Gore: We just want to count every vote.
Bush: No, this is a society of laws, and we must stick to those laws.
Gore: Ok, here’s a law that says 15,000 ballots must be thrown out.
Bush: No, you said you wanted to count every vote!
Cite please.
All we know now is that someone shouldn’t have done what they did to the absentee ballot applications. Where is the law that says that all the ballots in that county must be thrown out as a consequence? This is just wishful thinking (and hoping) on the Gore Camp’s side - it doesn’t actually mean there is a specific law dictating that ALL ballots must be thrown out.
I’m just going by the last line of the OP, which is from http://campaignwatch.org/.
Wow, after reading that link, I’m struck by a feeling that it was possibly the most one-sided take on the issue that could be constructed. I wonder what they plan on saying when the case is found to have no real legal merit.
Another intriguing possibility that occurs to me after reading a detailed explanation of exactly what happened…
It is entirely possible…even likely! That the GOP operatives used the registered voter database to fill out brand new applications that had never been requested in the first place…thereby handing some Republican voters the opportunity to vote twice!
Seeing as they were left alone with the voter database for such a long time, they could have done any number of nefarious and questionable things. Seeing as Florida has a truly rotten history of voter fraud specifically via absentee ballots it seems less and less unfair to throw out the ballots.
That hamburger analogy is really starting to make sense…
I don’t want any of this so that Gore will become President, because he won’t, no matter what happens. The FSC could come down completely on his side and the ballots could be counted and show him the winner. The Seminole ballots could be thrown out and that decision held up on appeal. None of it would matter. Because the Florida Legislature (along with Dubya’s brother, [sub]who might be a little taken aback by his big bro’s decisive rejection of him for any administration posts tonight…what was THAT about?[/sub]) have made it perfectly clear that no matter what occurs, they are sending Bush electors. Period. Any and all attempts to do otherwise will be squashed by them.
And that is why I’m pulling for something to give it to Gore at this point. Because I want them to be just that nakedly greedy. It will screw Bush for sure…so completely that it might even pave the way for Hillary in '04, depending on how badly he handles the next 4 years, and how well she handles them.
stoid
But - what is “tainted” here?
From this Washington Times article:
[OK, I’m going to be brief, as I’ve written this twice, but my computer has been tampered with by Democrats and I’ve lost it both times]
What makes you think that it’s likely? Aside from the inherent dishonesty and selfishness of Republicans, that is? And why would Gore’s campaign completely neglect to mention (even a slight hint) the one thing that would most likely swing public opinion in their favor? Most likely it is because there is little doubt that the number of Republican absentee ballot applications remained constant during the process?
And what, exactly, are the nefarious things that could have been done? Absentee ballots sent to people who didn’t want them? Two applications for one person would not get that person two chances to vote.
Did they call you up to tell you this? The President of the Florida State Senate wasn’t exactly clearly indicating this in his public statement (through his spokeswoman) that “we can appreciate the speaker’s position but as President McKay continues to say, the Senate will not be rushed to judgment.” Nor was Bush (the younger) being any more in agreement when he said that his position “has been the same since the beginning. I don’t think it’s appropriate for the legislature to act if they don’t have to.” ([url=“http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0100&id=00120520230111813”)source for both) Perhaps the telepathic connection you have to the secret evil intents of Republicans is in need of tuning.
As for positions for Jeb in his brother’s administration, the “Bobby Kennedy Rule” keeps him out of the Cabinet, and anything else really wouldn’t be a step up from his current position.
[Yes, that was the brief version]
Hardly resounding denouncements, are they? I didn’t say they would do it no matter what happened, I said they would do it if the election went to Al. And I stand by it. At the moment they don’t need to do a thing, it’s highly unlikely Dubya’s going to have it taken away from him. But you have never seen a special session put together so fast in your life if anything happens to threaten that. i would bet everything I have. If we’re lucky my assessment will be proven one way or another. Care to bet everything YOU have that they won’t?
