better peace, thanks ( :D)
THe issue is that in all cases where these machines are in use, the standard is that a “hanging chad” is a vote. The stylus used to dislodge the chad doesn’t always do the job correctly. So what happens is some one punches the card, thinking they’ve voted for the person of their choice, but the chad still kinda hangs on by one, two or even three corners. in the absence of other votes in that area, it’s clear that an intended vote was made. There’s many reasons why it might not go all the way through (age and fraility of the voter comes quickly to mind). They should not be disenfranchised by a voting system.
So, the machine, in that case, ignores actual votes. This is not optimum - trade off - we get the votes quicker, but loose a percentage of them in the process. Well, when the vote is 70/30, that’s not going to make a big difference, but if the difference between the candidates is a fraction of a percentage point (as it is here), then the fact we’re ignoring a real number of votes becomes crucial.
Latest developments are interesting. Of the 8300 odd overseas ballots, only about 2100 ballots were considered valid, and they went about 2-1 for Bush. If true, that means that as many as several thousand Bush votes were disqualified for ‘technical’ reasons very similar to the Palm Beach Buchanan votes (confusing vote system). That pretty much makes that a wash.
Apparently, the Democrats had armies of lawyers going around to all the polling stations to ‘coach’ the counters in how to spot an invalid ballot. So much for wanting a ‘fair and accurate’ recount.
Republican eyewitnesses are now claiming that there are gross improprieties going on. One of them claimed that a ‘swinging door’ chad for Bush was pushed back into place by a Democrat, and a Bush vote was found in the Gore pile. The Democrat in charge apologized and said, “it wasn’t there last night”. He was probably just covering his butt, but the implication is that someoene had access to the ballots during the night.
Another report says that a Democratic official turned up another bag of ‘forgotten’ ballots from the back seat of his car.
Now, no doubt a lot of this is spin, but it’s going to erode the confidence of the public (and perhaps the Supreme Court) in the legitimacy of the election.
[rant][outrageous stereotyping] Well, here’s an example of the serious difference between Canadian and American political sensibilities. I know Canada better than most Americans, I go there frequently, I’ve studied their history and culture, I track their events, and I love the place deeply, but I can identify real differences. The important considerations for Canadians, to my understanding, are civility and order, above all. Canadians had their democracy and independence simply given to them, they’ve never had to defend their own land or their own way of life, and they’ve never even faced a credible threat - even if they did, they have a big neighbor to take care of it for them. They have never had the experience of directly choosing their national leader. They haven’t been able to keep their own nation unified - the fragmentation gets worse with every election up there, to the point where their continued national existence is questionable. The overarching sense of national identity, such as it is, isn’t defined by unifying national symbols and national experiences as by telling each other “We’re not Americans”. Wow - powerful imagery, huh?
Since they never earned or defended it, it seems to be that Canadians simply don’t appreciate the value of democracy in its most basic terms: The right of the people to select their own leaders in free and fair elections, and the responsibility to accept the results of free and fair elections.
Rather, keeping things orderly and efficient matters more. Well, there are plenty of examples in the world of countries that have orderly and efficient elections. Cuba and North Korea are examples. Would any Canadian want to live under those systems, though?
I am truly NOT very tolerant of condescending comments from ANY other place about how we run our representative democracy. We and our ancestors INVENTED it in its modern terms, we and they fought and died to get it and defend it, and everywhere else in the world that has it copied it from us and owes its continued existence largely to us.
We’re trying to get this election decided as fairly as we can under the laws we have in place, antiquated though many of them are. Speed and efficiency are not as important to us as fairness, which includes accuracy. If this election looks different, it’s only because the narrow margin makes the normal error margins so public. Problems have been exposed and we will fix them. Meanwhile, take care of your own countries, all of you. You have enough problems of your own. [/rant][/outrageous stereotyping]
I posted much earlier in this thread that Gore claimed it would take 7 days to hand recount all of Florida, and I felt it was a lie. Someone said it was estimated that it would take 6-7 days. Well, I found an article that says it would take 3 weeks to do a full hand recount of Miami-Dade county, which only has 654,000 votes. Now, counting MORE votes in all of Florida will NOT take less time than counting Miami-Dade votes.
