Does the GOP Subvert Democracy?

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by Grim_Beaker *
I’ve looked around on the web for info regarding a full statewide recount which included overvotes but have been unable to find anything. All of the 2000 presidential election summaries and coverage that I have found indicated that the Florida Supreme Court only made rulings pertinent to undervotes. Could you please provide a cite showing that the FSC was arranging a statewide recount of both undervotes and overvotes?

Don’t have time right now, will get back to you. I had understood that to be common knowledge, based on the FSC ordering all ballots be turned over to their custody just before the frantic Bush injunction-seeking in court, and “they’re trying to change the rules” blustering in public.

If a full statewide recount which included overvotes was conducted it may have indeed resulted in a win for Gore. However, I see this as being an impractical, questionable and implausible scenario. Implausible since AFAICT no one requested a statewide recount which included overvotes.

It was about to happen, as I said.

Impractical since the hand recount of only four counties took days (how long would a statewide recount take? Certainly more than the few days you posit IMO).

That’s where good faith comes in. The counts you referred to were continually being stalled, including by the “rioters” imported from GOP congressional offices to disrupt Miami-Dade’s count.

Questionable because according to the summary of the media recount:

The least questionable inclusion of overvotes involves counting votes which have a candidate punched as well as their name written in. A statewide recount including these overvotes would have resulted in a 200 vote win for Gore.

Questionable, you say? Sounds conclusive. No mean and standard deviation, no reliability and repeatability analysis, no chi-square or p-factor, just a single answer, as required.

However this is a subjective and sloppy method of counting votes.

Only if you have a better, objective method in mind. If not, then this is ithe best good-faith approach available. If it had been followed, then there would be no reasonable basis for complaint of bias by either party regardless of result. That is the criterion a democracy has to use, not a numerical one.

May I say btw, I do appreciate your keeping a fair-minded, truly-inquisitive attitude on this. There’s too little of that around.

[ElvisL1ves]

Grim_Beaker, try these links:
url=http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/08/president.election/]Actual news report:

[quote]
George W. Bush’s attorneys late Friday asked a U.S. Supreme Court justice to halt any vote recounts in Florida.

The Bush request follows a Florida Supreme Court decision that revived Vice President Al Gore’s presidential hopes by ordering a manual recount of at least 43,432 “undervotes” from as many as 62 counties.

In counties that favored Bush, there were 25,699 undervotes. In counties that voted for Gore, there were 17,733 undervotes.

The counties omitted from the order were ones that had already done full manual counts, including the partial but stopped ones in Broward and Miami-Dade. I’ll grant that the application of uniform standards under FSC control is essentially an extrapolation from the court’s previous rulings, but I don’t see how they could have been headed anywhere else with it, do you? This already is effectively an order for a full statewide count. This is the order that Bush tried to get quashed, finally succeeding in SCOTUS.

For the legal beagles, all relevant FSC documents are available as PDF’s here.

[ElvisL1ves]

Make the first link this. Sorry.

[Grim_Beaker]

Elvis,

Thank you for the informative links to the Florida Supreme Court documents.

According to the FSC opinion on Dec 8th, 2000 (a couple select quotes):

We do agree, however, that it is absolutely essential in this proceeding and to any final decision, that a manual recount be conducted for all legal votes in this State, not only in Miami-Dade County, but in all Florida counties where there was
an undervote, and, hence a concern that not every citizen’s vote was counted.

…

For example, the Legislature has mandated that no vote shall be ignored if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter on the ballot, unless it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice . . . . § 101.5614(5)-(6) Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 102.166(7), Florida Statutes (2000), also provides that the focus of any manual examination of a ballot shall be to determine the voter’s intent.

If a statewide recount of overvotes was conducted I will agree that unambiguous votes would be votes where the voters intent was acceptably clear. In this case unambiguous votes refer to voters who marked the ballot for Gore, did not mark any other candidate, and wrote his name in on the ballot. Ambiguous votes would refer to voters who marked Gore’s name, another candidate’s name, and wrote in Gore’s name on the ballot. I’m not sure how many (and have been unable to find out) of the overvotes in that category were ambiguous vs. unambiguous. I said “questionable” in my earlier post since I was unsure of the number of overvotes which were ambiguous vs. unambiguous. Unambiguous overvotes should be counted since intent is clear. I’m not convinced that ambiguous votes should be counted. If a statewide recount of all unambiguous overvotes occurred and the new totals favored Gore then I will concede that this is a scenario that, if pursued, may have resulted in a just victory for Gore.

