# 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:** 9\ **Page:** 5
**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, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/81 "2000-12-07T17:00:30Z")
Lawyers. [sigh] Ask 'em what time it is and they start in telling you how to build a clock. I already know, and despondent sayeth, that the (no, I can’t bring myself to use that word) _re-enumeration_ of the ballots is legally irrelevant, immaterial, and cannot be used as the basis of any legal action whatsoever, that it takes place strictly for the purposes of assuaging curiosity. Is such a _re-enumeration_ protected under the Freedom of Info act, the Sunshine Law, etc. and most importantly of all [drum roll] is there any legal machination by which that could be **prevented**. Can President “Bambi” Bush Executive Order a “deep six”, _inter alia, de jure, en tres partes omnia Gallia divisa est_? (If he can, he will. Bet me) ---
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/82 "2000-12-07T19:27:33Z")
**ellucidator** , no one has the power to order the destruction of the ballots in question, nor to exempt them from the various Sunshine and or free imformation laws (other than by having some specific such exemption made into law the same way any exemption can be so written. Please leave the conspiracy/we’ll do anything we can to win and keep you from knowing ideas to those who propose them the best. 😉 ---
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/83 "2000-12-07T20:25:20Z")
At last! An actual answer to my question! That’s one, count 'em, one! My day is made! I stand ready to follow the advice embodied in your second paragraph, the very instant that I suceed in deciphering it! It might be an admonition to go forth and sin no more! It might also be a recipe for coconut macaroons. Either way, I am sure it is excellent! Please forward an invoice for all 211 billable hours to: Occupant, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave… ---
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/84 "2000-12-07T20:42:30Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Yeah… I’m listening. It’s just that your rules sound soooo boring. I like our way of argueing better:) ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2000, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/85 "2000-12-08T03:03:26Z")
Well, it DOES make for interesting reading. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2000, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/86 "2000-12-08T16:26:29Z")
It sure does, don’t it? 🙂 BTW, **DSY** , I’m not sure what your point was in your two paragraphs about chads. The argument I’ve made (and I _do_ think that’s what it is, at least by SDMB standards, if not by those of either a mathematical proof or a legal brief ;)) doesn’t have anything to do with chads, be they hanging, pregnant, or merely dimpled. I’m also confused as to the relevance of your paragraph about popular opinion. BTW, I’ve seen many threads in GD on many subjects where passion got the better of the debaters. It’s my opinion that the election threads on this board - the ones I’ve been in, anyway - have been at least as civil as typical debates over abortion, gun control, C/E, or similarly contentious issues I’ve seen in this forum. There have been occasional overboard moments, but I think the partisans on both sides have on the whole done a good job of not letting their passions get the best of them. Sorry, **elucidator** , for my part in taking your thread afield from its original purpose. Glad you finally got your question answered! Now I think I’m gonna get some work done while we wait to see how the assorted courts rule. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2000, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/87 "2000-12-08T17:13:55Z")
The only part of my post that was directed towards what was said by you, **RTFirefly** , was the first paragraph. The remainder was directed towards various issues raised in the OP and the remainder of the thread. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2000, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/88 "2000-12-08T21:18:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSYoungEsq \* > The only part of my post that was directed towards what was said by you, **RTFirefly** , was the first paragraph. The remainder was directed towards various issues raised in the OP and the remainder of the thread. 🙂 My apologies. I thought the next three paragraphs were somehow buttressing your claims of the first paragraph. Sorry to bother you. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2000, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995/89 "2000-12-09T06:10:11Z")
what RTFirefly is referring to (although he can correct me if I’m wrong) is the evidence that more people intended to vote for Gore than Bush, even if some didn’t because of ballot confusion (mainly in PBC, but apparently in other places too). I think the evidence on this point, while not irrefutable in principle, has…to this point…not been refuted. In fact, it has not even been challenged a little bit successfully. Every piece of data that the Republicans have trotted out to try, e.g., to support claims that Pat Buchanan really got most of his votes intentionally in PBC really just lends further support to the fact that he didn’t when looked at with any assemblance of reason. Having said that, as has been pointed out, that is somewhat of an academic question, as the election has to be decided by the laws and not by how people intended to vote. (Unless, of course, the nominal “winner” decides to concede defeat because he doesn’t want to win on the basis of people having been confused…which is something I think someone of high moral character might do, although I am willing to admit that description probably doesn’t apply to either of the parties in this election dispute.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-freedom-of-information-recount/43995.md?page=4)