling them to check that their chads were dislodged? Aren't the instructions for both the same thing? Isn't changing the regestration number after the ballot requests were signed the same thing as people looking at chads with two corners broken the same thing?

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Doc, Cheri-

I understand the points you are making about the absentee ballots. And, although I disagree with your conclusions, I refuse to enter into an argument with you, or anybody, regarding the validity of these ballots. The lawyers from both sides have already argued this issue to death and the courts have made their decisions. Who are we to pretend we can interpret the law better than they?

I will argue however, that the point I was trying to make regarding dimpled ballots should not be tied to the absentee ballot issue as you both are attempting to do. My reference was to the fact that the ballot should be tossed if it cannot be clearly determined a vote was cast. Your reference is to the legalities involved in applying for an absentee ballot. As I said before- apples and oranges.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

(I lied.)

CD, they aren't trying to tie the issues together in any way other than to point out yet another hypocrisy.

The PBC voters were decried by Bush "supporters" as "stupid" for failing to follow instructions; yet the same measurement is not seemingly applied to those who applied for absentee ballots, who ALSO failed to follow instructions.

Not apples and oranges at all.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Patricia- NUH UH! (Macho law prohibits me from fully agreeing with what you have said. However...)

they aren't trying to tie the issues together in any way other than to point out yet another hypocrisy.

"Perhaps" I am taking their comments a bit too personally. (Perhaps being called a "meme" by Doc may have contributed to my misunderstanding?) Perhaps they *are* simply trying to point out what they feel are hypocrisies and are using my simple little opinion to extrapolate from in order to make these points.

Just to make sure we are all on the same page... My comments referred *only* to my opinion on how dimpled ballots should be handled. It was not intended, nor should it be taken as a statement of my opinions about any other issue in this election fiasco.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Patricia:

You are now arguing that apples and oranges are identical because they both grow on trees! CD is right -- you are stretching worse than Rose Mary Woods at her dictaphone, trying to equate two completely different situations.

And you didn't even get that right. Those voter registration ID codes were supposed to have been printed on the ballot applications, NOT filled out by the applicants (who don't know the codes anyway).

Now, you might argue that it's probably a Republican who misprogrammed the software that was to have printed those codes on the applications, and that *therefore* this programmer was stupid, and that *therefore* it's hypocritical to question voters who couldn't follow simple directions while forgiving a presumably republican presumably stupid programmer for writing a bug!

But this is like saying apples and oranges are identical because they are found on the same PLANET! This is special pleading with a vengeance!

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

No, Flint; I am simply pointing to yet another hypocrisy. Yes, the IDs were supposed to be printed on the applications. But did none of the applicants notice this? Did they not read the instructions?

This is the same line given by Bush "supporters" with reference to PBC voters.

Simple hypocrisy. Has nothing to do with anything else.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

In addition, I am not "pleading" anything, yet I notice a whole lot of "exclamation points" in your post. I noticed a whole lot of "emotion" in CD's post.

So who's "pleading" here? I'm merely pointing to something that I see that is glaring. You can't even acknowledge that much.

No, Flint, I have no need to "plead" with any of you.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

And you didn't even get that right. Those voter registration ID codes were supposed to have been printed on the ballot applications, NOT filled out by the applicants (who don't know the codes anyway). Flint

I do not know how else to say it Flint, but you are 100% completely wrong, and the above is your latest indication. Sir, you have NO CLUE what in the hell you are talking about. If you lack even the base knowledge of the law, this election, I have to conclude the rest of your "analysis" is a combination of creative writing, brainfarts, and meme-spewing.

Go gets some facts. Or at the minimum, do ME the courtesy and at least read my posts which some actually include the laws directly. I doubt that possible since you are operating as a Meme, but do try.

CD, I differ from Cherri in the fact I feel the Absentee ballot issue is different(far worse). I completely understand the hypocrisy sentiment, it is dead-on correct in the context of what has become merely a political football.

I will also challenge you to go read the statutes. Go read the deposition from Michael Leach. Go to the Seminole county Election Department website.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

As I read the Florida election law in section 101.62, the number requested is the voter's registration number on the voter's registration card----not some strange code number. It's on the card you carry in your wallet.

Look at #4 below.

The 2000 Florida Statutes Title IX ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS Chapter 101 Voting Methods And Procedure View Entire Chapter 101.62 Request for absentee ballots.--

(1)(a) The supervisor may accept a request for an absentee ballot from an elector in person or in writing. One request shall be deemed sufficient to receive an absentee ballot for all elections which are held within a calendar year, unless the elector or the elector's designee indicates at the time the request is made the elections for which the elector desires to receive an absentee ballot. Such request may be considered canceled when any first-class mail sent by the supervisor to the elector is returned as undeliverable.

