From Dec. 3. it looks like she was preparing for the end of her world. but........
http://www.sacbee.com/voices/national/ivins/ivins_20001203.html
Yes, we have a problem, but it's not the legal process
By Molly Ivins
Published Dec. 3, 2000
AUSTIN, Texas -- For those in favor of having this argument like grown-ups,
some history may be helpful.
The punch-card voting system has been a consistent election problem for the
last 30 years. About 37 percent of Americans still vote on the rickety little
plastic tables, punching holes in cards. (Those present at the dawn of the
computer era will recall the old "Do Not Fold, Spindle or Mutilate" cards, but
you'll have to explain them to your children.)
The cards are then run through machines that are notoriously error-prone --
and, as writer Ronnie Dugger has been pointing out for years, also highly
susceptible to manipulation.
None of this is new information, nor has it appeared only after this close
election. Dugger wrote a long article for the Nov. 7, 1988, issue of The New
Yorker about the potential for fraud and the many proofs of error by this early,
proto-computer voting system. The 1988 article contained, among other
information, a detailed description of how to rig a Votomatic counting machine.
Dugger now feels that the single most misleading statement of the
post-election impasse was James Baker's claim: "Machines are neither Republicans
nor Democrats and therefore can be neither consciously nor unconsciously
biased."
Dugger wrote in the Dec. 4 New Republic: "Literally speaking, of course, he's
right: Machines don't have political beliefs. But computer programmers do. Just
as a dishonest and determined vote inspector can claim to see a hanging chad
where none exists, so can a dishonest and determined vote-counting-machine
programmer add votes to a candidate's total, transfer votes from one candidate
to another or determine an outcome with a specified percentage spread.
"Voting machines, in other words, can be as 'biased' as their human masters
want them to be. And when they are, it's a lot harder to detect. To steal votes
in the South Florida hand recounts, you'd have to escape the eyes of an army of
bipartisan observers and reporters. ... Even the software's own designers admit
that without security checks on the process and a hand count as a fallback, we'd
have no way to know whether such fraud had taken place."
The probability of error is far greater than the possibility of fraud in this
case. In the 1988 article, Dugger reported:
"It appears that since 1980 errors and accidents have proliferated in
computer-counted elections. Since 1984, the State of Illinois has tested local
computerized systems by running many thousands of machine-punched mock ballots
through them, rather than the few tens of ballots that local officials
customarily use. As of the most recent tests this year, error in the basic
counting instructions in the computer programs had been found in almost a fifth
of the examinations. These 'tabulation-program errors' probably would not have
been caught in the local jurisdictions. 'I don't understand why nobody cares,'
said Michael L. Harty, who was until recently the director of voting systems and
standards for Illinois. 'At one point we had tabulation errors in 28 percent of
the systems tested, and nobody cared.' "
Well, they do now, and it's worth looking at. Perhaps the most intriguing
precedent of all the contested punch-card elections was 12 years ago in Florida,
of course, when Democrat Buddy McKay lost a Senate race by a few votes after a
recount to Republican Connie Mack.
Dugger reported: "In 1988, in McKay's four Democratic stronghold counties,
there were 210,000 people who voted for president but did not vote in the U.S.
Senate race (undervoters). In a comparable U.S. Senate race in a
presidential-election year -- 1980 -- in the same four counties, three out of
every 100 presidential voters did not vote for senator; in 1988, 14 out every
100 did not. In the entire state of Florida, excluding the four McKay counties,
fewer than one of 100 presidential voters were not recorded as also voting in
the Senate race. Three of the McKay counties from 1988 are among Gore's four
recount counties."
From the beginning of this contested election, it's seemed clear to me that a
teeny-tiny majority of Floridians, probably 60,000 to 70,000, set out on
Election Day intending to vote for Al Gore. That was not the result. That the
voters' intention was not the official result is not necessarily sufficient
legal reason to throw out the result. Them's the rules.
