WE MADE THE NEWS!!! (well sort of)
On the NBC evening news tonight they had a legal expert talk about the “seemingly conflicted election laws in the state of FL”. It mentioned the EXACT problem with the election laws as stated here. In fact they closed the segment with this: “Shall and may, little words that will make a big difference”.
YIPEEEEEE!!!
Do you want to create a legal firm?
As long as I get top-billing.
Or, we could vote on it. Three out of five? 
How could there be any nuance of this dispute on television that hasn’t been debated here?
sigh
I have no fascination at all with the details of the Texas ballots. The issue is of note only because it is one more layer of hypocrisy evident in Bush’s suit in federal court. In fact, I had already denounced that suit as hypocritical before the news of the Texas law broke.
The only reason the subject keeps arising is because of the contortions that some Bush supporters are using to defend the actions of their fair-haired boy.
Bush signed into law a measure which provides for exactly the same method of recount to be used in some Texas counties that he sued to have declared unconstitutional in Florida. Contort all you wish, that fact remains constant.
I will not, simply as a matter of personal interest, that while a few people have gone to great lengths trying to defend this particualr aspect of Bush’s hypocrisy, nobody has addressed any of the other layers of hypocrisy evident in the suit.
Again? Okay, if you insist. (go to this thread for a link to the big-ass pdf file and a nice summary by billdo.
Summary of summary:
Bush’s position is that hand recounts at the discretion of an elected board are unconstitutional because they du=ilute the votes in areas counted only by machines.
Now – shall we revisit the Texas statute?
Nice language, that, “the approval of a petition”. Sure sounds like somebody has discretionary power to decide whether a hand recount is conducted, eh?
Let’s look some more.
Even better!! Now we see that even beyond a discretionary authority by whoever approves the petition, the petitioner himself has discretion to request either a hand recount or an electronic recount. The discretion to “dilute the votes of other precincts” through a hand recount is in the hands of the person making the request! In Florida, Bush argues that having a canvassing board with such discretion violates the Constitution. In Texas, he places the discretion directly in the hands of the person requesting a recount.
And how, exactly, does this differ from the Texas statute? I have looked over quite a bit of the relevant passages, but I must have missed the one stating that if one county performs a hand recount of ballots all other counties are required to do the same.
Spiritus:
As a career hypocrite I can attest that this whole argument is bullshit.
Selective and subjective handcounts in Florida=Bad for Bush. Therefore they are wrong and unconstitutional.
Hancounts in Texas are a different thing. Perhaps they can argue that the process is different, or that the techniques would be uniform, or that the technology of the ballots is more different, or that it wouldn’t be so “selective and subjective.” Whatever. Surely there’s can be enough room to do some wiggling on the hypocrisy question.
If the process were reversed, I sincerely believe these guys would be on the other side of the exact same arguments.
The honest part of me that is professionally familiar with and evaluates statistival data says that handcounts are bullshit in this circumstance, especially on punch ballots, especially as it’s been applied in PBC.
You’re no dimwit you know this too. Both these guys have a level of hypocrisy in them. They’ve been around too long in a changing environment to have been entirely consistent in their policies and application. If Bush has an edge here it’s because he hasn’t been around long enough to generate as much BS.
Would you agree that prolonged recounts (let’s say past the 17th when the overseas ballots are tallied,) are bad? That inconsistent criteria for evaluating ballots is bad? and that this thing ending soon, no matter who wins is in everybody’s best interest?
scylla:
I disagree only because there is no better method. The hand count has a subjective element, but careful methodology can minimize the resulting bias. PBC did not have a stellar beginning in that respect, admittedly, but did improve after the initial confusion (which lasted only a couple of hours).
Machine counts also have bias, which is generally assumed to be balanced neutrally across counties/machines. We have no assurance that it is, though, and the unusually large number of disallowed ballots perhaps indicates that it is not. Regardless, we know for a fact that the variance in machine counts is too great to measure this race precisely.
My own priority, actually, is that each voter has the best possible opportunity to have his expressed intent recorded accurately and reliably. Because punch ballots are such a flawed instrument, the hand recount appears the best available mechanism for that.
The flaw, of course, is that measuring selective counties more accurately than others is likely to (though not guaranteed to) bias the overall vote. It is not correct, though, to simply assume that all counties will experience the same proportional effect from a hand recount. Doing so ignores the differences in voting methods, machine variance, population variance, etc.
That said, I would have preferred a blanket hand recount for all Florida counties rather than the selected hand recounts. Barring that, I wish Bush had chosen to exercise his right to selectively sample some counties. (Initially I used Duval as an example, but if reports that the disqualified ballots in Duval County came disproportionally often from minority prcincts are correct, that might not have been a wise move.)