(b) The supervisor may accept a written or telephonic request for an absentee ballot from the elector, or, if directly instructed by the elector, a member of the elector's immediate family, or the elector's legal guardian. For purposes of this section, the term "immediate family" has the same meaning as specified in paragraph (4)(b). The person making the request must disclose:

1. The name of the elector for whom the ballot is requested;

2. The elector's address;

3. The last four digits of the elector's social security number;

4. The registration number on the elector's registration identification card;

5. The requester's name;

6. The requester's address;

7. The requester's social security number and, if available, driver's license number;

8. The requester's relationship to the elector; and

9. The requester's signature (written requests only).

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Real easy Pam, Flint apparently didn't even bother clicking thru the links I provided in this same thread prior.

Here is the direct link to the skinny...FLORIDA VOTER REGISTRATION ACT

Now I admit, few will know their number off the top of their head. But I think we get the point here, at least the one's around here who know what we are talking about. The ones IN reality.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

But this is like saying apples and oranges are identical because they are found on the same PLANET! This is special pleading with a vengeance! Flint

Well weren't you the guy who said the illegal acts in Seminole county mere technicalities? Well hell Flint MURDER is on the books, is using the "technicality defense" viable there too?

I want an answer. I want to know how you explain how you are wrong about the voter ID numbers. I am calling your shit sir.

Do you have an explanation beyond you are lazy and don't give a shit about nuttin but your "I have been banned on Sleazyboard fat ego"? Freaking nerve of you to talk down to people with your crooked ass finger from a position like you actually know shit, screw you.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Pam:

If I'm understanding all that properly, Doc Droolie is claiming that if a *Republican* does not know "The registration number on the elector's registration identification card", then that Republican should be prohibited from receiving a ballot. However, if a Democrat does not know this detail, he's welcome to a ballot because his application already had it filled in for him.

And if this value gets filled in *after* the applicant receives a ballot, rather than before, this is voter fraud so egregious that we must reverse the entire election for US President! Even though nobody even tries to claim that anyone voted who shouldn't have, nor was anyone deprived of their right to vote. This glitch made absolutely *no change* in the election results, just as if it had never happened at all.

Those lawsuits weren't brought to correct any inaccuracy, they were brought in the hopes of *introducing* inaccuracy in Gore's favor. The courts have (so far) wisely decided not to corrupt this situation even more than it is. The FSC will reverse this decision if they run true to form [grin].

If there were any indication of genuine fraud, or mechanical failure, or even any significant mistake in the way the election was administered, then I'd be jumping up and down trying to get these things corrected. But scraping the bottom of the barrel for just any irregularity however irrelevant, or claiming we can determine the "intent of the voter" when we cannot, SOLELY in the hopes of changing the result of ALL prior counts, is not honest.

And I'll gladly agree that if we keep recounting, Gore might stand a good chance of "winning" any one of them. If we counted 100 times, I'd estimate that Bush would win 55 and Gore would win 45. And this is as accurate as we will ever get. But right now, we have a certified count and no compelling reason to change it*other* than the "wrong" guy won.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Flint--

I started out to search for elections with hand recounts about an hour ago. What I found instead was multiple reports of election rigging in every type of voting method used. For the first time in this presidential election I am willing to conceed that no one will EVER know who won.

I was surprised to learn that the old fashioned paper ballot (first used in _Australia_ ) with the numbered, rip-off corner is the least likely to be compromised. And it finally makes sense why the corner cannot be removed until after it is shown to an election official after voting.

To say this election has been a learning experience is an understatement. It was great fun reading the laws and following the arguments. However, to find out that voting machines are rented, that vote counting programs are proprietary and not subject to public inspection, that 44% of the punch card machines are owned by a single company in Dallas, Texas and that 37% of the country uses that type system is upsetting. Talk about bread and circuses for the masses.

I was niave enough to give a short talk to every voter in my precinct to ensure that every ballot would be counted. "No erasures, no extraneous marks, nothing but a check or plus, NO SMILEY FACES!" It's just a tiny bit of America in upstate Pennsylvania but there was no fraud.

music begins to play...

"Don't let it be forgot,

"That once there was a spot,

"For one brief shining moment...."

fade out to scene of sheep and cows peacefully grazing

chuckle

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Pam:

I think now you can see that there are two things going on here:

1) We have some number of ballots that are inherently ambiguous, for whatever reason. We know by observation that even honest and civic minded people sincerely disagreed about many of these when undervotes started to get examined. The FSC's "rule" for interpreting ballots was "the clear intent of the voter." And if people can sincerely disagree about the voter's intent, it can hardly be considered "clear".

As a mental exercise, let's simplify the situation and say there are four reasonable standards -- indentations, one corner torn, two corners torn, three corners torn. Let's say we counted all votes in Florida four times, once by each of these standards. Let's even say the ballots did NOT degrade during all this counting (even though on TV we can SEE the piles of chad after each counting session).

