Yes, that’s a fact. The law calls for a certain set of requirements for a ballot, and the “Butterfly ballot” violated some of the requirements.
The reason why this was such a troubling issue is because the “Butterfly ballot” had been in use for a long, long time… years, I believe it was… and nobody noticed something was wrong until this election. Which really sucks for everyone… but if you can’t count the vote, you can’t count the vote. That’s just the way things go. The alternative? Violate another law to get the votes counted… but last I heard, two wrongs don’t make a right (but three lefts do!).
What do I think, Elvis? I think the same thing I thought when the Miami Herald came out with a story showing their recounts pointed to a Bush win - irrelevant, but interesting.
That will be my view when the next newspaper shows Bush actually won, then a TV station shows Gore actually won, etc. etc.
I think the certified election results after numerous recounts show us who actually won. Well, that and the guy living in the White House.
Assumptions are assumed facts. You have made a few assumptions yourself, namely that Bush winning was “right” and that double-punched ballots cannot be speculatively reconsidered after the fact due to a faulty ballot, even though they are legally considered to be admissible as such before the deadline. “Conjecture” would only apply if we “guessed” who voted for whom based on exit polls and then implied corruption or a mistake. But for reasons, there are assumed “facts” to consider. We have a case of an illegal confusing ballot that people complained about before the count. This resulted in a disproportionate number of people punching two holes for both leading candidates having been led to think it was needed for a VP (assumption based on much testimony), thus the statistical analysis was performed (by assuming it was a mistake, not a freak coincidence of stupidity, which is the assumption being made by default and ignores the faulty ballot).
An unbiased statistician compares the rejected ballots and infers a pattern. The assumed fact here is that there is an underlying cause to the mistake, and the intention can be re-determined by the evidence in order to make logical sense of it, otherwise it remains a deliberate mystery, which is a contradiction. (Of course, it already makes sense anyway to most people who are unbiased because they fairly “assume” that things go wrong occasionally and it makes sense, by definition, to try to figure it out, otherwise we would be unscientific by waiting for unproveable facts to appear when we could logically deduce the phenomenon). Repeat: The fact that two holes were punched and the mistaken part of the ballot is identified means that we can infer intent based on the knowledge of the mistake and the set of holes punched (not all cases would make sense, and would be thus discarded). In other words, the counter-example would be non-sensical or meaningless or unexplained, not the other way around. No facts other than a mistaken ballot and normal behavior are required to proceed.
Reasoning is a process where reasons makes sense of related phenomena, it is not merely a reiteration of proven facts, but is most often invoked in lieu of the proven facts to construct theories. Hence assumptions, or assumed facts to justify a conclusion to make sense of the phenomenon. This is the process of scientific knowledge. We can in many instances, for example, call reasoning a string of facts, minus one, and then theorize as to what the missing fact is, if we can eliminate the possibilities to one. Furthermore, unrelated to this ballot debate, I can draw conclusions from valid logical assumptions without knowing they are scientific facts per se, and these assumptions would then become factual if the conclusion were consistently true by corresponding to other related conclusions. Such is the case with evolution, where theoretical reasoning establishes facts by the evidence because the only counter-example violates the laws of physics (too bad if there is a competing idea that promises greater rewards). In fact, we cannot easily assert an unseen scientific cause without reason or theory, and cannot refute it by mere denial or magical substitutes.
You are attempting to deny an argument without arguing it at all with a counter-example. You are asserting that knowledge or understanding is impossible “before the fact.” This is your negation based on an opinion, but it is wrong by pretending to be factual or based on reason. By the way, an opinion is that which is not purely based on fact or reason, but that doesn’t make it false either. We can’t deny an argument based on the idea that it is invalid regardless of the assumption of conclusion. You say we can’t know who they intended to vote for, when we already know who they tried to vote for on a simple faulty ballot design. Even if counted as half-votes, they seem to beat Bush.
I surrender this defense to statisticians, who should be debating this thread, not I.
Just to add some interesting notes about Jimmy Carter (who I like):
Jimmy Carter also pushed relatively heavily for production of US coal resources and coal power, in addition to looking to alternative energy, including solar, and conservation. He had a much more balanced approach to energy, IMO, than Clinton ever did.
