I am not a member of either party. My position on recounts and recourse to the courts has not shifted. I assume that it makes things more comfortable for you to try and minimize the integrity of anyone who disgrees with you on an issue. That does not make it convincing. Or attractive.
Milo:
Did you read the article I linked to? Do you comprehend that the article directly contradicts the statement you heard on Meet the Press? Do you think the article, from a source loal to Seminole County, is less reliable about the occurrences in Seminole County than whoever happened to be on Meet the Press.
That might be your point. You seem determined to resist admitting that the law in Texas also covers punchcard ballots. In other words, the law covers exaclty the situation that Bush now argues is unconstitutional. What the majority of counties do is not the question. Whether hand recount of punchcard ballots is allowed by a Texas law signed by Geare Bush is the question. The answer to that question is yes.
No. I have never made any statements to that effect. Neither Daley nor Christopher has a voice in the rules used to guide the canvassing board in their recount. Their position on how votes should be tallied is entirely irrelevant, as it should be.
No.
I do not feel a handcount is wrong. I feel it can be a more accurate assessment than a machine count. I have said so consistently. Because humans do the count, it has a subjective element. Every human endeavor has a subjective element, that does not mean that every human endeavor is untrustworthy.
I do not “want” a hand recount of every county nationwide. There seems little point in recounting states that were won by large majorities. However, I support the right of any citizen to have their vote counted in the most reliable and accurate way allowed by law. In florida, that has been determined to be a hand count. In Texas, the same.
I would have been happier had Bush chosen to request recounts in whatever counties he felt might have underrepresented the votes for his campaign. He did not do so.
There may not be enough time for the manual counts allowed for by law. Pretending otherwise does little to lend credence for your position.
Gore has requested 1 manual recount. Labeling this “maneuver after maneuver after maneuver until he gets the result he wants” betrays a lack of objectivity and a scant concern for truth.
Gore’s recount request can be viewed as an attempt to manipulate the recorded outcome of the vote (not the vote – the vote is completed). Bush had the opoortunity to balance that manipulation by selecting his own counties to recount, if indeed he believed that the bias from machine disqualifications was eenly distributed among Florida candidates.
and I don’t think that it helps the situation any, either.
man, the rhetoric is deafening. I’ve seen folks arguing exactly opposite conclusions based on the same data (more “found” ballots for Gore means to some folks that it’s obvious that Gore supporters are cheating now, but to others it’s just as obvious that Bush supporters were cheating then).
FTR. What I understand is that there are only a few counties in FL that use the punch card ballots. There’s an “acceptable” level of misread with the counting machines for these, and that “acceptable” level, given the small numbers involved, may be of major concern. Now, for SOME reason (and I don’t know why), the punch card styles are used more in the counties in FL where GOre was favored.
Now, as far as “irregularties” in the recounts? spare me. There’s a republican and a democrate and at least ONE (if not two) pollsters at each table, AND cameras and cops and onlookers etc.
Hand counting the punch card ballots actually is prefered to machine counting, since the machine will toss out votes where the infamous “chad” (look for THAT word to pop up in crosswords) is not completely detached.
This is DIFFERENT than the “double voted” ballots which are and have ben discarded. THe hand counting allows for the counting of ballots where the intention (as determined by four people, including a rep from each party) of the voter is clear.
Impartial is not assured, since teh machines will have a mechanical bias. It is often assumed that this bias will be balanced across candidates/machines, but it is not necessarily so.
Consistent we know is false, at least within the degree of precision required to call either candidate a winner in this race.
I think it is the best solution presently available to allow each voter’s ballot to be counted properly. I sincerely wish that Bush had chosen to request hand recounts in his own counties, but of course that would have weakened his rhetorical position in attempting to deny the voters (and teh Gore campaign) the legal recourse available to them under Florida law.
If this were a scientific study, we would be forced to devise and use more accurate instruments. I sincerely hope that that is one outcome of this mess.
Perhps, though I have seen no evidence that Gore is better at manipulation and propoganda than Bush. In fact, the best evidence I can think of shows that the two are almost exactly equal at hose skills.
None taken, I’m just puzzled. I don’t remember thinking or feeling that way, much less arguing it. I feel strongly that you have confused me with someone else or misunderstood me. Can you point me at what you’re talking about?
Your “source” has it backwards. These numbers reflect the people removed from the rolls once the mistakes were discovered several years ago. In other words, the J. Bush administration oversaw the cleanup of these errors. The felons, dead people, and double-registered have been removed, leading to more accurate voter registration rolls in Florida.
