Kinda surprised to see there was no rager going on here, so let me just post the results and stand back.
Maybe you could summarize it for those of us who aren’t subscribers to NYTimes online.
Sign-up to the NY Times online service is free.
Anyway, here’s all you need to know…
In other words, all the bluster and blather about “Gore WOULD have won” is baseless and false.
More from the NY Times (emphasis mine):
I thought that was interesting. And yet Gore still lost, huh?
rather than call them liberal standards, I think it would have been more appropriate if they called them Democrat party standards for the end of year 2000 and beginning of year 2001.
I still do not understand all the emphisis on counting the votes.
- Suppose every registered voter in FL who set out to cast a vote had suceeded in doing so. (2) Further, suppose everyone who voted in FL had suceeded in casting that vote for whomever he or she actually intended to vote for.
IMO, if #1 and #2 had both happened, Gore would have won. If #2 alone had happened, Gore would have won (the votes he lost to the West Palm Beach screw-up were enough to have made him the winner). If #1 alone had happened, would that have been enough to make Gore the winner? Possibly.
IMO, Gore should have demanded a full and complete investigation of all mishaps, irregularities, and allegations of outright cheating. IMO, he should also have called for hand recounts in all counties that used punchcards or anything else where there are actual paper ballots or cards to count, and machine recounts in the high tech counties where there is nothing physical to count. (Another thing I never understood was all the talk about a “statewide hand recount” – how can you have a hand recount when modern voting machines are used? There isn’t anything physical TO count, is there?)
IMO, Gore lost in FL because of a combination of honest mistakes (such as the West Palm Beach ballot) and outright cheating (people who were deprived of their right to vote).
Remember that the Herald was only counting undervotes in punchcard counties, not the overvotes as well (like filling in a candidate’s oval AND writing in his name on an optical-scan ballot), and not statewide either. Jacob Weisberg at Slate has regular, more thorough discussions about this, including slams of the Herald for their “Rush to Pulitzer” judgment.
Please note that the diference in the vote was so slender that even hand counts are essentially meaningless: At one point, you’d have to hand count 100’s of thousands of votes without making any more than one mistake in 20,000 to obtain a ‘complete accounting’ of all the votes. I defy any one to achieve that.
Correction to my previous post: The Miami Herald - USA Today recountcovered only Miami-Dade County. This is from this morning’s [url=http://slate.msn.com}Slate:
The thread title of “Bush wins! Again!” is most charitably described as premature.
Can anyone cite a biblical precident for the “He would have won anyway so stealing is OK” argument the republicans are trying to foist off on us here ?
The GOP can no doubt pass a law making the “newspaper recounts” legally binding, have the president sign it and the high court OK it, but that still won’t legitimize the term of a “president” who was appointed not elected.
How about “Our Thief Lost, So We Must Deny The President Is Legitimate”?
That’s an equally valid interpretation, based on: The vote was so close that the margin of error inherant in any voting system (including electronic) renders the vote essentally meaningless.
Give it a rest
Then you can provide a link to some rigorous statistical analysis to back that assertion, without assuming a number of variations to be random in the face of evidence that they clearly were not. It certainly is odd to see a claim that facts do not deserve investigation on a forum dedicated to “fighting ignorance”.
Give it a rest **
There are still some of us in this country who think democracy is important. Perhaps you could respect that.
Wasn’t the media pretty good at being “premature” about these things though?
And in IMHO…
Gore is the smartest democrat out there right now. He has dropped out of the limelight, he is resting and not stirring up any trouble. He was very tarnished after that bruising court battle. Gore is finally free of clinton.
With this Clinton pardon scandal, Gore finally has the chance to seperate himself from it. He is laying low and acting the way you would expect the loser to act. Every day that the Clinton’s slime gets dragged before the country without Gore being connected, is another step towards Gore regaining his national standing.
I don’t understand how people can continue to say that Bush is a thief and that Gore should have won when there has yet to be any single count ever that showed that Gore won Florida, and countless counts that Bush won.
I’d like to think we’re a little bit better than that, wouldn’t you?
OTOH, Gore would have been helped alot had some recounts showed him to be the winner. He would have an additional moral standing as the “true” winner, and would not be as tarnished with the sore loser label.
Bush is a thief because he had the supreme court stop the normal vote counting process and declare him the winner. Claiming that “he would have won if he hadn’t cheated” does nothing to change the fact that he cheated.
It’d be interesting to see the congress investigating the supreme courts motives in their ruling as closely as they are looking at president Clintons. The evidence of criminal wrongdoing seems much cleaner in the case of the high court.
Except the Miami Herald’s precinct-by-precinct analysis of the under/overvotes which demonstrated that the expected result, if all those ballots had been tallied for a candidate, was a 23,000-vote win by Gore. (I’d link you there, but the link’s defunct. However, we discussed it here.
Or the Washington Post study of all the punch-card counties for which computer tapes were available, which showed that Gore’s name was punched on 29,000 more ‘overvote’ ballots than Bush’s was in those counties.
There are others, but that’ll do for now.
Yeah, but Gore would have won if people’s hopes and dreams were measured instead of their votes. It appears that Bush will likely be discovered to be the winner if any acceptable standards are used to recount the votes. Statistical analysis may show that voter error helped Bush, and that it is likely that Gore should be awarded a chunk of the double votes and Buchanen votes, etc. However, there has never been any provision in the law to determine a voter’s intent through any means other than looking at their ballot.
What the newspaper poll will show (if it continues to show similar results) is that the Supreme Court was correct that continuing recounts was unlikely to change the result. If Bush is shown to have won the majority of the legally countable ballots, I don’t see how the charge of stealing the election is valid.
I do think that democracy is important. I also think the best thing for democracy is to have elections decided in accordance with laws that were made beforehand. And it’s starting to look like Bush would have won by that standard, regardless of whether you agree with the Supreme Court or not.