Sure. Right. Good. Correct. Proper. I’m pretty sure that if I keep coming up with alternate definitions I’ll hit ONE that you approve of.
[quote]
The important considerations for Canadians, to my understanding, are civility and order, above all.
[quote]
I assume you’ve never seen one of our sessions in parliament. People are a lot less civil there than they are in the U.S. government. I guess you were spared the sight of a Prime Minister riding a train through the country giving people the finger. I guess you missed the FLQ crisis, the standoff on one of our reservations a couple of years ago, and the showdown Alberta had with Ottawa, when we threatened to defend our property with force? Civility and order above all else, my ass. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Above all, Canadians are APATHETIC. They just don’t get as worked up about it all as Americans. That makes our government LESS civil. Clinton gets a hummer in office, and y’all are outraged. Here in Canada, we had a Prime Minister who’s wife was sleeping with the Rolling Stones and flashing her Nether parts at Studio 54, and our reaction was, “Wow, she’s quite the character”.
What utter nonsense. Ever heard of Dunkirk? Dieppe? Juno Beach? Canadians have been fighting side by side with Americans for the last 100 years. We were dying in Europe for two years while you guys tried to stay out of WWII.
Yes, the Americans fought a war of Independance more than two hundred years ago. Since then, however, we’ve been largely fighting the same battles.
That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how Canadians think. I guarantee you that when we go to the polls later this month, the question on everyone’s mind will be, “Do I want Jean Cretien or Stockwell Day to be my next Prime Minister?” Yes, we are technically voting for our party, and the party that gets the most seats gets to choose the next Prime Minister. But in the end, it works out pretty much the same as what you have, and we think the same way. After all, you’re not directly choosing a President either. You’re simply choosing your electors. But a difference that makes no difference is not a difference.
That’s because you guys were smarter when you set up your government. Things like the electoral college are what keep your country together. Abandon it at your peril.
[quote]
The overarching sense of national identity, such as it is, isn’t defined by unifying national symbols and national experiences as by telling each other “We’re not Americans”. Wow - powerful imagery, huh?
[/quote
There’s some truth to this one. I’ve often felt that the grand unifying principle amongst Canadians is that we aren’t Americans. Then, of course, we go around acting exactly like you.
More utter BS, and offensive to boot. November 11 just passed, and it’s a national holiday here. We spend it honoring our war dead. Of COURSE we’ve defended democracy, with our own blood just like you. And of course we appreciate democracy. Are you suggesting that if someone managed to declare himself dictator we’d somehow go along with it?
There are several reasons why our democratic process is much more low-key than yours. One is that Canadians don’t watch very much Canadian TV - we watch U.S. TV. Thus we don’t have a huge media whipping us into a frenzy like you do. Second, the way our government is set up, our elections are called quickly and are over with quickly. We don’t have the endless series of primaries, caucuses, and the long election season you have. That gives us less time to fracture along party lines.
Finally, another reason that we are a bit apathetic about our own politics is because we live in the shadow of the U.S.A. The winner of your presidential election will have far more impact on our economy and culture than will the election of our next Prime Minister. That makes it hard to get really worked up about it. But rest assured, we take Democracy as seriously as you do.
Having masterfully set up a giant strawman, you have expertly knocked it down. And along the way, you managed to fit in an offensive comparison to a couple of despotic dictatorships. Way to go. There’s a job waiting for you as a political operative.
I see. So you somehow inferred that I was being ‘condescending’, and responded with a whole pile of outright insults. How generous of spirit you must be.
And I’m glad to know that Americans invented democracy. You might want to check out the origins of the word ‘democracy’ before patting yourself on the back too hard.
I’m a big defender of the U.S., in a country where that isn’t popular. You live in the greatest country on Earth, perhaps the greatest country that ever existed. But comments like yours are the reason why I have to keep
defending you against other irate Canadians.
