Bush won fair and square...quit yer bitch'n

[El_Zagna]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**So, the will of the people takes second place to the mechanisms, the legalisms of the Electoral College? **

Well, yeah, actually it does. That’s the way the system’s set up. Myself, I think it’s a lousy way of doing it, but those are the rules everyone was playing by. Are you suggesting that SOCUS just overrule any parts of the Constitution that they disagree with?

This wasn’t some obscure technicality that turned out to have unexpected consequences. Everyone from the 8th grade on should know about the Electoral College and the way Presidential elections work.

[newcrasher]

*Originally posted by Squink *
**Nope, the Supreme court voided the election laws of Florida and effectively appointed Bush President of the United States. If you disbelieve that, you are free to look up the text of their decision. **

I will not debate that. I understand that you do not like the outcome, but can you point to how the SC was acting outside of its powers to resolve this issue? Per my OP, I amlooking for evidence that the law was broken or not followed.

[NinjaChick]

Here’s another issue to toss out for discussion: not everyone in Florida was allowed to vote. Apparently (and I can’t recall where I read this right off, but I’ll try and hunt up the source), people were turned away from the polls on the basis of major issues, such as having a name similar to that of a felon in GA. Which, as we all know, is an offense punishable by revocation of voting rights. :rolleyes: There was a substantial number of people who this happened to - many of which were minorities (who most often vote dem.)

Just some food for thought…

[newcrasher]

*Originally posted by Tejota *
**Bush did not win Fla. He prevented all of the votes from being counted there, which is NOT the same thing in a democracy.

The media recount showed that when ALL of the valid votes were counted (not just those that Gore asked for, but ALL of them) Then Gore won no matter what set of rules you used for counting chads.

If the SCOTUS had not stopped the hand count that was in progress in Fla, a full recount would have shown that Gore won Fla.

So take your lies about Bush winning and stuff them. The facts show otherwise. **

There had been at least 3 recounts, none of which were won by Gore. Can you provide a cite for any media recount that stated otherwise? IIRC the media recount went for Bush as well, and was quietly reported and dropped.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Just to be sure, it was a conservative who opened this thread, right? Complaining about how liberals won’t shut up about the election, right?

So, would this best be described as hypocrisy or irony? Is it possible to be both at the same time?

Get over it, indeed. **

Well at least our President didn’t get a blowjob from an intern!!!

:dubious:

[elucidator]

You sure he didn’t try?

[minty_green]

A blowjob now and then would do Dubya a world of good.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**So - I think its a given, is it not, that if the people of Florida had effectively voted as they thought they had voted (the famous Jews for Buchanan fiasco) President Elect Gore would be in the Oval Office right now. Anybody want to contend that?
**

Mere speculation.

[kanicbird]

It would have been legal for the Fla legislature to change the election law before the election, but once the election was held, it wasn’t legal for them to ignore its result and choose a set of electors of their own.

IIRC the law IS to have the Fl Leg decide who are their EC reps.

[quote]
(the famous Jews for Buchanan fiasco)

[quote]

Do the words time zone, panhandle, media calling the FL vote for Gore before the poles have closed in mainly conservative areas of the state mean anything to you?

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by kanicbird *
IIRC the law IS to have the Fl Leg decide who are their EC reps.

YDNRC.

[Lissa]

There are also allegations that blacks were prevented from voting in Florida.

In the 2000 elections, a disproportionate number of Blacks were prevented from voting because they were mistakenly identified as ex-felons.

Even if one accepts the premise that it is right to disenfranchise felons for life, it must be recognized that it is very difficult to correctly identify ex-felons. According to the USCCR report, the list of alleged felons used in last November’s election had an error rate of approximately 14%. These errors include both “misses” (in which felons were allowed to vote) and “false alarms” (in which law abiding citizens were prevented from voting).

<snip>

Election workers are given some latitude in determining whether or not to allow an individual not on the list of registered voters, and it appears that the poll workers were more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to Whites than to Blacks. Imagine the frustration of Cathy Jackson, an African American woman who was prevented from voting by poll workers as she did not appear on the list of eligible voters. After being shuffled between precincts in two counties, then waiting 45 minutes, she observed an elderly white woman in another precinct earn the right to vote by filing a simple affidavit. When asked if she could do the same, she was informed that she “could not vote until they verified her registration.”

<snip>

Overall, Blacks were nine times more likely than Whites to have their ballots discarded (USCCR report, Chapter 9). For “overvotes,” such as the infamous Gore-Buchanan votes caused by the Palm Beach County butterfly ballot, the disparity was even higher. Statistical analyses revealed that for whites, about 1 in 200 ballots of White voters were spoiled by an overvote. For Blacks, 1 in 8 ballots was rejected (USCCR report, chapter 1). Incidentally, these overvotes were three times more likely to include a vote for Gore than one for Bush.

There are some reports that people were denied the right to vote because they had the same name as a convicted felon:

From the beginning, Database Technologies raised serious concerns that non-felons could be misidentified. Florida does not regularly record Social Security numbers in its records, so its felons were identified by name and date of birth, including close but not exact matches.

That’s how the state intended the plan to work.

“Obviously, we want to capture more names that possibly aren’t matches and let the [county elections] supervisors make a final determination rather than exclude certain matches altogether,” said Emmett “Bucky” Mitchell, who headed the state purge effort, in a March 1999 e-mail to Database Technologies product manager Marlene Thorogood, who had warned him of possible mistakes.

In an interview, Clay Roberts, director of the state’s division of elections, confirmed the policy. ** “The decision was made to do the match in such a way as not to be terribly strict on the name.” **

<snip>

The company admits it made some mistakes. One list sent to Florida officials inaccurately contained 8,000 people who had committed misdemeanors – not felonies – in Texas.
<snip>

It was left to local election supervisors to determine whether residents of their counties were accurately listed as felons. With little guidance from the state, county supervisors devised their own rules.