Now, I guarantee you these four counts would produce four different totals. This is true because they are different standards. All of these standards are reasonable, and we presume all were followed fully and meticulously. Now, which is the "real" or "accurate" count of the "will of the voters"? Any of them? None of them?

Further, I'd expect these four counts probably wouldn't have found the same "winner" all four times. So who is the "real" winner? How could we tell? Counting ambiguous ballots CANNOT produce any idealized "intent of the voters" because we simply do not have the data to do so. Our results are a function of our counting standards, and NOT a function of what the voters may have intended.

And in practice, these ballots ARE changing because of being handled. Clear ballots are becoming ambiguous, and ambiguous ballots are becoming "clear", but the voter's intent is lost. Enough such ballots to swing the election? We cannot know, nobody can.

2) Because ONLY the very first count on election night was "blind", all subsequent recounts have target counts that are sitting ducks. In other words, desperately partisan people know exactly how many "new" Gore votes they must "find" to "win" the election.

And here is where your research comes into play. Now, do you seriously believe that these people's counts are going to be MORE accurate, as some claim? You now understand that it is NOT sufficient to say, well these are being counted by impartial judges. If we've learned anything, it's that judges are not impartial in this case.

So we finally run aground against the knowledge that we can't improve our accuracy even in theory, much less in practice. The ONLY possible purpose of any more counting is to change the nominal winner. And this is where we stand naked -- if we're happy with Bush, we accept the rather arbitrary result that now favors him, and we wish no more recounts. If we favor Gore, we claim we want "accuracy" and demand that we keep counting, hoping Gore comes out ahead in the next one, maybe a 50-50 chance. Bush fans have nothing to gain by another count, and Gore fans have nothing to lose. But the count itself is at best a coin flip, and at worst corrupt.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Flint--

Same data, different conclusion.

I prefer hand recounts, unambiguous standards, and multiple party inspectors.

Chad on the table or floor to me means only that they were partially dislodged originally. In my experience the punch card ballots are fairly sturdy.

We manufacture fiber optic vision systems for parts feeders. They are good but not as good as a human brain. They are fast and accurate and like any computer controlled system do EXACTLY what they are told to do. Only what they are told to do. In this context, I see a major problem with our votes being counted by machines owned by private companies, programmed by private companies, and not subject to public inspection. The code is propietary--no one gets to see it except the company that rents out the machine. Now I know the fancy sorting we can do with our systems and I'm sure the same could be done with vote counting programs. Is it done? Who knows.

There are only 29 States which approved the Federal Election Commission's guidelines. We desperately need a better system. Until we have one, I am in favor of humans counting the votes.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

Pam:

I don't think we're communicating here. I didn't oppose "hand recounts, unambiguous standards, and multiple party inspectors." I think these are all good ideas. And in my "mental exercise" above, I asked that you assume these things all to be true.

What I said was, IF these are all true, then we come to a total count. Is it "the will of the voters" or not? You can, if you wish, *define* it as the will of the voters, but that doesn't make it so.

I went on to say that we could pick different standards, ALL unambiguous, ALL reasonable, ALL with multiple party inspectors. And you would get a different count with EVERY ONE of them. I asked WHICH of these counts, if any, was the "real" will of the voters. I tried very hard to say that the BALLOTS are ambiguous, no matter how unambiguous your standards may be.

You don't address these questions at all. You simply say that you would prefer a counting mechanism that I presumed anyway to begin with.

And I agree that any chad that falls off these ballots was most likely partially dislodged to begin with. But we do not know HOW it became partially dislodged. If the voter dislodged it, we do not know if the voter INTENDED this dislodgement as a vote. We CAN NOT KNOW!

Yes, I agree that this particular voting method has an unnecessarily wide margin of error making it unsuitable for close elections. I've been saying here we need something more foolproof.

But this particular election used those lousy punchcards, resulting in *inherent* ambiguity that no counting method can erase or wish away. So the "winner" of this election depends entirely on how we INTERPRET an unknowable will of a voter, on enough such ballots to swing the election either way.

As a result, greater "accuracy" simply cannot be achieved. We lack the data. We really do! The ONLY reason to count anymore is to change the "winner", and NOTHING ELSE. And if you want to see Gore win, then that's fine, just say so. Many people agree with you. But saying Gore would "really" win an "accurate" count is a statement of pure faith if you believe it, and a lie if you know better.

I think it should be pretty clear that Bush won by the luck of the flip, and overturning it by insisting on flipping the same coin over and over until the "right" guy wins is against the rules. It's stealing.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

Flint--

Probably we should both read more carefully. I ignored your assumptions and you found ideas I didn't know existed in my posting.

Even if a fair and just recount in Florida could be fashioned, it would not solve the problems. Lawrence Tribe said on Charlie Rose last night that "We are talking about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." I thought it was quite apt.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000