However, after reading further my initial impression that only the undervotes were to be counted seems to be confirmed. An excerpt (bolding mine):

We note that contest statutes vest broad discretion in the circuit court to “provide any relief appropriate under the circumstances.” Section 102.168(5). Moreover, because venue of an election contest that covers more than one county lies in Leon County, see 102.1685, Florida Statutes (2000), the circuit court has jurisdiction, as part of the relief it order, to order the Supervisor of Elections and the Canvassing Boards, as well as the necessary public officials, in all counties that have not conducted a manual recount or tabulation of the undervotes in this election to do so forthwith, said tabulation to take place in the individual counties where the ballots are located.

Based on this my opinion remains unchanged. Namely:

“IMO, in light of Florida’s laws at the time, and following the rule of law, the strategy pursued by Gore and his legal team provided a practically 0% chance of victory.”

[The_Ryan]

ElvisL1ves

TheRyan, is it not clear that the law must be enforced fairly in order for it to be considered followed?

Not always. But it is preferable.

Clearly partisan do-over" - in what sense, in any of those words?

There already had been a count. Gore wanted it done over again. Hence, do over. Democrats supported a recount, Republicans didn’t. Hence, partisan.

Clinton’s impeachment on perjury charges - you do remember what led up to that, don’t you? Or is that inconvenient?

The claim was that Clinton was impeached for receiving a blow job, not that a series of events leading to an impeachment involved a blow job.

“The original count in good faith” - you do know better. Never happened.

What evidence of bad faith do you have regarding the evaluation of votes (remember, evaluation of votes. Not voting rolls or recount provisions or anything else.) Are you seriously claiming that ballots were miscategorized out of bad faith? What, did Republicans program the machines to reject Gore votes?

How did they know where not to vote?" Come on now. If you have been a registered voter, you know where your polling place is. When denied, what recourse was available?

Yes, because I got something in the mail saying that I could vote there. That’s my point. So why not say “I’ve got something right here that says that I can vote here, and it doesn’t matter what your piece of paper says, I have a right to vote and that can’t be taken away by a piece of paper.” Call the registar. Call the police. Make a scene.

Evil Captor

No matter how you cut it, no matter what you say, the truth of the matter is obvious: the perjury charge was the pretext for the impeachment, the substance of the matter was the blowjob and the Repub obsession over it.

Now you’re just presenting wild accusations as fact. I don’t believe that Clinton ever would have been impeached had he told the truth about the blowjob, and you haven’t presented any reason for me to do so.

So, I demonstrate that Choicepoint was indeed a bunch of scheming scumbags working on Bush’s behalf,

No, you didn’t.

and the only argument you have is, that Dems have at some point done bad things too

So what is it exactly that you’re arguing? If you’re arguing that crooks join both parties, then that’s hardly news. But if you’re trying to argue that the Republican Party is especially crooked, then your offhand dismissal of Democratic skullduggery is inappropiate.

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
There already had been a count.

That’s the contention. Many votes were never counted at all. Your claim that the count would be partisan is based only on the fact that one candidate thought not counting would be partisan.

The claim was that Clinton was impeached for receiving a blow job, not that a series of events leading to an impeachment involved a blow job.

The broader issue, the subject of the OP in fact, is the series of events etc. as part of a pattern of conduct by the GOP. Did those series of events represent an attempt to undermine or end Clinton’s legitimacy and presidency? You may disagree, but haven’t presented an argument to the contrary.

What evidence of bad faith do you have regarding the evaluation of votes (remember, evaluation of votes. Not voting rolls or recount provisions or anything else.)

That isn’t the bad faith I’m referring to - where did you get that idea? The bad faith is in resisting the evaluation itself, not how it was done. For the most part, anyway - counting ballots cast after Election Day cannot be considered good faith or good anything else, can it?

So why not say “I’ve got something right here that says that I can vote here, and it doesn’t matter what your piece of paper says, I have a right to vote and that can’t be taken away by a piece of paper.” Call the registar. Call the police. Make a scene.

There were indeed scenes. FTR, not all states issue voting cards anyway. Mine, for instance. Not sure about Florida. But the control of the rolls is under the state Dept of State anyway - if they don’t want to issue cancellation letters in time, or at all, they had that prerogative. What point are you trying to make here?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *]That’s the contention. Many votes were never counted at all.