If George W. Bush wins under the rules, then he wins, even if more people
voted for Gore. Contesting an election is not unusual, alarming, or an attempt
to bend the rules or steal the election. It is relatively commonplace -- it's
just that no living American has ever seen it happen in a race this big before.
It's pretty exciting.
Contested elections are normally settled under state rules, so we could see
how the matter would be resolved, even if we didn't know who would win. But
since the U.S. Supremes chose to get involved in this one, all bets are off.
Now no one knows how it will end, and it may end badly in a complete partisan
hash. But in the meantime, there is nothing illegitimate about contesting an
election, about taking it to the state courts or, as far as we know, about
having a state Supreme Court resolve conflicting state statutes.
Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their
country. Wash off the war paint; ease up on the reins; choke your motor; don't
get your bloomers in a knot here. We may need all the cool hands and heads we
can find.
You may write to Molly Ivins at 1005 Congress Ave., Suite 920, Austin, TX
78701 or via email at mollyivins@star-telegram.com.
-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000
Answers
Quite.
And now, I've just had it. This matter has become extremely boring
to me. I am flatly no longer interested, and doubt that anything
short of Strom Thurmond being sworn in would make me interested again.
Gore will not be the next president.
No matter how hard they try, Republicans will not be able to wash the
stink off this victory.
I'm about as sure of those two items as I am of anything else that is
not subject to proof.
What else is there to talk about here?
I've got Christmas lights to string, mistletoe to hang and presents
yet to buy. History will write the final chapter of this saga, and
it won't be finished this month, perhaps not next month. And there
is nothing I can do to affect the outcome. So I'm going to attend to
the important things.
And the crappie will be biting in a couple of months! Hey, Charles,
come up to Tennesse, and I'll show you some HUGE crappie. And when
they quit, the bass will start.
Politics isn't a major item in my life, and I've got better things to
do.
-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000
And that goes for you, too, Stephen. Come by Tennessee, and we'll
find the crappie.
-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000
SADLY,,,,,,I have had to look at your BIGGEST "CRAPPIE" almost daily
on TV. The GOP and GWB will erase any "taint" the Dems smear them
with. EQUALLY, should (horror of all horrors) the Biggest Crappie
should make it to a 4 yr. lease on 1600 Pa., they will spin right out
of their Mucky Whine.
PROOF??
Billie Jack C. just kept smiling. I fully expect him to show up on
SNL after he leaves office and do a parody of the the spoofing they
did on him and LAUGH LIKE HELL.
As Dick Armey told me once, not only was Clintstone a GREAT
Politician, he was lucky. He also knew from 1992, the attention span
of the American Public was less than a week (except for memorizing
Sports Statistics).
-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000
Paul's too busy for this forum stuff. Too many crappies.
Bye!!
-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000
CPR, did you read Paul's post?
Are you so blindly partisan that you don't see the truth?
As Paul said -- and I will concur, having spent my entire life
interested in and following politics -- the Republican Party will
NEVER wash the stench of this debacle away.
Justice dispatched folks to Florida last week to investigate
violations of the Voting Rights Act. I believe that this will make
the impeachment of Bill Clinton look like a footfight in the back of
your dad's car.
-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000
As Dick Armey told me once...
WOW cpr, you must be really important...
-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000
I guess it doesn't matter what is right and correct any more. I used
to believe that honesty and what was right always won out. It
doesn't seem that way any more. It appears that it is ok to do
something wrong, to manipulate, to break the law, or lie and cheat as
long as you do it to achieve your goal, whatever that is.
People
don't care about honesty any more, about being fair or doing the right
thing because what they want overrides these moral standards.
-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000
Dick Armey is a regular guy. He will talk to anyone who takes the
time to listen to him. Especially since that little meeting was at a
function during an "off year".
I joked with him that he seemed to be turning Moderate after winning
the number 2 post in Congress behind The Newt and I preferred
the "old Dick Armey". Note that he is still around though The Newt
has gone to other pastures.