Oh, and so no one calls me a liar again, I have some links:
Lord, how I do admire you hard-headed realists, the way you go straight to the point, focusing on the cogent issues, sends gasps of admiration in my fuzzy-thinking little mind.
“He is occupying the White House” Well, that cuts right to the quick, doesn’t it. Irrefutable. Plain truth, any fool can see.
Nonetheless, it buggers the question. The central issue is legitimacy. I have heard much blather and bloviation about “The Rules”. Everybody agreed to the same rules in advance, therefore any outcome that adheres to the strict letter of the Rules is inherently legitimate.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
If Al Gore had discovered an arcane Florida law that permitted him to take 10,000 Bush votes and drop them in the Pacific, would you then be saying “well, that’s the rules, get over it”. More Americans voted for Gore than Bush. Recent evidence strongly indicates that more Floridians went to the poll intending to vote for Gore. The will of the people is the only source of legitimacy, the rules are secondary, as they have no other purpose but to ensure that the will of the people is made manifest. If they serve to thwart that end, then they cease to be legitimate.
After all the self-righteous fooforaw about Clinton’s character, this poses the question: what display of character are we witnessing of a man who claims a victory he has good reason to believe is, at best, questionable, and then proceeds to behave as though he had received a unimpeachable mandate. Have you seen any pangs of conscience displayed? Any hint that the manner of his election troubles his thoughts?
The White House is legally ocuppied, all the stamps and seals are in place, and thats that. That makes it a fact. It doesn’t confer legitimacy. The man who occupies that seat should not be doing so.
A piece of advice, Mr. Bunnyhurt… a long-winded speech does not a cogent point make.
That doesn’t mean it’s true. The Unassumed facts - that is, the fact that Bush won every single count and recount - contradict your “assumed facts” entirely. Therefore, the assumed facts are not true.
I didn’t make the assumption that Bush winning was right… the Unassumed fact that he got more votes tells me, with 100% truth and accuracy, that him winning was right.
Try this… in any of the counts or recounts, did Gore EVER get more votes than Bush? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice… you don’t need a 5000 word essay to respond.
To even consider the double-punched ballots, one would have to guess as to what the person voting wanted… you cannot choose a President based on a freaking GUESS. You need Unassumed facts… and, once again, there are no Unassumed facts that indicate that Gore got enough votes to be President.
Even the most even-minded and unbiased statistician cannot divine the Will of the Voter when there are two clearly-marked holes in a ballot. Or are you suggesting that “Unbiased” equals “telepathic”?
There is no argument if there are no facts to support the argument. Your argument is that we can assume Gore got enough votes to be President. My argument is that only a mentally-deficient person would even consider trying to choose the President based on assumptions.
Rather than simply call you a liar, I will simply ask that you back up this claim with a cite. Where did I assert this?
No, this is a negation based on an Unassumed fact… the Unassumed fact that we have standards for a REASON, which is to judge the results of the event for which the standards exist.
Are you suggesting, however, that rules and standards DON’T or SHOULDN’T exist, and we should allow everything to be based on the opinions of hundreds and thousands of random people? No. The standards are UNBIASED… people are NOT unbiased, no matter how hard they try. Changing the standards after-the-fact is BIASED.
Elucidator…
That’s exactly what I’d be saying. Try to prove otherwise.
Too true, too true. And Bush got more Electoral College Votes than Gore. Remind me… which vote, the Popular or Electoral, counts more? Legally, that is.
And the facts Undeniably indicate that more Floridians actually DID cast a legal ballot for Bush. That’s why he won, each and every count and recount.
The rules are secondary? Please, by all means, hint at a manner in deducing the will of the people. An unbiased manner, that is. One that doesn’t involve calling LaToya Jackson.
That’s the character of the man who, by law, is the rightful President of the United States of America. It doesn’t matter if you disagree with the law.
I would hope not. That would be indicative of a truly weak-willed leader. It’s strange that you would wish such terrible things on your country. How selfish of you.