I doubt anyone can find a credible source in Florida that can seriously suggest that J. Bush is corrupt. Say what you will about the Bushes, but there is absolutely no evidence that they have engaged in vote fraud.
Dubya’s a party animal. The babes love him. They still tell stories at Yale about his hose. You take one look at Ipper, and you know that the Gore hose ain’t doing it’s job.
See. ya don’t bloster your case when you blatantly mistate and exaggerate.
I didn’t use this as a cite for anything. I said “Cehck out this AMAZING ACCUSATION” then asked if anyone had heard such a thing.
I was astonished at the accusation. I didn’t agree with it, I didn’t use it as support for a thing. I just threw it in cuz I thought it was interesting that the guy was so specific, and I wondered how he could be.
Distortion is a crummy debating tactic, especially in print, since we can all see for ourselves what has been said. But you remind me that my frustration with the Bush talking heads has been the blatant distortions they have been using since Day 1. Like I said, it’s a crappy tactic, and doesn’t makeyour case look more valid to people who can see and think for themselves.
Yeah, I believe you. I’ve just found it delcious that it LOOKS so bad, though, that all this shit is hitting the Florida fan, of all states.
And actually, I would be much happier to see Jeb as prez than his asshole brother. Something about Dubya just irritates me…the mere sight of his face is like fingernails on a blackboard to me…<shudder>
No indeed that is NOT what it says. Indeed it DOES provide for some “wiggle room”.
SHALL does NOT =MAY and this allows for the Secretary of State of FL (a Republican) to let the hand count continue if she so pleased.
102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department of State; penalties.–
(1) The county canvassing board or a majority thereof shall file the county returns for the election of a federal or state officer with the Department of State immediately after certification of the election results. Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department.
(2) The department shall fine each board member $200 for each day such returns are late, the fine to be paid only from the board member’s personal funds. Such fines shall be deposited into the 1Election Campaign Financing Trust Fund, created by s. 106.32.
(3) Members of the county canvassing board may appeal such fines to the Florida Elections Commission, which shall adopt rules for such appeals.
History.–s. 30, ch. 89-338; s. 7, ch. 99-140.
1Note.–The trust fund expired, effective November 4, 1996, by operation of s. 19(f), Art. III of the State Constitution
Legal action is provided under Florida law as states here:
The 2000 Florida Statutes
Title IX
ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS Chapter 102
Conducting Elections And Ascertaining The Results View Entire Chapter
102.168 Contest of election.–
(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.
(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last county canvassing board empowered to canvass the returns certifies the results of the election being contested or within 5 days after midnight of the date the last county canvassing board empowered to canvass the returns certifies the results of that particular election following a protest pursuant to s. 102.166(1), whichever occurs later.
(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:
(a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.
(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.
(d) Proof that any elector, election official, or canvassing board member was given or offered a bribe or reward in money, property, or any other thing of value for the purpose of procuring the successful candidate’s nomination or election or determining the result on any question submitted by referendum.
(e) Any other cause or allegation which, if sustained, would show that a person other than the successful candidate was the person duly nominated or elected to the office in question or that the outcome of the election on a question submitted by referendum was contrary to the result declared by the canvassing board or election board.
(4) The canvassing board or election board shall be the proper party defendant, and the successful candidate shall be an indispensable party to any action brought to contest the election or nomination of a candidate.
(5) A statement of the grounds of contest may not be rejected, nor the proceedings dismissed, by the court for any want of form if the grounds of contest provided in the statement are sufficient to clearly inform the defendant of the particular proceeding or cause for which the nomination or election is contested.
(6) A copy of the complaint shall be served upon the defendant and any other person named therein in the same manner as in other civil cases under the laws of this state. Within 10 days after the complaint has been served, the defendant must file an answer admitting or denying the allegations on which the contestant relies or stating that the defendant has no knowledge or information concerning the allegations, which shall be deemed a denial of the allegations, and must state any other defenses, in law or fact, on which the defendant relies. If an answer is not filed within the time prescribed, the defendant may not be granted a hearing in court to assert any claim or objection that is required by this subsection to be stated in an answer.
(7) Any candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting such a contest to a circuit judge is entitled to an immediate hearing. However, the court in its discretion may limit the time to be consumed in taking testimony, with a view therein to the circumstances of the matter and to the proximity of any succeeding primary or other election.