That’s irrelevent. The allegation that the count was flawed does not affect the fact that it existed.

Your claim that the count would be partisan is based only on the fact that one candidate thought not counting would be partisan.

No, I claimed that the recount was obviously partisan. That is, the desire to count votes again was clearly motivated by partisan considerations. Whether the count itself would be partisan is another matter entirely. If the Raiders had demanded a new Super Bowl so they could have another chance to win it, it’s possible that the new Super Bowl would have been run fairly, without favor to either side. However, even if the game itself were fair, having a new one would, in and of itself, been unfair to the Buccaneers.

The broader issue, the subject of the OP in fact, is the series of events etc. as part of a pattern of conduct by the GOP. Did those series of events represent an attempt to undermine or end Clinton’s legitimacy and presidency?

It’s a bit hypocritical for Democrats, who have been repeating over and over that Bush was never elected, putting quotes around the word “president”, calling him an usruper, etc., to complain that Republicans tried to undermine the legitimacy of Clinton’s presidency.

That isn’t the bad faith I’m referring to - where did you get that idea?

Becaue that’s what you said:

You count every vote according to the best good-faith interpretation of what the voter meant.

The bad faith is in resisting the evaluation itself, not how it was done.

That’s not what you said.

For the most part, anyway - counting ballots cast after Election Day cannot be considered good faith or good anything else, can it?

If your sole criterion is “good-faith interpretation of what the voter meant”, then I think it’s pretty clear that the date of the postmark (which is a different issue from when the ballot was cast) is irrelevant to the what the voter meant. I find it hypocritical that Democrats say that those Buchanan votes should have gone to Gore, because intent of the voter is more important than whether they followed instructions correctly, but those late absentee ballots should have been thrown out because the instructions weren’t followed properly.

But the control of the rolls is under the state Dept of State anyway - if they don’t want to issue cancellation letters in time, or at all, they had that prerogative.

That would seem to be a violation of due process to me.

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**That’s irrelevent. The allegation that the count was flawed does not affect the fact that it existed.

Please. If a significant number of votes weren’t counted, then the count was not complete.

No, I claimed that the recount was obviously partisan. That is, the desire to count votes again was clearly motivated by partisan considerations.

Even granting the “again”, you also have to acknowledge that the desire not to do so was partisan, by your evaluation. There’s a nonpartisan position, though, and that’s to honor democracy and count the votes.

It’s a bit hypocritical for Democrats, who have been repeating over and over that Bush was never elected, putting quotes around the word “president”, calling him an usruper, etc., to complain that Republicans tried to undermine the legitimacy of Clinton’s presidency.

What is hypocritical about supporting the legitimate and not supporting the illegitimate? Your basis for that statement is the assumption that Bush’s election was legitimate and therefore shouldn’t be challenged - but then what the hell have we been discussing here?

Becaue that’s what you said:

Do you need a definition of good faith now?

If your sole criterion is “good-faith interpretation of what the voter meant”, then I think it’s pretty clear that the date of the postmark (which is a different issue from when the ballot was cast) is irrelevant to the what the voter meant.

Hell, then, it’s not too late to vote now, according to TheRyan. C’mon, now, all you Florida Democrats, let’s get those Gore ballots in! It’s not too late! Maybe there’s a few other people we can get rid of while we’re at it, too! Sheesh, man - surely you can see the problem with trying to vote after Election Day. Surely you can also see the problem that actually counting those attempted too-late votes creates for democracy.

So why did they exist, you think? It was very widely known that the situation was a cliffhanger, and there had to be some fair number of absentee ballots that the people who had taken them out had simply not mailed in, for whatever reason. There may have been more cases of the person getting an absentee ballot, but showing up in person anyway due to some change in plans. For those to whom it became clear that getting their ballots in somehow might actually decide the election, or who saw the ability to possibly vote twice, wouldn’t the temptation be awfully strong? No, the casting of too-late ballots may not have been an organized effort as the OP suggests, but the policy across Republican-controlled counties to count them anyway seems to be too bad-faith to have been spontaneous.

I find it hypocritical that Democrats say that those Buchanan votes should have gone to Gore

I don’t think you’ll have any success finding a cite for anyone trying to get those Buchanan votes actually voided. There’s no way other than inference from information not on the ballot to say that isn’t what the voter meant. When, however, a vote for a candidate is punched in, and the same name is written in below in the write-in box, there’s no doubt what the voter meant - yet the counting of such “overvote” ballots was strenuously resisted by the Bush camp. Any guesses why?