Nevertheless, since the opportunity for each candidate to protect his interests in “fairness” existed under the Florida statutue, I believe the right of the voters to have their expressed intent measured as accurately as possible sould take priority over other concerns.
No. I feel that if a recount is warranted it should be completed. The 17[sup]th[/sup] is probably a reasonable deadline, but if the PBC recount swings things to Gore I think Bush should have the opportunity to request a recount of another county and have that recount completed. Since the standard deadline for such requests has passed, this would (unfortunately) require yet another court case. sigh
Bad? Maybe. It is certainly not ideal. However, it may be the best solution available to a complex problem. Certainly I would prefer that all ballots were evaluated identically. That is, of course, impossible since not every ballot was cast using the same procedure.
Soon? Before December 18[sup]th[/sup] would be nice, certainly. I would prefer sooner, but I am unwilling to make expedience a priority simply out of exasperation or exhausted patience.
Spiritus:
We’re almost in agreement. The announcement that the deadline would hold caused the Dow to surge 90 points in about ten minutes.
I don’t think Bush would either request or get recounts. Therefore I don’t like PBC recounts skewing things.
This thing is divisive and bad for the Country. I don’t care what recounting gets done but on the 17th this baby is over, and we can get back to Fred and beating up creationists.
scylla:
The dow was up 135 points this morning before the decision on the deadline was rendered.
I know.
Between 12:40 and 12:50 (I think.) Right after the announcement was made, it surged upwards 90 points.
Look at an intraday chart if you don’t believe me.
http://www.bigcharts.com should be able to produce one.
It moved in direct effect to the announcement. There was a cheer on the floor when it happened.
Personally, I think the Dow is pretty irrelevant to this conversation. I think Baker’s comment about the markets today was one of the lower points in this whole discourse on this election thing. I mean, which is more important, the democratic process or some modest swings in a market that has already proved itself to be very violatile over the last year or so?
I am sure our 401k’s will survive this Florida crisis just fine!
Boy it seems as if we’ve got the same discussions covering the same areas going on on about twenty different threads…let me see if I can redirect this one back in the direction of the OP.
Here’s a question that’s open to everyone, but directed particularly at those stalwarts who back Mr. Bush:
If the positions were reversed in this thing–just switch Gore and Bush around, and leave the circumstances the same–in what way do you suppose Bush’s strategy would deviate substantively from that of the Gore camp?
Discuss.
If the positions were reversed, the only thing that would change (probably) is the fit. Bush’s camp would accuse Gore’s of being typical, big government-loving, anti-federalists for filing federal injuctions, whereas Gore’s would suggest that Bush’s was being overly constructionist in its demand of states’ autonomy.
Same hot air, but a more comfortable philosophical polarity. That it’s “backwards” in reality just indicates that philosophy takes a back seat to power.
The Bush camp would probably play the “We won the popular vote” angle even more than the Gore camp is now, because they were preparing for it.
scylla:
My point, which Gadarene has already addressed, is that tying the delay in election results to any meaningful shift in market behavior is hardly justified at this point. A 10 minute swing due to momentary exuberance on the market floor is essentially meaningless as a market indicator.
Spiritus: That was Joel, not me, but I happen to agree. 
Karellan: Great post. I think you’ve nailed it. I’m getting so sick of the rampant partisanship surrounding this thing…
Ooops. My mistake. No, wiat – it isn’t my fault. I was selecting names from a butterfly ballot and your name was across from jshor.
AND the arrow was misalgined.
AND the chad was pregnant (or was it hanging?) Either way, that’s not my fault either.
I demand a hand rewrite of every post.
Answer: likely not. But why is this question “directed particularly at those stalwarts who back Mr. Bush”? It seems to me that the Gore partisans feel themselves to be on the defensive in this matter.
Spiritus:
The markets recent short term performance is directly related to the election situation. A base ad been confirmed 6 times since May on the Composite at around 3400 with support at 3150. We immediately violated this after the election. We did not have unusual volume to the downside, but the election took the foreign buyers and bottom fishers out of the market, and normal sell side volume was able to move the markets lower.
The market always overreacts on news of uncertainty.
I’ve come to the realization that what I am most bothered by is the tone both parties take - and presenting it as simple truth. I mean, as a government lawyer I am no stranger to saying outlandish stuff with a straight face, but I are always aware of the possibility (and appropriateness) of a judge or opposing counsel with functioning synapses saying, “Bullshit.”