I supposed you missed the last part of my message, where I said, “Our country is probably just the same, we just haven’t had an election close enough to expose the skeletons in our closet”.
So take your smug superiority and save it for beer call with your buddies. It ain’t gonna fly in this public forum.
Hey. Elvis and I agree on something!!! Maybe we need a World War to bring this country back together. I think it has been drifting apart for about 35 years now, we need some focus.
Now Sam…I don’t think your comments are condescending at all. Since you and I pretty much agree, keep your comments coming. I’m not a huge fan of Canadians, but I see that I might have been engaging in some Stoidela type bigotry against your fine country. Obviously not every up there has their brain frozen:)
And as a warning to ya…
Global warming is an American plot to heat up Canada so that it is worth turning into states 51-60. So don’t worry, help is on the way:)
Wring, I’m so dissapointed…
not by you, of course, by the system. I made a biiiiiiig mistake: I tried to apply usual scientific criteria to the politics. Politician live by their own, lawyerized, rules. Besides, the lawyers there are paid by the hour, the longer they spend trying to put the chads back into the hole, the merrier…
I am far from Florida, I never held a p-card in my hand. Looks, they are “pre-punched” cards, not the ones I remember, with round, puncher (not “stylos”) made holes. Anyway, it looks like the local authorities tryed to save money or the greedy companies did not design the equipment right, or, probably, both. It just confirms that there is nothing a government can do.
After I let some steam out, there is one “scientific” point: a “bias” can be in favor of either party, but the “error” is neutral. I already gave you the example, I’ll repeat it: 70/30, or 51/49, the result is the same, even if the error is 10%. Consider: 510±51 vs.490±49. The results could be statistically ovelapping, i.e. a political tie. The decision must be political, too. If 10^n recounts were possible, the error would be, probably, diminished. But manual recounts are bound to probably increase the error. But I promised not to stick scintific decision into politics.
I’m really not trying to start a flame war, just get something irritating off my chest. As I said, I think I know and love Canada more than most Americans. I’m really trying to illuminate a point here.
(list of other items)
**Fine examples, those, but they miss my point - they got a reaction BECAUSE they are violations of the Canadian ideal of order and organization, NOT because they were seen as as signs of healthy ferment
**
Of course Canada has always pitched in when their allies have fought. I was in no way denigrating that, or any Canadian who has died to help others. Again, though, that’s not the point I’m raising, which is that Canada has never had to defend ITSELF or its OWN systems (unless it’s from us). The wars Canada has fought in have all “belonged” to other countries.
That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how Canadians think.
[/quote]
Very possibly. I will certainly grant that I’m a foreigner to a parliamentary system.
Having masterfully set up a giant strawman, you have expertly knocked it down. And along the way, you managed to fit in an offensive comparison to a couple of despotic dictatorships. Way to go. There’s a job waiting for you as a political operative.
[/quote]
**
Friend, I’m simply reacting to your horror that contesting the Florida ballot would be so “destabilizing” that it would be better not to have an accurate count there. If that doesn’t reflect a desire for order and efficiency above democracy, what else does? I deliberately used those examples to get the point across. Call it a strawman if you like, but you haven’t addressed this point, either.**
**
Exactly. **
**
I said “in it’s modern form” to separate it from mythology about Athens. The historical record shows the statement I made to be true.**
No, I saw your last comment, I just didn’t have anything to say to it. It’s just another example of the point you’ve been admitting in between lines reacting to my pointing it out, about Canadians saying they’re proud not to be Americans while acting like they DO want to be Americans. I will acknowledge your acknowledgment of your own system’s imperfections.
I really do not think I’m expressing “smug superiority” so much as suggesting that you lot take care of your own home first before criticizing others who are trying to do the same. As an example, I’ll mention all the server space you yourself have taken on this board discussing punch card chad in Florida instead of YOUR OWN FREAKIN’ NATIONAL ELECTIONS NEXT WEEK !!! I’m glad you’re opposed to Day and the Alliance, who would continue Canada’s regional disintegration - but are you putting as much energy into defeating them as you are to posting on a web site about the US elections?