Our other N.Texas winner is Sam Johnson (R, Plano) and he has never
been influenced by the BS in DC. He survived a Viet Prison so he
doesn't much care about anything except doing what he thinks
is "right" and not necessarily "Right" though he is usually both.
-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000
Even if Gore gets enough recounts to FINALLY win one (which of course
will be the only "fair" recount), and thereby steals a Presidency he
was not elected to, the stink won't last long.
No matter who ends up "winning" this or how, people in general will
be relieved to have a President, some small number of sore losers
will resent it forever, and the rest of us will go on with our lives.
We know politicians are ALL lying crooks anyway, but it sure would
have been easier on everyone if Gore had had the honor not to "un-
concede" and precipitate this mess. Well, better luck in 2004.
-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000
Here's a question, Flint: "Stealing" WHAT election? Just in case you
haven't noticed, Al Gore still leads the popular vote. With 45,000
undervotes remaining uncounted, who is the actual "thief" here?
Just in case your memory has failed you, George W. Bush and his
advisers were the ones who initially began agitating the last two
weeks of October, 2000, to overturn any electoral college decision
unfavorable to the GOP.
Dirty tricks abound on both sides of the aisle, but rhetoric such
as "stealing the election" will do nothing but remind those like me,
who voted for the other guy, exactly why we don't support the GOP and
their candidates.
-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000
Just curious, Julie, but is that a valid E-mail address? I'd like
to "talk" to you about a few things.
-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000
If "every Vote counts", then we do not know who the winner of the
popular vote is. Gore speaks out of both sides of his mouth and yet
many of his followers are too blind to see this.
-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000
Is that Julie, who we all know and love?!?! Email addy's real; let
me know, too.
This will (probably!) be my last post on politics here.
Charlie, you obviously DIDN'T understand what Paul was saying.
Just because you and Stephen and Flint and others BELIEVE SOMETHING TO
BE SO, does not make you RIGHT about it.
Many here (myself included) have offered up proof and opinions and
articles and the like, to have the likes of you three blow it off as
"so much bias" and the dreaded, evil LIBERAL crap. (Not "crappie",
mind you.)
Yet, not one of you will even ACKNOWLEDGE your very own personal
bias in doing so. Stephen, you can spout from here to eternity about
how "fair" you are; doesn't make it so. You can patronize the rest of
us and be as condescending as you want; doesn't make you right.
Flint, you can spout from here to eternity that what others post (that
would be others with whom you DISAGREE) is so much bias; but that
doesn't make it so. You can liken me to Milne as many times as will
fit in a "Flint Post"; doesn't make it so. Charlie, you can
spout....well, you can spout whatever the hell you want; doesn't make
you RIGHT, your ego notwithstanding.
This was the point to which I NEVER wanted to get. And now look.
-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000
Trish,
I don't think I've been condescending, I've simply been stating my
opinion. Nor do I dismiss *everything* that Gore's people are saying
as "spin" (some of it, maybe, but not everything ... and sure, BOTH
sides are spinning like tops; they're fighting a public relations
battle on top of everything else).
If you think I've been condescending, I apologize. But take care not
to miss my original contention here, namely, that ballots which do not
show a clear choice cannot be counted for ANY candidate in the race.
The Bush team is prosecuting this viewpoint, but doesn't want to
explain that too carefully, probably because this strictly-legalistic
tack would make them look ... well, legalistic. :)
(There's more spin for you.[g])
But it's the law, and it's how every election that I've ever been a
party to has been handled up until now. When my father was running
elections in Hoke County, if someone came up to him and said, "let's
count these ballots with double marks or no clear mark," he'd say,
"no." (Yes, it has happened. Too many times to count.)
And you know what? He was right (and was found right in every case
where it was challenged). A lot of people thought it was unfair,
too, but in the end, the appeals process sided with people like my
father.