That would seem to be a violation of due process to me.

Damn right it was. Civil rights, too, and not only because of the racial composition of the ChoicePoint targets.

[The_Ryan]

Please. If a significant number of votes weren’t counted, then the count was not complete.

If a good faith effort was made to count the votes, but some weren’t counted, then the count is done.

Even granting the “again”, you also have to acknowledge that the desire not to do so was partisan, by your evaluation.

The principle of not allowing a redo is nonpartisan, even if it was championed mainly by one party.

There’s a nonpartisan position, though, and that’s to honor democracy and count the votes.

Unless you are claiming that Gore would have demanded a recount even if he had won the first one, the position that the votes should be counted was partisan. Advocating a complete and meticulous count may seem like honoring democracy, but when people wait to see whether it would help them before so advocating, it’s a cynical manipulation which actually hurts democracy.

What is hypocritical about supporting the legitimate and not supporting the illegitimate? Your basis for that statement is the assumption that Bush’s election was legitimate and therefore shouldn’t be challenged - but then what the hell have we been discussing here?

And your basis is the assumption that Bush’s election wasn’t legitimate. If you are allowed to decide for yourself what you consider legitimate, then it’s hypocritical to deny that right to others. Many Republicans believed that Clinton was a crook and therefore not fit to serve as President. I’m not asking you to agree with that opinion, just pointing out that if you have the right to decide for yourself what constitutes legitimacy, regardless of what the highest court in the land says, then others have the right as well.

Hell, then, it’s not too late to vote now, according to **TheRyan.

You seem to have a talent for ignoring what people are saying. I did not say that there is nothing wrong with tardy votes; what I said that if voter intent is the primary consideration then tardy votes should be accepted.

[IUHomer]

Great, another Florida recount debate. I sure never get sick of that.

      Anyway, back to the topic at hand....you can't just randomly site a few cases where the Democrats feel they got screwed in the election and claim that as a group Republicans are all for subverting Democracy.  What about the NJ Supreme Court stepping in to allow for a new Democratic candidate at the last minute, which allowed them to keep a seat in the Senate?  What about having a first lady become a "citizen" of a large, influential eastern state just so she can run for Senator for the Democratic ticket?  Legal?  Yes, it is.  Is it honest?  Is it in the "spirit of Democracy" to just have anyone who is popular move to any state just so they can be Senator?  You'd have a hard time convincing me of that.   What about the whole Missouri Senate race where Ashcroft was defeated?  Didn't the governor announce ahead of time that if the deceased candidate was elected, he would appoint his wife?  I don't know if that is legal or not, but it certainly did wonders for the sympathy vote.  Is that in the spirit of Democracy?  Of course, ironically, this was really a bad move by the Democrats.  They still ended up losing the Senate, his wife only served two years and then lost the seat to a Republican AND Ashcroft ends up as Attorney General, a much more powerful position.  That is one of the worst mistakes the Dem party has made in recent history.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by IUHomer *
What about having a first lady become a “citizen” of a large, influential eastern state just so she can run for Senator for the Democratic ticket? Legal? Yes, it is. Is it honest? Is it in the “spirit of Democracy” to just have anyone who is popular move to any state just so they can be Senator?

She has to be voted in by the people, don’t she? Sounds like the “spirit of democracy” right there – nobody was holding a gun to the heads of those New Yorkers and saying they had to vote for Hillary, after all.

What about the whole Missouri Senate race where Ashcroft was defeated? Didn’t the governor announce ahead of time that if the deceased candidate was elected, he would appoint his wife? I don’t know if that is legal or not, but it certainly did wonders for the sympathy vote. Is that in the spirit of Democracy?

Yes. Again, nobody forced the voters to vote for Carnahan’s widow over Ashcroft. Unless you wish to claim the voters of Missouri are so weak-willed that they will cave in to the sympathy vote without any effort whatsoever.

[Evil_Captor]

*Originally posted by rjung *
**She has to be voted in by the people, don’t she? Sounds like the “spirit of democracy” right there – nobody was holding a gun to the heads of those New Yorkers and saying they had to vote for Hillary, after all.
Yes. Again, nobody forced the voters to vote for Carnahan’s widow over Ashcroft. Unless you wish to claim the voters of Missouri are so weak-willed that they will cave in to the sympathy vote without any effort whatsoever. **

Well, there you see the central problems. The Repubs don’t care about the Democratic process, all they care about is the outcome. It does not matter how a person is elected, just whether or not they are Republican. This is WHY Republicans subvert democracy.