As for my dim view of the GOP operatives working on the ballots…well, it’s just my dim view. I don’t expect we’ll ever know anything for sure or that anyone will even try to investigate it. But the whole business was completely out of line, and everyone involved knew it. They were actually breaking the law. Is it such an unfair leap to think they might have gone farther than we already know? If you caught somebody leaving your house with your stereo under their arm, is it such a leap to think they might have taken your camera and your jewelry as well?
stoid
Unlike you, I don’t assume that what politicians haven’t resoundingly denounced is perfectly clear that they are going to do. My contention is not that I would bet everything I own against it, just that they have yet to make anything perfectly clear. I doubt that Jeb will sign any dubious legislation that will make his brother President in this way, just because it would kill both their careers, and make the next four years more difficult for their party than otherwise.
And I think the Republicans filling in the ballot applications did not necessarily believe what they were doing to be illegal. My fraternity house sits on a corner lot, and pretty clearly has a fence around it, yet people often walk through our property to save time and effort. If I see this, I don’t assume criminal intent on their part, as it’s clear what they are trespassing for.
Also, you have yet to explain what they could have done in those offices.
What was THAT about?
OK, one more weighing in:
-
We don’t know the real facts in either county; maybe the reporters will do some reporting today based on the trials, instead of the easy-to-write atmospherics and horse-race stuff. Some Seminole reports say only the Republican applications were screwed up while the Democrats followed instructions the first time. If so, then nobody was unfairly denied a vote. If the Democrats’ applications were ignored or trashed, as is the Martin allegation, then there’s no question the vote was rigged, is there?
-
Tampering with the records has been reported (assuming that’s correct) to be a third-degree FELONY in Florida, and yes, anyone who did it should get beaten over the head with the book. But that’s not enough, since it doesn’t correct or compensate for their actions - the voters would still be stuck with the results of a “stolen” election. There have been several posts here suggesting severe legal action against the officials, but not actually correcting the fraudulent results of their actions. Sorry, folks, We the People have rights too, and the voters have a right to get the candidate of our choice elected. It’s called democracy.
There has to be a way to fix that, and I don’t see one short of tossing all the absentee ballots. Is it unreasonable to assume they would have broken the same way as the in-person voters? Maybe so, maybe not, but what else can one base it on?
Yes, that does disenfranchise some voters who didn’t do anything wrong that they could reasonably be expected to understand. But there are other voters who were already disenfranchised by conscious partisan, possibly illegal, actions by people who had a duty not to be partisan. Seems to me those disenfranchisements roughly cancel out, don’t they? You can’t object to one without objecting to the other, but several posters on this thread are shamefully doing just that.
- Seems Florida passed a pretty clear, and strict, law about all this, with details on handling of absentee ballots, after a fiasco with the election of the mayor of Miami being rigged by widespread falsification of the absentee ballot process. The election was actually reversed because there was no plausible way to correct the results short of tossing all the absentee ballots. Don’t Floridians have to recognize their own law and their own precedents, and don’t we have to recognize them too?
Just curious, how many of you believe your assessment of the “situation,” either in its entirety or concerning each facet individually, is truly objective, or do you assess each wrinkle through the lens of your political preference?
I am certain neither of the parties involved are interested in fairness - they want to win. Who was it who said, “Show me a good loser, and I’ll show you a loser”? Sure, they would like their preference to appear as reasonable as possible, but better to enter the presidency under a cloud, than not enter the presidency.
My position is simple. I voted for Gore, but Bush won. If you are in any type of contest, and fail to win convincingly, you have extremely limited grounds for arguing you should have won via technicality, disputed call, etc. Heck, if you lost at the last minute, it is your own fault for letting your opponent stay so close up to that point.
I personally consider it an impossibility to attain an “accurate count” at this point. Perhaps it always was. The machine counts differed, didn’t they? Which of them was accurate? Why would a hand count necessarily be more accurate? And if you fail to win your own frigging state, don’t go whining about dimples. Howzabout trying to identify what, if anything, can be done to eliminate some of these questions the next time around. Is there any system that can be designed that can provide accuracy within the margins involved in Fla? I personally don’t know.
