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

[Sofa_King]

I can tell you with complete assurance that at least one vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County was a mistaken vote. It was my idiot mother’s. Moreover, she noted that as she walked out of the polling place there was a large group of confused people in the parking lot who had suddenly realized they had done the same thing. One in particular was banging his fists on the roof of his car.

It sucks, but as best I can tell there was no way to fix the problem once it happened–there wasn’t a provision for a re-vote, and it would be impossible to determine the intent of the voter. But RTFirefly is spot on: statistically and anecdotally, Buchannan got way more unintentional votes in Palm Beach than anywhere else, and Bush was at the top of the ballot–nobody was gonna miss that one.

---

I looked pretty closely at this thread and didn’t see the most obvious example of voter fraud in that whole mess. If I’m repeating an already debated contention then I apologize.

Judge Lacey Collier ruled that the unpostmarked absentee ballots in five counties (including Hillsborough County) had to be tallied, because federal laws governing military ballots preempted state laws which prevented unpostmarked ballots from being counted.

The thing is, the armed forces are required to postmark absentee ballots. Yet a large number of them were not postmarked. The official explanation, as best I can tell, was that certain way stations don’t have postmarking machines.

Perhaps not coincidentally, duplicate ballots were sent to Air Force personnel at Mildenhall, England, including ballots from Hillsborough County. At least three Floridians–all Republicans–at Mildenhall returned both ballots, according to Elaine Gatley.

The military overwhelmingly voted Republican in the 2000 election. The New York Times found that there were at least 680 questionable absentee ballots counted in the Florida election. Bush won by 537.

And hundreds of military absentee ballots arrived in Florida after the election, some without postmarks. From the above article:

Aboard the George Washington, an aircraft carrier then in the Adriatic Sea, Michael J. Kohrt recalled fellow crew members gathering around television sets on the morning of Nov. 8. “We saw Florida was deadlocked, and everyone on the ship said, 'Whoa, I have got to get my ballot in,”’ he said. “A lot of guys voted late.”

By allowing those tainted military absentee ballots to be counted, Judge Collier ignored the distinct (and as you can see in the quote above, admitted) possibility that fraudulently cast votes would be counted–votes cast after the election by normally apathetic voters who suddenly realized that they could sway the entire election by turning in ballots they otherwise would not have bothered filling out. It was officially sanctioned vote fraud.

Moreover, it wasn’t just an election theft, it was the slickest coup d’etat ever.

[RTFirefly]

Oh yeah, some more facts, from this site. The site itself isn’t an authority, but he provides authoritative cites for the numbers he presents.

I’ll just give one quickie about those Gore/Buchanan and Gore/McReynolds (see pic of ballot in link) overvotes: they voted Democratic by a 10-1 margin in the FL Senate race. Think these were Buchanan voters? Norfolk n’ Way.

[Sofa_King]

…And I forgot to mention that Florida went to great pains to legitimize the fraud by amending their election laws in 2001 to read:

101.6952 Absentee ballots for overseas voters.–

(2) For absentee ballots received from overseas voters, there is a presumption that the envelope was mailed on the date stated and witnessed on the outside of the return envelope, regardless of the absence of a postmark on the mailed envelope or the existence of a postmark date that is later than the date of the election.

So the armed forces will be able to legally steal the election next time.

[Tejota]

*Originally posted by kniz *
So what? When Gore decided to challenge and ask for a recount he was behind in the vote or at least thought he was behind. Are you saying that he was tricked into calling for a recount?

He knew that the exit polls showed a clear win for him and that the vote totals showed Bush with a trivial lead. It was perfectly reasonable for him to believe that there were simply errors in the counting or reporting that had resulted in Bush’s apparent victory.

The reality as more complex, but in the end. His assumtion that it was counting errors rather than the acutual ballots that showed a Bush win has proved to be the case.

[Tejota]

*Originally posted by Age Quod Agis *
We do? How do we know that? Have you talked to the thousands of Buchanan voters to determine who intended to vote for whom, who screwed up their ballots, and how they screwed up their ballots? At most, we’ve got strong circumstantial evidence that some voters may have accidentally voted for Buchanan. But “thousands” and “beyond any sort of reasonable doubt?”

A common misperception among non-statisticians is that since (as the saying goes) “Liars use statistics” that there is no underlying truth that can be learned from the data.

But this is not the case. There are truths avalable to any statistician in the Florida vote data. Among those truths will be the fact that most of the Buchanan votes in Palm Beach were mis-punched Gore votes. This is not a guess, or a hunch but a fact that any statistician will see if he examines the data.

Now, what he can’t do is to tell you exactly which ones are mispunched Gore votes, or exactly how many are. But when you start talking about the properties of collections of data taken as collections, then you are doing statistics. And you can learn things about the data as a whole, even when there a holes in you knowedge of specific items.

So you can get answers like: (these are strictly examples, not to be taken literally)

There is a 99.9% probability that 75% of the Buchanan votes are really Gore mis-punches.

Or There is a 1 a million chance that less than 600 of the Buchanan votes are Gore mis-punches.

