# Bush wins! Again! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2001, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906 "2001-02-26T08:21:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/201 "2001-03-05T21:58:36Z")
[here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=48182&pagenumber=3) is the quoted passage from Engler, as appeared in Robert Novak’s column in the Chicago Sun-Times, that wring couldn’t remember, but responded to at the time. I believe I said it was Palm Beach County earlier. I was mistaken; it was Broward: > [@](#): > > \*\*In Broward, (Engler) said, “not one disputed ballot did I see that could be counted in Michigan. Not one. You really have to see it to believe it.” The surreal quality for Engler stemmed from Suzanne Gunzberger, the fervent Democrat on the three-member Broward canvassing board; she gave Gore each and every questionable ballot. The result was 583 votes picked in the county, eating up more than half of Bush’s statewide lead. \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\*And as for the columnist? let’s see the site Milo, I don’t recall that you provided it then, either. Let you wade through the venom this time. \*\* As provided above, including your response which included my quote, which _also_ included the link. Wade through the venom? Well, Novak’s no moderate. Neither is Engler. Their partisan leanings, however, wouldn’t seem to have much relevance as to whether the lady counted every disputed ballot for Gore. Do you have evidence that they are being partisan and lying in that observation? Didn’t think so. I don’t think a Chicago Sun-Times and syndicated columnist equals a Socialism web site for Florida election information. But to each their own. > [@](#): > > \*\*And if news stories from objective places, investigations by the Civil Rights folks, admissions from the people involved that ‘stuff needs to get fixed’ isn’t proof enough that things went terribly wrong, well, I officially give up. \*\* Then officially give up. Because they point to problems that detracted from a smooth-running election in certain areas. They did not point to “things (that) went terribly wrong.” Under what criteria did “things go terribly wrong?” Again, WHO COULD NOT VOTE BECAUSE THESE THINGS OCCURRED? All you’ve shown me so far is people’s hurt feelings. I’m sorry, people’s feelings of “intimidation.” And I see people in Florida - Republicans and Democrats - hard at work to fix the problems that were perceived. Like your fascination with your thesaurus and words like "hard, “rigid” and “consistent,” this seems rather irrelevant in the larger picture of Florida’s rightful presidential winner. ## quote: ## I’d love to see a breakdown of the political party split on particular hand-count evaluations of ballots in those Gore-supporting counties. I betcha it’s a party-line split on the vast majority of votes. That would tend to mean to me that, whichever party was viewing the ballots through partisan shading, partisanship was a problem. \*\*Nonsense. If that were true, then, for example, Palm Beach County would have had zero for Bush and 1000 for Gore. \*\* [/quote] Talk about nonsense. Three people are counting votes, two of Party A and one of Party B. Ballots can be determined as votes for a particular candidate on a 2-1 vote. Say Party B guy is voting his conscience, calling votes only when he sees them on the dimpled chad or whatever. So is one of the Party A folks. The other Party A person, however, calls for her party’s candidate every vote she looks at where the question is on whether it’s a vote for him. See how that wouldn’t equal a 1,000-0 vote swing for the candidate represented by the majority of vote-deciders? All it takes is one person without integrity. (I used Party A and Party B preemptively, because you are likely to shoot back with something completely irrelevant, such as, “Oh, I’m sure the Republican was really virtuous in counting those potential Bush votes.” _Regardless of the party_ the process was at least open to partisan subjectivity. And in the case of Gunzberger, compelling evidence exists that is was more than a mere poteniality.) > [@](#): > > \*\*back to the party bickering stance again I see. Just exactly where did I say that it was a bad thing? I really wish you’d stop this sort of thing, it does nothing to enhance: the debate or your stance as a debater. \*\* And I’d take a hard look at the tenor of my previous post, and compare it to the tenor of your own, before I started offering debate pointers. Forgive me for misinterpreting your Ultimate Point. How could I? Uh, now then, wring – what is your Ultimate Point? ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/202 "2001-03-05T23:04:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*What’s missing from this picture? Milo and milroyj’s admission that they were wrong. That at least in the one county specified in my link, overvotes (double punching) where the voter intent was clear were counted in November 2000, and there were more of these Bush votes than Gore votes in that county. \*\* Uh … wring? You said Gadarene provided evidence that overvotes had been counted for Bush. I said Gadarene alluded to evidence, but hadn’t provided any. I then said if someone had a cite, I would like to see it. You provided one, I thanked you, then responded to the new information. So where was I “wrong?” You seem to be personalizing this whole issue. Why, I’m not sure. Big inhale up … … and exhale down. ---
