# Any truth to this flash? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 29, 2004, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675 "2004-05-29T13:43:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2004, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/21 "2004-05-30T17:03:09Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Huh? It’s been widely reported that Jeb promised _before_ the election to “deliver” Florida to George. It didn’t require clairvoyance to know that it was going to be a close race, and that Florida, a swing state with a lot of electoral votes, could very well be pivotal. I’m sure every Democratic governor promised Gore they’d do the same thing. Nobody seems to be crying “Fraud!” in those states. > [@](#): > > You lost me. Exit polls don’t determine the winner. How exactly would that scenario work? Since the major news services all get their data on who’s winning the election from NES, if the NES is reporting that this or that state has gone for Bush or Kerry, the American public’s going to believe _that_, since the main on the TV says it (afterall, look at the mess that’s happened since the networks flipflopped on Florida). Meanwhile, you’re getting the _real_ exit poll results, so you can send small numbers of henchmen out to do what’s necessary. Probably not the best way to explain it, but then again, I’m not the kind of paranoid nutbag like the guys who run the [Votescam](http://www.votescam.com/home1.php). (They think that’s there’s tons of corruption in Florida’s electoral system, and it dates to 1970 or before.) > [@](#): > > I’m guessing he got his information from this report by British journalist Greg Palast. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/palast.ram](http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/palast.ram) It’s actually pretty close to what’s said in the report, but he got a few details wrong. For example, it’s the same surname and _similar_ DATE of birth. What Palast is saying is that since blacks are overrepresented in prisons, and tend to vote Democrat, that striking names of felons from the voter rolls will tend to eliminate black voters. He doesn’t explain very well how using the same surnames eliminates additional legitimate voters, but I would assume he’s saying that black people born around the same time are going to tend to share the same surnames. It doesn’t really take a lot of imagination to see how that could work. There are still a lot of black people with last names that date back to slavery times, like Washington, Jefferson, etc., or if they are immigrants or descendents of immigrants, they’re going to tend to have African surnames. It apparently was considered important enough for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission to investigate. IIRC, the USCRC was called in because at least one polling place in a predominantly black neighborhood was just flat out not there when people went to vote. It had been moved and somebody “forgot” to inform the voters in that area or bothered to transfer the voting rolls to the new place, so even the ones who managed to find the new polling place couldn’t vote. > [@](#): > > But really, the important questions that haven’t been answered are: > > -Is it right that the Florida election commission hired a private company whose board of directors consists of prominent republicans, to purge the voter rolls? Florida may have been the first state to do that (the flash makes that claim, I don’t know), but the idea had been kicked around by other states. Ross Perot was arguing for similar things and electronic voting over the telephone when he ran last. > [@](#): > > -Did D.B.T. furnish a list of supposedly ineligible voters that was 95% innacurate, as charged by Palast? Good question. > [@](#): > > -Is it right that Katherine Harris, who co-ran Bush’s campaign, was _also_ in charge of certifying the election results? Nope. Even if everything had been done correctly, it still looks bad. > [@](#): > > -Is it true that D.B.T. was paid millions of dollars to make confirmation phone calls to check the accuracy of the list, but made no such calls? Dunno. But all in all, this is kind of pointless, since we can’t go back and undo the election, and if they’ve got this kind of power to rig an election, there’s not really anything we can do about it, since they’re _not_ going to worry about what we do or say, because they can’t be held accountable to us. We can’t vote 'em out if we can’t vote 'em in, ya know? ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2004, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/22 "2004-05-30T17:52:21Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > It states that the company which was handed the contract by the state of Florida decided to not only “scrub” the names of ex-felons from the roles, but also those individuals with the same last names of the felons. Now, I don’t have any cites, but I’d be willing to bet that at least one felon has the last name of “Smith” or “Brown” or some other very common surname. From what I understand of the situation, it was a matter of identifying people as felons based on last names **and** (not or) birthdays. This is obviously inadequate identification, but will not eliminate millions of voters as you suggest. Rather more in the range of thousands. However, it should be obvious to all that merely having both the same last name as a felon and the same birthday as a felon does not make you a felon. > [@](#): > > Do you _honestly_ think that _all_ the people with that last name would be Democrats? Are you going to say that even greater than 50% of people with _any_ last name would be in one particular party? Prison populations in the United States overrepresent blacks and hispanics. Voters with black and hispanic last names would both be removed from the rolls, and black and hispanic voters tend to vote more frequently for Democrats. Note that there is considerable overlap between “black” and “caucasian” last names though. > [@](#): > > And if you _are_ rigging an election, are you going to have the outcome be decided **not** by an overwhelming number of votes, but by SCOTUS? If I were to be rigging an election, I’d _want_ to make _damn_ sure that my favored candidate won by a healthy majority, and **not** a SCOTUS choice (notice how Saddam did in the last Iraqi elections). Rigging an election may be impossible in the U.S., but I wouldn’t put it past either party to break both ethical standards and the law to give themselves an unfair advantage. Claiming they can determine that an election would go to the Supreme Court seems farfetched. > [@](#): > > Given the overall ineptitude that the Bush Administration has displayed, do you think that they’d manage to pull this all off in the _one_ state which happened to be the _key_ state in the election and put this all into place years before the election took place? Have you considered the possibility that you’ve got this backwards? Perhaps Florida _became_ a key state through manipulation of voter rolls and elimination of minority voters who tend to vote Democratic. > [@](#): > > Is the only reason that people bitch about the voting problems in Florida (when several other states apparently had