# Can this Palm Beach E-mail be De-Bunked? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 9, 2000, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531 "2000-11-09T20:29:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/41 "2000-11-10T18:04:55Z")
I would love to see the thread equivalent to this one, in a parallel universe where things are turned around. Before the election, the Democrats were lookingat several pols which indicated that Gore may well win the Electoral but not the popular vore, and I saw several spinsters on CNN ‘preparing the nation’ for this, by saying that the Electoral vote is what counts. Now I hear ‘And the fact that the popular vote went to Gore (which is not a done deal by the way) means that in order for the will of the people to truly be done…’ Unbelievable. And of course, we have the republicans. Trying perhaps to be just a tiny bit better, but also doing things to piss people off, such as begenning the transition before things are finalized. Demanding recounts to counter the Democrats demands for recounts, feh. Nothing but a bunch of self-important assholes, and no one to truly lead at a time which could be very dangerous for the country. Now that they have embarked on this course, there will be 50 million poeple unhappy with the outcome. I could not care less now which of these guys takes office, as long as the House and Senate are almost equally split between the two parties, but I can truly say that neither one has shown himself to be a leader. Harry Browne in 2004!! Rebublican supporters - would you be asking for recounts if the numbers were reversed? Democrat supporters - where would your idealism be of the numbers where reversed? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/42 "2000-11-10T18:18:18Z")
tradesilicon, I (a Republican supporter) think recounts are fine, but not challenging the election based on presumed misunderstandings by your voters. In fact, I am concerned about the fact that the recount so consistently cut into Bush’s lead, and wonder if the Bush people are monitoring the recount closely enough. I also think (and have mentioned in one of these threads) that if a manual recount is done for the Gore counties, Bush should insist that it be done for the Bush counties as well. It would appear that Bush is reluctant to press the recount issues too heavily, as his strategy has been to proclaim himself the winner, and hope that public sentiment follows. Interestingly, this mirrors his campaign strategy in the final weeks of the campaign. It didn’t work then, and will probably backfire this time as well. I agree with the Gore people that winning the popular vote (if indeed they have done so) gives them more of a leg to stand on in pressing these issues. But there is a limit to this as well. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/43 "2000-11-10T18:30:45Z")
**Can anyone debunk #2? – that is the important one** Have any news agencies done a survey yet to see how many hundreds of thousands of people claim to have screwed up their ballot? * * * The entire state of Texas uses the butterfly ballot and no one has ever had a problem with it. Apparently, the entire state of Texas is smarter than Sofa King’s mom. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/44 "2000-11-10T18:31:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Connor \* > And those completely made up percentages? Keep them off the board. 95% of Democrats + 65% of Republicans does not add up to 50.1% of the voting population. Um, Connor? Not to expose your ignorance to the entire board, but: 38% of all voters are registered Democrats. 35% of all voters are registered Republicans. (.95 \* .38) + (.35 \* .65) = (.361) + (.2275) = .5885 So given slightly lower party registration, it’s quite possible. I haven’t seen any cite for it- and would certainly like to- but that doesn’t mean it can be completely dismissed out of hand. Much like you dismissed the original e-mail despite the fact that most of it checks out. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/45 "2000-11-10T18:40:12Z")
Regarding claim #4, it has been disputed by [Salon Magazine](http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/10/buchanan/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/46 "2000-11-10T19:02:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Freedom2 \* > > Should we always take the vote totals and then just reassign them based on what we **believe** is right? > > No. We should give the citizens of Palm Beach County the chance to properly and definitively assign them themselves, with a clean ballot this time.\*\* Except that there’s no way we can expect these people to correctly identify their intended vote. Now that the results are almost completely in, you can expect numerous people to vote differently. ---