(8) The circuit judge to whom the contest is presented may fashion such orders as he or she deems necessary to ensure that each allegation in the complaint is investigated, examined, or checked, to prevent or correct any alleged wrong, and to provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances.
History.–ss. 7, 8, Art. 10, ch. 38, 1845; RS 199; GS 283; RGS 379; CGL 444; s. 3, ch. 26870, 1951; s. 16, ch. 65-378; s. 28, ch. 77-175; s. 49, ch. 79-400; s. 602, ch. 95-147; s. 3, ch. 99-339.
Note.–Former s. 104.06; s. 99.192; s. 102.161.
As are Hand recounts.
102.166 Protest of election returns; procedure.–
(1) Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest.
(2) Such protest shall be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 5 days after midnight of the date the election is held, whichever occurs later.
(3) Before canvassing the returns of the election, the canvassing board shall:
(a) When paper ballots are used, examine the tabulation of the paper ballots cast.
(b) When voting machines are used, examine the counters on the machines of nonprinter machines or the printer-pac on printer machines. If there is a discrepancy between the returns and the counters of the machines or the printer-pac, the counters of such machines or the printer-pac shall be presumed correct.
(4)(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates’ names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested.
(b) Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 72 hours after midnight of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later.
(d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts.
(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:
(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;
(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or
(6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.
(7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:
(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.
(b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter’s intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter’s intent.
(8) If the county canvassing board determines the need to verify the tabulation software, the county canvassing board shall request in writing that the Department of State verify the software.
(9) When the Department of State verifies such software, the department shall:
(a) Compare the software used to tabulate the votes with the software filed with the Department of State pursuant to s. 101.5607; and
(b) Check the election parameters.
(10) The Department of State shall respond to the county canvassing board within 3 working days.
History.–s. 9, ch. 18405, 1937; CGL 1940; Supp. 337(23-b); s. 7, ch. 22858, 1945; s. 5, ch. 26870, 1951; s. 30, ch. 28156, 1953; s. 24, ch. 57-1; s. 29, ch. 65-380; s. 27, ch. 77-175; s. 48; ch. 79-400; s. 15, ch. 89-348; s. 601, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 99-339.
Perhaps you didn’t understand my response to you regarding your link re: Seminole County re-count. The information I received on TV was either bad, incomplete, or I misunderstood it. I do not dispute that the information in your link is factual.
OK?
Your seeming fascination with the fact that some of Texas uses punch-card ballots and Bush approved hand recounts there appears to gloss right over that the comparison between Florida and Texas voting is apples and oranges. Most of Texas uses a written-on ballot, making hand recounts more reasonable. The situation isn’t perfect, because as you’ve pointed out, a few locations in the state use punch-cards. I guess they decided to go with what would be most helpful overall.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Bush camp’s argument in its entirety is that hand-counting punch-ballots is unconstitutional. It’s that hand-counting punch-ballots isn’t the best, most accurate way to count these ballots objectively; AND doing so in four Gore-picked counties is unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional under the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment, i.e., the votes in four counties are being treated in an extra-special way, which is unconstitutionally unfair to the voters in other counties (and, I would submit, to voters in the rest of the United States.)
Under this argument, even if Bush is allowed to pick four counties of his liking for a hand-count, it’s still would be unconstitutional, because of the remaining counties not given this ballot evaluation.
The Bush argument is two-pronged. You’re only addressing one part of it. They would be opposed to a statewide hand recount because of the other part of it.
Oh, yeah, another point…You ought to at least say “IMHO it would be unconstitutional” since a federal judge is now on record as disagreeing with you on that! Also, as Spiritus has pointed out, Seminole County apparently already treated their votes differently and found more for Bush. What do we do about that?
And what makes punch ballots different from all other kinds of ballots? I thought there were some fairly specific rules in Florida for how to deal with the chads.
As I’ve posted elsewhere, the Florida statute appears not to speak to this issue conclusively:
Nothing about a “sunshine test,” nothing about pregnant chads, dimpled chads, three-quarter chads. Despite numerous claims to the contrary on this board that the procedures are codified, I’ve not found a word in the law. Perhaps it’s in the regs, but no one has provided a cite for that either. As near as I can tell from the news reports, the county election boards have made this up as they’ve gone along. Which is one reason why manual recounts are not more “accurate and reliable,” they just provide different counts.
If someone has the specifics, please provide them.