Now, variations in base assumptions can move these numbers around some. One statistican might think that 1 in a million chance is correct, while another might think it’s more like one in ten thousand. But there are limits to how far base assumptions can skew the result. So, even with pessimistic base assumptions, there are certain things that you can say about the florida vote data.

And one of those things is that it is a statistical certainty that there are enough Gore mis-punches in Palm Beach to swing the election the other way. No statistician could avoid coming to that conclusion.

I was asking RTFirefly if he had the specific numbers.

No way. Did you mean “A statistician could . . . see a clear Gore victory”? Because if you meant that statisticians would necessarily see a Gore the victory, then I don’t understand.

Hopefully this is clear to you now. Remember: “Statistics don’t lie but liars use statistics”. If you have the math background, than a statistician can’t lie to you if you have access to his raw data. If you don’t have the maths, then you are stuck with picking which statistician to trust.

RTFirefly and I have the necessary math background. Which is why I can tell you that a statistician would see a clear Gore victory. The data can’t lie.

But the double votes should be excluded, regardless of who they voted for. Nobody gets two votes. If you vote twice, there’s no way to tell which way you actually intended to vote. Thus, your vote must be excluded.I haven’t seen evidence in support of either of these positions before. Cite please?

In Duvall county. Voters were told to “vote on every page”. But the presidential choices ran to two pages. Bush and Gore (and others) were on the first page. People that no-one has ever heard of were on the second page.

[http://www.sptimes.com/News/111201/Lostvotes/Confusion__inexperien.shtml]cite
[http://members.aol.com/SteveFJong/rant/rant05.html]cite

[Tejota]

Here’s another cite.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/may2001/flor-m28_prn.shtml

[Tejota]

By the way newcrasher I want to thank you for the chance to publicize the facts of the 2000 election theft again.

It’s important that we not forget how an election was stolen, and who was guilty of aiding the theft. Thanks for doing your part

[kniz]

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
After submittal: kniz, don’t you think part of the “problem” was Bush’s “only hope of winning” (your words) being the prevention of completing the vote count? Couldn’t much of the “problem” have been avoided if he had instead acted in good faith, with the will of We the People being accepted as paramount? It lingered on because of his stalling, his court challenges, his injunctions, his appeals, instead of his simply getting on with determining the will of the people in good faith.

Show me where I said that Bush acted in good faith, that he didn’t fight against the recount or that he didnt appeal the case?

Although it has nothing to do with my statement, there was something in the article I cited previously that applies since you seem to think the recount would have come out on Gore’s side. It states that the only way that Gore would have won is by a statewide recount and that Gore’s lawyers stated that there was no legal means of getting a statewide recount. If the recount had been made in the counties Gore picked out, he would have lost. So if Bush hadn’t done what you object to then he’d still have won. Where I disagree is with the idea that Gore was just doing what was his right to do with love in his heart. He used as many tricks as Bush, but since he didn’t win I’m not that upset by his actions, except I still think we didn’t have to go through the whole mess that proved nothing and was guaranteed to make 50% of the nation feel cheated.

Please articulate what principle you’re trying to defend here, and on which you expect vindication in some indefinite future

By calling for a recount Gore caused divisiveness in our country, that wouldn’t exist if he’d let his original decision stand. [sup]This is not that hard to grasp[/sup]
[sub]Or is this like in an interrogation where you ask the same thing over and over, in the hopes that I’ll change my story?[/sub]

I don’t see one related to the facts.

[ul][li] he called for a recount knowing that it would cause bad blood, one way or the other.[/li][li] there is bad blood.[/ul][/li]

Better just to accept quietly that your guy got in

While having to listen to your side go on and on and on…

and not try to insult us

and deceive yourself with the contention that there’s anything principled involved

By calling for a recount Gore threw principles out the window. [sup]Okay that is a wee bit extreme[/sup]

[Stoid]

Got news for ya, kniz, it wasn’t Gore asking for recounts that made us feel cheated.

[HackDriver]

man,some of you ppl need to think about 2004.the democrat debates are going to be a hoot.

[kniz]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
**Got news for ya, kniz, it wasn’t Gore asking for recounts that made us feel cheated. **

So give me a short summary of the things that make you feel cheated. like:
[ul]**[1.] _____________
[2.] _____________
[3.] _____________
[4.] _____________ **[/ul]

[sup]I will reply.[/sup]

[rjung]

Just off the top of my head:

1. John Ellis working at Fox while talkin’ it up with George and Jeb.
2. The Florida Secretary of State doubling as a Bush Republican delegate.
3. Multiple absentee ballots sent to military personnel.
4. Voters turned away at the polls because they had names similar to those on a list of felons.
5. The majority ruling in Bush v. Gore, a decision so flimsy that it refuses to allow itself to be used as reference for future rulings.

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by kniz *
Show me where I said that Bush acted in good faith, that he didn’t fight against the recount or that he didnt appeal the case?

It’s implicit in your restricting your condemnations to Gore.