I voted for Gore. But allow me to write a speech for Bush speech which I would far prefer to the “Machine counts are the only reliable option, handcounts are inherently unreliable, the SoS is objectivelyt following the unambiguous letter of the law” line I’m currently hearing. For example, I would far prefer it if Bush would say:
"It really looks like there are some flaws in the system that should be corrected for future elections. The different machine counts show the fallability of that system, and you must acknowledge the possible problems with a hand count. And, yes, I must acknowledge it certainly looks bad that this happens in a state where my brother is gov, and the SoS actively campaigned for me. And entering the 21st century, every state, including Fla, should give their election laws and procedures a good hard look before this type of shit ever happens again.
All I can do is assure you that I am unaware of any improper behavior, and the actions were all within the law. We are playing by the rules both parties agreed to before the game, and we believe the nation needs an answer one way or another. The race isn’t being stolen from one person or another. As close as it was, it could easily have gone either way if little things went differently. But the goal now should be to work together aimed at the future."
I don’t know. That was just off the top of my head.
Right now, I don’t envy either man taking the office. And I don’t know that Gore has the finesse or trickiness to pull off what would be required if he did prevail eventually. So the partisan part of me is pretty much resigned to the Dems conceding and regrouping for 2002. I mean, how much can Gore bitch if he couldn’t even carry his own friggin state?! And he isn’t even taking any single position at this time. Instead, he’s keeping EVERY conceivable option open. A position I acknowledge the utility of, but do not necessarily respect in this instance.
Anyone conservatives care to suggest a REASONABLE concession speech for Gore at this point?
Scylla,
I don’t think there is any doubt that the markets are negatively affected by uncertainty - the issue is how much of a big deal that is. Most people say not a whole lot.
Dinsdale,
Your Bush speech was perhaps too lawyerly in that it failed to address the actual issues. As in “what is the position on hand counts and why”? Usually when politicians try avoiding issues in this manner they are taken to task for it.
It seems the same way to me. Perhaps because the Bush partisans are claiming that the election is already won, and have been doing so since Tuesday. Perhaps, further, that they have tarred Gore and his supporters as obstructionists, whiners, and crooks for doing what Bush would do in the same situation–for doing, indeed, what anyone would do: try to resolve the variances surrounding a razor-thin margin which will decide the presidency of the United States.
Bush’s insistence on finality for the sake of finality, frankly, strikes me as electioneering to a far greater degree than Gore’s desire that we be damn sure about the vote count in Florida before we anoint a winner.
I’ll say what DoctorJ, I think, has said–for all intents and purposes, this election is a statistical dead heat. It’s a tie. The closeness of the candidates in Florida and elsewhere is well within the margin of statistical error.
We need provisions for a runoff election. There’s nothing inherently anti-democratic about that–in fact, most constitutional republics possess the mechanism. But we sorely, sorely need a runoff. If not this election, then in the future. It would prevent exactly the type of problems we’re experiencing right now.
What do you suggest, Izzy? The hand count is fucked up. The darn ballots are inherently fragile. And tho we hope it doesn’t happen, all it would take is one asshole on either side of the fence punching out some new chads … I don’t care how careful you are, I doubt whether a human or team of humans, could could a million pennies 2 times and get the same answer both times. So if the handcount gives a 3d number, why do we necessarily say that is more reliable than the 1st 2? What do we do, count them again?
Bottom line, if the Dems had gotten their shit together in PBC, this would be irrelevant. They would have educated their voters to punch only one number and to inspect their ballot before handing it in, they would have objected to the ballot ahead of time, they would have informed infirm or unclear voters of the availability of absentee ballots. But now, there is no way Gore can be declared the winner without the result appearing tainted.
And I don’t see anything wrong with the current leader/winner saying, “Hey, of course I want to stick with these results. I won, for crying out loud!” At least that’s honest. As opposed to, “No reasonable person could believe a handcount was more reliable - the handcount is inherently unreliable, subjective, and unfair.” Which is a balatantly self interested position presented as fact.
The situation is fucked up. But no matter how bad the Dems want it, they don’t get a do-over.
True anecdote. At the IHOP I heard a person at the next table explaining why she voted for Buchanan because “he is the most liberal one.” So what was her intent? To vote for Buchanan? Or to vote for the most liberal candidate? I’m not aware of any IQ or fund-of-knowledge test before an individual is allowed to vote. As long as we are going to entrust democracy to the people, we have to be prepared for screwy results. Then we adopt, adapt, and improve – and move on.
As the great philosopher Edward Norton once said:
When the tide of life turns against you
And the waves upset your boat,
Don’t waste your thoughts on what might have been,
Just lie on your back and float!