Next beer call, I’d love to join you, btw. Cheers.
I’m sorry it’s been too long since I’ve been in stats classes, so I don’t recognize your mathmatical diagrams here:
You seem to be saying that since the error rate would not discriminate across the party lines, therefore errors would impact each party equally. However, as far as I can see and understand the prinicipals involved, that’s not true.
can you explain (without the math symbols please?) your position?
I see it as: errors will affect the ballots. But if the ballots in question were predominately for one person vs. the other, the error would then effect the one more than the other, roughly in the same proportion as the split in votes.
Wring:can you explain (without the math symbols please?) your position?
I am puzzled. Which symbols scared you? “510±51” means that with 10% error the actual result could have been 561 to 459. Since the difference was only 20 votes(510-490), i.e. within the error, declaring the winner was statistically (and, by inference) unreliable. Statistically, in this situstion, the 510 winner would have clearly won the election 19 times out of 20. But this is totally unacceptable politically: neither we can run 20 elections, nor “maybe” majority is acceptable constitutionally. 10^n means 10 multiplied by itself any (“n”) number of times. It’s a shorthand for saying 10,100,1,000, 10000, 100,000, etc., times.
Once again, only more precise methods of counting can reduce (never elimlnate) the error.
In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories: except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new Prime Minister (The Rt Hon Anthony Blair MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a Minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
You should look up “revocation” in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up “aluminium”. Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you
should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up “vocabulary”. Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as “like” and “you know” is an unacceptable and inefficient form of
communication. Look up “interspersed”.
There is no such thing as “US English”. We will
let Microsoft know on your behalf.
You should learn to distinguish the English and
Australian accents. It really isn’t that hard.
Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast
English actors as the good guys.
You should relearn your original national
anthem, “God Save The Queen”, but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.
You should stop playing American “football”.
There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American “football” is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your
borders may have noticed that no one else plays “American” football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be
allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American
“football”, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby
sevens side by 2005.
You should declare war on Quebec and France,
using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky.
The Russians have never been the bad guys.
July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called “Indecisive Day”.
All American cars are hereby banned. They are
crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.
Please tell us who killed JFK. It’s been
driving us crazy.
peace:
You can make this statistical if you want (I will get into the math of it, should you so desire), but this is one case where simple common sense works out.
Say we have a county with 100 votes, and we know from previous experience that it tends to go 70/30 Dem/Rep. So if 10% of ballots screw up and aren’t counted, Dems lose 7 ballots and Rep lose 3. Simple, really.
The reason that this doesn’t average out statewide is that the counties that tend to go 30/70 Dem/Rep use more accurate means of voting.
For example have those two 100-person counties be the only one’s in the state. Now, in reality, it is a 100-100 tie. However, with a 10% error in the first (and none in the second), it would be 93/97. Now add in, say, a 1% error in the second (using opscan ballots, apparently). This leaves the count as: 92.7/96.3. Clearly, what is in reality a dead tie works out differently when there is an uneven distribution of error.
The problem here is that you’re confusing error and relative error. True, the relative error is the same for both sides in a given county. However, elections deal in actual numbers, not relative errors. As the above example shows, this can lead to some significant deviations.
Perhaps you could open your minds or eyes a bit to see what is really going on, but I doubt it since the problems have been posted again and again and again.
: It isn’t necessarily the fraud that is the problem with manual recounts, though that is a potential problem. One County has decided to count dimpled ballots, another only counts chads that have two broken corners. If we were talking about two different states that would be one thing, but to have inconsistencies in the same State is simply unethical. And no matter how much crying you do that “well it’s good enough for Texas”, Florida is not Texas and it is a State issue not national, so get over it. Dimples are much more subjective as was posted by Sam Stone earlier.
