Gore's Settlement Proposal

Great Debates
21

Nope. It isn’t specifically for anything. The statue reads more like a friendly suggestion. This is it in its entirety.

[ul]
102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department of State; penalties.–

(1) The county canvassing board or a majority thereof shall file the county returns for the election of a federal or state officer with the Department of State immediately after certification of the election results. Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department.

(2) The department shall fine each board member $200 for each day such returns are late, the fine to be paid only from the board member’s personal funds. Such fines shall be deposited into the [sup]1[/sup]Election Campaign Financing Trust Fund, created by s. 106.32.

(3) Members of the county canvassing board may appeal such fines to the Florida Elections Commission, which shall adopt rules for such appeals.

History.–s. 30, ch. 89-338; s. 7, ch. 99-140.

[sub]1 Note.–The trust fund expired, effective November 4, 1996, by operation of s. 19(f), Art. III of the State Constitution.[/sub]
[/ul]

Ms. Harris had to do nothing according to state law. Everything was up to her discretion. (If it was such a hard rule, why bother giving out a fine for turning results late and basing it on how late it was turned in late. That leaves hope that the votes will be counted for a fee.) From that standpoint, the hurricane stuff looks simply like a red herring. She wished to have the counting stop counting by 5pm today and used her authority to do so.

22

IzzyR wrote:

No more clear cut than those laid down in Palm Beach.

Please note that the Texas law allows a vote to be counted even if no corners of the chad are detached, if “an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote,” or (more vaguely) “the chad reflects by other means a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote.”

In each case, it is the intent of the voter, as evidenced on the card and perceived by the counters which governs.

Same as in Palm Beach.

23

spoke-

I interpreted the Texas statute as meaning that you need 1 and 2 and 3 ,or 4 alone. Are you reading it otherwise?

24

That is a standard statutory construction which would be interpreted to mean that any one of the described circumstances would be sufficient to count the vote. Otherwise, the first three clauses would have been joined by the conjunction “and”.

Any one of the named circumstances means the vote gets counted.

25

Yeah Izzys right

26

The insanity predicted by the Bush camp when hand-recounting was first proposed is coming to pass.

FoxNews just reported that the Democratic National Committee has filed suit against one or more Florida counties wanting to force them to count bulging or “pregnant” chads.

Yes. We’ve now reached the point where Gore supporters want votes to count for their candidate that haven’t even been punched.

These, of course, are the same people who are also suing Broward County for determining after a statistical sampling of its ballots that it doesn’t feel a further hand count is necessary. That decision was made by a group that, I believe, is made up mostly of DEMOCRATS.

How can anyone not see that Gore wants this process manipulated in countless ways until it completely benefits him and the vote count comes out in his favor?

This has become outrageous and embarassing on the Democratic front.

(Dems: Insert your snivelling about the Republican Secretary of State here, so I can once again refer you to Florida election law 102.111, which she followed to the letter and the court upheld.)

27

As opposed to the standards in the state of Texas? In case you are unable to remember them from way up the page there let me refresh:

Obviously the Democrats have concocted this idea on the spot just to manipulate the electionn results. :rolleyes:

Yep. Why, it almost makes you think that some “DEMOCRATS” are able to act according to their intellects and consciences rather thn blindly following party lines. Well, it makes me think that. You apparently think that “[t]his has become outrageous and embarassing on the Democratic front.”

I do agree that Gore should not have filed suit to override the Broward County Canvassing Board’s decision.

Perhaps the same way that some people are so passionate about Bush that they fail to see the hypocrisy and self-serving nature of his actions. Fanatical devotion tends to cloud objectivity. Why, I bet some of us can see examples in this very thread.

The court upheld her ability to enforce the deadline. Is also reminded her that she had, and was required to use, her discretion to decide whether later submissions shall be certified. This contradicts her earlier statement that she had no discretion. It also has made her back away from her earlier blanket statement that absolutely no late returns would be certified.

Then again, maybe my perspective is biased by my lack of vitriol and partisan blinders.