problems as well) because Gore lost that state by such a narrow margin? You betcha again. I don’t think this should be easily dismissed. Disenfranchising voters is a serious matter, whether it occurs in a key state or not. If this was the result of a partisan plan, we have a serious problem with our election methods and may need to change them (not just in Florida, but across the country) to make the process of determining who gets to vote and who doesn’t a process out of reach of manipulation by the major political parties. That being said, **I don’t know** whether the allegations made in the link are correct or not. I sincerely hope they aren’t. I do believe they are serious enough to merit investigation. I just didn’t want anyone to waste their time on a strawman arguement. ---
**Author:** ![IKinSpelGud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/46a35a/32.png) [@IKinSpelGud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IKinSpelGud)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2004, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/23 "2004-05-30T17:55:19Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > I’m sure every Democratic governor promised Gore they’d do the same thing. Nobody seems to be crying “Fraud!” in those states. I’m sorry, but around here that doesn’t exactly constitute “evidence.” I’m sure that every Democratic governor didn’t. Now where does that put us? And claiming that you personally know the owner of the domain doesn’t really prove anything either. I personally know him too, and in my experience he’s been a bastion of honesty and integrity. Now where does that put us? This thread is really smack in GD territory by now, as most of the poster’s ( **blowero** being an exception, among others) have pretty much ignored the OP’s question and gone straight into opinion-ville. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/24 "2004-05-30T19:31:08Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > From what I understand of the situation, it was a matter of identifying people as felons based on last names **and** (not or) birthdays. This is obviously inadequate identification, but will not eliminate millions of voters as you suggest. Rather more in the range of thousands. However, it should be obvious to all that merely having both the same last name as a felon and the same birthday as a felon does not make you a felon. I didn’t mean to suggest that millions would be eliminated, but if you’re going to be aiming for a certain demographic to be removed (i.e. voters most likely to vote for the opponent) then it’s a pretty scattershot method of doing it, and you’re liable to cull as many voters who’re in support of your candidate as you are those opposed. > [@](#): > > Prison populations in the United States overrepresent blacks and hispanics. Voters with black and hispanic last names would both be removed from the rolls, and black and hispanic voters tend to vote more frequently for Democrats. Note that there is considerable overlap between “black” and “caucasian” last names though. And again, note that a considerable number of Cuban immigrants tend to vote Republican, so culling Hispanic names puts you at risk of eliminating Cuban voters (who _are_ a powerful lobby in Floridian politics) and alienating people who give generously to your campaign. > [@](#): > > Rigging an election may be impossible in the U.S., but I wouldn’t put it past either party to break both ethical standards and the law to give themselves an unfair advantage. Claiming they can determine that an election would go to the Supreme Court seems farfetched. Agreed. > [@](#): > > Have you considered the possibility that you’ve got this backwards? Perhaps Florida _became_ a key state through manipulation of voter rolls and elimination of minority voters who tend to vote Democratic. Nope, because even if there’d been no problems with the voter rolls, there’d still be that whole business of the “hanging chads” to contend with. IIRC, in one of the bizarre twists of the whole thing a newspaper went through the ballots _after_ the mess had been decided by SCOTUS and counted the votes three times. The first time they counted them using the methods the Gore camp wanted and the results were Bush won. The second time they used the methods the Bush camp wanted and **Gore** won. I don’t remember the outcome of what happened the third time they simply counted the ballots which were cleanly punched. > [@](#): > > I don’t think this should be easily dismissed. Disenfranchising voters is a serious matter, whether it occurs in a key state or not. If this was the result of a partisan plan, we have a serious problem with our election methods and may need to change them (not just in Florida, but across the country) to make the process of determining who gets to vote and who doesn’t a process out of reach of manipulation by the major political parties. Agreed. > [@](#): > > That being said, **I don’t know** whether the allegations made in the link are correct or not. I sincerely hope they aren’t. I do believe they are serious enough to merit investigation. And they have been, have they not? Indeed, haven’t many states taken measures to try and prevent at least some of the things from happening again (California and other states have dropped their use of voting machines like Dade County in Florida was using.)? Whether those efforts have gone far enough and produced acceptable results is the matter of some debate, but they _are_ working on them. Oh, and **IKinSpelGud** , I never said I didn’t _like_ Eric, but I find some of his views on politics to be a bit wrongheaded. IAC, you’re going to try and tell me that a Democratic governor would _never_ tell the Democratic presidential candidate that he’d “deliver the state” come election time? That somehow, Democrats are immune to saying platitudes which sound suspicious later on? That _no_ Democrat would ever use a fine, hair-splitting point, to justify an answer they gave to a question? If so, then I want a DNA test ran on every Democratic politician because they’re obviously _not_ human. Considering the number of foul-ups the Bush Administration has done of late (the Patriot Act, the claims of WMDs in Iraq, etc.) I’m continually surprised by people who think that Bush & Co. could manage to successfully pull off a **deliberate** act like rigging the election, or secretly plotting the 9/11 hijackings. You’d think that if one of their plans to get elected was “rig election in Florida” they’d also have the sense to plant some WMDs in Iraq, ya know? I mean, if you’re gonna commit a crime, why not go all out? Why pick a pretty crappy method of rigging the election which **isn’t** certain to hand your candidate a healthy majority of votes in the state? Why come up with a halfassed method that’s going to be the subject of endless debate? Especially since you’ve got a candidate who’s apparently fixated on invading another country (Remember the people saying well before the election that if Bush wins we’re going to invade Iraq?), you’re going to want to get this guy into office with as large a majority as you possibly can, so that he’s got free-reign to do as he wishes. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/25 "2004-05-30T19:55:27Z")
This really needs to get moved to Great Debates. > [@Tuckerfan](#): > > I’m sure every Democratic governor promised Gore they’d do the same thing. Nobody seems to be crying “Fraud!” in those states. You’ve just baited and switched. First, you said that Jeb would have had no way to know that his state would be pivotal in the election until it was too late to do anything. When I point out that he was in fact thinking about it _before_ the election, you act as though that was supposed to be a point in and of itself. Well, it’s not. I NEVER SAID IT WAS FRAUDULENT FOR JEB TO PROMISE THE STATE TO HIS BROTHER. I only said it to counter your ridiculous assertion that he would need a time machine to know that he wanted Bush to win Florida. The issue at hand is whether black voters were improperly removed from the voter rolls, _not_ whether Jeb promised Florida to George. > [@](#): > > Since the major news services all get their data on who’s winning the election from NES, if the NES is reporting that this or that state has gone for Bush or Kerry, the American public’s going to believe _that_, since the main on the TV says it (afterall, look at the mess that’s happened since the networks flipflopped on Florida). Meanwhile, you’re getting the _real_ exit poll results, so you can send small numbers of henchmen out to do what’s necessary. Probably not the best way to explain it, but then again, I’m not the kind of paranoid nutbag like the guys who run the [Votescam](http://www.votescam.com/home1.php). (They think that’s there’s tons of corruption in Florida’s electoral system, and it dates to 1970 or before.) You’re arguing that the Bush campaign _didn’t_ manipulate the vote in Florida because, if they were going to cheat, they _would_ have used the procedure described above? That’s absurd. How does saying they _didn’t_ cheat using (completely ridiculous) Method A, prove that they didn’t use Method B? > [@](#): > > IIRC, the USCRC was called in because at least one polling place in a predominantly black neighborhood was just flat out not there when people went to vote. It had been moved and somebody “forgot” to inform the voters in that area or bothered to transfer the voting rolls to the new place, so even the ones who managed to find the new polling place couldn’t vote. Nope - if you watch the piece I linked to, you’ll see that the names being removed from the rolls was definitely an issue. What you mention may have been _another_ issue, but it wasn’t the only one. > [@](#): > > Florida may have been the first state to do that (the flash makes that claim, I don’t know), but the idea had been kicked around by other states. Ross Perot was arguing for similar things and electronic voting over the telephone when he ran last. But look at the makeup of the D.B.T. board. If you’re going to hire a private company to decide who gets to vote, shouldn’t it be politically neutral? And shouldn’t the results be verified? I notice you haven’t refuted the charge of 95% inaccuracy. > [@](#): > > Dunno. But all in all, this is kind of pointless, since we can’t go back and undo the election, and if they’ve got this kind of power to rig an election, there’s not really anything we can do about it, since they’re _not_ going to worry about what we do or say, because they can’t be held accountable to us. We can’t vote 'em out if we can’t vote 'em in, ya know? That’s an awfully defeatist attitude, and it’s really not consistent with the history of this country. Wrongs have been righted in this country because people spoke up about them. I don’t know if these charges are all true, but if they are, there are lots of things that can be done about it. For starters, how about a law that prevents the same person who is in charge of a political campaign to ALSO be the person who certifies the results in that election? We can’t go back and undo the election, but if there were shenanigans, we can try to make sure the same thing doesn’t happen again. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/26 "2004-05-30T20:57:33Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > This really needs to get moved to Great Debates. > > You’ve just baited and switched. First, you said that Jeb would have had no way to know that his state would be pivotal in the election until it was too late to do anything. When I point out that he was in fact thinking about it _before_ the election, you act as though that was supposed to be a point in and of itself. Well, it’s not. > > I NEVER SAID IT WAS FRAUDULENT FOR JEB TO PROMISE THE STATE TO HIS BROTHER. I only said it to counter your ridiculous assertion that he would need a time machine to know that he wanted Bush to win Florida. I said one would need a time machine to know that Florida would be the _pivotal_ state in the damned cluster that was the 2000 election. > [@](#): > > The issue at hand is whether black voters were improperly removed from the voter rolls, _not_ whether Jeb promised Florida to George. > > You’re arguing that the Bush campaign _didn’t_ manipulate the vote in Florida because, if they were going to cheat, they _would_ have used the procedure described above? That’s absurd. How does saying they _didn’t_ cheat using (completely ridiculous) Method A, prove that they didn’t use Method B? Well, I’m not a gambler, but it seems to me that if you’re gonna bet the farm, it’d better be a sure thing. > [@](#): > > Nope - if you watch the piece I linked to, you’ll see that the names being removed from the rolls was definitely an issue. What you mention may have been _another_ issue, but it wasn’t the only one. > > But look at the makeup of the D.B.T. board. If you’re going to hire a private company to decide who gets to vote, shouldn’t it be politically neutral? And shouldn’t the results be verified? I notice you haven’t refuted the charge of 95% inaccuracy. “Politically neutral”? How the hell do you have a politically neurtal organization if it’s staffed by human beings? I don’t care if **none** of the board of directors give money to campaigns or serve on any political action committees (though I’d be surprised if there were _any_ corporations like that), you’re still dealing with human beings who have biases. And the reason I haven’t refuted the charge of 95% inaccuracy is that I don’t have time to dig through everything involved to see if that’s a legit figure. IAC, it’s a moot point as far as the election goes, because _nothing_ one could find will reverse the fact that SCOTUS handed the Presidency to Bush in 2000. Now, I ask you, if Gore had won (say, he took his home state of Tennessee), would people being making the kind of issue over the mess that went on in Florida? Or would there be a general muttering that it was something to do be dealt with and that was all (outside of the state making some changes)? > [@](#): > > That’s an awfully defeatist attitude, and it’s really not consistent with the history of this country. Wrongs have been righted in this country because people spoke up about them. I don’t know if these charges are all true, but if they are, there are lots of things that can be done about it. For starters, how about a law that prevents the same person who is in charge of a political campaign to ALSO be the person who