My personal political leanings have me desiring some signs that the Dems are getting their shit together to present the strongest possible position in 2002. But I guess that would require a little strategic planning beyond tomorrow, which modern society, government, business is loathe to engage in.
Sorry this is off topic.
No offense, Elvis, but before you argue that Florida should follow its law, you really should STUDY that law. I have set forth several times the legal standards that deal with the issue in Seminole County. Nothing in your post deals with those legal issues. Nothing in your post provides countervailing legal authority to that which I have provided.
Instead of being a pissed off Democrat who wants to win, and can’t understand why Mr. Gore will lose, you might try actually investigating the facts and reading up on the law. THEN, if you want to set forth a case for throwing out the absentee ballots in Seminole County, please do. I can conceive of several such arguments based on the facts and the law; I simply don’t think they have much chance of prevailing based on my reading of the law and my understanding of the claimed facts (that is, based on the best set of facts the Democrats can present).
I hate it when I can’t post at night and a thread spirals out of control. 
DSYoung, you have spoken with the voice of authority on this matter, but you leave me quite curious. Aside from an allusion to Section 102.168 of Florida law, you have given us very little insight as to what Florida law actually says. It is one thing to accuse several posters of being angry democrats and ignorant of the law and quite another to put up and give us something more to chew on than opaque allusions.
So let’s hear what the law actually says.
**
Well, what some guy in Toledo, with apparently as much free time on his hands as I do, says the Florida law is on this matter doesn’t carry as much weight as what the judges who do deal with it for a living do. We’ll have their judgment soon enough, we hope. I think you agree that Florida has to follow its own law and that it’s there for good reason.
I hope it’s not necessary to explain that what’s legal isn’t always right and vice versa. But what’s right vs. what’s legal is what really matters in the wider court of public opinion, as well as to history and to our standing in the world, doesn’t it?
I would appreciate seeing your analysis taking account of the reasons absentee ballots exist, and the risk they present of election-rigging, as well as of the rights of the voters to have their decisions reflected in the results. But you’ve left all that out for some reason, and now you’ve even taken to going ad hominem against anyone who points that out. Consider me unconvinced.
Thank you to those of you who complimented my lengthy post. I am glad that it wasn’t too obtuse for its purpose. 
A couple of thoughts on subsequent postings.
First of all, PLEASE stop accusing Stoidela of wanting to throw out all the absentee ballots. Stoi has posted on more than one occaision that the solution to the issue is to identify the ballots mailed out after the applications were modified illegally and remove only those ballots from consideration. This is a substantially different proposal. Tarring Stoi with the brush of supporting the broader remedy to argue against Stoi’s posts is irresponsible posting…
Applicable Florida laws regarding absentee ballots can be found at Sections 101.6105 and following (use this link to get to the index: Florida Statutes). Section 101.62 governs the application for absentee ballots; Section 101.68 governs the counting of absentee ballots. Completely absent is any statute that mandates tossing all the absentee ballots based on irregularities with some absentee ballots. This isn’t surprising, since as I have pointed out, that remedy is set by case law, not statute. See my prior post.
I recommend everyone who has real interest in this issue read the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in Beckstrom v. Volusia County Canvassing Board, which can be found here. After reading it, one can actually intelligently discuss the application of the law of that case to this situation.
“Blame” is always a poor word to use in situations where we are not talking about legal or moral fault. Those who filed absentee ballot applications which did not include a space for their ID registration number probably had no idea they were required to submit such a number. Can they be considered to be ‘at fault’ for failing to include such a number? Of course not. Did they contribute to the problem in an unknowing way? Of course. When they received their requested absentee ballots, did they have any reason to know something wrong had occurred? Of course not. Are they then to ‘blame’ for voting? Of course not. We aren’t talking about ‘blame’ in any circumstance; we are trying to determine the remedy for an alleged illegality, illegality on the part of a third party. Let’s eschew the talk of ‘blame’ and ‘fault’, please; it serves only to obscure the real issues.