: Still, most rational Republicans, and most rational people who do not blind themselves with Partisan propaganda can easily see that a recount of first Palm Beach County due to the large number of uncounted ballots, sounded reasonable. Then, it was decided to throw in a couple of other LARGE Democratic base Counties. Now it becomes a vote hunt. Mind you that even the inconsistencies in Palm Beach County were consistent with the 1996 election, the only thing that was inconsistent was a drop in the Republican/Reform Party vote with a large increase in the Democrat/Green Pary vote. Blame Nader, over 3,000 votes in Palm Beach County alone.
: It wasn’t until perhaps the Gore camp opened it’s own eyes and saw the inequity of it’s hand count requests that it requested a hand count of the entire State of Florida. Unfortunately, with a 72 hour request deadline for hand counts, the State has no provision to meet this request. If the Democrats actually wanted every vote counted, they would have requested a hand count of the entire State of Florida from the beginning. They wanted enough Democratic votes to win counted and if you just use a little bit of objectivity you will see that.
: This talk about Bush ‘stealing’ the election is such propaganda horseshit, worthy only of being wiped unpleasantly from America’s feet. The man won two counts, he isn’t stealing anything. He is doing the same thing as Al Gore, using legal manipulation to win the Presidency. Unfortunately for Gore, since Bush has already been counted President, he stands in a superior position.
:
on November 17th, two days after the Secretary of State ruled that any justifications for a hand count should be presented to her. Either we have rules or we have anarchy. Yes, the Secretary of State is going to be biased in her ruling and perhaps a court injunction will force her to accept hand counts from Breward and Palm Beach Counties, but Dade is way behind the eight ball on this and their time requirements for a hand count are simply too long in comparison to the others, they should stop wasting time and money and forgo a recount, how do you decide a week and a half after two machine counts and a week after a 1% hand count that a hand count of the whole county is necessary? Maybe because there was some doubt whether Palm Beach would provide enough votes for Gore to win? Maybe? At least take a second to look at the other side of the coin.
:
Interesting theory. However, since the rich only make up 1%-10% of the population and about 50% of the voters went Republican, I think you have a serious problem with that assertion. If only the rich voted Republican, well, I’d be rich, I’m not. Further, if I have a higher density of populous, it is alot easier for me to justify a voting expenditure of say $25,000 on 2,500 voters than on 500.
:
If this is accurate, and I believe, for the record, that it probably is accurate in Florida, then it would have behooved the Gore camp to call for a hand count of 1% across the State and used a consistent methodology for determining what level of inconsistencey was acceptable. It would have taken no extra time, could have been reported consistently and would have backed his supposed position for accuracy. Bush doesn’t need a recount to win, Gore does. However, if he doesn’t do it with a general perception of equality and fairness to both Parties, he comes out as a vote thief, not Bush.
:
No, it is not a game. That is why any recount has to be done without any conceivable perception of Partisanship. The current count is not Partisan, it is machine. The Gore pressed count is completely and undeniably Partisan in origin and Partisan in intent. I don’t see how even an avid Gore supporter could see it any other way. If the shoes were reversed, I would not be so blinded by Partisan propaganda to not realize from the objective information available, what the real intent of this hand count is.
I would personally be for a hand count of the entire State, however, the time for that request was eleven days ago and barring the Republican Secretary of State getting objective, which is about as likely as Daley doing likewise, I don’t see it happening. To put it gently, the Gore camp screwed up. 67 districts, if they had done a 1% hand count in each, it would probably still be only a few Democratic power houses that would have met a pre-set condition for a full hand recount. This would have been embraced by most Americans IMHO. What has been done is seen as a disgrace by objective members on both sides of the Partisan battle, while being supported by the propaganda believers and the hardliners of both Parties.
You are welcome to believe your brand of horseshit as well. They said they would abide by a hand count of the whole state after a little self-discovery led them to see the inequity of what they were doing.
The person who gets the most votes should be president… not in our electoral college system, which I am on the fence about, I understand it’s intent, but think it discourages voting. Less than half of the country votes. The apathy is staggering. The true desires of the people are rarely, if ever served.