**Author:** ![kiffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/d78d45/32.png) [@kiffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kiffa)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/203 "2001-03-06T00:51:55Z")
Like all threads, especially Great Debates, posters are asked to cite documents to support their assertions. This has been done. Then there are calls for proof. This has been done. It appears that newspaper articles are not acceptable. It appears that anything that appears in something more extreme than your way of thinking can not possibility have any grain of truth - even when quoting or citing legal statues. It seems that the only source that is currently acceptable is that which is presented in court. So we will have to wait until the NAACP class action suit actually starts. I would not assume that the SDMB call would then become perjury. I sat in the Duval City Hall today in a meeting of the Duval Election Task Force. Police barriers were discussed. Allegations of students registered to vote but unable to because of mixups with the Drivers License Bureau were discussed. Polling sites closed at 6.55 and lines cut off were discussed. Of course these are allegations, but the Task Force is willing to listen to some of those 300+ affidavits submitted to the NAACP. I can’t understand why you aren’t willing to at least listen to what might have happened in the hopes that you can create revised/reformed systems to minimize these violations to your basic civil right to vote. It is completely beyond me why you act as if it is nothing to be concerned about. … the good guy won. It reminds me of that German philosopher who said that he didn’t speak up when communists were taken away, or when the mentally deficient were taken, or the Catholics…until there was no one to speak up for him when he was taken away. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/204 "2001-03-06T06:40:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*I can’t understand why you aren’t willing to at least listen to what might have happened in the hopes that you can create revised/reformed systems to minimize these violations to your basic civil right to vote. It is completely beyond me why you act as if it is nothing to be concerned about. … \*\* And I can’t for the life of me understand why you can’t read and comprehend the points of those whose political views differ from your’s. At least a few Republicans/conservatives/Bush supporters (including myself) have expressed that they do feel some of the things that happened or are alleged to have happened in Florida point to problems that need correcting. It appears that Republicans and Democrats are hard at work on that – with a particularly vilified Secretary of State leading the charge. I know such a bipartisan effort to be pragmatic and do what you can now in preparation for next time doesn’t lend itself well to righteous indignation. But it’s a good thing, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![kiffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/d78d45/32.png) [@kiffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kiffa)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/205 "2001-03-06T12:16:29Z")
My complaint of this debate consists of: . People calling posters for sites/cites to back up their claims and, when given, they refuse to read the articles or say that the cite is not trustworthy . People taking issue that the Democrats are rotten losers when, in fact, efforts in Florida are bipartisan . People arguing that the assertions of misconduct, particularly against African Americans, are few, minor and only allegations You need to read the FL Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology final report which was submitted to Gov’nor Bush on the 1st of March. Katherine Harris did not lead this task force. She didn’t even bother to show up at the meeting even tho the executive order specifically states that her office of SecState should receive the report. I would be interested in knowing what effort she is leading or participating in that responds to the Nov election. Further, the Task Force’s mandate was limited. It did not investigate or discuss civil rights violations. Pretty obvious that Jeb Bush would not like to have this investigated, but felt obligated to have “something done”. It was a smart political move on his part and I would have probably done