# A Freedom of Information Recount? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 4, 2000, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995 "2000-12-04T19:51:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/61 "2000-12-06T21:10:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom2 \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > IMO, Bush must bear his share of the moral burden for thwarting the will of the people of Florida, and the nation, in this election. > > You guys are simply amazing. Why thanks. But stop the flattery - it’s so hard, as it is, for my wife to take me down a peg. 🙂 > [@](#): > > The only way for Bush to be a good winner would be to roll over and hand the election to the loser? No. I’m saying the only way for him to be _honest_ about this, the only way for him to be _honorable_, would be for him to concede, and hand the election to the man who truly won it. This wouldn’t make him a good winner, of course; it would make him a good loser. But it would at least match the right titles with the right men. > [@](#): > > And will you guys cut this “Will of the People” garbage out?..Neither side gets some sort of “Will of the People” mantle to wear around for the next 4 years. I was under the distinct impression that that’s why we _had_ elections - to determine the will of the people, and to have that be decisive, at least with respect to the electoral votes of each state. But that’s just my impression; what do I know? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/62 "2000-12-06T21:13:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom2 \* > > > [@](#): > > > > IMO, Bush must bear his share of the moral burden for thwarting the will of the people of Florida, and the nation, in this election. > > You guys are simply amazing. Why thanks. But stop the flattery - it’s so hard, as it is, for my wife to take me down a peg. 🙂 > [@](#): > > The only way for Bush to be a good winner would be to roll over and hand the election to the loser? No. I’m saying the only way for him to be _honest_ about this, the only way for him to be _honorable_, would be for him to concede, and hand the election to the man who truly won it. This wouldn’t make him a good winner, of course; it would make him a good loser. But it would at least match the right titles with the right men. > [@](#): > > And will you guys cut this “Will of the People” garbage out?..Neither side gets some sort of “Will of the People” mantle to wear around for the next 4 years. I was under the distinct impression that that’s why we _had_ elections - to determine the will of the people, and to have that be decisive, at least with respect to the electoral votes of each state. But that’s just my impression; what do I know? 🙂 [There: that should be easier to read.] ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/63 "2000-12-06T21:24:50Z")
Ok, I was wrong about the absentee ballots not being counted. At the very least I was wrong about Califonia, but at this point I’m ready to concede the point altogether unless I can cite the claim first. When I went fishing around I found this: [California election rumor debunked Contrary to cybermyth, state’s absentee ballots being counted](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_fosterj_news/20001202_xnfoj_california.shtml) > [@](#): > > SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A rumor swiftly making its way through cyberspace that California will not count its absentee votes is “absolutely untrue,” according to the secretary of state’s office. > Shad Balch, spokesman for Republican Secretary of State Bill Jones, denied there was any truth to the rumor, which was heard on talk radio stations. Never let it be said that I am dishonest about what I believe, no matter how much it hurts when I’m wrong. (and I really wanted this one to be right:)) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/64 "2000-12-06T21:56:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom2 \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Which state, or states, have said, “We have absentee ballots, but we’re not going to count them because they wouldn’t affect the outcome” ? > > New York and Califonia are two that I know for sure about. I will see if I can dig up a cite. It is not my understanding that this is some strange aberation of this election, I think this is standard policy. I’d appreciate a cite. I know that if I voted by absentee ballot, I’d be offended as hell to find out that I was only going to be included in the final tallies in the event of a close election. I’ve gone to the polls enough times in my life, knowing that my candidate didn’t have a prayer of winning, simply to be _counted_. (That’s my right as an American, dammit! :)) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Absent a clear cause to the contrary, fifty-fifty is the null hypothesis; the obligation is on the person who would say otherwise to justify his assertion. > > Sheeeeesh. > > You are the one