Some minor thoughts: 1) The ‘butterfly ballot’ was not illegal under Florida law, despite statements to the contrary by those contesting it. Plain reading of the statutes in question establishes that it met the legal requirements; it simply failed to take into account the ingrained habits of thousand of voters in that county. And lest the Republicans feel so superior, I predict that, had the Republican and Democratic names been switched (that is, had Jeb Bush lost his last election as Governor), the SAME THING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED, just with the affected parties being switched.
- No one has yet established how it can be proven that, in the case of any given ballot, the effect of sending out a ballot that wouldn’t have otherwise been sent resulted in a vote that wouldn’t have occurred. Short of determining for each such ballot whether or not the person would have remedied the error in time, or made sure to vote in person, you can’t accomplish this. If you can’t establish this link, you can’t toss out a ballot, even under the assumption that any ballot SHOULD be tossed for the violation of the law regarding requests for absentee ballots. PROOF, folks, not assumptions.
It will never end…
Stoid, you’ve been starting some good, thought-provoking threads.
I wish there was some way we could all know EXACTLY how many votes were cast legitimately.
A revote would be called for, but its simply not enough time now.
I agree that Stoi has not gone all the way just yet in advocating throwing out all the absentee ballots.
But she has come sooooo close…
That has to be the presumption in the case of absentee ballots, though - that the person applying for it couldn’t physically get to the polling place on Election Day. That’s why absentee ballots EXIST, right. Maybe that’s not “proof” in the sense you’re demanding, but it doesn’t have to be. Don’t be hypertechnical.
You’re also continuing to ignore the other side of the argument, which happens to be the very argument going on in court right now. The correction and resending of the GOP ballot applications is one thing, but the simultaneous discarding without notification or opportunity for redress of Democratic applications is the nub of the problem (if that’s what really happened, of course).
Election fraud isn’t a victimless crime, and punishing those responsible doesn’t close the matter. The victims need to have redress. We the People, as the injured party, need to have the results of fraud fixed. Is there any way to do so short of tossing the GOP ballots to compensate for the tossed Democratic applications and resulting denied votes? The only other approach anyone on this board has suggested is that we simply accept that cheating works.
Can we break it down to the actual facts, now?
- Did the overseas voters incorrectly (negligently) fill out the forms? No. It was the forms themselves that were incorrect and did not have spaces for all required information. From what I have read, the voters filled out the forms correctly as they were printed.
- The requests were rejected in accordance with statute 101.62
- Officials of the Republican Party requested access to the rejected applications and were allowed to add the missing registration numbers. This is not forbidden (because it’s not mentioned at all) by Florida law. Expressly forbidden are tampering of registration requests, and access to the actual ballots, but nothing is mentioned about handling of requests for ballots (that I could find).
- It is a violation of 101.62 to request absentee ballots by other than the voter, family member, or designated guardian. Democrats allege that the Republicans violated this by resubmitting requests.
- It not alleged that there were any other alterations besides the addition of registration numbers.
- It is not alleged that Democrats requested access to rejected Democrat requests to correct problems of incorrect forms.
- It is not alleged that the supervisor offered Republicans access and denied it to Democrats.
So the questions to be answered seem to be
- Did the resubmission of previously rejected requests constitute requests for ballots? If so, they were illegal requests.
- Even if the requests were illegal, does this make the actual votes invalid? Once in possession of the ballots, the overseas voters properly filled them out and submitted them, so the votes themselves were properly done, only the requests to receive the ballots are in contention.
- Should the supervisor have informed the Democrats of the opportunity to review and correct invalid ballots? She did not make that offer to Republicans, they requested of her on their own initiative.
- While the complaint says that the Republicans “fraudulently” handled the requests, what actual fraud do they contend was committed?
- The complaint also claims that Ms. Gould had never previously allowed such conduct but was this ever requested of her before?
Point me out where I’m wrong, but I see no illegal actions or fraud committed here. Was the conduct irregular? Absolutely. Was it illegal or fraudulent? I don’t see it. No specific violations were committed, with the exception being if the resubmissions are to be considered requests in and of themselves.
And btw, I am not a Republican nor did I vote for Bush.
pinqy