Earlier tonight, I cought about the last 10 minutes of Charlie Rose interviewing former President Carter. Carter said he’d wanted Gore to run again in 2004. He said he thought Gore was the rightful winner in 2000: in FL, and therefore of the election.
Carter mentioned just one factor. He didn’t mention the felon scrub list; he mentioned the thousands of discarded ballots.
Gore was deprived of votes in a number of ways in FL: the felon scrub list that I spoke of, the discarded, never-counted ballots that President Carter brought up, the various ways in which the black vote was supressed, the West Palm Beach butterfly ballot fiasco.
I don’t think it makes sense to look at any one of the things that occured in FL in 2000 and say that the Repubs wouldn’t have tried that because it would not have been likely to have enough of an effect to change the outcome of the election.
The election in FL seemed likely to be close. State officials didn’t just want their party to win; they wanted to “deliver” the state for their Governor’s brother: an extra incentive. From their viewpoint, anything that might deny the oposition a few thousand, or even a few hundred, votes was worth doing. And they were correct in this belief: the official margin by which Bush suposedly won was 537 votes – out of about six million cast.
Did anyone watch the Congressional Judiciary Committee’s “faux” hearings on C-Span?
Apart from the parade of bad hairdos during the Q & A (hey, that’s what real people look like!), I was very impressed with Cliff Arnebeck and the Green’s attny (Thomas Bonifaz).
Lots of evidence that (to all the lawyers present there), constituted actionable fraud.
You make a good point and yet the article I linked to gives the story as I remember it:
“The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.”
I tried to find the GD thread on the newspapers burying the lead but the search function isn’t working right. According to it the term “Gore” hasn’t ever been used in this forum. I did come up with this thread talking about the count of the undervotes that was taking place when SCOTUS stopped the counting. Many of the links to newspaper stories no longer work but there is some relevant material quoted from them;
“The study found that, even if the recount had been allowed to proceed, and the ballots had been recounted just as election officials in each county say they planned, Bush still could have won by a 493-vote margin.”
Again there is mention of the 493 vote margin. This time it explicitly refers to the recount that was in progress and gives a more detailed description of the voting standard. This margin was produced by counting the ballots “just as election officials in each county say they planned.” ( emphasis mine ) It looks like my interpretation was correct after all. Unless they are referring to something else entirely the Times story, while vague enough not to be inaccurate, is misleading. It doesn’t refer to a uniform statewide count.
Re Flordia, it’s my feeling that the most important thing is: who really got the most votes? Seems that Gore did. By a slight margin.
However, here’s anther way to look at it: If everyone who left home that day intending to vote for Gore had managed to do so sucessfully, he would have won by a more substantial margin.
And a 3rd way: the official result had Bush the winner by 537 votes – out of about 6 million cast. That is a statistical tie. (That is, the margin of error in the counting methods is greater than the supposed margin between the front runner and the #2 runner.
One of the many, many flaws in our system of electing Presients is that we make no provision as to what is to be done in the event of a statistial tie.
IMO, the solution is simple: have a runoff election. But simple, fair, obvious solutions cant be used. The rules don’t allow it. And following the rules is more important than achieving a just result.
If the rules are changed ahead of time to allow a run-off election, that’s fine.
The objection I have is to tryign to craft a “just result” after the fact, with each side arguing for rules that will give them the advantage within the specific fact set that has arisen.
It’s much more fair to agree on the rules ahead of time, when neither side knows precisely what will transpire.
It’s similar to the way my grandmother taught my brother and me to divide cake, when each of us was worried about who would get the the biggest slice: one person slices the cake, and the other person picks which slice he gets. The slicer is thus motivated to cut as evenly as possible, because he won’t be the one to reap the reward of an unfair result.