running around screaming that **ALL** the errors have been anti-Gore. I would think of all the people around here who would agree that the errors are not evenly distributed, you would be the first. Then you have truly and deeply misunderstood me. I have been arguing that, in certain places, we have **evidence** of errors that have negatively affected Gore’s vote totals (or, in a couple of situations, Bush’s totals) in FL. But absent specific evidence, we have to assume that errors are most likely to happen in proportion to the known voting proportions. Across the country, that’s fifty-fifty. BTW, I _have_, in this forum, noted that the early projection of FL by the networks probably cost Bush some votes in the CST portion of FL (though I’d question how many, given that the polls were going to close in less than 15 minutes when the call was made, and it affected a sparsely populated region), and I’ve criticized attempts by Dems to disallow military absentee ballots based on absence of a postmark. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > That would be fine if you had evidence of fraud. > > Aren’t you guys claiming fraud in Seminole county? Unless I’ve had a major memory lapse, this sentence will be the first time I’ve even alluded to Seminole and Martin counties, or the court case there, on this board. There are _voters_ who are claiming fraud there. _I_’m not; I haven’t had time to familiarize myself sufficiently with that action. And Gore isn’t claiming anything there. But again, a claim of fraud in one place implies nothing about any other place. Even if the court determines that the local GOP acted fraudulently, that doesn’t say the Dems did the same thing somewhere else. > [@](#): > > If you want to hold on to your coin flipping hypothesis that is fine by me, but I think that if there is ONE obvious thing to come out of this election, it is that the election is FULL OF irregularities. The difference being, we’ve got evidence that enables us to argue that _specific_ irregularities had certain negative impacts on the Gore vote totals in FL. Here, you’re just claiming that countervailing irregularities must be out there _somewhere_. I think you can see the difference in our respective footings here. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/65 "2000-12-06T22:02:20Z")
Man am I glad I fessed up about the absentee ballot thing:) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/66 "2000-12-06T22:11:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom2 \* > Never let it be said that I am dishonest about what I believe, no matter how much it hurts when I’m wrong. You’re a very passionate advocate for your views, but you **are** honest. And you’re a very intelligent and adept debater. (You were originally **Freedom** without the **2** , right? I remember that when we debated guns n’ stuff last spring, you frequently got the better of me. And I don’t have to say that often. :)) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/67 "2000-12-06T23:11:43Z")
Just heard of partisan rumors being spread by the liberal media! You know who they are! AP, CNN, etc. To the effect that the Florida legislature is going to meet and give the election to Bush. That is just the kind of partisan garbage that this thread has been full of! Have they actually **said** that was what they were going to do? No, of course not! They are going to deliberate, with all due gravity, what is **best** for the country. If they come to the conclusion, after all consideration, that it would be best for the country for Algore to drag our nation into a future where abortion is mandatory and squirt guns will be illegal, then that is what they will do. If, on the other hand, they decide that the country should be governed by the principles that prevail in Texas, that widely noted paragon of civic virtue and compassion for the fiscally correct, then that is the course they will take. I, for one, am eager to hear thier deliberations! Who, oh who, will they choose? ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/68 "2000-12-07T00:21:13Z")
> [@](#): > > They are going to deliberate, with all due gravity, what is best for the country. If they come to the conclusion, after all consideration, that it would be best for the country for Algore to drag our nation into a future where abortion is mandatory and squirt guns will be illegal, then that is what they will do. > > If, on the other hand, they decide that the country should be governed by the principles that prevail in Texas, that widely noted paragon of civic virtue and compassion for the fiscally correct, then that is the course they will take. I, for one, am eager to hear their deliberations! Don’t get me wrong elucidator, I loved every word, but I think that gets 100% mark for partisanship.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/69 "2000-12-07T00:43:43Z")
