. . . . and in so doing calls an embarrassing amount of attention to just how stupid Gore’s hypothetical voters are, given that they couldn’t manage to punch a simple hole in a piece of paper at a rate far higher than the putative Bush “misvotes.” Not sure any of those votes cries out to be included in a tally . . . .
At least with regard to the butterfly ballot, you couldn’t make the mistake if you wanted to vote for Bush as if you wanted to vote for Gore. So the fact of the misvotes doesn’t reveal anything about the relative mechanical intelligence of the voters.
We’re talking about a small fraction of mostly seniors who punched the second hole because Gore’s name was second. This is what you would do on all the ballots they had used their entire lives, it just happened to be wrong on the butterfly ballot. I don’t think it is surprising that some fraction would get it wrong, and it certainly doesn’t speak to their intelligence in any significant way.
A strict interpretation would entail recognizing that the states set their own rules for choosing their delegates, and not taken the case in the first place. Try this - if the Supreme Five really thought their ruling was based on the law and the Constitution, then why deny its use as future precedent?
Yes. Gore demanded a recount (actually a completion of the first count), as is his right, but *he * did not set the standards for judging the law’s requirement of establishing “the clear intent of the voter”. That was, if you’ll recall, under the rule of the Bush campaign co-chair serving as FL SecState, that is until the FL SC overruled it on the basis of FL law.
Cite for “what Gore wanted”? Seriously, that’s critical to your attempt to blame it all on him. What do you believe he wanted, and on what basis do you believe it, and why do you think that’s the ultimate criterion anyway?
Huerta88, even granting your post as accurate (which I don’t), intelligence is still not a requirement for voter registration, nor is stupidity an excuse for disenfranchisement. Democracy ain’t always pretty.
mlees, do you claim that “half the time” is not “quite often”? If that is not your point, I don’t see what is.
No, I don’t think “half the time” = “quite often”. Minor quibble, I guess. But instead of saying “half the time”, you chose to say “quite often”.
I’m sure you believe that the vote was “stolen”, so I think that that belief influenced your phraseology.
The election was extremely close, given the numbers involved. (Some 540 votes out of the 5.9 million cast.) An “even split”. And your cite shows that even split.