the same if I were in his shoes. However, the issue of discrepencies b/w predominately African American areas and predominately white ares in poll worker skills, equipment, communications to the Supervisor of Elections office that existed during the election, the posting of police check points, closing of polls even when there were potential voters in line [etcetcetc] were not included in the FL Task Force final report. See [http://www.collinscenter.org](http://www.collinscenter.org) as recommended earlier. These “allegations” are real issues. These are the primary groups who are looking into them: a. NAACP class action lawsuit b. US Civil Rights Commission c. Duval County Task Force on Elections Do you know of others? Please let me know. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/206 "2001-03-06T15:47:55Z")
**Milo** A. I remembered your reference. Said so here, please, if you cannot correctly paraphrase my statements, feel free to quote me instead, as I did. I already posted (then and now) that Mr. Engler **cannot** be considered to be an ‘unbiased’ source of information. As I mentioned again here, he was quoted (before the quote you cite) as claiming that the Democrats were attempting to steal the election. Now, since he’d already made that statement 10 days before I linked it, how is it that you can claim that his reporting of events is unbiased? hmmm? The link you showed does not link to any article pertinant now by the way. so, we’re unable to see if the columnist merely quoted Mr. Engler (as it would appear), or if he were a witness as well. If they merely quoted Mr. Engler : 1. Engler’s not an objective witness, 2. Engler’s saying that the ballots wouldn’t have counted in Michigan, but since they were in Florida, that’s irrelevant. In MI, the ‘standard’ was (and I know you remember this) hanging by one or two corners, no hanging by 3 corners or dimpled/pregnant chads. So, Mr. Engler was saying that he didn’t see any that were hanging by 1 or 2 corners. So? the relevant piece of information is that they were in Florida, where the standard at the time was ‘intent of the voter’ as determined by the canvassing board. If they took hanging by 3 corners or pregnant & dimpled as votes, then that was their right under applicable Florida law at the time. While it might not have been applicable under Michigan law, it **was** however, also the correct standard under Texas law. I know you remember that as well. The ‘venom’ I referred to was in the debate threads. It sickens me to re-read them. > [@](#): > > Well, Novak’s no moderate. Neither is Engler. Their partisan leanings, however, wouldn’t seem to have much relevance as to whether the lady counted every disputed ballot for Gore. Do you have evidence that they are being partisan and lying in that observation? Didn’t think so. well, I have Mr. Engler as claiming “dems stole the election” at least 10 days before the quote you have, so I think most reasonable people would agree that he goes beyond the basic ‘partisan leanings’ right into ‘partisan inflamatory’. And, of course, we have already pointed out that **even if he’s being unbiased** his point is irrelevant. What is applicable under Michigan law is not relevant. > [@](#): > > I don’t think a Chicago Sun-Times and syndicated columnist equals a Socialism web site for Florida election information. But to each their own. Ah, yes, back to the cheap shot. Or did you fail to check out the entire post and simple rely on **milroy’s** assumption? I posted link **s** (plural) to identify which states restricted felons from voting. The Socialist one was merely one of those. Nothing more. but, what’s the difference if you can use it as a cheap shot. > [@](#): > > All you’ve shown me so far is people’s hurt feelings. I’m sorry, people’s feelings of “intimidation.” And I see people in Florida - Republicans and Democrats - hard at work to fix the problems that were perceived. Civil rights infractions are hurt feelings? ok, gotcha. One district allowed to have access to cell phones and computers to re-check registrations and other districts not allowed? that’s just hurt feelings. You ask me for ‘one voter who wasn’t allowed to vote…’ how about you show me ‘one manufactured vote’? All I’ve heard from you is Englers’ (and yours) assertion that **one singele person** out of a panel of 3 that you both felt was partisan beyond belief. Even if that’s true, the other person, who you’re not claiming was partisan w/o belief was also counting the ballot as a vote. If you want to disregard 300 voters complaints about the process in favor of weighing in Engler and your personal views, well, gee at least those were 300 **Florida voters**. > [@](#): > > Like your fascination with your thesaurus and words like "hard, “rigid” and “consistent,” more like your odd little dance to avoid admitting that you were wrong, wrong about SCOTUS decision (that did not include hard and rigid), and wrong about overvotes being