certifies the results in that election? We can’t go back and undo the election, but if there were shenanigans, we can try to make sure the same thing doesn’t happen again. Oh, I agree that the problems with the system in Florida should be fixed, but if you read _Truman_ by David McCullough which in discussing the political machine in Missouri, you’ll see that it’s well-nigh impossible for the common folks to dispose of the machine, because they _like it_. The successful machine ensures that lot’s of pork gets shifted back to the homefront and it’s only when the leaders of that machine get arrogant and stupid and forget to give back to the people that they’re inspired enough to shut the machine down, but this a _local_ machine. It picks the county, city, state, and congressional people, **not** the President. If you’ve got a machine powerful enough to select the next President of the US, you can dispense with all the formalities of democracy. You can put your candidate in, manipulate the media so that a minor event (say a disgruntled postal worker shows up and whacks a couple of people at work) gives you the justification to dispose of _all_ parts of the Constitution and go from there. At which point in time, there’s no debate about anything. **No** election system is going to be perfect. Even if 99% of the votes are counted accurately in every election, sooner or later that 1% is going to mean the difference in which candidate wins. Working to ensure that vote counting is important, but screeching and hollering that it was outright fraud, when the evidence points cronyism (i.e. the awarding of a fat state contract to a political ally) and ineptitude, serves only to politicize the issue, forcing the line to be drawn along political boundries, and **not** along issues of fairness and accuracy. I, personally, have faith that efforts will be made (sooner or later, if they haven’t already) to correct the problems. Discussing the proposed solutions is important, provided that one maintains a level head in the discussion and doesn’t run around yelling, “J’accuse!” all the time. The _real_ issue is not what went wrong in Florida, but what is being done to correct it? I know that Dade County and other places have disposed of the punched ballot machines, but that’s it. I know that there’s some controversy over Diebold’s effort in other states to sell their electronic voting machines, since the code for them isn’t open source (I’d point you to TechTV’s website with it’s articles about this, but it’s down at the moment.), but again, _every_ election system is going to have problems, be it electronic, mechanical, or even the paper ballot system. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/27 "2004-05-31T06:48:06Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > I said one would need a time machine to know that Florida would be the _pivotal_ state in the damned cluster that was the 2000 election. And I said it _wasn’t_ necessary for Jeb to see the future, and then you baited & switched me. So here we are. > [@](#): > > Well, I’m not a gambler, but it seems to me that if you’re gonna bet the farm, it’d better be a sure thing. That makes no sense. Winning an election is _never_ a sure thing. You think they wouldn’t have tried to influence the election results unless the outcome was 100% guaranteed. I disagree. Candidates spend millions of dollars and devote a major chunk of their life to campaigns for which the outcome is not definitively known. Not knowing the outcome for sure wouldn’t stop someone from trying to win. That’s an extremely weak argument. > [@](#): > > “Politically neutral”? How the hell do you have a politically neurtal organization if it’s staffed by human beings? I don’t care if **none** of the board of directors give money to campaigns or serve on any political action committees (though I’d be surprised if there were _any_ corporations like that), you’re still dealing with human beings who have biases. No, you missed the point. He’s saying they are _prominent_ republicans, not just some dudes who _happen_ to be republican. > [@](#): > > IAC, it’s a moot point as far as the election goes, because _nothing_ one could find will reverse the fact that SCOTUS handed the Presidency to Bush in 2000. Why are you repeating this? You already said it, and I explained why it’s not moot. You’re just being silly now. > [@](#): > > Now, I ask you, if Gore had won (say, he took his home state of Tennessee), would people being making the kind of issue over the mess that went on in Florida? Or would there be a general muttering that it was something to do be dealt with and that was all (outside of the state making some changes)? What a stupid question. :rolleyes: [snipped next paragraph since it’s just nonsensical rambling] > [@](#): > > **No** election system is going to be perfect. Even if 99% of the votes are counted accurately in every election, sooner or later that 1% is going to mean the difference in which candidate wins. Now you’re throwing out a red herring. We’re discussing whether fraud occured, not whether the system is “perfect”. A HUGE difference, there. > [@](#): > > Working to ensure that vote counting is important, but screeching and hollering that it was outright fraud, Y’know, I can always tell when somebody here has no valid point to make, because they invariably resort to colorful characterizing of the opposing point of view, in place of cogent arguments. “Oh, they’re ‘screeching’ and ‘hollering’.” You forgot ‘whining’ and ‘moaning’ :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > when the evidence points cronyism (i.e. the awarding of a fat state contract to a political ally) and ineptitude, serves only to politicize the issue, forcing the line to be drawn along political boundries, and **not** along issues of fairness and accuracy. No, according to Palast, an executive at D.B.T. _said_ that they were asked to come up with _more_ names after their original list of felons. And they were paid millions of dollars to verify the accuracy, but never did so. It would be impossible for that to happen _accidentally_. Either Palast is wrong, or it was deliberate fraud, but you can’t chalk it up to simple ineptitude. > [@](#): > > I, personally, have faith that efforts will be made (sooner or later, if they haven’t already) to correct the problems. Discussing the proposed solutions is important, provided that one maintains a level head in the discussion and doesn’t run around yelling, “J’accuse!” all the time. You’ve already been called out for providing nothing more than ad hominem, yet you continue to do it. Why? We’re discussing whether the charges are true. Your colorful characterizations of those making the accusations are irrelevant. > [@](#): > > The _real_ issue is not what went wrong in Florida, but what is being done to correct it? I know that Dade County and other places have disposed of the punched ballot machines, but that’s it. I know that there’s some controversy over Diebold’s effort in other states to sell their electronic voting machines, since the code for them isn’t open source (I’d point you to TechTV’s website with it’s articles about this, but it’s down at the moment.), but again, _every_ election system is going to have problems, be it electronic, mechanical, or even the paper ballot system. If legitimate voters _were_ scrubbed from the rolls improperly, it wouldn’t matter what kind of balloting system is in place. Those people wouldn’t get to vote either way. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/28 "2004-05-31T07:41:30Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > That makes no sense. Winning an election is _never_ a sure thing. You think they wouldn’t have tried to influence the election results unless the outcome was 100% guaranteed. I disagree. Candidates spend millions of dollars and devote a major chunk of their life to campaigns for which the outcome is not definitively known. Not knowing the outcome for sure wouldn’t stop someone from trying to win. That’s an extremely weak argument. But rigging an election is a _crime_. That shifts the odds considerably. You get caught, and not only is your political career over (along with many of your supporters), but you risk jail time, and possibly having the entire party booted out of office. Even a politican who _loses_ an election gains contacts, and opportunities (look at Bob Dole and the various ads he was in, plus the high profile of a Presidential run enabled Elizabeth Dole to snag a Senate seat), one who spends time in jail, _doesn’t_. > [@](#): > > No, you missed the point. He’s saying they are _prominent_ republicans, not just some dudes who _happen_ to be republican. And no abitious Republican, itchy to curry favor with the higher ups would do the same thing? > [@](#): > > Now you’re throwing out a red herring. We’re discussing whether fraud occured, not whether the system is “perfect”. A HUGE difference, there. > > Y’know, I can always tell when somebody here has no valid point to make, because they invariably resort to colorful characterizing of the opposing point of view, in place of cogent arguments. “Oh, they’re ‘screeching’ and ‘hollering’.” You forgot ‘whining’ and ‘moaning’ :rolleyes: Then why the need charged language on either side? Given the importance of the issue, shouldn’t it be discussed in a dispassionate manner? After all, when a discussion becomes charged with emotion, whatever the subject matter, it quickly gets reduced to people screaming and shouting at one another. And it’s a legit question to ask if people would be throwing such a fit over the Florida results if the election had gone the other way. No doubt if Gore had eeked out a narrow victory in Florida the Republicans would be crying “foul.” > [@](#): > > No, according to Palast, an executive at D.B.T. _said_ that they were asked to come up with _more_ names after their original list of felons. And they were paid millions of dollars to verify the accuracy, but never did so. It would be impossible for that to happen _accidentally_. Either Palast is wrong, or it was deliberate fraud, but you can’t chalk it up to simple ineptitude. You’re combing two different things here: 1.) That DBT was asked to come up with more names than were on their original list. 2.) That DBT _didn’t_ make the phone calls they were supposed to. Assuming that both of these statements are true Palast’s story leaves out the reasons why DBT was told to come up with more names. Surely, even an official trying to throw an election would be smart enough to come up with a cover story. I’d think that Palast would report on that, don’t you? Even if they _didn’t_ come up with a cover story, don’t you think that Palast would say, “They gave no explaination as to why they wanted this done.” As for DBT **not** making the calls, well, if we take the $4 million dollars that DBT was paid by the state to make the calls as an estimate of what it would cost DBT to make those calls, I can well see someone thinking that they’d make a tidy profit for the company by **not** making the calls, figuring that if they _did_ get caught, they’d face a fine smaller than what they were paid. (Happens all the time with defense contractors.) > [@](#): > > You’ve already been called out for providing nothing more than ad hominem, yet you continue to do it. Why? We’re discussing whether the charges are true. Your colorful characterizations of those making the accusations are irrelevant. Actually, I _haven’t_ been colorful in my accusations. I could spew mocking comments about people’s hair, make claims that the Democrats are the party of whiny brats, or call the Republicans rich bastards. Hell, I even e-mailed a link to this thread to Eric in hopes that he’d respond here. He’s a nice guy, and a hell of an artist, as I’ve said before. > [@](#): > > If legitimate voters _were_ scrubbed from the rolls improperly, it wouldn’t matter what kind of balloting system is in place. Those people wouldn’t get to vote either way. No kidding, and if it was a criminal act on the parts of Harris and DBT, it should be possible to find out. Did you notice the dateline on Palast’s story? Thursday, February 15, 2001. It’s been three years since then, shouldn’t there be something more recent? I mean, don’t you think that if Palast felt this was a big story that he’d do a followup? After all, many people seem to think that he’s hit the tip of the iceberg as to what happened with the mess in Florida, so don’t you think that out of a sense of journalistic responsibility that he’d want to keep tabs on the story? If he could prove more than a casual link, he’d be able to not only bring down a President, but also the Governor of Florida, and Harris, now a congresswoman. Woodward and Bernstein didn’t stop when they got a hint of the Watergate scandal, they kept digging and digging. I don’t know what kind of awards are handed out to the British press, but surely Palast would qualify for one if he managed to find the smoking gun which knocked Bush and others out of office and into jail. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/29 "2004-05-31T08:20:22Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > But rigging an election is a _crime_. That shifts the odds considerably. You get caught, and not only is your political career over (along with many of your supporters), but you risk jail time, and possibly having the entire party booted out of office. Hmmm…you’re saying they _couldn’t_ have cheated because they wouldn’t have risked getting caught. So I guess Nixon never made those tapes, huh? > [@](#): > > And no abitious Republican, itchy to curry favor with the higher ups would do the same thing? To tell you the truth, I’m not sure. I guess I assumed that the people who normally determine who is on the voter rolls _don’t_ do that. Are you saying it’s commonplace? > [@](#): > > Then why the need charged language on either side? Given the importance of the issue, shouldn’t it be discussed in a dispassionate manner? After all, when a discussion becomes charged with emotion, whatever the subject matter, it quickly gets reduced to people screaming and shouting at one another. I see no evidence that anyone was “screeching and hollering” in the context in which you used those words. You only used them to divert attention away from the issue at hand. YOU are the one who is preventing a dispassionate discussion. > [@](#): > > And it’s a legit question to ask if people would be throwing such a fit over