That's like people who don't register and then go to vote, only to
be denied access. They'll scream bloody murder about how "unfair" it
is (again, speaking from firsthand experience[g]). They'll yell that
they have a "constitutional right" to vote. They'll holler, they'll
wail, they'll moan. But they can't have it.
The law isn't always fair; all we can do is try to APPLY it fairly.
What has been happening in Florida is wrong for at least two reasons:
(1), it is horribly unfair to those candidates who have lost other
elections and whose request to have "undervotes" counted were DENIED,
and (2), it sets a horrible precedent (do you really want EVERY
election, from this day forward, to be tied up with Carnak wizardry
and guessing games? If it's permitted here, I assure you, it'll happen
again!).
-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000
Sigh. You have completely missed my point.
I am not discussing "ballots" and "counts" and "applications"; I am
not discussing anything regarding this election specifically. We can
"interpret" the law any damn way we want; it matters not to me, to
you, to the courts, to the candidates.....to anyone.
I am discussing your penchant (and those others I have mentioned)
for completely dismissing anything posted by me, Cherri, Anita, Paul,
Doc and others simply because you DISAGREE with what we've posted;
with the "leaning" from which we come; with the fact that we are
varying degrees to the left of you. I am discussing the fact that you
all **automatically** dismiss ANYTHING that even APPEARS to be to the
left of you.
Each one of us has, over the weeks, posted what we felt are facts;
some of this has been based in opinion; some has not. Some of us have
posted the laws to be read and studied. Each of us has posted our
opinion.
Each of you has dismissed outright anything and everything we have
posted; ESPECIALLY if it came from either within ourselves or from a
not-right-leaning source. And the straight facts that we have posted
have been met with "technicalities" and "glitches" and excuse upon
excuse as to why it's not "really wrong" and "of course you'd see it
that way, you read it in "Liberals Daily". Stephen, do you realize
you have not once referred to any of us as anything other than as
"liberals"? And that you further use it as a four-letter word? Do
you realize that you have not even asked us what we consider
ourselves? You have this amazingly large paintbrush that you have no
qualms about using. And the last time I mentioned this to you, you
dismissed it as not being what you meant.
My point is that not one of you has admitted to your BIAS as being
the reason for this. Yet each of you is oh-so-quick to state
emphatically that the ONLY reason we feel the way we do is because
we're BIASED and, naturally, WRONG, as opposed to you who are not
biased and completely right. You have not seen fit to even try to
understand where any of us are coming from; on what basis we have made
our decisions; the reasons we feel the way we do; the facts that we
have presented.
That's what I'm talking about.
-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000
Patricia:
Come now. I've been saying as clearly as I can that my bias is better
supported than yours by what we have seen. I don't need nearly as
much special pleading as you do, and my interpretations need not be
nearly as imaginative. We are both advocates supporting a side, I
agree. But my side is supported much more strongly by the facts on
the ground.
Bush winning the initial Florida count is a fact. Bush winning the
mandated recount is a fact. Bush being certified the winner is a
fact. Gore not having a single one (of many) total counts in his
favor is a fact. Gore not having any evidence of fraud, mechanical
failure, bribes, or other systematic bias in any count has been
decided by the courts to be another statement of fact.
Whether Gore "deserves" a further examination of undervotes, in the
hopes that whoever is doing the interpreting can find enough Gore
votes to reverse the certified winner, is a matter of opinion.
Stephen is trying to say that everywhere else for all history, the
official answer has been NO, no such "fishing expedition" recounts
are deserved solely on the basis that the opposing candidate *might*
win this time. Historically, this sort of thing has been a golden
opportunity to *introduce* bias, and NOT to correct it. This isn't a
"fact" so much as it's consistent experience that should be
recognized.
In comparison, your facts lack such sound underpinnings, and are much
more dubious and speculative. This is my opinion. Do you wish me to
misrepresent my convictions to make you feel better?
-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000
Trish,
Tell me how I could be more fair. Show me where I have "dismissed" you
or Anita or Paul.