counted. And this: > [@](#): > > : Talk about nonsense. > > Three people are counting votes, two of Party A and one of Party B. Ballots can be determined as votes for a particular candidate on a 2-1 vote. Say Party B guy is voting his conscience, calling votes only when he sees them on the dimpled chad or whatever. So is one of the Party A folks. > > The other Party A person, however, calls for her party’s candidate every vote she looks at where the question is on whether it’s a vote for him. > > See how that wouldn’t equal a 1,000-0 vote swing for the candidate represented by the majority of vote-deciders? All it takes is one person without integrity. no, it takes two. It takes two votes to count as a vote, remember? Or are you claiming that only republicans can and did vote their conscience? And again, they all knew how many votes were needed. They came up short. You’ve alleged fraud over and over here, with only Mr. Engler’s (and your personal observation from a camera angle) words as evidence. Odd that you’re willing to take that as hard core evidence, and dimsiss as ‘mere allegations’ entire investigations into civil rights infractions. Tell ya what, w/o more substantiation than you’ve submitted, I’ll wait for the criminal conviction on voter fraud, thank you, but hell, there’d have to be an **investigation** first, and there isn’t one. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > (wring says) What’s missing from this picture? Milo and milroyj’s admission that they were wrong. That at least in the one county specified in my link, overvotes (double punching) where the voter intent was clear were counted in November 2000, and there were more of these Bush votes than Gore votes in that county. > > \*\* Milo Responds: > Uh … wring? Uh **Milo** You said (and I quoted you) > [@](#): > > originally posted by Milo in this thread page 3 at 2:33 pm on 3/1 > We don’t count overvotes. Never have. No court, even the pretty clearly liberal Florida Supreme Court, suggested or suggests such a thing That is \*\* wrong\*\* flat out. No interpretation necessary. wrong. > [@](#): > > You seem to be personalizing this whole issue. Why, I’m not sure. (nonsense afterward deleted) What I am doing is holding you responsible for what you’ve said. You made an assertion. I challenged it. You said “prove I’m wrong” I linked to a page in a prior thread that said your assumption was wrong. You refused to admit that as evidence, asked for more. I provided it. You. were. wrong. It diminishes your stance as a debator when you make an assertion, refuse to back down unless there’s evidence, then when presented with evidence, say ‘oh, gee, thanks’. > [@](#): > > \*\*Forgive me for misinterpreting your Ultimate Point. How could I? Uh, now then, wring – what is your Ultimate Point? > \*\* Yes, typical **Milo** again, with a cheap shot vs. a point. thanks for the reminder. For a refreshing change, how about you responding to **kiffa’s** suggestion to read the report issued. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/207 "2001-03-06T17:12:22Z")
kiffa: > [@](#): > > \*\*I would be interested in knowing what effort she **(Katherine Harris)** is leading or participating in that responds to the Nov election. \*\* I’ve linked the article twice now. I shant do it a third time. Go back to page one and you will find it, and it will answer your query. I welcome any and all efforts that make the voting process better, and that aren’t an ideological witch hunt. wring: An interesting take on the Novak column featuring Engler. I took it as Engler being quoted, then Novak referencing a fact - a fact that correlated with what I saw as the process was unfolding on TV. Hint: The part about there not being a single ballot that would have been counted in Michigan wasn’t the main point. Gunzberger’s partisan actions were. As interesting a take as your fascination with my use of interchangeable words, and it somehow proving me wrong. “Oooh! Here you said ‘firm!’ Last week you said ‘rigid!’” (?) Whatever gets you through the night. Next time you have your thesaurus out, wring, come up with alternate ways of saying “exercise in futility.” As for the “civil rights violations” in Florida; let’s recap: A. No evidence exists _anywhere_ that anyone was nefariously trying to disenfranchise any voters to favor one candidate over another. B. A great many people of both parties are now working to correct problems that arose. C. Discretionary decisions on voting equipment, staffing, and procedure are made at the local, county level - most often by a majority of Democrats in the counties that have you outraged. These counties and this state whistled through the graveyard for as long as they could, hoping their less-than-optimal election machinery and processes would never blow up in their face. They did, last November. Now they’re working on fixing it as best they can. So, **what’s your point** , for God’s sake? How much rehash can you stand to eat? > [@](#): > > ## We don’t count overvotes. Never have. No court, even the pretty clearly liberal Florida Supreme Court, suggested or suggests such a thing > > **That is wrong flat out. No interpretation necessary. wrong.