Gore's gauntlet thrown, Bush's response (new thread, shoot me!)

Great Debates
61

Naturally, you’re entitled to your opinion. However. What are you basing your assumption on? THey’ve already disqualified several thousand ballots that had 2 clearly marked persons for president So, I would presume that the same standard would hold (to toss that ballot). See, there is the rationale behind my presumption.

And, once again, the “officials” doing the recount have as observers: AT LEAST one democrat and one republican, not to mention the loads of cameras and media personnel.

why in the world would you object to a recount as being unfair when it’s being held under the intense scrutiny that these people are being subjected to?

62

This is all pathetic really.
How many recounts have they had already? How many more?
Gore is truly a sore loser.
Sigh.

63

1 machine.

1 hand.

64

“Naturally, you’re entitled to your opinion. However. What are you basing your assumption on?”

I heard on the news this morning that one of the counties in question (I believe Palm Beach County) had decided to count so-called “dimpled chads” as valid votes, reversing a policy that had been in place for many years. This smacks of partisanship, IMHO. (And to be fair, the actions of Florida’s Secretary of State would appear to be partisan too.)

(BTW, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about the “dimpled chad” decision)

“why in the world would you object to a recount as being unfair when it’s being held under the intense scrutiny that these people are being subjected to?”

I assume this question is directed at me. The question of what is fair and unfair in this situation is very thorny. I don’t believe that I said it (the hand recount) was unfair, and if I said that, please show me where I said it - I’ll gladly take it back, or at least qualify my statement. :slight_smile:

65

I agree, dimpled chads should not be counted. I suspect they may be using that since that’s the standard in Texas, and they’d be able to show that Bush had signed that standard into law. FTR, I don’t think it should be the standard in either Florida or in TExas.

**
If I mischaracterized your position, I apologize. If you’re objection to the recount is based on something other than “it’s not fair”, then I guess I missed it. The vote was originally counted, the state triggered a recount, and subsequently, Mr. Gore (as is his right under Florida law), requested another recount in certain counties.

FTR, I believe the decision will be based on the overseas ballots and not these recounts anyhow. BUT. I also believe that our country and Mr. Bush in particular will have a difficult time if there’s a sense that “not all the votes counted”. Should he end up winning, I hope that the counts were in.

66

Don’t you see the problem here? The inconsistency aimed at getting an “appropriate” count?

The reason the Bush camp is against the hand count is to remove such inconsistencies. (At least the reason they claim to be against the hand count)

The reason the Gore camp is for the hand count is because they believe they get enough pregnant chads to overturn the election.

They are equally selfish in interest and using the ‘will of the people’ as their shields. The entire affair is a travesty and I predict voter turnout in 2002 will be the lowest in years. No matter which way this election comes out, America has lost confidence in our Democratic system. Unless major changes are made to the voting method across the country, I think we will see alot of apathy in the next several elections.

Now that the system has been turned into a litigious event, it’s just another reason to loose faith in the importance of your ‘one’ vote.

67

“I agree, dimpled chads should not be counted. I suspect they may be using that since that’s the standard in Texas, and they’d be able to show that Bush had signed that standard into law. FTR, I don’t think it should be the standard in either Florida or in TExas.”

Well, can we agree that if the county officials adopt the “Texas” approach, that even if their decision is defensible, it smacks of partisanship?

Can we agree that the decisions of the Florida Secretary of State, even if defensible, smack of partisanship?

“I apologize. If you’re objection to the recount is based on something other than “it’s not fair”, then I guess I missed it.”

My point is that the “chads” on the floor of the room in which the re-counting is done are a cause for concern. Depending on how hand re-counted ballots are interpreted, the difference between a partially detached “chad” and a fully detached “chad” may be significant.

One last thing. Somebody said the following:

“Given what has gone on there, I’d be tempted to count it for Gore if the other candidate is Buchanan, but in reality, neither vote should count. And I believe that is the policy.”

Can somebody give me a reference for this? I’ve been looking for a hand re-counting policy and haven’t found one.

68

Yes to both, although the SoS has a bigger problem in the level of her involvement in both the campaign and the partisanship - but that’s really more of a “yea, well, you broke more dishes than I did” kind of thing.