**Author:** ![barker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@barker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/47 "2000-11-10T20:41:39Z")
**as to claim #2** I have been perusing section 101 of the Florida Statutes. (It’s raining and cold out and I was bored.) Section 101.5609 does seem to apply. The Statutes can be found here [www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App\_mode=Display\_Index&Title\_Request=IX#TitleIX](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request=IX#TitleIX) > [@](#): > > 1. Voting squares may be placed in front of or in back of the names of candidates and statements of questions and shall be of such size as is compatible with the type of system used. Ballots and ballot information shall be printed in a size and style of type as plain and clear as the ballot spaces reasonably permit. Tear-off stubs shall be of a size suitable for the ballots used and for the requirements of the voting device. The ballots may contain special printed marks and holes as required for proper positioning and reading of the ballots by the automatic tabulating equipment this does seem to support that the ballots were "legal. However, > [@](#): > > (2) The ballot information shall, as far as practicable, be in the order of arrangement provided for paper ballots. Ballots for all questions or propositions to be voted on shall be provided in the same manner and shall be arranged on or in the voting device, if necessary, in the places provided for such purposes. gives some support that the arrangement, if possible, should have been that required for paper ballots. There is also the following statement: > [@](#): > > (8) The Department of State shall adopt rules prescribing standards for ballots used in electronic or electromechanical voting systems. Such standards shall ensure that ballots are counted in a uniform and consistent manner and shall include, without limitation, standards for the: > (a) Physical characteristics of ballots; I have not been able to find such rules anywhere. So, like many other issues in this election, I would call it undecided. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/48 "2000-11-10T21:01:36Z")
I was just looking at that myself. It seems to me that paragraph 6 is set up _to support_ paragraph 2. Para 2 requires that the electromechanical ballot meet the requirements of Sec. 151. As far as practicable. Anyone want to take bets as to why the ballot is set up as it is? I’ve got my money on “because it would have been confusing the other way around.” Jesus. What if this whole election comes down to a single judge? Liberal judge: “So you’re saying that you violated the statute because otherwise it would have been confusing. The election is contested because the ballot is confusing. So either way, it’s confusing, and it’s in violation of the statutes. Let’s try again, shall we?” Conservative judge: “So you used the leeway of the statute to make the ballot less confusing. And out of four hundred thousand people voting, less than one percent of the voters claim they were confused. I’d say it’s the individuals who are confused, not the ballot. Get the hell outa my court room.” ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/49 "2000-11-10T21:30:58Z")
A revote would be illegal under the constitution, right? The judge could either throw out **all** the ballots as illegal or let things stand as they are or simply refuse to make a ruling which would result in Florida having no electors and the House deciding in January. Either way, a republican will end up as president. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/50 "2000-11-10T21:56:42Z")
A re-vote would have to be specifically prohibited somewhere other than where I’ve looked, because under 102.168 (8) the judge gets _a lot_ of leeway: “(8) The circuit judge to whom the contest is presented may fashion such orders as he or she deems necessary to ensure that each allegation in the complaint is investigated, examined, or checked, _to prevent or correct any alleged wrong, and to provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances._” Is a re-vote prohibited? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/51 "2000-11-10T22:04:44Z")
You seem to be right, but Heck, where does it say people get to vote for anyone in the constitution? I’m serious – I don’t see it in here anywhere!! ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/52 "2000-11-10T22:13:04Z")
**Add this to be Debunked:** It is an explanation of the 19,000 ballots. > [@](#): > > 19,000 invalidated ballots are evidence that thousands of people were allowed to revote when their initial try failed because they punched two presidential votes; the machine kicks the ballot out when this happens, instantly, then a precinct person gives the mistaken voter another ballot and allows them to try again, and up to three attempts are allowed … the do-over has already been done and the 19,000 invalidated but kept for accounting purposes ballots are the PROOF. Get it? ---
**Author:** ![barker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@barker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/53 "2000-11-10T22:18:31Z")
This is confusing **Sofa**. The very next section deals with remedies: > [@](#): > > 102.1682 Judgment of ouster; revocation of commission; judgment setting aside referendum.– > > (1) If the contestant is found to be entitled to the office, if on the findings a judgment to that effect is entered, and if the adverse party has been commissioned or has entered upon the duties thereof or is holding the office, then a judgment of ouster shall be entered against such party. Upon presentation of a certified copy of the judgment of ouster to the Governor, the Governor shall revoke such commission and commission the person found in the judgment to be entitled to the office. So is the Judge limited to this or is this just one course of action? I would think that the contestants in this case are the Presidential Electors. Would pretty much have a judge calling the election. Can a County Judge rule on a Statewide election? It appears that it would be adjudicated in **Leon County**. Any Dopers know the disposition of the Judges there? ---