the Florida results if the election had gone the other way. No doubt if Gore had eeked out a narrow victory in Florida the Republicans would be crying “foul.” No, it’s irrelevant. > [@](#): > > You’re combing two different things here: 1.) That DBT was asked to come up with more names than were on their original list. 2.) That DBT _didn’t_ make the phone calls they were supposed to. What do you mean, I’m “combining” them? (I assume you meant ‘combining’ rather than ‘combing’) I said that both points were made by Palast. I said both things in the same post; is that what ‘combining’ means? > [@](#): > > Assuming that both of these statements are true Palast’s story leaves out the reasons why DBT was told to come up with more names. Surely, even an official trying to throw an election would be smart enough to come up with a cover story. I’d think that Palast would report on that, don’t you? Would you _please_ watch the video? You’re just embarassing yourself. Palast DID report on it. In fact, he tried to interview the head of Florida elections, and was escorted out of the building by police after only one question. > [@](#): > > Even if they _didn’t_ come up with a cover story, don’t you think that Palast would say, “They gave no explaination as to why they wanted this done.” He didn’t have to. Not only did the person give no explanation, he said “This interview is over”, and had Palast forcibly removed. Sort of a ‘60 Minutes’-type tactic on Palast’s part, to keep the camera rolling as he was booted out, but it made the point that the guy wasn’t going to offer any explanations. And I believe someone _did_ offer some sort of weak explanation later in the piece. I’m going to have to watch it again. IIRC, D.B.T.s explanation was simply that that’s not how it’s done. 😕 > [@](#): > > As for DBT **not** making the calls, well, if we take the $4 million dollars that DBT was paid by the state to make the calls as an estimate of what it would cost DBT to make those calls, I can well see someone thinking that they’d make a tidy profit for the company by **not** making the calls, figuring that if they _did_ get caught, they’d face a fine smaller than what they were paid. (Happens all the time with defense contractors.) Doesn’t jibe with their nonsense explanation that phone calls are “not how it’s done”; which IIRC is what they said. If D.B.T. _had_ taken the money and ran, why on Earth wouldn’t Harris and her cronies have quickly pointed that out? If someone steals $4 million from you and potentially gets you in a lot of trouble, wouldn’t you say something if you were totally innocent in the matter? > [@](#): > > Actually, I _haven’t_ been colorful in my accusations. I could spew mocking comments about people’s hair, make claims that the Democrats are the party of whiny brats, or call the Republicans rich bastards. Hell, I even e-mailed a link to this thread to Eric in hopes that he’d respond here. He’s a nice guy, and a hell of an artist, as I’ve said before. No, I’m talking about this stupid tactic that you and others engage in of using colorful words to describe your opponent’s manner of speaking, EVEN WHEN THE FORUM IS A WRITTEN ONE, such as “they’re whining”, or “they’re screaming”, or “they’re screeching and hollering”. It adds nothing to the discussion. > [@](#): > > No kidding, and if it was a criminal act on the parts of Harris and DBT, it should be possible to find out. I don’t know, I thought that’s what we were trying to determine here. I’m wondering who it is you think would prosecute them if they _did_ do something illegal? Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida at the time; certainly the State of Florida wasn’t going to prosecute. IIRC, there was a lawsuit filed against them, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and I think we all know what happened there. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/30 "2004-05-31T11:01:24Z")
> [@](#): > > You’re combing two different things here: 1.) That DBT was asked to come up with more names than were on their original list. 2.) That DBT didn’t make the phone calls they were supposed to. Assuming that both of these statements are true Palast’s story leaves out the reasons why DBT was told to come up with more names. Both of these statements were confirmed to a Congressional hearing by a DBT vice president. The reason should be obvious surely. Jeez, how much evidence do you people want? ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/31 "2004-05-31T12:16:19Z")
Someone fill me in here. If these people who were “scrubbed” showed up to vote, what would have happened? ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/32 "2004-05-31T13:15:28Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Someone fill me in here. If these people who were “scrubbed” showed up to vote, what would have happened? If your name is not on the register, then you are turned away as inelligible to vote. Palast does present anecdotal evidence of this having happened. He also notes that there were differences in the way different districts used the scrub lists - some just deleted all of the names from the rolls, others carried out further verification off their own back. Leon County attempted to verify themselves that every name they were given was actually an illegible voter and were only able to successfully verify 34 of 694 names (hence the 95% error rate). ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/33 "2004-05-31T13:17:21Z")
_inelligible_ ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/34 "2004-05-31T13:40:27Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Someone fill me in here. If these people who were “scrubbed” showed up to vote, what would have happened? Procedurally, one would fill out a Provisional Ballot, then contact the Elections Office to protest your scrubbing. Problem was, the nitwits who “trained” the cerebrally-challenged poll workers did not press this issue home so they understood it to any significant degree, and for those who DID call the Elections Office, they could not get through. At least this was the sitch it Miami Dade. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/35 "2004-05-31T17:05:13Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > And again, note that a considerable number of Cuban immigrants tend to vote Republican, so culling Hispanic names puts you at risk of eliminating Cuban voters (who _are_ a powerful lobby in Floridian politics) and alienating people who give generously to your campaign. Certainly true. But as you yourself have pointed out, if people used this plan, it may not have been the best way to fix an election. It’s possible the criteria used were: “Can we accomplish this? Can we get away with it?” If the allegations are true, the answer was “yes” to both questions. People rarely use the ‘best’ plan when there is an easier alternative that is ‘good enough.’ > [@](#): > > Nope, because even if there’d been no problems with the voter rolls, there’d still be that whole business of the “hanging chads” to contend with. If there had been a few thousand more Gore votes (or, for that matter, a few thousand more Bush votes) in Florida, we probably never would have had the whole issue with hanging chads. The reason there was such drama in Florida is that Bush won by such a small margin (a margin that is smaller than the amount of error in ballot-counting). ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/36 "2004-05-31T18:27:14Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Hmmm…you’re saying they _couldn’t_ have cheated because they wouldn’t have risked getting caught. So I guess Nixon never made those tapes, huh? And no one could have learned from Nixon’s mistake? > [@](#): > > To tell you the truth, I’m not sure. I guess I assumed that the people who normally determine who is on the voter rolls _don’t_ do that. Are you saying it’s commonplace? Nope. I _am_ saying that just because someone _isn’t_ a prominant party figure, doesn’t mean they _wouldn’t_ do it. > [@](#): > > No, it’s irrelevant. Only because you don’t want to address the issue. > [@](#): > > Would you _please_ watch the video? You’re just embarassing yourself. Palast DID report on it. In fact, he tried to interview the head of Florida elections, and was escorted out of the building by police after only one question. Yeah, it’s how he starts out his piece. Does he do the same at DBT offices? No. Does he do any digging to see what the public record might be? No. > [@](#): > > He didn’t have to. Not only did the person give no explanation, he said “This interview is over”, and had Palast forcibly removed. Sort of a ‘60 Minutes’-type tactic on Palast’s part, to keep the camera rolling as he was booted out, but it made the point that the guy wasn’t going to offer any explanations. Somewhat understandable, given the time period when the piece was done, don’t you think? I mean, it was at the lastest, Feburary 2001, and Florida had been overrun with reporters in the previous month because of the mess. The state was a laughing stock of the entire country and it might very well be that the official was sick of dealing with reporters, or that he was an asshole. Be interesting to see how many other reporters he did this to. > [@](#): > > And I believe someone _did_ offer some sort of weak explanation later in the piece. I’m going to have to watch it again. IIRC, D.B.T.s explanation was simply that that’s not how it’s done. 😕 [Here’s the transcript](http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=29&row=2) Oh, and I wouldn’t call it “weak,” I’d call it pathetic > [@](#): > > Their vice-president told us that “manual verification by telephone calls” does not mean ringing people up to check they have got the right person. However, Palast doesn’t mention what those methods might have been. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t jibe with their nonsense explanation that phone calls are “not how it’s done”; which IIRC is what they said. If D.B.T. _had_ taken the money and ran, why on Earth wouldn’t Harris and her cronies have quickly pointed that out? If someone steals $4 million from you and potentially gets you in a lot of trouble, wouldn’t you say something if you were totally innocent in the matter? Heck, I’d think that you’d want to say something if you were completely guilty in the matter. At least lie, right? After all, that’s a standard tactic when nearly anyone’s caught doing something wrong, is to deny the hell out of the accusations at least until one gets to the DA’s office where they can plea bargain. > [@](#): > > I don’t know, I thought that’s what we were trying to determine here. I’m wondering who it is you think would prosecute them if they _did_ do something illegal? Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida at the time; certainly the State of Florida wasn’t going to prosecute. IIRC, there was a lawsuit filed against them, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and I think we all know what happened there. Okay, so now you’ve got Florida officials being eliminated because they’re tainted. SCOTUS eliminated because of how they ruled on a previous case, who’s left to handle this? DOJ? Well, in addition to being convinced that calico cats are the spawn of Satan, Ashcroft’s a Bush appointee, can’t trust him, can we? The FBI, perhaps? Well, they couldn’t figure out what was going to happen on 9/11, so they might not be the best choice, either. [Here’s](http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=161&row=2) a bio for Palast (from his own site, BTW). Apparently, he’s collected a number of awards for his effort and done some follow up stories on the election mess. [I’ll point you to one of them that’s _really_ interesting.](http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=259&row=2) > [@](#): > > The whole list was rotten with these whacky faux felony convictions—and loaded with the tag line “BLA”—black voter. If _that_ is true, then there’s your evidence to hang them all. _Nowhere_ is a person’s ethnicity supposed to show up on the voting rolls. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/37 "2004-05-31T19:41:29Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > And no one could have learned from Nixon’s mistake? Huh? When did I say anything even remotely resembling that? > [@](#): > > Nope. I _am_ saying that just because someone _isn’t_ a prominant party figure, doesn’t mean they _wouldn’t_ do it. Thanks for the new link. I think it answers the question here: > [@](#): > > Until now, with the notable exception of Florida, voter rolls throughout America have been maintained by county officials watched over by bi-partisan committees. So according to Palast, no, in the past it _wasn’t_ the norm for those entrusted with maintaining voter rolls to be biased. Yes, they are humans, as you pointed out - but you compensate for that by having it be BI-partisan. > [@](#): > > Only because you don’t want to address the issue. No, because it’s irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Yeah, it’s how he starts out his piece. Does he do the same at DBT offices? No. Does he do any digging to see what the public record might be? No. Wrong. He did interview DBT people; he refers to it later in the piece. What do you mean by “public record”? He got ahold of the contract between the elections office and D.B.T.; what other records are you accusing Palast of deliberately overlooking? > [@](#): > > Somewhat understandable, given the time period when the piece was done, don’t you think? I mean, it was at the lastest, Feburary 2001, and Florida had been overrun with reporters in the previous month because of the mess. The state was a laughing stock of the entire country and it might very well be that the official was sick of dealing with reporters, or that he was an asshole. Be interesting to see how many other reporters he did this to. You know, you have a bad habit of taking specific points that people make to _counter_ your own assertions, and treating them out-of-context as though they were brought up as arguments in their own right. I never said whether or not it was “understandable”; I merely brought that up to counter your false assertion that “they would have come up with an explanation”. But since you brought it up - no, I don’t think it’s “understandable” to make an appointment to be interviewed, and then kick the reporter out once he shows up. It was also stupid, because it made him look very bad. > [@](#): > > [Here’s the