Do you really not see the reason that the Bush camp is trying to stop illegally IMHO the hand count? Try reading what is being written by the other side instead of denying plausability by the source.
A. A hand count of a few heavily opposing Partisan strongholds is not fair or equitable any way you paint it.
B. If a hand count is not to be counted it can only serve to put a further shadow on the Presidency.
That is WHY they want to stop it. IMHO, the court did the right thing, they did not stop the State-provided right to request and approve and conduct a hand recount, at least for two of the Counties.
The one thing I agree with you on is that they SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS been for a full handcount sampling of the entire State, not just four Democratic powerhouse Counties. That would have given the Gore camp the superior moral ground that you believe they now hold. However, that didn’t happen and probably won’t happen and whoever wins this Presidency is a lame duck barring some miracle. The next four years is under severe shadows of doubt either way. If Gore wins, he looses. If Bush wins, he looses. They will accomplish next very little, only moderate laws can pass a divided Congress. They will be remembered in the history books as ambiguous at best for their actions and contested throughout their Presidency because of the doubt now instilled because of the actions of BOTH PARTIES.
As one who can see the flip side, I understand that these Counties had the punch ballot and expectations of more inaccuracy. But if Gore had even requested hand counts of all Counties with punch cards he would look more credible for a fair and accurate count than just those Democratic powerhouses with punch ballots.
Bush’s legal maneuvering is dispicable. I understand his rationality, but disagree with it. He first pointed fingers at Democrat legal action as deplorable, and then jumped in to stop legal vote recounts.
Bush should have done the same thing. When the count was so close and the shadow began, his high moral ground would have been to likewise request a hand poll of all districts with a preconceived and public limit of acceptable deviation. However, that could cost him the election, which is IMHO why he wouldn’t do it.
The Secretary of State should have removed herself from the decisions. Her support of Bush is well known. Her candidacy for a position in his Cabinet is well known. She could have as easily controlled the decisions through the appointment of a similarly affiliated Deputy while removing the shadow from all of her decisions.
To summarize, neither candidate has taken a high moral or legal ground in this vote count. Any degree of objectivity when viewing the maneuvers of each Party can leave no doubt of that. I understand how you can call Gore’s position morally defensible… I understand how the Bush camp can argue their morally defensible position… They can argue all day long, neither side took the moral high ground on this one. They both did solely what was in their own best interests, maybe not the ‘wrong’ thing to do, but certainly not the ‘every vote counts’ position by either side.
Myrr, I studied statistics many years ago. I would be unable to prove any statistical theorem now. I’m not sure what’s the differense between “a relative error” and “an error”.
Perhars, you meant “bias” of measurement. But whatever. Now I’ll leave statistics and delve in politicts now (poor me!).
A general statement first (I’ll repeat myself): it is done (in Florida) not because there was an error (statistical or political), it is done because highly paid lawyers want to get richer. So, they “advise” Al Gore, etc.
Neither side talks about outright fraud, buying votes, gross mistakes, etc. Fractions of one percentage point are contended. It would be a disaster for Al Gore and for the country if the result were 70/30 and G.W.Bush somehow were declared a winner. Most Americans would have had the president they do not want. But it’s not the case. The people spoke. The people were heard. One half of the people do not want AG. The other have does not want GWB. In either case, one half of the Americans will not like the outcome.
We are not electing a monarch who will be our ruler for the next four years. Even a “popular” American president can’t do much. If GWB will be president, my pity on him. He’ll deal with the split Congress and hostile Dems. What legislation will he be able to push through? It will be even more difficult for AG. Having “non-popular” “weak” president for four years is better than having none at all or having the country in the state it is now. Another week, and we’ll have blood running over these pages, so bitter it becomes. GWB will win a lot of hearts, if he concedes to the whiner now, and, maybe, the presidency in 2004. The same for AG, except that it’s probably too late for the presidency, the harm is done.
Peace: at this point, I honestly couldn’t care less about who becomes Pres; he will be an ineffectual push-over anyway.