The Man Who Got The Most Relevant Votes should be President. Guess who go the most relevant votes? (Relevant votes being those cast by the Electoral College… while you may debate whether or not the EC should exist - and, personally, I don’t think it should - it is also a fact that it DOES exist, and that it and it alone determined the outcome of the last election).
You know, I have come to hate the post-election recrimination threads. But there are two points that are really worth making here:
If early news reports are accurate, there were people who erroneously punched butterfly ballots ** and were denied replacements in contravention of Florida state law**, which specifies that they can receive up to three ballots if they so request. And the people who erroneously punched Buchanan, and were told by election workers to also punch Gore and circle the vote they meant to make, which would be manually counted.
I will agree that determining whether a pregnant chad, or two punches including a minor candidate with opposing views to the major candidate also punched, is a matter of judgment call, and perhaps should not be left to that. I will never concede that people who were told one of the above were not disenfranchised by the Florida election debacle.
There is also the figure bandied around that one can expect an error rate of 2% in vote counts. How many of us work at a job where 98% accuracy on data is acceptable? Even the “d’you want fries with that?” fast-food worker is not going to get away with “Well, I know the register tape shows $502 but here’s $493 from the drawer.”
George W. Bush was duly elected President according to the Supreme Court’s reading of the law involved. It’s clear that Mr. Gore had a higher popular vote and may very well have been entitled to electoral votes awarded to Mr. Bush. Nothing we can do about that right now, unless Mr. Bush should by some wild chance decide that he himself is committing a fraud against the American people and should resign in Mr. Gore’s favor (as opposed to Mr. Cheney’s, who is his legal successor), and convince the courts that he’s right in doing so. The probability of this is somewhere in the same range as David B. starting a thread where he calls on us all to repent and accept Jesus and is serious about it.
However, I would think that any honest Republican, disturbed that his party is being accused of “stealing the Presidency” on other-than-lunatic-fringe grounds, would join with honest Democrats who are less interested in proving that Mr. Gore shoulda won than they are in preventing the same sort of mess from happening again, and get our electoral laws, national and state, reformed into something that really works.
Maybe I’m too much of an idealist, but that’s what I’d like to believe would happen.
George W. Bush was confirmed by the House of Representatives as President. As a result, he automatically took that office at noon on January 20. All of the fiasco that preceded that moment ceased to be relevant when that happened.
There are 1410 days remaining in this man’s term of office, with each day dripping by like molasses in a snowstorm.
You know, I think you Republicans should sit back for a minute and think about what exactly it is that you are supporting when you try to defend the results of this election. By attempting to explain away the fact that we don’t know who won the election and the disturbing events surrounding it, you are helping to perpetuate the perception that Republicans care less about elections, ethics, and the law than they do about securing their power base.
Think about it for a minute. Nixon’s condoning and attempting to cover up an overtly criminal act performed in support of his own re-election bid. Reagan defying the explicit instructions of Congress and then feigning no knowledge of the crime (and “Reagan knew everything,” according to Oliver North). A Republican Congress attempting to remove a President after over half a decade of the most minute investigation of that President revealed that he lied to a Grand Jury about a fcking blow job.*
And now this.
Walk carefully, my friends. The eyes of the world are upon you, and many of them already do not like what they see.
**
Do you have any evidence that Republicans aren’t working with Democrats to ensure that this mess never happens again? I’ve linked evidence in more than one thread that shows that they are.
I’ll await your evidence to the contrary, which I suspect will be as forthcoming as evidence of fraud and corruption in the Florida election.
Sofa King - The fact that we don’t know who won this election? The majority of us aren’t having that problem, regardless of political affiliation.
(My emphasis.) POLY, I’m with you on this. But I see very little evidence, either in the article that prompted this thread or in the majority of election threads to date, that the majority of Democrats still obsessing over this issue are more interested in sorting out the mess than they are in attempting to prove Gore should have won. The latter appears to be their main focus. As long as Democrats continue to focus on undermining the legitimacy of the current presidency, as opposed to election reform, the Republican focus will also remain on defending the legitimacy of the current presidency. In other words, what’s sauce for the Republicans is sauce for the Democrats as well.