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
If a good faith effort was made to count the votes, but some weren’t counted, then the count is done.

Except that isn’t what happened. Good faith would require counting all valid votes.

The principle of not allowing a redo is nonpartisan, even if it was championed mainly by one party.

This wasn’t about “allowing a redo”, but completing a full “do”. That didn’t happen.

Unless you are claiming that Gore would have demanded a recount even if he had won the first one, the position that the votes should be counted was partisan.

And what of the interests, not of Bush or Gore, but of We the People in knowing the legitimate winner? What action must follow from that consideration?

Advocating a complete and meticulous count may seem like honoring democracy, but when people wait to see whether it would help them before so advocating, it’s a cynical manipulation which actually hurts democracy.

Not when it actually happens - the interests of We the People are paramount. If someone’s lesser interests happen to coincide, that in no way invalidates the larger interest.

And your basis is the assumption that Bush’s election wasn’t legitimate.

Not an assumption - a conclusion derived from fact, as discussed above as well as in great depth elsewhere.

Many Republicans believed that Clinton was a crook and therefore not fit to serve as President.

Tough shit then. He was elected fairly and legitimately, and twice. If they couldn’t make a sufficiently-convincing case during the campaign that he was a crook, or couldn’t come up with a candidate that was even worse, then they needed to try harder the next time. That’s how the game is played.

I did not say that there is nothing wrong with tardy votes; what I said that if voter intent is the primary consideration then tardy votes should be accepted.

There is something wrong with tardy votes? What, then? When do you stop counting tardy votes? Please explain.
IUHomer: Nobody forced anyone to vote for or against Frank Lautenberg. Nobody rigged the counting afterwards. NJ voters knew who they were going to get as Senator if a majority voted that way, and who they’d get if a majority voted the other way.

NY voters weren’t forced to vote for or against Hillary Clinton, either. They made their choice according to the rules. I’ll grant that their state residency requirements are ridiculously loose, but they’re loose for everyone, and arguably more pro-democracy than most states’.

Missouri voters knew who the real candidates were in their Senate election, too, the same way. The new governor’s announcement of the real Democratic candidate, in conjunction with the state Democratic party, put the choice in the people’s hands, not his own, and was therefore pro-democracy. If subsequent events turned out not as hoped, so what? That’s how the game is played.

Now why would you call any of these instances “random”?
Sam, almost forgot you there. I already explained that the problem in Florida was with censored data, and I shouldn’t have had to repeat it. Please review what one does when that is the situation. Perhaps your local MBB can help. Hint: It involves recovering the censored data as best as one can.

[Roger_Mexico]

Breaking News

Texas Dems: Bush Is Part of GOP Power Grab

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=20&u=/ap/20030905/ap_on_re_us/texas_redistricting_3

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
Except that isn’t what happened. Good faith would require counting all valid votes.

You seem to be completely unclear on the concept of “good faith”. “Good faith” refers solely to state of mind/intent, not results. If someone intends to count all the votes, and makes an honest effort to do so, that is a good faith effort. Actually counting all the votes is not required.

This wasn’t about “allowing a redo”, but completing a full “do”. That didn’t happen.

Errors are part of a full do. You seem to think that just because it wasn’t perfect, it wasn’t really a do. But it was.

And what of the interests, not of Bush or Gore, but of We the People in knowing the legitimate winner?

We know who the legitimate winner is. It’s Bush. Arguing that Bush isn’t the legitimate winner because a proper count wasn’t done, and the count wasn’t proper because we don’t know who the legitimate winner is, is circular. The purpose of an election is to make leaders responsible to their constittuents, not to make the leadership perfectly representative of the constituents; the latter is impossible.

Not when it actually happens - the interests of We the People are paramount.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

If someone’s lesser interests happen to coincide, that in no way invalidates the larger interest.

Again, you are simply begging the question. No electoral process will satisfy everyone’s sense of fairness. The best we can do is to come up with an agreement before the election which everyone can accept. The part in bold is crucial. You can’t have an election, and then ask the question “Okay, what’s the most fair way of evaluating these votes?” That’s just ridiculous.