I don’t doubt he lost votes. IIRC there was even one person who came forward and claimed she hadn’t voted because she heard Bush had lost. But the announcement only affected a few counties with about one half of one percent of Florida’s population ( 884,110 of 15,982,378 by my count ). And it came only 10 minutes before the polls closed. So sure, it’s likely some Bush voters were turned away. Maybe even a dozen or so. That does nothing to alter the reality that if everyone who showed up at the polls in Florida in 2000 had been allowed to vote and had that vote counted accurately then Bush would have come up short.
That’s an odd objection from a lawyer. This is what courts do, seek justice from a specific set of facts. Sure it would have been nice if Florida hadn’t mucked up their election laws but that didn’t happen. There was nothing to stop the courts from finding as much justice as possible under the law. Well, nothing except five whores on the Supreme Court of the United States who cared more for their politics than for their professional integrity or the integrity of their profession.
But don’t worry. I’m going to get over it… one of these days. Probably long before Florida gets around to fixing their broken elections.
2sence has provided a good answer to this. I would add a comment re anyone who turns away and doesn’t vote on the basis of news reports that one or the other candidate has won – this is either someone who didn’t much care, or someone who is pretty dumb, or perhaps uninformed.
Anyone who cared who won would vote for his candidate regardless of anything being reported on the news. And you’d have to be dumb or uninformed not to get it that vote totals matter. Win or lose, you want your guy to get as high a vote total as possible. So you vote for your guy regardless of anything being reported on the news.
Problem is, no one seems willing to go to the trouble of coming up with a good set of rules that cover as many possiblities as can be concieved of. It is not inconcievable that an election result will be a statistical tie. Nevertheles, Florida made no provision for such an eventuality. I wonder, does any state at all have election rules that say what is to be done in such cases?
It is not impossible to realize that a badly designed ballot could mislead people into casting votes someone other than the candidate of their choice. Nevertheless, Florida did not require that new ballots be vetted by experts, or that they be tested before use, or even that the order of candidates on the ballot be varied. I don’t know if any state has these requirements. Some may, probably many do not.
So, we are unwilling to go to the trouble of trying to come up with good rules – and we have to accept the fact that even if we did try, no one can anticipate all possiblilities. Seems to me that it follows that, when problems arise with an election, achieving a just result should be the goal, even if that means that we don’t follow every rule. Even if it means that deadlines are not met. Even if it means going to some trouble.
Re Presidential elections, the goal should be that victory go to the rightful winner. If that means rejecting a state – leaving it out of the totals – so be it. It makes no sence to allow one state’s botched or fraudulent election cause the wrong guy to be declared the winner. This is not unfair to the residents of the state in question: after all, it was their screw-up. In 2000, letting Florida’s botched election put the guy who came in 2nd in the White House was unfair to everyone in the country who voted for Gore.
FWIW, I have an addendum to my comments. I’ve been invited to a little soiree with my township clerk so all the precinct chairs and co-chairs can give some feedback. You know, what problems we saw, things to be addressed. Sort of giving our clerk a view from the ground. I was pretty pleased to have this meeting in place (although whether any suggestions will be acted upon, or actionable, is another matter).
And anyone that was turned away by roadblocks, long lines, or an incorrect list at the polling station didn’t care, or was dumb, according to your logic.
You’re just one of the usual suspects, Hazel, ranting about election problems only if they’re percieved as going against the Democrats.
Incorrect lists at polling stations
Prior to 2004, if election officials turned you away, saying, “you’re not on the list,” there was no way you could vote. Right or wrong, if they won’t let you vote, what are you supposed to do? Force them at gunpoint to let you vote? This year, many people in that situation were given provisional ballots and left believing that they had voted. Some had, some had not, depending on decisions by officials.
Long lines
This year, in Ohio, many people refused to allow long lines to stop them from voting. In black majority city districts, and in college districts, people had to wait four to eleven hours to vote. Many stuck it out. The lines could not have been so long otherwise. Those who turned away often had no choice. Some had to get to work, or risk being fired. Others had to pick up children from school or daycare.