28

I asked a lawyer on our staff, and she agreed with you. So I retract my previous statement.

29

Just saw this.

The significance of this type of thing is that it tends to give ammunition to both the Bush lawsuits and the Harris deadline.

30

How so?

The Republicans have made an accusation. Is making an accusation now considered support for a position?

So if I accuse you of lacking objectivity on this issue, that accusation lends ammunition to my position that your posts on this issue have been marred by partisan prejudice, right?

31

I’m beginning to find it annoying that this is even being called a recount. Whats being counted is ballots that the machines were unable to count, i.e. ballots that were never counted, i.e. ballots that are being counted for the first time.

Most of my opinions surrounding this are based on the idea that every vote cast should be counted. If the machine which is used to count ballots is unable to count some, those should be counted by the best available method. Or shall we change our idea of democracy, that some votes, due to the random vagaries of the mechanical devices used to cast and count votes, should not count?

If the board of electors counted 50% of the ballots and one candidate was ahead by 300 votes, should they declare that person the winner? I doubt anyone will agree that they should. Why? Because,it is obvious that the results are still inconclusive. At what point do they become conclusive? Easy. When the number of uncounted ballots is smaller than the lead of one of the candidates. Which is why in most cases the ballots the machines are unable to count don’t matter.

As long as there are uncounted ballots more numerous than the number of votes by which any candidate leads, those votes need to be counted. Otherwise we may as well just call off all future elections and just draw straws.

32

Spiritus,

Cute. I shall explain. It is frequently dificult or impossible to come to a definite conclusion about charges being made. The very making of accusations, if not disproved, casts some ambiguity on the added reliability of the manual counts over the machine ones. This would tend to strengthen the argument of someone who was claiming in court that they were unfair and subjective etc. It would also strengthen the argument of someone who said there was no reason to waive a deadline so as to allow the manual counts to supercede the machine ones.

33

Only to those with an imprecise grasp of logic. An accusation is evidence of nothing other than the expressed belief of one person.

Not to an objective observer, especially when the accusation originates from the plaintiff of the court case.

It has no bearing whatsoever on the position that a deadline for results should be maintained. It has the same specious bearing on the position that hand counts should not supercede machine counts that it does to the position that hand counts are unfair and subjective.

Your post, however, might be viewed as both strengthening the position that your posts on this issue have been marred by partisan prejudice and lending credence to the accusation that you lack objectivity on this issue.

It seems my rhetorical exercise was more apt than I had realized.

34

Spiritus,

Most people, even objective observers, would find that claims, even from interested parties do have the effect of creating some uncertainty. (Especially if the one about whom the claims are being made is an equally interested party). You, in your incredible wisdom, know better. Or perhaps, in your incredible arrogance, think you know better. Feel free.

The importance of superceding the machine count with a manual count is corrolated with the degree of added acuracy gained from a manual count. Whether the deadline is to be waived or not is tied to the importance of doing the new count. I would think these things are obvious, but feel compelled to point them out to those who might not have understood. Or pretended to.

35

Accusations, even unfounded accusations, can have an effect on public opinion. This is true. It is also based upon the depressing fact that public opinion is often driven by forces far removed from reason. If you intended to argue that public accusations can cloud the public’s judgment, then you expressed yourself imprecisely. let’s take a look back:

Neither the Bush lawsuit nor the legitimacy of Harris deadline pronouncement were being tried in the court of public opinion. Later, you said:

Now, I interpreted this as a statement about the relative reliability of manual and machine counts. Perhaps instead you meant “ambiguity in the perceptions of the those unable to differentiate accusation from evidence”. Perhaps you meant “ambiguity to IzzyR”. Perhaps there is no diffence between those two options.