**

Have you ever handled a computer card like they’re describing? I voted on them for years. They’re pretty sturdy, which is why you need the metal stylus to poke the hole in them for your vote to count. Then the little “chad” falls away. Sometimes it falls away right when you’ve poked the card, sometimes, it hangs on by one to 3 corners. But chads from UNPOKED holes do NOT fall away. So any talk about chads on the floor etc. are only talking about actual votes. if they fell last Tuesday or today, it’s still the same chad from the same vote. Under the level of scrutiny going on, it would be nearly impossible to make additional holes. Keep in mind, too, that in order to achieve the level of misconduct you are concerned about you have to believe that:

  1. The people involved would be willing to commit a felony. there is no evidence this is true.
  2. That NONE of the observers around would notice some one suripticiously poking holes in the ballots.
  3. that there are more than 300 ballots there where they DIDN’T vote for president. (if they punch another hole in for the presidential candidate, the ballot would be invalid)
  4. That this scenario (of person willing to commit a felony, no one noticing etc.) is replicated at least 300 times under the level of scrutiny going on there.

that would be: 300 (or more)felony counts, 300 (or more) unmarked ballots that would find their way to this unscrupulous person, and 300 (or more) sneaky pokes at that those ballots, all under the watchful eye of 2 party observers, multiple media with cameras and other assorted onlookers.

While I cannot PROVE that it COULDN’T possibly happen, I would submit to you that the likelihood of it happening passes the liklihood of Reagan being re-elected President (after all, it would only take an amendment to the Constitution and for him to either recover from Alzhiemers or the Republican party to nominate him anyhow…)

69

“But chads from UNPOKED holes do NOT fall away. So any talk about chads on the floor etc. are only talking about actual votes.”

As long as partially detached “chads” are uniformly and consistently treated as actual votes, there’s no problem.

My “concern” is as follows: What happens if one candidate’s “chad” is fully detached, and another candidate’s “chad” is slightly detached.

For example, Buchanan’s “chad” might be detached on one corner, while Gore’s “chad” is fully detached.

Should such a ballot be treated exactly the same as if both “chads” were fully detached?

Is that in fact what the election officials have decided to do? Somebody above suggested that the answer is “yes.” I’d love to see a reference.
“Keep in mind, too, that in order to achieve the level of misconduct you are concerned about you have to believe that . . . .”

I believe you misunderstood my post. I was not trying to suggest that fully attached “chads” were coming loose, accidentally or intentionally.

70

Like it was unlikely to find 300 ballots that weren’t previously counted?.. Things that make me go Hmmmmmmm.

71

I can’t believe how many people are buying into the Bush campaign’s characterization of hand-counting as being ‘error prone and open to mischief’. Hand counting will always return a more accurate result, as long as a reasonable standard is applied. As for mischief, it’s up to the Gore and Bush campaigns to oversee the count well enough to prevent that.

However, the Democrats appear to be attempting to use the hand-count process to skew the results towards Gore. Extending the counting of a vote to include dimpled and pregnant chads is ridiculous. Remember, these cards are initially held by the voters in seclusion. There are plenty of ways that the voter could accidentally dimple the card.

I’ve used these punch cards quite a bit in other applications, and IMO the only vote that should count is one in which at least two corners of the chad are detached (swinging door). Even one corner is not enough, because a twisting force on a card puts stress on the corners and could cause one to detach. But it’s extremely hard to get two corners to detach by accident.

Using the ‘two detached corners’ standard is a good compromise that improves accuracy while almost totally removing subjectivity and easy modification of the ballot. Unfortunately, the Democrats are obviously worried that they won’t pick up enough votes that way, so they are pushing for more and more lax standards in interpreting the cards. That’s wrong.

I’d like to be on the side of the Angels, but unfortunately there aren’t any in Florida. Both sides are attempting to twist the law, influence elected officials, challenge state laws, manipulate the media, and do everything else in their power to sway the election in their direction.