Anita, for example, probably thinks that I have "dismissed" her
columnists over at Salon. I have not. I simply disagree with most of
them in the main. They make some good points, some things I can agree
with, but in the main, I do disagree with them. I can't help that.
-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000
Call me "tainted", but if you have bored Patricia to death, bout time
both of you guys took a walk. I know you cannot see it, but you guys
have a meme really bad.
Why do you assume Gore even looking for fraud? Was he the one who
filed the lawsuits involving the Seminole/Martin absentee ballots? Is
he now filing similar lawsuits in the other places Leach himself said
existed, even naming two of the guys who went there and "played
clerk"?
Was it Al Gore who released the DUI information?
Why didn't Al Gore blast GW into orbit during those sanitized
debates?
Why has Al Gore said over and over again, he would not run "one of
those campaigns"?
Why didn't Al Gore take a BANKABLE commodity like Bill Clinton and
allow him to lend a campaign hand? I know you think Bill a hated man,
but even Michael Reagan admits if Bill could have run again, he would
have won easy.
Truth is, Al Gore probably has lost this election as a result of NOT
being the slimeball you alls assume.
-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000
Doc,
Find one post where I've called Gore a "slimeball."
-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000
No Poole I will not do that, matters not anyhow. I know the game. I
know far more than you WANT this election is about. What is operating
here. The above is TRUTH. In a small snippet you have been presented
all the understanding you need to be set free and reply by asking me
to cite where your petty ego was offended. Your issue on that is more
one of our two different styles, not substance.
Your answer, your road to enlightenment starts at least four years
ago when the process was set into motion by powers which began
calling Al Gore the anti-Christ.
I will stop here as I feel a need to preach and also feel it will be
a waste of time. Enough is contained in the above post for anyone who
truly wants a better perspective to what all the bickering is really
about.
-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000
Truth is, Al Gore probably has lost this election as a result of NOT
being the slimeball you alls assume, and NEED.
Important addition, and provides the key into why a RightWinger
fixated upon all that they think evil. Why they need all their Rush
Limbaughs. Their whining about everything.
Their drug. Their method they use to silence the voice of truth
inside themselves which burns their own hypocrisy. There is a way out
of this, he came with the answer, I hope they turn.
-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000
Doc,
You REALLY believe that I have a "meme?" That would be funny if it
wasn't so sad. YOU are the one claiming that I could see the truth if
only I'd bother to follow your links and read what's there ... ?
Doesn't that remind you of anything that WE encounted last year? How
can you even say such a thing with a straight face? Shall I dust off
my standard reply from last year: "why is it so hard for you to
believe that I might read the same things as you and yet come to the
opposite conclusion?" :)
I HAVE followed your links -- including the one to Salon that you
posted in a new thread below. I didn't respond to it because I saw no
point.
The reason why I have posted thousands of words here is a careful
attempt to explain WHY I disagree with Gore's position. By extension,
this is an explanation of why I don't agree with what appears at those
links.
The argument from Gore's camp begins with the a priori
assumption that Gore MUST have won Florida (because he won the popular
vote nationwide), and that something MUST be wrong with the count down
there. Since the recounts haven't produced a Gore win, it MUST be
Republican interference and stonewalling.
How far do we go with this? If the courts rule against a pet Gore
argument, the court must be "biased." If the USSC slam-dunks Florida
again (as it most certainly will), they must be "partisan."
And you don't see the breakdown in logic here?
And *I* am the one with a "meme?"
Heh. C'mon, old friend, you can do better than that.
-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000
Well Poole, have a look at these links....57 Red Flags – Proof Bush Did Not Win the Popular Vote in
Florida.
Explain away!
Hey try this mere single. See if you detect anything amiss...IF THE VOTE WERE FLAWLESS...
Again, you have a Meme. Same Meme most of the Y2k Doomers had. If you
will look closely<<<<(sarcastic) you even see the same people! People
who to this day have not learned a damn thing from their Y2k blunder.