Roadblocks
I have not heard of this tactic being used this year. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, just that if it did, I haven’t heard about it. This was one of the vote suppression tactics used in Florida in 2000. Cops are reported to have stopped cars containing a driver and several passengers who were plainly driving while black, and might be heading for a polling place. I don’t know too many details of what the cops said to the people they stopped. In some cases, they asked if the driver had a taxi lisence. I don’t know if this tactic always worked. Seems likely that some people will have proceeded to the polls once they were permitted to drive on, while others wre too intimidated to do so. For which I don’t feel they can be blamed. I
wouldn’t equate the above with people who, having waited till the last hour the polls are open to vote, then decide not to – supposedly because of news reports that the election was decided. I’ve always suspected that this was just a handy excuse from people who just didn’t bother to vote, period. If not for the news reports, they’d have come up with something else: the dog ate my sample ballot, or whatever.
P.S. to my earlier post. I do not want anyone to get away with vote supression or election fraud: not Republicans, not Democrats – nobody. Years ago, it was the big city Democratic machines who engaged in fraud. Now, it appears to me to be the Republicans. The Dems were wrong; the Repubs are wrong. It’s wrong, whoever does it.
It’s wrong when Democrats and Republicans alike do it. And individual members of both parties broke the law this time around, just like every other election.
Note to Elvis: Hazel brought it up this time, not me.
Hazel:
The “badly designed” ballot was tested. (cite) In addition, sample ballots were sent out to all registered voters in the county (Cite) Don’t you think that this is logically a decent degree of vetting?
This all gets back to the first line of your post:
THAT’S NOT TRUE. The problem is that no matter how many possibilities you think of, there will ALWAYS be unforeseen problems. It’s human nature. You try your best at the outset, but things happen that you couldn’t possibly have conceived of.
In the years between the end of WWII and the start of the 21st century, I’m aware of two Presidential elections where the guy who wound up in the White House was widely beleived not to have been the legitmate winner. It’s said that Nixon would have been the winner in 1960, had Illinois had an honest election. It’s said that Gore would have been the winner in 2000 had Florida had an honest election. Since 1960, are the Dems alleged to have stolen any other Presidential elections?
Or are you talking about something else? Elections for other offices?
The one about the ballot being tested does say that La Pore stated that the ballot was tested – but she was talking about (and the article was about) a different ballot in a different, later election. The article was about allegations that this new La Pore-designed ballot was even more confusing than the butterfly ballot of 2000.
In the other cite, the article (published in early Nov, 2000) is about the 2000 butterfly. There’s a quote asking, if the ballot was so confusing, why did no one complain earlier, as sample ballots were sent out. There’s no indication that the reporter compared the sample to the ballot actually used. I remember reading at the time that, yes, sample ballots were sent out – but they didn’t match the ballot actually used. The design was changed after the samples were sent. The may (I’m not sure, but it seems possible) be why the ballot is often refered to as “the illegal butterfly ballot”.
This all gets back to the first line of your post:
Quote from my post:
Problem is, no one seems willing to go to the trouble of coming up with a good set of rules that cover as many possiblities as can be concieved of.
You go on to say:
THAT’S NOT TRUE. The problem is that no matter how many possibilities you think of, there will ALWAYS be unforeseen problems. It’s human nature. You try your best at the outset, but things happen that you couldn’t possibly have conceived of.
My reply:
Right. As I said, later on in the post of which you quoted the first line:
…we are unwilling to go to the trouble of trying to come up with good rules – and we have to accept the fact that even if we did try, no one can anticipate all possiblilities. Seems to me that it follows that, when problems arise with an election, achieving a just result should be the goal, even if that means that we don’t follow every rule… (emphisis added)
You acknowledge that “no matter how many possibilities you think of, there will ALWAYS be unforeseen problems. It’s human nature. You try your best at the outset, but things happen that you couldn’t possibly have conceived of.” – Seems to me, that’s exactly why our goal should not be to always follow the rules to the letter, but rather to achieve a just result.