**Author:** ![douglips](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@douglips](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/douglips)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/54 "2000-11-10T22:26:20Z")
jmullaney writes: > [@](#): > > Have any news agencies done a survey yet to see how many hundreds of thousands of people claim to have screwed up their ballot? A very good question. I’d love to see a web site or phone-in survey where they find that 13,965 Palm Beach County voters say they voted wrong (but did not vote twice.) That would just frost it, wouldn’t it. > [@](#): > > The judge could either throw out all the ballots as illegal or let things stand as they are or simply refuse to make a ruling which would result in Florida having no electors and the House deciding in January. Either way, a republican will end up as president. I don’t believe this is the case. First of all, I believe the judge is allowed by state law to make ‘adjustments’ if the ballot is judged unfair. I heard this on the radio, so I don’t have a cite for it in Florida law. Also, regarding if Florida’s electors aren’t certified, It isn’t clear to me if the majority needs to be of the original number (538 - majority = 270) or of the new total (513 - majority = 257) At this point neither candidate has 257, but if NM goes for Gore he’d have 260 and win. I tried to read the constitution about this, but I didn’t see that it addresses abstention in the electoral college. JC, any ideas? ---
**Author:** ![barker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@barker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/55 "2000-11-10T22:27:38Z")
On the 19,000 from 101.5608 > [@](#): > > (b) Any voter who spoils his or her ballot or makes an error may return the ballot to the election official and secure another ballot, except that in no case shall a voter be furnished more than three ballots. A spoiled ballot shall be preserved, without examination, in an envelope provided for that purpose. The stub shall be removed from the ballot and placed in an envelope. Were the 19,000 rejected in these special envelopes or were they fed into the machine to read. If in these special envelopes then each of those voters had a chance to revote. If handled as regular ballots their vote never tabulted. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/56 "2000-11-10T22:36:39Z")
I’m still not clear on that one, either, **barker**. It jumps straight from a contest of the election to ouster and replacement. That seems to be contradictory to an above section: "102.166 Protest of election returns; procedure.– (1) Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest." (BTW, “elector” in these statutes seems to mean “voter.” I was confused by that one.) So I think that voters _and_ candidates can contest the election. But there is no specific provision for what happens when the voters protest, except possibly that section I floated in the last post. I must have missed something. ---
**Author:** ![barker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@barker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/57 "2000-11-10T22:42:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by douglips \* > Also, regarding if Florida’s electors aren’t certified, It isn’t clear to me if the majority needs to be of the original number (538 - majority = 270) or of the new total (513 - majority = 257) At this point neither candidate has 257, but if NM goes for Gore he’d have 260 and win. > > I tried to read the constitution about this, but I didn’t see that it addresses abstention in the electoral college. JC, any ideas? \*\* I’ll give this a shot. Article 2, section 1 clause 3 > [@](#): > > The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and from clause 2: > [@](#): > > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: I believe the real question would be whether Florida is **required** to appoint electors. If not, then it appears that Gore would win. My 100th post on a constitutional question. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/58 "2000-11-10T22:51:03Z")
I refer everyone to _Beckstrom v. Volusia County Canvassing Board_, (1998), citation unknown (case no. 91642). In that case, the Florida Supreme Court set forth the standard in that state for setting aside an election based on voting irregularities. In relevant part, there must first be a determination that there was ‘substantial noncompliance with statutory election procedures.’ If this determination is made, then there must be a determination that ‘reasonable doubt exists as to whether a certified election expressed the will of the voters.’ If these two determinations are made by a court, the court must void the election in an action to contest the result brought under §102.168, ‘even in the absence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing.’ In the case in question, the irregularity was the method used by Volusia County to get their absentee ballot machine to read ballots marked too lightly to be scanned. Instead of making a duplicate ballot, as allowed under the law, they simply marked over the voters’ marks with a dark pen, which could then be read by the machines. The absentee ballots changed the result of the Sherriff election in that county, and the loser challenged this result asserting fraud by the vote tabulators. The trial court rejected the assertion of fraud, but agreed that the procedure was substantially in noncompliance with the statutes. However, because there was no evidence that the procedure substantially skewed the results from what had actually been voted by the absentee voters, the results were not set aside. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with these findings. Thoughts to ponder: 1. Suppose that a court determines that there was not substantial non-compliance, but that there WAS a reasonable doubt that the election actually expressed the will of the people. What then? 2. Suppose that the court decides the result of the election should be set aside. Does ALL Florida revote, or only the county in question? Or would the court simply void the ballots from Palm Beach County (see, for example, the results in the 1997 voter fraud case in Miami’s mayoral race where the Ct. of Appeals threw out all absentee ballots on the basis of evidence of fraudulent absentee balloting, resulting in deciding the race by the results of the in-person voting). ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/59 "2000-11-10T22:55:36Z")
In the disputed 1876 election, Florida (whoa, can they really be involved AGAIN?), Louisiana and South Carolina sent in competing electoral vote tallies from the Republican electors and the Democratic electors. It was the determination of the Congress that the Republican electors’ votes from each state in question would be counted, resulting in Hayes beating Tilden. Something similar could easily occur this year. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2000, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531/60 "2000-11-10T22:57:50Z")
My voter registration card has no party affiliation information whatsoever. When I registered, I just said “independent”. for all I know, I am one of the 16,000 members of the “Independent Party”. I can assure you that such “membership” in no way predisposes me to vote for Buchanan. The statistical arguments for confusion among the voters of this county are compelling and overwhelming. That does not mean I favor a judicial remedy to **the results of this election**. However, efforts by some to pretend that no confusion took place are weak and disingenuous. So are the arguments that asking for a recount is an example of “whining” by the gore campaign. The present recount was, in fact, mandatory under Florida election law. The Gore campaign had nothing to do with it. The present recount has also shown significant “anomolies” in several counties. The Gore campaign has asked for hand recounts in those counties. I fail to understand how one could object to a request for an accurate count of the ballots **as cast**. I hear some Bush supporters objecting because the Gore campaign has asked for hand recounts only in counties where the machine recounts showed a shift towards Gore. Well, these are the same counties that recorded the greatest shift overall. If the Bush campaign objects to the selection of counties, the simple remedy is just to ask for hand counts in whatever counties they feel the Gore campaign has neglected. Again – what is the justication for arguing against an accurate count in a close race? As to the Buchanan votes and the 19,000 disalowed ballots, I am torn. I find compelling reason for PBC to revisit its procedures and correct the obvious flaws in ballot construction and/or voting process. I have some sympathy for the position that the paramount concern in any election should be that the voice of the people be acurately recorded. However, allowing the judiciary to “interpret” that voice and override a completed election, absent clear evidence of fraudulent intent and practice, strikes me as a dangerous precedent. Sometimes, you just have to take one for the team. Gore got screweed in PBC. PBC **must** fix its process. Should the recounts confirm the present results, Gore likewise must place personal and party interests below the interests of the republic. **There is no principal in American politics more important than the peaceful and orderly succession of Presidential power**. That said, Bush is behaving poorly in applying pressure against the most accurate possible count of votes. Bush supporters are liekwise acting poorly in denying the obvious truth that the PBC electoral process was deeply flawed. Finally (for now) while I don’t support the idea of drastic judicial remedies in the resent case, the following argument hits my irony bone head on: > [@](#): > > Except that there’s no way we can expect these people to correctly identify their intended vote. Now that the results are almost completely in, you can expect numerous people to vote differently. Didn’t Bush make “trust the people” one of his primary pieces of campaign rhetoric? Apparently, we are now seeing exactly how far that trust extends. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-palm-beach-e-mail-be-de-bunked/40531.md?page=4)