I just saw a troubling press conference where Daly said that even if the hand-counts are not allowed, they still want to complete them, because if they show Gore the winner they will use that to take the case ‘to the people’, in an attempt to pressure the government to overturn the ruling (or pressure electors to jump ship). This would be very bad for the U.S.

72

I agree that “dimpled”, or “pregnant” ballots shouldn’t be counted. However, that is the standard, for example in Texas, and if there’s no other candidate marked, it could be implied. It is, IMHO, a stretch. However:

You know, I’ve never tried twisting them myself, BUT. There’s hundreds of little holes on those things. Even if I grant you that twisting will detach a chad, for it to “become” a counted vote, the chad that was twisted would have to occur on a ballot that had not otherwise been marked for that office (pretty unusual I’d think - in a national election many may skip voting for local drain commissioner, but I’ve never heard of hordes of voters that would skip the presidential) AND that the chad twisted would actually BE in the space for the vote. I’d think if the ballot had been man handled enough to spit out chads without having been poked, it’d be clearly mangled. There’s no evidence of anything of the sort. To speculate on all the ways that these may have been detached (gee, lightening could strike and maybe the electrical charge…)is pointless as well.

** agreed, sadly.
but about your last comments, I think the WORST thing for a Bush presidency would be to have the spector of “what if” hanging over his head. this, of course, is only MHO.

73

You’re going to have to explain that one, Sam. We take our democracy pretty seriously down here (well, many of us still do). Do you really think it would be better for the country, and the world it has a special responsibility toward, to have a President whose legitimacy in office is questionable in any way?

You yourself have said that a hand count is more accurate. If a more accurate count shows Gore the winner, why is it a bad thing to make that clear to the country and the world? Isn’t it far, far worse to try to fight the demonstrated will of “We the People”?

Hell, yes, I want it over with soon, but getting it over with AS ACCURATELY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE, in a way that history can’t seriously question, is far more important.
FTR, if a hand count across the state shows Bush to be the winner, I won’t like the result, and I’ll work to clean up the Electoral College system, but I won’t question the legitimacy of his election. That stands in contrast to the far-right-wing whines of the last 8 years that Clinton isn’t a legitimate winner because he got less than 50% of the votes. Even Tom DeLay, the real GOP power in the House, has made a point over the years of calling him “your President” when talking to Democrats. THAT crap is a real danger to the nation if enough people take it seriously.

74

It’s just completely botched Elvis. If they were doing all of Florida by the SAME guidelines by hand, it might argue as ACCURATELY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. What we have is the two doing anything and everything they can to win. It is embarassing and We the People will never be appropriately represented no matter what the outcome of this explitive election.

The Electoral system is definately in need of an overhaul after this mess. But imagine if the Popular Vote had been contested! A hand count of the entire country?

I’m a Republican Elvis and I have no idea what you are talking about.

Just as most Democrats call Ronnie “your President” when speaking to Republicans. That is just partisan crap, you know that I’m sure. They try to link the Party to the Politician … Reps do it to Dems when the Dem Prez is a bad boy; Dems do it do Dems when the Dem Prez is a good boy. Surely you can see that?

75

In a word. Yes.
Unless of course, you “handle” it with a hole punch :wink:

If all voter’s manhandled their votes until all of the punches were on the floor, the machine could would give you
the same result as a hand count.

In cases where the voter didn’t do that, the intent is still clear if you examine the ballot by eye. But not by machine. The machine’s eyes aren’t as good as ours. But they are a HECK of a lot faster and cheaper.

76

Regardless of whether one or both chad are fully or partially detached, that would be a double vote, and thus an invalid ballot.

tj

77

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy *

Don’t you see the problem here? The inconsistency aimed at getting an “appropriate” count?

The reason the Bush camp is against the hand count is to remove such inconsistencies. (At least the reason they claim to be against the hand count)

[quote]

Yes. I do see the problem. This problem has two facets
as I see it.

  1. if the canvassing board for a district doesn’t have a standard implace for it’s hand count. This would be the most serious problem. But from what I’ve read, each canvassing board has been consistent with itself.

  2. Inconsistency across districts is theoretical problem, but not an ACTUAL one unless you also know some other facts. For instance, are DEM counties using a more permissive standard than REP ones?