I continue to find it amazing that Stoidela still makes these wild claims that “We know Gore won”, “Gore is fighting for the people’s voices to be heard”, “Bush is stealing the election by not letting Gore win”, “I refuse to believe my candidate lost despite all the court rulings pointing to that fact, not to mention the growing public opinion that Gore is trying to weasel a win, so I’m going to go sit in this corner here with my fingers in my ears throwing a tantrum because I’m not getting my way”, etc. Stoid, I’m not trying to be insulting. If you find that I am, sorry. I’m trying to say that we DON’T know Gore won. So far all proven evidence has shown Bush is the legitimate winner. Not one court has sided completely with Gore. Please don’t go throwing wild claims about in a debate, it’s not a very effective form of arguing a position. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/70 "2000-12-07T00:56:26Z")
And according to Judge Sauls’ decision, we don’t _know_ that Gore would have won. Legally speaking, that much is pretty well decided, with no recourse possible, realistically speaking. Of course, the Florida Supreme Court could still disagree with the interpretation of the law. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/71 "2000-12-07T02:38:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Don’t get me wrong elucidator, I loved every word, but I think that gets 100% mark for partisanship. As Tennesee Ernie Ford used to say “Bless yer pea-pickin’ little heart!” One tries, one tries. Hard to pump up the required vitriol for “Bambi” Bush. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/72 "2000-12-07T02:55:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monster104 \* > I continue to find it amazing that Stoidela still makes these wild claims that “We know Gore won”…So far all proven evidence has shown Bush is the legitimate winner. Well, the arguments we’ve made are posted; feel free to refute them. But just saying, ‘they’re wrong’ won’t score you many points in this league. Sorry. > [@](#): > > Not one court has sided completely with Gore. We’re arguing on a completely different basis than Gore’s lawyers are. Unfortunately, as Stoidela has mentioned, Gore’s paths are restricted to those with legal remedies easily at hand. Our arguments here are not so restricted, fortunately, and so we’re able to build a better case. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/73 "2000-12-07T03:49:20Z")
What, maybe 70 posts now? And maybe **2** about the subject at hand? Anybody out there really know? Where’s that DS guy, he might. TO wit: If someone decides to go to the trouble of hand counting all those Florida ballots **AFTER THE FACT** , when all is done and it is absitively, posolutely irrelevent to the _n_th degree, can anybody prevent that? Freedom of Information, Sunshine laws, etc? Can the President (presumably “Bambi” Bush) Executive Order a deep six? **This** enquiring mind wants to know!! (hmmm, _esquire_? Doesn’t that mean one of those snotty English guys riding around thrashing peasants? In some places doesn’t that mean (shudder) _lawyer_?) ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/74 "2000-12-07T05:48:01Z")
I have read more stuff that says the person has to pay the expenses while they are counting. If this is true, then no way they will ever recount the whole state. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/75 "2000-12-07T06:02:54Z")
> [@](#): > > **Well, the arguments we’ve made are posted; feel free to refute them. But just saying, ‘they’re wrong’ won’t score you many points in this league. Sorry.** What, did something new get posted in this thread that hasn’t been posted in other threads supporting your argument? If there has, I must’ve missed it. I believe no new information has been presented for which a cite hasn’t yet been given. Oh, and I never said your points are wrong. I said they weren’t _proven_. There’s quite a big difference there. Presenting a biased opinion based on unproven sources is not a basis for making claims that we “know Gore won”. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/76 "2000-12-07T14:05:04Z")
Just wanted to say that I appreciated your complimentary post. Megga Dittos back at ya… ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/77 "2000-12-07T14:08:17Z")
Ok… That was all I could take of that. Believe it or not I’m not a Rush fan and that ditto thing was a joke. I couldn’t stand thinking about that lingering image of me using mega dittos in a conversation.🙂 Try this… The feeling is mutual. ::feeling much better now::🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/78 "2000-12-07T14:45:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monster104 \* > > > [@](#): > > > > **Well, the arguments we’ve made are posted; feel free to refute them. But just saying, ‘they’re wrong’ won’t score you many points in this league. Sorry.