Same whiners who prayed for a societal meltdown, are now praying GW
holds his "win", and sends the Socialist Pinkos packing. That he
returns dignity to the WhiteHouse this son Bush.
Even have the same Hucksters feeding the sheep! Alone this should
sound your alarms, does it?
Have the same morons who barely trust their phones, who post here
using an anonymizer saying a flawed Votomatic machine using a flawed
butteryfly ballot is better than having 3 humans look at? What would
you call this? beyond the height of stupidity? You probably agree
since you gots the PalmReader meme.
No sh*t any manual recounts need guidelines. No sh*t we need
uniformity. But is this the discussion? Course not, he WON! FoxNews
says he won and that's it!
Whole thing is ridiculous. The stupidity I hear on talkradio alone
boggles the mind. Although I think finally these rightwing mental
zeros, have figured out Gore did indeed have legal justification to
ask even for some type of manual recount. Then course the "palm
reader" crap enters and well I hope you get the drift. Most of
the "they are too stupid them old jewish b*stards to vote" has
subsided. Most shows are organizing "Save our Country" rallies, ala
the Miami-Dade mob Tom Delay organized. Mantra is Gore is trying to
steal the election!
Have Flint here extrapolated LIES as if they were facts. When called,
the man just does like a good Doomer did, ignores it and carries on.
Flint may have many fooled, he never had me or Charlie fooled.
You need to look at the Bush supporters. You need to ask yourself why
they seem almost driven to "discuss" the evil Dems. To label all who
would question them a Liberal. You need to ask yourself why 90%+ of
talkradio is Rightwingers stroking each other without a shred of
balance. You need to ask yourself if indeed the Media is Liberal,
(based on Y2k the media is whatever is selling and has no other
agenda beyond that really). What is selling? 'Gore is stealing the
election' is what the memes are feeding on. So they feed them.
You need to ask yourself many things, but you won't cause you gots it
all figured out.
-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000
BTW, have you ever voted using these machines Poole? I did many times
when I lived in California. The claims are completely believable and
valid if my experience is any measure. "Check your ballot"? Check
what? a card with a bunch of holes which bares no resenblance to the
ballot it was just in? Chad? I never heard of Chad till a month ago,
never.
Recount? not even in one's wildest dreams is this even debatable in
an election this close using these machines even in ONE freaking
county, recount it by hand.
-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000
Doc,
We're not talking about California (and you should be glad of that,
because I could probably come up with "57 reasons" of my own for that
state on BUSH'S behalf!), we're talking about Florida, where clear
instructions WERE printed on the ballots, and posted in the polling
places.
I'll respond to your "57" thingie later. Got to get to work. But a
first glance indicates several factual errors made by this guy (and
which have been corrected in later news reports, which he chooses to
ignore).
-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000
We're not talking about California I was, your meme isn't but
even it adds its' comments I see. Extrapolating guesses into some
conspiracy about how Bush's AWL money spent in Cali was blocked by
Democratic "dirty tricks".
You have a Meme Poole.
-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000
Those links are interesting.
So much to read, so little time.
-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000
Just popping in, two quick thoughts for now.
Those 57 Red Flags look more like a Heinz 57 mix of unrelated things.
Not to mention that on a quick perusal, I found a half dozen or so
questionable "facts". Mostly those points are opinions.
Here is another opinion:
Gore IS a slimeball.
-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000
BTW Poole, what ever became of your 57 question reply you posted here
awhile back?
-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000
Doc,
I temporarily removed that post because (a), I wasn't happy with it (I
wanted to clarify a few things and add some links and (b) -- most
importantly -- because the Supreme Court ruled in Bush's favor while I
was finishing it up. Emotions were high and I didn't want it to be
seen as gloating and rubbing salt in wounds.
After all, we ARE supposed to be friends here. :)
It'll re-appear, probably this weekend.
-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000
Good.
I had marked #18 as being very interesting, as you also did.
-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000
Moderation questions? read the FAQ