This is where the hypocracy in the REP argument really comes to light. Because in fact, there is only 1 large REP count that is using punch cards. And IT isn’t recounting. (yet). The lack of standards is irrelevent unless IT is also counting.

Or rather, it’s no more unfair than the fact the districts that use optical scanners throw out far fewer ballots than those that use punch cards.

There is inequity of this sort built into the system from the beginning. (And in fact, it favors the REPs because smaller, richer districts are far more likely to use the more accurate voting methods)

Bush has no significant pool of uncounted votes to be found because most of his votes have ALREADY been counted.

No, because the believe that they have enough UNCOUNTED VOTES to win the election. This is not a game.

You are welcome to believe that. But I think it’s horseshit. The person who gets the most votes should
be president. The DEMs are only trying to get the most accurate count possible (remember, they did say that they would abide by a hand count of the whole state). While the REPs are trying to stop the counting while the outcome is still in doubt but they are ahead.

I see the DEM positition as morally defensible (although they should be working harder to get the whole state counted). While the REP posistion isn’t.

tj

78

Should have used preview. <sigh>

tj

79

ElvisL1ves Quote:

I’m deeply distressed by the number of people who have argued that we need to get this resolved more quickly than accurately, as if another week or so is unaffordable. Is there anyone who thinks so who is willing to say they think that’s best for the country, or for its place in the world, or for its place in history? Does anyone on this board really believe that the right of the people to be fully heard and to select their own leaders is subordinate to some other consideration? Is THAT what you think we stand for? I’m embarrassed for America that such sentiments can even be taken seriously.

End ElvisL1ves Quote

This reminds me of the most-recent “Simpsons” episode. One scene went something like this…

HOMER: [About to blow open a stuck drawer with a firecracker.] Do you want it done FAST, or do you want it done RIGHT?

MARGE: Like most Americans, I want it done fast.

HOMER: [Lights firecracker and blows out drawer.]

We could stand to be a little patient, we Yanks. We still have a president in the White House until mid-January, and even if things aren’t decided by then, the Constitutional back-up plan is to have the Speaker of the House act as a temp prez. We might as well cool our jets, folks. At least there’s no rioting in the streets (yet).

Patty

80

Another reason why you should only count ballots that have two ends detached is because they are completely unambiguous. If you want to count pregnant chads or chads with one corner detached, you have to do things like hold it up to the light, twist it slightly, etc. That’s because if just one corner is detached the thing will still be position, so the determination of whether a corner is detached or not is very subjective.

BTW, a number of districts across the U.S. that use punch cards require two corners to be detached, for precisely this reason. It almost completely takes subjectivity out of the picture. And that also speeds up the recount process.

In any event, I think it’s morally defensible to argue that the votes should be counted as accurately as possible.

The reason it would be bad for the Gore campaign to take the final count to the people even if the election is certified is that it circumvents the rule of law. You know, one valuable lesson this election has taught me is how important the rule of law really is - I can’t believe how this issue has split down party lines. Aside from a few people on the SDMB, it’s almost impossible to find a Republican that thinks the counting should continue, or a Democrat who thinks the counting should stop. Bias infects everything. So you NEED laws to make decisions, and it’s important to respect them, even when they come down against you and you think you got a bum deal. And yes, sometimes they are arbitrary.

I don’t blame the Gore campaign for appealing decisions, but once the SOS rules on Monday, that should be it. Any attempt to create a popular uprising against a Supreme Court decision is horribly destabilizing.

BTW, one of the stories playing here in Canada is that the U.S. justice system is terribly politicized. A troubling aspect of this case is that the rulings of judges and elected officials are almost guaranteed to fall along party lines. Gore appeals to a judge appointed by a Democrat, and gets a favorable ruling. Bush appeals to a judge or court appointed by Republicans, and gets a favorable ruling. Gore takes it to the next liberal court, and gets the appeal overturned. Bush goes to the next conservative court, and…

That’s really the way this comes across, and it’s not very encouraging. It’s probably the same way in Canada, but we just haven’t had a polarizing event like this to drag our skeletons out of the closet.