I mean, this is TOOO sweet.
Okay. I DARE any Bush supporters to even TRY to explain to me how he is NOT a hypocrite.
I’m waiting, but I’m not stupid enough to hold my breath.
stoid
Spiritus-kinda reminds me of “Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES.”
Spiritus:
We need to face reality here. Both sides want to win. Both sides are using tactics that will favor them. If there were an independant commision deciding which areas had suspicious voting characteristics an they were requesting recounts based on that, then nobody would have any cause to argue.
This is not the case.
Gore is requesting hand recounts in areas where he expects to pick up the most votes. I see nothing wrong with him doing this, he wants to win.
It is fundamental of statistical analysis that selective scrutiny skews results. Even for an independant commision to do this without contaminating the election is difficult. Being impartial, they would probably select the counties at random to sample, and look for unwarranted deviance.
But this is not happening. Gore is requesting specific districts. In a vote as close as this it is quite likely that by careful selection of districts to recheck you could deliberately change the election. It is right and proper that Bush move to counter this. That way there is a good chance that an impartial athority can make sure that the hand counts are occuring based upon reasonable possibility of unusual error rates rather than political preference.
I have no doubt that Gore will do the same concerning any districts Bush chooses to select.
I consider Bush’s request to request selective recounts only if Gore succeeds as fair warning.
Surely youunderstand this.
So much for your dare.
It’s too bad you don’t respond to anything you don’t like. I’d be curious to here you make a reasoned response to my previous post.
Scylla, I agree with you that it is okay that “Bush move to counter this.” But, why shouldn’t the move involve trying to insure the impartiality of the recount and reserving the right to demand a manual recount of their own in other counties?
It appears that their motives are that, from the unofficial results of the machine recount, they know that they are ahead by a margin that, although much smaller than in the original count, is unlikely to be erased by the overseas ballots (particularly given how they went for Dole in '96). So, they would like the process to end there, even though this recount has produced such a swing in the vote that it is clear that the potential error remaining at this point is greater than the difference between the candidates.
What, exactly, does that have to do with the blatant hypocrisy, on multiple levels, evident in Bush’s decision to challenge the state of Florida’s election policies in federal court to prevent a recount.
I have consistently and repeatedly said that I have no objection to the Bush campaign requesting hand counts in any county they wish. For that matter, so has the Gore campaign, loathe as I am to defend either side for a piece of political rhetoric.
If your call to “face reality” means apathetically accept a man who may become President of this country subjugating not only his own honor but the principle requirement of a republican form of government to personal ambition, then I must decline.
If Bush objects to the particular selection of precints and counties involved, he has always been free to balance it with requests of his own. If you want to live only in the realm of political expediency I sugggest you analyze his decision to seek a federal injunction rather than recount counties in which he showed strongly according to the same principles. If Bush were confident that a fair accounting of all precints, or even a balanced recounting of precincts favoring him versus those favoring Gore, would confirm his victory, why would he oppose such a move?
Frankly, that qestion is far less important to me than the principle that a citizen has a fundamental right to have their ballots accounted accurately and reliably. That Bush would seek to override this right is disturbing. that his position in doing so would be so filled with hypocrisies is offensive.
The above was, of course, addressed to Scylla.
It isn’t my fault that jshore types more quickly (and with fewer embarrassing typos) than I.
I just hate him for it.
One problem here is that the districts Gore has requested (Dade and Broward for example) are both the most populous in the state, and the most heavily democratic. For Bush to counter the statistical skewing that a hand recount of these districts would create, he’d have to demand a hand recount of half the bleemin’ state.
Of course, if Gore doesn’t like the hand recount, perhaps he can claim that it was inaccurate, and demand another machine count. Or he can claim that the counters were biased, and ask for an ‘impartial panel’ to come in and recount. I’m sure they’ve got more tricks up their sleeve.
I honestly believe that what is happening here is that Gore and his advisors are simply trying to tie up the election long enough for an anomoly to pop up that favors them, at which point they will use the win in the popular vote to claim that the issue is NOW settled and all counting should stop.
What should have happened is that the state should have asked BOTH candidates to agree to specific procedure to settling this, before re-counting a single ballot, machine or otherwise. Leaving it open like this is what is leading to all these shenanigans.
i do find it interesting that the vote count in new mexico right now is being done by hand and golly, no lawsuit there to stop it. it seems logical to count ALL ballots by hand that are rejected by macines. with an election this close it may be the only fair thing.
Sam, you can “think” anything you like, but Florida law allows for a hand recount. If Bush thought it was so terrible, maybe he should have asked his brother to remove it before the election instead of suing in federal court to try to overturn a state law.
Ah, hell, Spiritus has already done an admirable job of explaining this whole thing, and you’ve apparently chosen to ignore it. So I doubt my message will make a dent…
Apparantly you are just a little bit slow on the uptake, Scylla, so let me help you out, even though I’d really hoped you would have gotten it without my having to explain it to you.
Your statement above is not true, and everyone knows it.
What is true is that I don’t respond to people I don’t like. Wait, let me rephrase: people I don’t respect. And currently, that would be you. And my respect is not predicated on how I feel about people’s ideas, it is predicated on how I feel about their conduct. Yours blows. You have demonstrated a gleeful preference for personal attack, which you and I both know, which I spoke to you about before, and which you continue to demonstrate in thread after thread. You seem to be escalating in the hopes of getting a rise out of me.