Either way, it was not clear to me that you were speaking of uninformed public opinion. Especially when you follow with:

See? Now we are back to an issue being decided by a federal judge. Call me an optimist, but I like to believe that federal judges understand the difference between accusation and evidence, particularly when the accusation is made by the plaintiff.

finally, you added the statement:

Strengthen the argument? If you meant “strengthen the argument” to be read “influence ignorant people to believe” then I wish you had said so more clearly. On this board, an argument is usually expected to stand upon its merits. And unsubstantiated accusations add no merit.

Now, back to the present.

I do not find the wisdom to differentiate accusation and evidence incredible. I do, however, know better.

Agreed. And that degree of accuracy is unaffected by accusations of bias.

Apparently, the Florida Secretary of State does not agree with you, since I do not believe any mention of the “importance” of doing a new count was made in her decision to disallow new counts. Perhaps you should point it out to her.

36

spiritus,

I meant, as I wrote, in court. There’s no reason to dismiss an accusation as “unfounded” merely because it is coming from a Republican. There is no reason to dismiss Ms. Roberts’ denial as unfounded merely because it is coming from a Democrat. Though of course, both these facts will be factors in how much credence to give it. It may be that the burden of proof will be on those attempting to “prove” that the hand count is unfair. But I don’t think observers who testify that they saw Roberts manhandle the ballots will be dismissed out of hand and “have no effect” merely because they are Republicans. In fact, I find it hard to believe that even you think so. But then, maybe you “lack objectivity on the issue”.

I did not see any of the justification provided by the Florida SoS for disallowing the late counts. Did you?

37

For further details, see this article in the Washington Times

38

IzzyR:

Indeed, and I did not do so. the only place where I used the word unfounded was in discussing whether an accusation might affect public opinion. when characterizing the republican accusations I used teh word “unsubstantiated”. There is a significant differnce in connotation between these two words, a difference which I was careful to observe. Such care in making distinctions, apparently, is lost upon you.

I should hope not. Of course, eyewitness evidence given under oath is considered “evidence”, not accusation. Whether is is “good” evidence depends upon a number of factors. Luckily, in this particular case, the proceedings were observed by a large number of viewers and television cameras, so the court should have ample evidence from which to draw a conclusion.

The evidence, not the accusation, may have an effect in court. I can think of no way to phrase this more clearly.

Fair enough, since my belief is not the caricature you have put forth.

Perhaps, but if you wish to make such a charge persuasive you should probably find some evidence. The accusation, by itself, lends no merit to the argument.

Now where have I heard that before?

Yes.

A summary (from a liberal newspaper) can be found here.

The full text can be seen at http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/News/111600/Election2000/Text_of_Katherine_Har.shtml

39

spiritus,

As you evidently picky about the nuances of the exact terminology employed, you might have paid more attention to what I wrote. I wrote in my first post that “The significance of this type of thing is that it tends to give ammunition to both the Bush lawsuits and the Harris deadline”. (emphasis added). This does not constitute a claim that this will be conclusive in court - merely that it may have an impact, among other factors. Obviously if these claims are disputed by large numbers of observers, or disproved by cameras, they will not be accepted. As I wrote in my second post “The very making of accusations, if not disproved, casts some ambiguity” etc. (emphasis added). This remains true.

I could not find the full text of the Harris reasons at the link that you provided. But if the summary is correct, than I guess she did not use this reasoning. Seems logical to me though.

For this reason I wrote “maybe”. It is also possible that you have an old score to settle. Whatever.

Getting back to the OP, one important thing to remember is that there is less to Gore’s offer than meets the eye. One important facet of his offer was to drop all lawsuits, and not support any that may be filed on his behalf. But apparently, many of these lawsuits can procede without his endorsement, and the instigaters have indicated that they will not drop them, regardless of what Gore does.

40

I have no axe to grind.

I continue, however, to reject the idea that an accusation, in and of itself, should be considered significant. As for, “if not disproved”: in this country we grant the presumption of innocence. It is not incument upon the accused to disprove but upon the accuser to offer substantiation.

I did not miss teh significance of your wording. It did, however, make me wish to seek clarification. If you recall, my response to you was “how so?”

It has been your “clarifications” of this position that have guided my response at each turn.