I was simply pointing out that your earlier statement about the error balancing out is inaccurate. The relative error (error as a percent of whole) within a given county will balance, but the absolute error will not unless the county went 50/50. Whe you add up counties with different relative errors and different distributions Rep/Dem, the error will not balance, even if the actual voting was perfectly 50/50 for the state as a whole.
In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.
LOL! Oh, that was great! I’m surprised that no one else has given you props for that yet!
brief hijack/
You’ve confirmed what I’ve long suspected - that we Yanks have a limited vocabulary compared to the Brits. Example: There’s a Monty Python routine called “The Penultimate Super.” I had to ask someone what that word meant and I have B.A. in English! Yet most Brits must know what it means or else a comedy troupe wouldn’t use it as a title of a sketch. This is why I’m taking a basic Latin/Greek class (meant for pre-med students) next semester - I’ve GOT to improve my vocab!
Embarrassed,
Patty
P.S. Can anyone recommend a good book or webpage for learning more terms? So far, I subscribe to “Word-A-Day” but I figured I could used more help…
Ok. So you start off as a troll. I should really just ignore you, but I’m in a pissy mode. So I won’t. However you just lost the presumtion that you are arguing from anything other than blind partisan interest.
**
The Dem team is currently arguing before the Supreme Court of Florida to have it establish a standard for this.
**
Unethical? That’s a bit broad. Florida doesn’t happen to have a standard for chad spelled out in its lawsfor manual recounts. Bush has declared that for this reason alone recounts are unconstitutional. That’s nonsense. There are other states that we can look at for an example. Since Bush has signed a law in Texas governing this, it seems reasonable to use that law as the ‘unofficial’ standard of Florida. If Bush were really only concerned about the lack of standarization, then he would propose to use the law he signed as the standard in Fla. I’ve no doubt that Gore would agree.
Since Bush hasn’t proposed to solve the lack of standards problem by proposing a standard. I’m forced
to conclude that the objection to lack of standards is really just a tactic. His proposed solution doesn’t fit the his ‘made up’ problem. Reason: because it isn’t really the problem he says it is.
That’s my position. The whole argument that “because canvassing boards don’t have a uniform standard, it’s immoral to do recounts” is just nonsense. It is an established fact that the error rates inherant in the counting process have MORE variation county to county than any possible variation in ‘chad’ standard county to county.
There is already a larger percentage of uncounted votes in counties that use punch cards than those that use optical scans. If you honestly believe that a lack of standards for counting ‘chad’ is unfair to votors, then it is even more unfair to allow some counties to use opscan systems.
Even using the most permissive standard for counting pregnant chad still leaves a larger undervote than what you get with an opscan system even without a handcount.
Yes, a standard for chad counting would be better, but even if there isn’t one. A hand recount doesn’t create inequities, it only removes them (selectively).
**
As far as I know, hand recounts are happening (or have already happned) in ALL large counties that use punch cards. The ‘selectiveness’ of this recount is mostly in Bush’s head.
**
You keep using that word ‘inequity’ but really It’s just propaganda. As I said. All large counties that used punch cards have been, or are being recounted.
You’re gonna have to prove that this is unfair, because as far as I can tell it isn’t and I’m certainly not just going to take your word for it.
**
Really? so the press has the power to elect a president by merely saying so? Or are we taking Bush’s word for it now? Since we have yet to have even 1 accurate count in Fla, I would say the state is still to close to call.
**
The SOS doesn’t have the authority to tell them not to recount. She only has the authority to ignore the results.
And if the SOS hadn’t tried to hard to prevent the recounts that she had no right to prevent, Dade would have started several days before. They stopped primarily because they believed they had to listen when she told them to.
You are welcome to look for ulterior motives in the Dade recount. I think you are on a wild goose chase though. Gore asked for a hand recount there at the same time as he asked for one in Palm, & Broward. Dade just took longer to make up their minds.
**
I meant richer counties, not richer people. Small counties have more money per voter to spend on election equipment. (or they do ALL the voting by hand).