** Wherever did I get such an erroneous idea? [Florida Election Law, Title IX, 102.011](http://floridaelectionlaw.com/chapter101.cfm): > [@](#): > > \*\*(4)If the elector marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office, or if it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice, his or her ballot shall not be counted for the office \*\* I have already acknowledged that Florida’s standardless intent-of-the-voter would likely allow the counting of certain overvotes when the process moves to post-election hand counts. That fact that some counties did it, and some counties, looking at the same kinds of ballots, didn’t, would seem to pose a problem in a statewide election, don’t you think? Don’t answer that; it doesn’t matter what you think. The courts have already spoken on the subject. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > Forgive me for misinterpreting your Ultimate Point. How could I? Uh, now then, wring – what is your Ultimate Point? > > * * * > > \*\*Yes, typical Milo again, with a cheap shot vs. a point. thanks for the reminder. \*\* _WHAT?!?_ Cheap shot? What’s your Ultimate Point, wring? Me asking is a cheap shot? I don’t know what it is. Do you? If anybody can come up with anything new to debate on this issue, page me, m’kay? ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/208 "2001-03-06T17:42:44Z")
The section of Florida Election Law that I referenced in my last post was 101.011, not Chapter 102. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/209 "2001-03-06T18:17:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > \*\* > If anybody can come up with anything new to debate on this issue, page me, m’kay? \*\* Debate? with You? mmm, thanks, but no. I’ve quoted you several time > [@](#): > > We don’t count overvotes. Never have. No court, even the pretty clearly liberal Florida Supreme Court, suggested or suggests such a thing and, then proved that it was a wrong statement, and in response, instead of saying ‘yes, I was mistaken about that’, you reply with (fixing code to reflect correct law): [Florida Election Law, Title IX, 101.011,](http://floridaelectionlaw.com/chapter101.cfm): > [@](#): > > \*\*(4)If the elector marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office, or _if it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice_, his or her ballot shall not be counted for the office \*\* as his ‘proof’ that his original statement had validity - well that’s just interesting. I added the emphasis in the relevant state law. “if it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice”. See, that’s a qualifying clause that means that the original is **not** an absolute. However, you kept on repeating it over and over as an absolute and can’t admit that your viewpoint was wrong. An absolute with a qualifyer means that it isn’t absolute. Yet A. You kept saying that it was. and more importantly B. when faced with undeniable evidence that it wasn’t absolute, **still** won’t say ‘ok, I was wrong about that’ Sworn Evidence in an on-going investigation that people were intimidated etc, is more compelling than a ‘can’t see it anymore’ reference to a highly partisan observers’ comments. But, since it flies in the face of your own already established view of reality, let’s not look at anything, like **kiffa** site, where the bi-partisan commission states unequivocably > [@](#): > > · Florida’s decentralized voter registration data base is not complete or accurate and in some instances allows unregistered voters to vote while denying the right vote to qualified registered voters. (there’s your requested proof that qualified voters were turned away) see ya in MPSIMS. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/210 "2001-03-06T23:23:19Z")
> [@](#): > > **and, then proved that it was a wrong statement, and in response, instead of saying ‘yes, I was mistaken about that’, you reply with (fixing code to reflect correct law): > Florida Election Law, Title IX, 101.011,** : > > ## quote: > > ## (4)If the elector marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office, or _if it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice_, his or her ballot shall not be counted for the office > > **as his ‘proof’ that his original statement had validity - well that’s just interesting. I added the emphasis in the relevant state law. “if it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice”. See, that’s a qualifying clause that means that the original is not an absolute.** wring, I submit to you that you are reading the law incorrectly. You should have italicized the word ‘or.’ ‘Or’ sets up a second set of circumstances under which the vote for that particular office is to be discarded. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. So, in legalese, what this section of Florida election law is saying is: - If two candidates are marked for an office where only one should be, don’t count it. - If the voter’s choice of candidate can’t be determined, don’t count it. Ask a lawyer. > [@](#): > > \*\*Sworn Evidence in an on-going investigation that people were intimidated etc, is more compelling than a ‘can’t see it anymore’ reference to a highly partisan observers’ comments. \*\* A very disingenous debating tactic there. So the link no longer works. (Rather, it goes to Novak’s current column; not the one that it went to at the time. And the archives at the site don’t go back quite far enough to catch the column in question). Do you deny that the link (which you once used in a _response to me_ in another thread) once worked? Do you question the accuracy of the passage quoted? Then why do you bring it up? And, again, you fixate on a particular portion of the quoted material, not the issue of evidence of partisanship in the subjective hand-counts. They bring up numbers and state them plainly. You are careful not to dispute them, but instead question your governor’s impartiality. 2+2=4 doesn’t become inaccurate if Adolph Hitler says it. > [@](#): > > \*\*But, since it flies in the face of your own already established view of reality, let’s not look at anything, like kiffa site, where the bi-partisan commission states unequivocably ## \*\* quote: ## · Florida’s decentralized voter registration data base is not complete or accurate and in some instances allows unregistered voters to vote while denying the right vote to qualified registered voters. **(there’s your requested proof that qualified voters were turned away)** [/quote] Did you watch any of the commission’s hearings on C-SPAN? I did. I think you may want to be careful with the use of that “bipartisan commission” term, until you do a bit more research. And as for the commission’s finding, see the comments I’ve made ad nauseum. Problem identified, problem in the process of being fixed. BTW, show me a 100-percent-accurate voter database, centralized or decentralized, anywhere in the United States, and I’ll vote a straight Democratic ticket for ya for the rest of my life. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/211 "2001-03-06T23:35:47Z")
> [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## (4)If the elector marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office, or if it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice, his or her ballot shall not be counted for the office > > as his ‘proof’ that his original statement had validity - well that’s just interesting. I added the emphasis in the relevant state law. “if it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice”. See, that’s a qualifying clause that means that the original is not an absolute. Except it’s not a qualifying clause because of the word **or**. The statute reads: If A **or** B, then C. So, if the elector marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office (A), then his or her ballot shall not be counted for the office©. Likewise, if it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice (B), then his or her ballot shall not be counted for the office ©. Both statements are true, and it does seem that overvotes should not be counted under this statute of Florida Election law. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2001, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/212 "2001-03-07T00:50:44Z")
The statute says the vote is invalid “If the elector marks more _names_ than there are persons to be elected to an office…” (emphasis added). Doesn’t matter how many times you mark that name; if it’s only one name, it’s not invalid under the first part of the statute. Thus, a punched chad for Mickey Mouse plus a write-in for “Mickey Mouse” is only one name, and the vote should count unless there are other reasons that make the intent of the voter unclear. Unless you prefer a wholly unreasonable reading of the statute that regards the “name” language as mere surplusage or a synonym for “places on the ballot for a particular elected office.” Which I’m sure you do. ---
**Author:** ![kiffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/d78d45/32.png) [@kiffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kiffa)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2001, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/213 "2001-03-07T02:00:39Z")
Milo: I did check your link on page one re Katherine Harris leading a bipartisan effort to correct / improve Florida’s election procedures. No, sorry she is not leading any charge except for her army of one. Read your own article which is about HER plan to upgrade technology only which she will submit after the bipartisan FL Task Force on Election Technology etcetcetcetc. The TF has equal number of Democrates and Republicans plus one independent. I guess you could grumble if your Libertarian - I would. But for all intents and purposes of Gov’nor Bush this commission was bipartisan and had no help, interest or commitment by Katherine Harris. In fact, she got her hand slapped [albeit indirectly, ie: no name mentioned]. Check out pages 27 and 28 of the task force’s final report. [http://www.collinscenter.org](http://www.collinscenter.org) ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2001, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/214 "2001-03-07T18:09:55Z")