<snip>

In places like Escambia County, voters on the list were required to prove to election officials that they were not felons.

This article is similar:

Some of the “matches” compiled by DBT were puzzling.

For example, more than 1,300 registered voters were matched with felons although their races or sexes were different, The Post found.

Local election supervisors sometimes found voters identified as felons though they were convicted only of misdemeanors. And DBT’s use of criminal records that included aliases further increased the odds that legal voters would be confused with felons.

Michael Moore, author of “Stupid White Men” put it this way:

How did this happen? Harris’s office told Database — A firm with strong Republican ties — to cast as wide a net as possible to get rid of these voters. Her minions instructed the company to include even people with “similar” names to those of the actual felons. They insisted Database check people with the same birth dates as known felons, or similar Social Security numbers; an 80 percent match of relevant information, the election office instructed, was sufficient for Database to add a voter to the ineligible list.

These orders were shocking, even to Bush-friendly Database. They would mean that thousands of legitimate voters might be barred from voting on Election Day just because they had a name that sounded like someone else’s, or shared a birthday with some unknown bank robber. Marlene Thorogood, the Database project manager, sent an E-mail to Emmett “Bucky” Mitchell, a lawyer for Katharine Harris’s election division, warning him that “Unfortunately, programming in this fashion may supply you with false positives,” or misidentifications.

Never mind that, said ol’ Bucky. His response: “Obviously, we want to capture more names that possibly aren’t matches and let [county election] supervisors make a final determination rather than exclude certain matches altogether.”

Database did as they were told. And before long 173,000 registered voters in Florida were permanently wiped off the voter rolls. In Miami-Dade, Florida’s largest county, 66 percent of the voters who were removed were black. In Tampa’s county, 54 percent of those who would be denied the right to vote on November 7, 2000, were black.

But culling names from Florida’s records alone was not enough for Harris and her department. Eight thousand additional Floridians were thrown off the voting rolls because Database used a false list supplied by another state, a state which claimed that all the names on the list were former convicted felons who had since moved to Florida.

It turns out that the felons on the list had served their time and had all their voting privileges reinstated. And there were others on the list who had committed only misdemeanors — such as parking violations or littering. What state was it that offered Jeb and George a helping hand by sending this bogus list to Florida?

[SPOOFE]

This is a bit um, dishonest of you. The quote you pulled is referring to the selective recount that Gore requsted. NOT to a full recount.

And that’s a bit dishonest of YOU, Tejota, to claim that Bush prevented a recount that would have cost him the election, when in actuality no such recount was requested… and, as such, it would have been physically impossible for Bush to prevent it even if he could or wanted to.

Set your own house in order, buckaroo.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**A blowjob now and then would do Dubya a world of good. **

Well then, maybe, you know, in the interests of the nation, you should ummm, you know, offer to perform your patriotic duty.

(sorry, but you did kind of set that up for me.)

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Just to be sure, it was a conservative who opened this thread, right? Complaining about how liberals won’t shut up about the election, right?

So, would this best be described as hypocrisy or irony? Is it possible to be both at the same time?

Get over it, indeed. **

Bingo, minty.

[PigArcher]

There’s one question I’d like to ask anyone who says that Bush “stole” the election:
Imagine the entire situation was reversed. Bush has more of the poular vote (there’s no such thing as “winning” the popular vote), but Gore wins the electoral vote because a controversal recount is stopped by a Democrat-laddened Supreme Court. Would the same people still be crying and screaming and protesting that Gore “stole” the election? If you can’t honestly answer that question “yes,” then it’s not about the principle. It’s sour grapes.

I’m not saying that many Republicans wouldn’t feel the same way as many Democrats do now; that’s the nature of partisan politics. My point is that I don’t believe that most of the people upset about the results can honestly say it’s about the way the election was decided and not about who happened to win.

For the record, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, so for me it is about the principle. I don’t see how anything wrong or illegal was done. At any rate, the recounts would have been for Bush anyways.

[elucidator]

But doesn’t any evocation of irony imply a certain hypocrisy, some existential conflict between the ideal and the esthetic necessity? And do you think maybe God is a homo?

[SPOOFE]

Just to be sure, it was a conservative who opened this thread, right? Complaining about how liberals won’t shut up about the election, right?

So, would this best be described as hypocrisy or irony?

And you know the precise motivations for the creation of this thread… how?

[Tejota]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
**And that’s a bit dishonest of YOU, Tejota, to claim that Bush prevented a recount that would have cost him the election, when in actuality no such recount was requested… and, as such, it would have been physically impossible for Bush to prevent it even if he could or wanted to.

Set your own house in order, buckaroo. **

Damn SPOOFE your reading comprehension is worse than normal today. I said SCOTUS stopped the count, not bush. And I also said that the recount ordered by the Fla SC wasn’t what either Gore or Bush requested. Instead, it was going to make an attempt to fairly determine the will of the voters. (according to an interview given after the fact by the presiding judge)

SCOTUS stopped that count. By order of Scalia, in fact.

[elucidator]

Did you ever turn on a basketball game on TV, two teams you got no idea who they are? And you instinctively root for one team or the other?

I think that Republicans are the kind of people who root for the team thats winning. I think thats truly perv.

[PigArcher]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Just to be sure, it was a conservative who opened this thread, right? Complaining about how liberals won’t shut up about the election, right?

So, would this best be described as hypocrisy or irony? Is it possible to be both at the same time?

Get over it, indeed. **

So is it hypocrisy or irony that whenever Bush is mentioned, in any thread, somebody just has to pop in and mentioned that Bush didn’t really “win” the election, just in case we all forgot or something.