I am 100% behind people who say “the situation in Florida was a fuster-cluck of mythic proportions and an object lessen that small problems may have enormous consequences. We must reevaluate the system to ensure that this never happens again.” Lead on, MacDuff, I’m right behind you. But that’s not what I’m hearing. I’m hearing “Gore should have won/would have won/did win,” all of which is unproven and quite probably unprovable as a statistical certainty, given the vagaries of human error. If any one can give me a PRACTICAL REASON to attempt to prove at this late date that Gore should have won, other than to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency, I would love to hear it. It surely can’t be to prove the election process is flawed and needs to be corrected; that is proven already, and is manifeslty NOT the issue the Dems (or some of them) continue to obsess about.
I’ve only been going on and on about this. It’s so gratifying to have others validate my point.
It seems that rather than take the high road, many Dems have dug in their heels, and are, in fact, making themselves look like a bunch of snot-nosed, whiny, sore-loser, spoiled little brats. How dare anyone but a Dem occupy the White House! (Hint: It doesn’t belong to you, or any party. It belongs to the Nation!)
[rant] Listen-up Dems!
You want my respect? EARN IT! Stop snivelling, and go out and help fix the system! We can’t put the Humpty-Dumpty of the past election back together again, so quit crying over it and move forward! If you’re offended by what happened in Florida, maybe you ought to research the other states where similar things happened. It wasn’t just Florida, you know! And it wasn’t just Dem’s that were wronged. The Democratic Party Machines in many places are just as corrupt. Don’t go around blaming the State officials: WE ELECTED THEM! It’s OUR(The people as a whole)FAULT! We got the election we deserved! Why? Because we’ve been a bunch of lazy asses, and haven’t required the level of accountability that we ought to have done. We’ve disengaged in smug self-righteousness, convinced that we have superior political system in this here country. Well, this is reality come a-callin’! Our system SUCKS because we’ve allowed it to wither and become corrupt. Now get out of your ivory towers, off your oh-so comfortable behinds, and join me in the dirty job at hand: Fixing the System! [/rant]
Whew…
Glad I got that off my chest.
Places to go, people to see, things to do:
State and local boards/supervisors of elections: Find out who they are, and how they got there.
Look at the track record of local & State elections. Do you like what you see? If no, then make a list of issues, present it to the appropriate level officals.
Follow-up.
Make non-responsive officals PAY for their lack of response by publicising their failure, and by working to have them replaced.
REWARD responsive officials by publicising their good work and working to help them keep thier jobs.
Do all the above at the National level.
Repeat as necessary.
Make your own list of tasks. Share it.
Listen to others for good ideas. Use them.
Support the authors of good ideas: They may have more.
Glad you asked, then. No, it’s not about “undermining the Presidency”; that occurred in November and December and future historians will not be kind to Bush, the GOP, the Supreme Court right wing, or their cheerleaders. I don’t see how you can blame us common folk at this point for that while giving a pass to the insiders who got the result you wanted when it mattered.
The issue now is demonstrating sufficiently clearly to the “We got our guy in, now screw you whiners while we ram our agenda into your orifices” bunch on the Republican right exactly which set of policies, philosophies, and overall approach to governing was chosen by the majority of Americans wanted and chose. That stands regardless of the narrower “who really won” question, but the fact of the party affiliation of the current White House occupant has been allowed to let members of that party think they have a mandate - Bush himself has been acting on that premise. Without the delusion that the right-wing agenda has a mandate, it will undermine the argument that we need and want a deep tax cut, no gun control, no environmental protection, no workplace safety etc. (yes, I’m caricaturing for effect).
It’s true that the election was about the will of We the People as it stood on 11/7/00, and that date is receding. The popular will may indeed shift to support Bush and the right-wing agenda he’s pushing, in spite of that “I’m a uniter” lie he kept telling, and that would indeed legitimize his Presidency. But that hasn’t happened yet, and it isn’t happening, and keeping up the public pressure on the issue of his legitimacy is a way to help make it happen.