I told you then and I’m telling you one more time: I will not engage you in any conversation about anything. Your debating style is consistently nasty, personal and rude when you see things YOU don’t like, and I do not debate with people who behave that way. An occasional slip into a personal remark is one thing, and we all do it, but you do it all the time. And it happens to be my personal rule that I don’t participate in conversation with people who talk to me that way. Call me crazy…
Therefore your posts are just background noise, and I don’t feel the need to respond to background noise.
Got it?
Good.
See ya…wouldn’t wanna be ya.
stoid
Their called the election laws of the state of Florida and both campaigns were, or should have been, aware of them before a single ballot was counted.
I see no shenanigans in the mandatory machine recount nor in the legal request by either candidate for a manual recount to check for errors in some precinct. Both of these actions are outlined in the laws governing elections in Florida.
What basis to you have for deciding after the fact which legal provisions are appropriate and which are “shenanigans”.
What basis? Why, the basis of which is good for the candidate of his choice, of course!
<Cheering and confetti>
I’ve got an idea…why don’t YOU run for office, SM?
Wait…I think you are a little too reasonable, fair and prinicpled, that would never work.
stoid
"quote:
Are the ballots in question illegal?
If anybody here could easily answer that, the country would be a lot closer to resolution.
It’s not clear at all, so it’s going to have to be decided in the courts."
There was an analysis of this question in my local paper (which is known to be pretty liberal) and Gore’s case here is apparently pretty weak.
My tax professor used to say that he’d argue anything for a hourly fee, but some things he would not take on contigency.
It may be true that Gore has a colorable claim here, but I doubt it’s anything that my tax professor would take on contingency, if you get my drift.
In California, a measure was passed a couple years back banning so-called “affirmative action.” People on the losing side challenged the result, claiming the measure was unconstitutional. In essence they were claiming that the constitution MANDATES affirmative action. Maybe not frivolous, but certainly a very weak argument. They ultimately lost, and a year or so later, the measure went into effect. I suppose I can’t blame these people for bringing a legal challenge, although it does smack of “spoil-sportism.”
Here, the country doesn’t have a couple years to screw around, and IMHO, it would be wrong and selfish of Gore to hold up the whole process with a lawsuit that is so weak.
Yes he has the right to sue; and yes the law is not totally clear on the point (the law is almost never totally clear on any point); but some things are inappropriate even though they are legal.
(Full disclosure: I do not favor either candidate)
BTW, I just read that Bush’s people have filed suit in Florida to prevent hand-recounting.
This is troubling too.
(Assuming that hand-recounting is what is necessary under Florida law (I don’t know if this is the case);
and assuming that Bush’s challenge is based on the constitution (I gather that it is from the CNN article)
and assuming that there’s no precedent saying that hand recounting is unconstitutional (pretty safe assumption))
Spiritus Mundi has posted the most cogent analysis of this current dilemma. That said, I thought I’d throw some gasoline on the fire here.
[sub](From a previous post)[/sub]
That Bush would attempt to deny any sort of investigation into voting inaccuracies smacks of his own exact accusations that the Democrats are merely fishing for the correct results.
Because the results currently reflect his own desires, Bush feels no need to pursue things any further. It is highly unethical to avoid all due diligence in subjecting the Florida state vote to the highest degree of scrutiny possible.
There must be some sort of mandate that brings one of these candidates to the White House. Success in this election must be reality based. Recount every single precinct in every single state if needed. The tax dollars spent would be well worth it to have the assurance that this election’s results were obtained fairly and accurately.
For Gore to concede this election when there is such valid confusion over the will of the people (especially in light of the popular vote) would be idiotic. Disregarding the “overvoting” (double punched ballots) that occured in Palm Beach County, the inordinate number of Buchannan votes remain as an indicator of the ballot’s faultiness.
If ever the entire Democratic process was at stake, it is now. There must be no abrogation of procedure or method to make the most accurate determination possible of the will of the American people. Anything less would only serve the interests of tyranny.
lucwarm said:
Then if that’s the case, it will be thrown out and those 19,000 or so votes will be thrown away. End of story, as far as I’m concerned. (Mind you, the “end” may not come 'til several appeals.)
What seems to be the real showstopper here is not so much the double-votes, although they are indeed at issue (i.e., a human can look at a double-voted ballot and see if someone has scribbled: I mean to vote for Gore) since those are really hard to assign, but the NO-votes, of which there are something like 10,000.
In the case of the no-votes, or what appear to be no-votes, someone may have tried to punch, but the punch was incomplete. The machines would count those as no vote. A human looking at could see that it is half punched, complete the punch and count the vote. There is even a procedure: attached at two corners, it’s a vote. Attached at three, it is not.
And the reason this scares the shit outta Bushy is that these counties are heavily Dem, which means that the votes found are likely to push Gore over the top.
Cool.
Stoid
PS: This also probably explains why in the recount produced so many more votes for Gore and some for Bush: the machines knowcked off the “chads” (punched out bits) in the recounting. The percentages reflect the percentages each candidate received. Go through them all again, and it’s a sure bet Gore will be the winner.
‘Cool’, because your guy is benefitting. But this process is biasing the election. If you want a hand-count, you MUST do it across the entire state, and not just in Gore districts. But that’s what’s happening.
And unfortunately for Bush, most of the districts that were heavily Bush have ‘certified’ their results, which means a hand-count cannot be demanded. And the Gore team knew this. Any hand counting that goes on now biases the election towards Gore.
That’s only ‘cool’ if you are an unprincipled partisan who wants to win at any cost.