I have been shaking my head over a couple of the Florida issues and GOP/trust the people/states rights/keep it local folks:
a. The legal wording of the Florida election code clearly states that there can be interpretation, ie: the state MAY exclude county totals if they are not delivered by 5pm on the seventh day after the election.
So why did the Sec State interprete the law so narrowly - especially when the absentee ballots can be received and counted several days later? Isn’t this obstructionist?
b. Why did Bush go directly to the Federal court rather than the state court system when the motion to block hand counts was submitted? As a states rightist, Bush should have appealed to the state level. Instead he look at the national level for redress…
The Bush group has also said that there are no standards for hand counts. What does he want? National standards? Isn’t that interferring with the states responsibility to run elections? Why did his brother Jeb establish these standards beforehand? Why didn’t the FL SecState establish these guidelines right after election day so that confusion would be minimized.
Second level question: why would Bush and the GOP look at the national level when it clearly states in the US constitution that the election laws/administration is a state responsibility including the election of the president? Isn’t this an opportunistic approach than circumvents their political philosophy?
c. Why did the GOP/Bush campaign NOT demand a recount of the Duval County votes [I live in Duval] when over 27,000 votes were thrown out? Was it because Bush was leading so far ahead? Wouldn’t it have been good strategy to gain extra votes to counteract any potential Gore gains in the more Democratic counties further south? Recount doesn’t mean hand count. The election commission could have fed the ballots thru the machine for a second time. Well, the Times Union newspaper disclosed today that those votes were from predominately African American precincts - few Bush votes there. Isn’t this… ?
I think the Bush group has made some serious errors these past three days:
. They showed serious misunderstandings of the constitution and states rights/responsibilities re elections.
. They have shown that they are willing to switch their political philosophy for political gain
. They showed serious disinterest and insensitivity towards senior citizen and African American civil/voting rights in that they have refused to look into the issues of high ballot toss out rates in Bush geographic areas
What ever happened to: we trust you the American people? The current answer appears to be that the GOP does up and until circumstances call for another strategy.
It means that she’s not interpreting anything. It’s the law. She has the power to grant an extension. My understanding (From MC Neil Leherer) is that the power is primarily for use in the event of natural disastors and such.
**
You know, this is bullshit. This is a Federal election. Do you really think this is a State matter, or is it perhaps a little larger?
**
Again Kiffa, bullshit. Are you suggesting that multiple and changing standards are somehow reasonable and OK? How about one standard applied consistently? Do you think that would be appropriate? Right now we have several different and changing standards. In some cases we have none. I have heard nobody before suggest that multiple and inconsistent standards were appropriate or fair.
**
Actrually, no! He is interfering with a county which is conducting a procedure which is interfering with the state’s right to conduct it’s election by seeking to violate a deadline which is a matter of law.
**
I don’t think these laws were established by Jeb. I could be wrong though.
**
They have been on the books since before election day. The idea that the Secretary of State is imposing an arbitrary deadline is false, and guess who’s responsible for it?
The Secretary is merely enforcing a law that has been in existence by not granting an extension that too my knowledge hasn’t even been asked for. I actually think the Democrats might have made a bad move by just assuming they could bypass or circumvent it.
**
Again, he’s not interfering with a state, he’s interfering with a county that is seeking to defy state law. He’s also not interfering. A suit has been filed that these counties are violating the 14th amendment.
**
I guess it would have been clearly hypocritical to try to foil one recount while seeking another. It might also weaken their case. It’s a judgement call. Time will tell if it was a good one or not.
**
Oh sure. We Republicans are all racist. We don’t think black people don’t deserve an equal vote. Absolutely. Is this what you are implying.
**
You’ll need to demonstrate that. So far you haven’t.
**
Again, anything to back this up?
**
Again, bullshit. Or if it’s not bullshit and Gore actually meant what he said today about who wins not being important, then why is he only focussing on 4 counties. I mean he’s only doing it for the principle of the thing. How come the rest of America doesn’t count.
**
Nothing. He just doesn’t trust Al Gore and the two hundred lawyers he flew down to Florida last week.
Let’s get something straight. This is high stakes game of political manuevering, politicking, propaganda, and litigation. Winner goes to the White House. I think you are being naive about the higher motivations here, and presenting biased opinions by trying to read something into the actions on both sides.
The Democrats started didn’t they? They’re interfering in the election, aren’t they? Bush’s campaign has offered a deal for a quick resolution but the democrats have refused?
I don’t blame them, but let’s not be naive about who’s pushing things here. The Bush camp would be just fine with the status quo, and State laws. They’d win.