If they couldn’t make a sufficiently-convincing case during the campaign that he was a crook, or couldn’t come up with a candidate that was even worse, then they needed to try harder the next time.

And if the Democrats couldn’t make a sufficiently-convincing case for Gore, they need to try harder the next time.

That’s how the game is played.

Odd, though that this excuse isn’t accepted when coming from Republicans.

NY voters weren’t forced to vote for or against Hillary Clinton, either. They made their choice according to the rules.

And the Supreme Court made their decision according to the rules. The recall election was called according to the rules. If it succeeds, it will be done according to the rules. The impeachment, the redistricting, everything in the OP was done according to the rules. If you can condemn Bush for being elected according to the rules, because those rules aren’t “fair”, then IUHomer should be able to condemn Senator Clinton as well.

[Sam_Stone]

Sam, almost forgot you there. I already explained that the problem in Florida was with censored data, and I shouldn’t have had to repeat it. Please review what one does when that is the situation. Perhaps your local MBB can help. Hint: It involves recovering the censored data as best as one can.

Quite familiar with the concept, thanks. You might also want to look up ‘biased sampling’, and “data mining”.

If I have a measurement that is full of noise, and I take a small subset of that measurement that is biased in one direction and clean the noise only from it in order to get a more ‘valid’ sample, I certainly have removed some noise - but I have also added bias.

For example, let’s say I take a poll of Democrats and Republicans, asking, “Do you think we should elect a Democrat?”. Let’s say that 10% of those poll results were inconclusive for various reasons, and essentially noise, and this noise was common-mode noise (equally likely on both sides). Now, if I take all the data from Democrats and scrutinize it and clean it so there is no ‘noise’ left, I have certainly reduced the noise from 10% to 5%. I have also skewed the result by the same amount, making the results even LESS accurate, because I now have a ‘false positive’, whereas at least before I could assume that the common-mode noise somewhat cancelled out.

In addition, If I try to measure two things with a measurement error of 10%, and I find that item A is 1% longer than item B, have I proven anything? No. Now, let’s say I find a way to remove 2% of the error in measurement by sifting randomly for error and removing it. Now I have 8% measurement error, and the new result shows that item B is 1% longer than item A. Have I proven anything? Can we now say that B is in fact longer than A, because the second measurement was slightly more accurate? No. As long as both measurements fall outside the capability of the measuring system, no conclusion can be drawn.

The one recount that would have shown Gore to be the winner had him ‘winning’ by 200 votes. Do you REALLY think a hand recount of the entire state, requiring human judgement on every ballot, could possibly be accurate to within 200 votes? How repeatable do you think that count was? If you counted it all again, would you get the same answer within 1000 votes?

If the process of counting the votes isn’t repeatable to within the margin of victory between the two men, then the answer to the question of who won the election is essentially unknowable.

[SPOOFE]

Again, nobody forced the voters to vote for Carnahan’s widow over Ashcroft.

And nobody forced people in Palm Beach County to vote for Buchanan. Yet when they do it’s the “GOP subverting democracy”… :rolleyes:

Twist any way you want, Rjung, but the Dems are just as bad as the Pubbies. There’re no saints in politics.

[Roger_Mexico]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
**And nobody forced people in Palm Beach County to vote for Buchanan. Yet when they do it’s the “GOP subverting democracy”… :rolleyes:

Twist any way you want, Rjung, but the Dems are just as bad as the Pubbies. There’re no saints in politics. **

Theresa Lepore, AKA Madame Butterfly, designer of the butterfly ballot, used to work for Adnan Khashoggi. That proves it was a conspiracy

http://slate.msn.com/id/1006609/

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
If someone intends to count all the votes, and makes an honest effort to do so, that is a good faith effort.

Except, as has been pointed out multiple times, that is not what happened. I’m not at all unclear.

Errors are part of a full do. You seem to think that just because it wasn’t perfect, it wasn’t really a do. But it was.

If there was a deliberate effort not to count all votes, that is hardly “error”, not even in the statistical meaning. But that is what happened. I’m not at all unclear about that, either.

We know who the legitimate winner is. It’s Bush.

Basing an argument from the desired conclusion.

Arguing that Bush isn’t the legitimate winner because a proper count wasn’t done, and the count wasn’t proper because we don’t know who the legitimate winner is, is circular.

Except that is not the argument. Again, I don’t think there’s any lack of clarity on my part. The count wasn’t proper not because we don’t know the legitimate winner (and I’m mystified as to how you could think anyone is saying that), it wasn’t proper because a good-faith effort to determine the intent of the voter in every case was not made. That was, btw, Florida law.