Of course not only rich people voted for Bush, He also did well among the self rightuous and the intellectually challenged.
**
If you recall, Gore had until 3 days after the election to ask for recounts. The first 2 days after were consumed by machine recounts, so by the time anyone KNEW that a full hand recount for the state would be the only fair thing to do it was too late for Gore to demand it.
If Gore and Bush BOTH called for a full handcount, then they could probably get some action, but even then, at this point a court would have to require it.
But you may have been paying attention when Bush said ‘no way’ to the full handcount. At this point it is moot, Gore can ask for it, but the only thing he has a legal right to have is the handcount in the counties that he requested it in originally.
Are you suggesting that he should stop the hand recounts he asked for because Bush doesn’t want to play?
Or maybe he should be suing to be allowed to hand count the whole state?
Then you should be pleased. Today, in front of the Supreme Court of Fla. David Boies argued that that court could order hand recounts of the whole state.
**
Any machine count that used machines in republican districts that are more accurate thant he machines that are used in democratic districs IS PARTISAN.
Also, I’m only a Gore supporter in this because Bush has been behaving so badly. I’m actually a republican, (though ashamed to be associated with Bush in any way). Oh, and I’m rich to
So, I would say based on your refusal to admit that the machine count is partisan all by it self, you have no business saying that you are capable of non-partisan thinking.
**
(And then you go an prove you are capable of it.)Agreed.
**
Gore camp screwed up? No this is Bush’s screw up. He had the right to ask for recounts in districts that favored him. But there wasn’t then (and there isn’t now) any reason to believe that there are any uncounted, valid votes in counties other than those currently doing recounts.
At the time the deadline for asking for recounts passed, Gore had no justification for asking for a recount in the whole state. It’s a little partisan to blame him for not knowing then how this would play out and how much FUD the Bush team would be throwing out.
20/20 hindsight.
**
And what makes you an expert on the motivation of the Gore team. Are you an insider?
I suspect that it has little to do with a realization of inequity because (As I’ve pointed out before) a partial hand recount really isn’t inequitable. It may seem so if you are operating from the assumption that all counties in Fla use the same punch cards for voting. But it turns out not to be the case.
I think it more likely that the decision to request a full recount of the state is more about the realization that the majority of Americans aren’t paying close enough attention to the situation in Fla to realize that the Bush contention that hand recounts are unfair is bullshit.
The suggested to do the whole state because it won’t really make any difference and it effectively counters the Bush position about ‘selective’ recounts being unfair.
**
Do your homework. It is fair if those are the only counties that have a non-trival number of ‘undervotes’.
I’ve read everything that I can get about the numbers down there and so far there is no public evidence of undervotes in counties other than those.
**
A deserved shadow.
**
More revisionist history. The deadline for that request passed before there was reason to believe that it was necessary, or even warranted.
**
He’d rather be president than have a full count and RISK not being. This from the guy who was going to bring honor and dignity back into the White House. Words just fail me.
**
Actually, what she did wrong was to act as co-chair for the committee to elect Bush. It was her job to oversee the election. I’ll bet she took an oath at some point when she too office. She violated that oath the minute she joined the Bush election team.
The people of Fla should sue her for breach of trust.
No Gore did something that was at once the right thing to do AND in his own best interest. The fact that it was in his interest doesn’t make it wrong, nor does it make it any less the right thing to do.
I can tell that you are disappointed in Bush’s behavior in this. And you should be, but you are attempting to make yourself feel better by saying that they are both equally bad.
But they aren’t. Gore is doing the right thing here, Bush isn’t. Now I’ll grant that in this case, the right thing helps Gore, so we don’t (yet) know if he would do the right thing even if it hurt him. You make the assumption that he would not. But you have no evidence, so you are not justified in painting them with the same brush.
I appreciate the props but the only thing I did was re-format it. If it didn’t have the part in it about bombing Canada, I don’t think I would have posted it, but I thought Sam Stone deserved some warning.