** > > What, did something new get posted in this thread that hasn’t been posted in other threads supporting your argument? If there has, I must’ve missed it. I believe no new information has been presented for which a cite hasn’t yet been given. Perhaps not, but maybe we’ve pulled the information together in new ways. See below. > [@](#): > > Oh, and I never said your points are wrong. I said they weren’t _proven_. There’s quite a big difference there. Presenting a biased opinion based on unproven sources is not a basis for making claims that we “know Gore won”. Of course I haven’t _proved_ anything. Outside of mathematics, very little is ever actually _proven_ in this world. FWIW, nobody’s _proved_ that Bill Clinton won the 1996 election; however, evidence was presented, so to speak, that was sufficiently overwhelming that the only other meaningful candidate quickly conceded. That doesn’t mean that we’re all floundering around in a sea of _opinion_. Rather, we (primarily Stoid and I) have developed an _argument_ supporting a claim we’ve made. (An argument is more than a mere presentation of facts; an argument _marshals_ facts to show how they support a conclusion.) To _refute_ an argument, or to at least cast doubt on its validity, one rebuts or questions particular points in the argument, and shows the effects of the failure of that point on the argument as a whole. Anyone can play, but them’s the rules. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/79 "2000-12-07T15:10:01Z")
**RTFirefly** neither you nor **Stoidela** has engaged in effective arguement, if by that you mean ‘marshalling the facts’. An effective arguement takes the known facts, offers a position, shows how the position is supported by the known facts and/or the logical extension of those facts. It does not support itself with hyperbole, supposition, or unsupportable assumptions, all of which I might add **both** sides in this ‘debate’ (are you listening, **Freedom2**?) have employed without any compunction evident. I have previously posted what I think about the result of independently reviewing the ballots in the counties at issue. In sum, the ‘result’ would be as disputed as the ‘result’ of the election has been. Without agreement as to the standard for how to determine whether a ballot contains a ‘vote’ for any given person, you can’t reach agreement on the total result of those ballots. Clearly, the result of this election would be different, for instance, if the ballots were counted according to Michigan law (which doesn’t allow counting dimpled chads) or according to Texas law (which does allow counting dimpled chads if it is determined the dimple is a ‘clearly ascertainable vote’). Since the main arguement from the Democrats has been to count as many ballots as having votes as you can, and the main arguement from the Republican side as been that you can’t rely on subjective determinations of ‘intent to vote’, both sides could look at these ballots and NEVER agree as to the ‘result’. THAT is why you have the counting of votes delegated to some authority, such as a canvassing board, an election official, etc. Florida’s failure to have on its books a comprehensive statute governing how to manually tabulate votes means that, in the end, the canvassing boards, under review of the courts, have the final say on what is a vote. So far, that seems to mean that the official result of the election will be that the electors pledged to vote for Mr. Bush have been elected. As to popular opinion, THAT is NEVER completely in agreement about ANYTHING. There will be some section of the people who will staunchly believe that Mr. Bush won Florida, others will staunchly believe Mr. Gore did, and that the result of the election represents manipulation by those who were in favor of Mr. Bush. Still a third group won’t know for sure which was true, but will accept the result because the rules got followed, or because it is practical to have some winner. Finally, a LARGE section of the populace won’t give a damn, they’ll just be happy that they don’t have to hear the word ‘chad’ again until the 2004 election. Finally, a note about passion. Passion is never out of place in a debate; indeed, those who debate without passion often come across as uninterested in the result. But passion can blind one to rational thoughts. When that happens, you get what I see from my kids all the time, two of them pointing a finger at each other and screaming their position without realizing the other will never accept what they are saying as the right way of viewing things. When that happens, you just have to shrug and agree to disagree, and be civil about it. Not that we’ve seen any of THAT on this issue. (sigh) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2000, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/80 "2000-12-07T15:40:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom2 \* > Believe it or not I’m not a Rush fan Now, what’s wrong with being a Rush fan? I mean, there’s lots of bands I’d rather listen to, but some of their songs ain’t too bad… ::listens to offstage whisper:: [Emily Litella] Never mind. 🙂 [/Emily Litella] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995.md?page=5)