transcript](http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=29&row=2) Oh, and I wouldn’t call it “weak,” I’d call it patheticHowever, Palast doesn’t mention what those methods might have been. I took that to mean that Palast is saying they offered no explanation for how they supposedly verified the list. Now, if they DID offer an explanation, and Palast deliberately excluded it from his piece, then that’s bad reporting. I don’t see any evidence that he did that, though. > [@](#): > > Heck, I’d think that you’d want to say something if you were completely guilty in the matter. At least lie, right? After all, that’s a standard tactic when nearly anyone’s caught doing something wrong, is to deny the hell out of the accusations at least until one gets to the DA’s office where they can plea bargain. Not really. The standard tactic is to say as little as possible. A lie can be proven false; an omission cannot. That’s why you invariably hear responses such as “no comment”, or “We cannot comment on an ongoing investigation”, etc. > [@](#): > > Okay, so now you’ve got Florida officials being eliminated because they’re tainted. Be honest, would you _really_ expect Jeb to try to get the goods on his own brothers’ campaign people? > [@](#): > > SCOTUS eliminated because of how they ruled on a previous case, who’s left to handle this? What do you mean, _previous_ case? They ruled on the _exact_ case, and they ruled in favor of Bush. > [@](#): > > DOJ? Well, in addition to being convinced that calico cats are the spawn of Satan, Ashcroft’s a Bush appointee, can’t trust him, can we? The FBI, perhaps? Well, they couldn’t figure out what was going to happen on 9/11, so they might not be the best choice, either. Actually, that’s a good question, despite your childish sarcasm. I don’t know why they didn’t investigate. Or _did_ they investigate? To be honest, I don’t know how those things work, or who would have jurisdiction. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/38 "2004-05-31T20:07:41Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Wrong. He did interview DBT people; he refers to it later in the piece. What do you mean by “public record”? He got ahold of the contract between the elections office and D.B.T.; what other records are you accusing Palast of deliberately overlooking? Most states generally require their to be transcripts of meetings held by government bodies. Wouldn’t there be those kind of records of the meetings where the contract was discussed? If the Florida legislature voted on the matter, there’d be records of the dicussion of the bill before it was voted on. What do those say? > [@](#): > > Be honest, would you _really_ expect Jeb to try to get the goods on his own brothers’ campaign people? Nope. And given what Palast claims he was told > [@](#): > > One Democrat whispered they would have done the same as Katharine Harris if they had the chance. I wouldn’t put any faith in the Democrats to up and up on this. > [@](#): > > What do you mean, _previous_ case? They ruled on the _exact_ case, and they ruled in favor of Bush. Right, and if another suit was brought to SCOTUS involving the matter, you run the risk of having the same justices rule against you again, citing the previous case as precident. Now, if Bush gets to add a justice to the court because of the death or retirement of one of the current justices, you get a court which could be further stacked in favor of Bush. > [@](#): > > Actually, that’s a good question, despite your childish sarcasm. I don’t know why they didn’t investigate. Or _did_ they investigate? To be honest, I don’t know how those things work, or who would have jurisdiction. Do you? In previous instances it’s been the FBI and the Federal Elections Commission, there’s also been the US Attorney General’s Office in most cases as well, and there’s been a few Congressional investigations into various violations of the Voting Rights Act over the years, now that I think about it. (Any book on the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s will have the full details on these.) So there’s your answer. Write your congress critter and see what they have to say about it. See what they say was the outcome of any investigations by those groups was. While you’re at it, write Sen. Clinton and see what kind of luck she’s had in getting an amendment passed to do away with the electorial college system. After all, it was the electorial college which determined who won the election, not the popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/39 "2004-05-31T20:21:08Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Most states generally require their to be transcripts of meetings held by government bodies. Wouldn’t there be those kind of records of the meetings where the contract was discussed? If the Florida legislature voted on the matter, there’d be records of the dicussion of the bill before it was voted on. What do those say? > > Nope. And given what Palast claims he was toldI wouldn’t put any faith in the Democrats to up and up on this. Sorry, your “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” and “Oh yeah? Well the democrats would have done it too” arguments don’t convince. The head of elections seemed taken aback when Palast brought out the contract. He was visibly angry. If that was all a matter of public record, why would he act that way? Quite obviously, they didn’t expect that to go public. > [@](#): > > Right, and if another suit was brought to SCOTUS involving the matter, you run the risk of having the same justices rule against you again, citing the previous case as precident. Now, if Bush gets to add a justice to the court because of the death or retirement of one of the current justices, you get a court which could be further stacked in favor of Bush. O.K., so you’ve answered your own question, then. > [@](#): > > In previous instances it’s been the FBI and the Federal Elections Commission, there’s also been the US Attorney General’s Office in most cases as well, and there’s been a few Congressional investigations into various violations of the Voting Rights Act over the years, now that I think about it. (Any book on the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s will have the full details on these.) So there’s your answer. Write your congress critter and see what they have to say about it. See what they say was the outcome of any investigations by those groups was. While you’re at it, write Sen. Clinton and see what kind of luck she’s had in getting an amendment passed to do away with the electorial college system. After all, it was the electorial college which determined who won the election, not the popular vote. Tell you what - YOU’RE the one who asked why they didn’t investigate; why don’t YOU write them? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ccd318/32.png) [@John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Kentzel-Griffin)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675/40 "2004-05-31T20:31:57Z")
This has been in GQ long enough. Anyone wishing to continue this discussion is invited to open a thread in Great Debates. This is closed. **DrMatrix** - GQ Moderator [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-flash/247675.md?page=1)