The purpose of an election is to make leaders responsible to their constittuents, not to make the leadership perfectly representative of the constituents; the latter is impossible.

Sounds good to me. Do you think that was the result here?

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

Really? We the People are in charge. The President is an employee we hire to do the job. When there’s an issue, our interests are paramount, not his.

Again, you are simply begging the question. No electoral process will satisfy everyone’s sense of fairness.

I’m not begging the question; you’re ducking it. Close elections are held all the time, and the results are generally accepted as long as good faith in counting the votes is imputable.

You can’t have an election, and then ask the question “Okay, what’s the most fair way of evaluating these votes?” That’s just ridiculous.

Is it? That’s the law.

And if the Democrats couldn’t make a sufficiently-convincing case for Gore, they need to try harder the next time.

Spoken like someone whose own preferred candidate got half a million fewer votes than even that.

Odd, though that this excuse isn’t accepted when coming from Republicans.

Because the Republicans, in this case, aren’t rationalizing following the rules; they’re rationalizing flouting them.

And the Supreme Court made their decision according to the rules.

Snort. Even they refuse to claim that.

Look, if you want to define the “rules” as being “whatever my guys can get away with”, then you can, and obviously you do. But don’t pretend that’s in the service of the spirit of democracy, okay?

Spoofe, the “Jews for Buchanan” by any reasonable measure thought they were voting for Gore. The “Mel Carnahan” voters by any reasonable measure thought they were voting for Jean Carnahan.

Sam, you’re still not getting the point about good faith, and the point that you do a full count of all the data. Note too that correction of bias is not bias itself. Your repeated insistence that the winner is unknowable is not supported by fact, or reason, or good faith, or an understanding of the meaning and responsibilities of democracy, especially in the tradition we have here and that those of us who live in in it understand, okay? You do have to come up with a winner in elections. You do have to do it in a way that is generally seen as fair regardless of result, and the only way to do that is to be fair. You do not ever throw up your hands, toss the votes that represent the most fundamental act of a democracy, and go to a particular default case as the winner. How is that default-case winner selected, then? Conveniently, it was your guy, wasn’t it? But you have never addressed that point.

[Evil_Captor]

I disagree strongly with the notion, floated by GOP partisans and ignorant folk attempting to appear centrist, that there’s no difference between the GOP and Dems in terms of subverting Democracy.

True, there is ample evidence that the Dems have on occasion played fast and loose with the rules of democracy, but this has been in the past and on a local and regional basis, rather than nationally. Frex, the “yellow dog” democrats of the South who shamefully denied blacks the vote for so long. Or the Chicago political machine. These are shameful blots on Dem Party history, but do not make the Dems anything LIKE the Repubs, whose national leadership clearly has determined that it is more important that Repubs be elected than that democracy be preserved in America.

This arose out of the long absence from power that the Repubs suffered as a result of their association with the conservatism that brought on the Vietnam War. The Dems were involved in Vietman, too, but at least had an strong element of their party opposed to it.

Out of frustration at being out of power for so long, the Repubs instituted a number of changes, some of them democratic in nature, some of them not.

You can trace back the moral decay of the Repubs to the Watergate era. Dirty tricks became a part of the Repub national elections arsenal and never left. The massive corruption and lawbreaking characterized by Ronald Reagan’s regime, most notably exposed in Iran-contra, added to it.

There were legitimate efforts like the founding of well-funded think tanks like the American Heritage Institute and Gingrich’s Contract with America, which whatever you thnink about it was an honest political initiative.

More problematical is the Repub initiative to buy control of public media and use them as propoganda machines, such as Clear Channel and Fox News. While it is not strictly illegal it definitely poses a danger ot the democratic process when partisans of one party controls the media and uses their power to stifle dissent.

Real fraud and venery remained deep in the heart of the Repub Party, and you need only look at the stolen 2000 Presidential election to see how it works. The recall in California and the redistricting in Texas and Colorado are part and parcel of the same effort – Repubs have discovered that if they can gain control of the state executive offices, they can use their power of the elections commission to rig the conduct of national elections. So they are making a major effort there.

The Dems are not saints, politicians typically are not, but they don’t have a national agenda to subvert Democratic processes like the Repubs, who are well on their way to constituting a clear and present danger to the Democratic process.