It states that the only way that Gore would have won is by a statewide recount and that Gore’s lawyers stated that there was no legal means of getting a statewide recount.

That decision was the Florida Supreme Court’s, and they were preparing to do just that before Bush’s lawyers and the US Supreme Court got it stopped.

Where I disagree is with the idea that Gore was just doing what was his right to do with love in his heart. He used as many tricks as Bush

You have not presented, nor does there exist, a factual basis for that statement, amigo.

By calling for a recount Gore caused divisiveness in our country, that wouldn’t exist if he’d let his original decision stand.

Nice use of color there - was that supposed to be a convincing substitute for facts and reasoning? I and others have already stated how Bush’s actions in preventing the counting of votes were the divisive ones, and you have not addressed that except to dismiss it peremptorily. You might consider just what that convinces anyone of.

While having to listen to your side go on and on and on…

If you’d listen in good faith the first time, there wouldn’t have to be a second or more. Do you really not understand why we feel it’s necessary, given the refusal of those such as yourself to face the facts?

[kniz]

You want me to argue about things that honestly I don’t care about and which I think were caused by Gore asking for a recount. Elvisl1ves kept saying I was ducking the issue, when I was saying I didn’t think the issue should have ever existed. Gore knew that it would stir up trouble and he went ahead and did it anyway. Even if I agree with you, what is that going to solve? I realize that you are pissed off (I stated so in my first post), but you also know where I think the blame rests. Gore was raised politically, he practiced politics and he was defeated by politics. What is new about that? I do think that the OP was wrong to say that “Bush won fair and square”, which I’ll admit isn’t a black or white fact (absolutely no pun intended). But unless there is something constructive to be done regarding the grievances then I too am tired of hearing the bitching for bitching’s sake.

[dee52269]

I don’t believe people are “bitching for bitching’s sake” kniz. I believe people are bitching because some of us, be we Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or Marijuana Reformist, believe the President of the United States of America should be elected by the will of the people. Some of us believe a crime was committed and should at least be investigated. The most irritating thing you can say to people who truly believe in the democracy of our country is that we should just, “get over it and move on.” Perhaps we would have quietly waited through four years of an illegitimate presidency if Bush had done a good job because there wouldn’t be as much to bitch about. Unfortunately, unemployment goes up every day while consumer confidence falls, the administration that wants us to support our troops reduces funding for veterans, and the giant surplus we had has not only disappeared but now we have a deficit higher than many countries entire annual income.

[kniz]

*Originally posted by dee52269 *
The most irritating thing you can say to people who truly believe in the democracy of our country is that we should just, "get over it and move on."

I sort of thought about that and you will note I never said that (but it might have crossed my mind).

**Perhaps we would have quietly waited through four years of an illegitimate presidency if Bush had done a good job because there wouldn’t be as much to bitch about. Unfortunately, unemployment goes up every day while consumer confidence falls, the administration that wants us to support our troops reduces funding for veterans, and the giant surplus we had has not only disappeared but now we have a deficit higher than many countries entire annual income. **

I’m not in complete agreement with you on these issues, but as compared to the subject matter so far, these are things to complain about and for which there are actions that can be taken. Start a thread that debates these issues and I certainly won’t say you’re bitching.

[Blown_Injected]

*Originally posted by Lissa *
**Me, I’d be equally outraged.

The main difference I see between the Republican and Democratic parties is that Democrats seem more willing to criticize their own people, whereas Republicans seem to have a untied front, right-or-wrong-he’s-still-our-guy mentality. I really do think that if the situation was reversed you’d see even more criticism of Gore than you do of Bush currently, and from both sides.

Before you get the wrong idea, I think that self-criticism within a party is very healthy. I * want * to see our leaders aguing over every policy decision, rather than just being a rubber stamp for the administration in power. **

Yeah right :rolleyes: just look at the votes during the impeachment and try to tell me that again.

[SuperSteve-O]

Wow, what an interesting debate. Bush’s followers, well, I think they protest a bit too much; they know the guy didn’t win it “fair and square”. Gore’s followers have the right to be pissed, but, like Buffalo Sabres fans bitching about the disputed outcome of the Stanley Cup, there’s nothing you can really do about it.

What really sucks is how bad Dubya screwed the country. The economy is facing the “Dubya Dip” recession, there is nothing but red ink as far as the eye can see (hey, remember “the surplus” and “lockbox on Social Security”?), and any moral standpoint that the US once had for showing restraint and honoring international treaties when it came to war are effectively gone.

I imagine that we wil feel threatened by Iran or Syria in the Summer of '04…

Depressing. Truly, truly depressing.

[Blown_Injected]

the market went to shit before President Bush took office you dipshit

http://www.mikelivingston.com/ra12172001.htm

[occ]

*Originally posted by 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.)
**

The “people were prevented from voting” thing was heard entirely from those with strong political biases (Jesse Jackson, I believe, was one of the more outspoken). If someone can provide a cite which corroborates these stories, I’d love to see it, but I’ve never heard anything above the level of apocryphal stories.