\*\*Milo says: > [@](#): > > wring, I submit to you that you are reading the law incorrectly. \*\* Translation: My interpretation was so wrong that I cannot afford to admit it. So, I’ll simply accuse you in the hope that you’ll be distracted and won’t notice that again I’m not admitting that I was flat out wrong. Did it work??? \*\* Milo says: > [@](#): > > 2+2=4 doesn’t become inaccurate if Adolph Hitler says it. \*\* Translation: I, Milo, cited a right winged columnist’s assesment of a highly partisan politician’s perceptions. Perhaps no one will notice that I’m ignoring the fact that the allegations made there did not result in any investigation, and simultaneously ignoring allegations that **did** result in investigations and admissions while saying 'they don’t count 'cause they’re just allegations. that’s working, isn’t it??? And, if I make a reference to Hitler, that will shock people sufficiently to not notice that once again, I’m ignoring evidence that goes contrary to my viewpoint. **wring** steps in with “gee, what’s the name of the debate law that suggests the first person who uses a Nazi reference has hereby conceded defeat?” \*\*Milo says: > [@](#): > > I think you may want to be careful with the use of that “bipartisan commission” term, until you do a bit more research. > > And as for the commission’s finding, see the comments I’ve made ad nauseum. Problem identified, problem in the process of being fixed. BTW, show me a 100-percent-accurate voter database, centralized or decentralized, anywhere in the United States, and I’ll vote a straight Democratic ticket for ya for the rest of my life. \*\* Translation: Damn, **MY guy** set up that bi-partisan commission, but they came up with statements that disagree with my position. What to do?? I know, I’ll allege (w/o substance) that the commission isn’t really bi partisan and maybe they won’t notice that it was **Jeb Bush** who set it up. And, **then** I’ll ignore the commission finding that legitimate voters were turned away in Florida by pointing out that no place has 100% compliance, and maybe they’ll forget that I demanded proof that **any** voters were turned away. Yea, that will work. I 'm as sure of that as I am that they didn’t count the overvotes in Florida. (aside to **milroyj** regardless of yours and **Milos’** interpretation of Florida law, don’t hang out your shingle yet down there - since as **proven** in a link above, overvotes **were** counted) ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/215 "2001-03-08T00:08:38Z")
> [@](#): > > (aside to milroyj regardless of yours and Milos’ interpretation of Florida law, don’t hang out your shingle yet down there - since as proven in a link above, overvotes were counted) According to the link you provided, some overvotes _were_ counted in Polk County. You were right. But according to the statute, they shouldn’t have been. In the same story you linked to, in the very next paragraph, it stated that: > [@](#): > > In largely Republican Duval County, though, election officials disqualified 21,942 ballots because voters had chosen more than one presidential candidate. Sounds like the election officials in Duval were trying to follow the law. Do you see the difference between the scenario in Duval and what happened with Gunzberger in Broward, where _every_ vote magically went to Gore? ---
**Author:** ![kiffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/d78d45/32.png) [@kiffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kiffa)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/216 "2001-03-08T03:50:19Z")
For the real Duval County election results see [http://www.folioweekly.com/archives/old%20stories/112100/page1.html](http://www.folioweekly.com/archives/old%20stories/112100/page1.html) You will see the result of poor handling of the election, poor poll worker training, outdated punch ballot machines, confusing ballots, nonexistent communications with the elections office etcetcetcetc. Add in the “allegations” that folks encountered unofficial/unauthorized police checkpoints, laws were unevenly applied to voters, the so-called felons list, early closings, cutting the lines dead at 7pm…it was a comedy of errors resulting in a result that 50% of whites have confidence in and 65% African Americans have no confidence in. That clearly spells trouble for democracy and race relations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906.md?page=10)