Uh, Lib… check your facts again, buddy. First one running into court was the man in the White House, asking the court to ** stop ** a legally-provided for recount. George went whining to the courts to ask them to stop doing what * the law said should be done * . Then ** Mr. State’s Rights ** went to the Federal courts to get what he wanted when the state courts said sorry, pal.
It’s only been a year, man, it’s kinda hard to start rewriting history that soon. A few million of us remember what actually happened.
That’s what I get for posting before I finish reading.
Bottom line, guys: it takes some pretty creative thinkin’ to say ** Gore ** took it to court because ** Gore ** was * named as a defendent alongside Bush *, and then claim that Bush was “forced” to go to court because Gore asked for the laws on the books to be put into action!
Here’s why, Sam: it wasn’t. Oh, maybe it was technically in Florida, but the fact is, Gore was the guy most Americans voted for. Gore was the guy that most Floridians thought they voted for, and we all know it. We all knew it then. And all Gore ever wanted was the votes to be given every opportunity to show what we all knew was true.
Don’t go into the electoral college speech, we all know it. We’re talking about what is right. If Bush had gotten half a million more votes overall than Gore, it would have been a different story. If the butterfly ballots had screwed Bush, it would have been a different story. What we wanted was to get the man who actually got the most votes, in both the country and the state. It was at the very least unseemly for Bush to so cravenly fight to avoid having the votes counted under those circumstances.
And having gotten into the WH under such foul circumstances, coupled with his campaign drivel about “uniting”, I don’t understand how anyone could fail to be completely mortified at the way he has acted since getting there. He’s disgusting. Just ask Jim Jeffords.
…and since we all knew it, it’s therefore ok to manipulate the data or change the rules to make it fit what we all know to be true, right? If we have to break a few rules, cheat in a little way, or what have you, no big deal since all we’re doing is upholding the truth.
The logic is poor, and dangerous
**
No. We’re not. We all don’t know what you think we all know, nor do we all agree. This is why we have processes in place to resolve disputes when there is disagreement. Feeling very strongly doesn’t mean we ignore these processes, or the preexisting law of the land.
If one advocates manipulating the process until one achieves a desired result, there really isn’t any point in having the process in the first place, is there?
AFAIK, every vote cast was machine-counted twice after the election, excepting double votes. If this is factually incorrect, let me know.
As for debate, I don’t feel there is much fertile common ground to cover. I can only say that IMHO the manifest intent of the voters is now, regrettably, unknowable. Therefore, AFAIC, in all likelihood neither position can be proved to our mutual satisfaction.
If said verbatim, that would have been political suicide for Bush to put forward. However, I wouldn’t have had a problem with Bush publicly reaching his hand out to those that did not vote for him with a statement like, “I recognize that I have something to prove to at least 50% of the voting public. Here’s what I aim to do now that I am President …”
No. My opinions on the accuracy of hand-counting paper ballots are my own. By coincidence, this issue, lots of first-hand information was available to me.
At the time of the election, I worked for a printing company on pre-press equipment (film output, platemakers). Our pre-press service technician had past-job knowledge of the mechanisms of the ballot-counting machines used in Florida, and we talked a lot about how those machines operated (as it was a timely topic). I had my own knowledge from the printing side of things about how a scored paper ballot would hold up after repeated human handling. The tech and I compared notes, shared info, dug a little deeper, and came to our own conclusions.
So my opinions on that matter are based largely on my own experiences.
My take is that Bush’s team was against selective hand-recounts, but would have been OK with state-wide hand recounts.
Otherwise, what do you think that codification of a concept into law establishes on its own? Surely, there are laws made in this nation that you feel are misguided or inappropriate? If so, then why cherrypick?
Regardless of George W. Bush’s opinion, those hand-count laws are examples of laws I think are misguided.
I’m not sure what the letter of the Florida and Texas laws are. In what way do they say that hand counts are more accurate? Is it spelled out explicitly (“Be it known that a hand recount is hereby declared more accurate than a machine count …”), or is it implicit in that a hand recount is to follow a set number of inconclusive machine recounts?
Without knowing the letter of law, your statement is diffcult to either verify or falsify. You told me what you believe the laws say, but I’d like to see the laws’ wording myself and draw my own conclusion.
Regardless, this is a case where I hold to my opinion on the machines and hand-counting. Perhaps there are laws addressing the use of hand-counts vs. use of machine counts – but if they spell out that hand counts are more accurate, then I don’t think those are particularly well-founded laws.
Which sounds catchy but really doesn’t make a lot of sense. It’s been rather well shown on several occasions that the more the votes are handled and manipulated the more likely we are likely to get faulty results.
The most accurate and unpartisan counts that we had were the machine ones, which occured quickly.
Positing for a moment that months long handcounting processes are more accurate, we still run into the problem of who’s President in the meantime?
While doubtless you can come up with a quick, catchy and clever sounding answer to this question, it represents a real Constitutional conundrum not easily solved with a glib answer.
However, Section Three of the same amendment leaves a door open:
Perhaps it might have turned out that Congress could have elected an interim President, until a sufficient number of statewide recounts in Florida were completed.
This is the exact opposite of the truth. In fact, the machines that were used to count the ballots were quite prone to error, as the inventor of the machines testified to in court.
Furthermore, the machines in poorer counties were much more likely to throw out legal votes than in richer counties.
Clearly you would like to think so. Humans are prone to error, are partisan, and the votes had been continually manipulated by the time of and during the houndcounts. Standardized criteria were not being used.
I would agree that a strictly impartial standardized handcount is potentially more accurate than a machine count, but that is not what we had with the handcounting.
Therefore my original statement, that the most accurate and nonpartisan counts were the initial machine ones, remains correct.
Criminy, not THAT again. You’ve worn out your welcome here on that subject, I’d venture to say. It’s been explained to you enough times by enough people that I won’t waste my time doing it again.
Perhaps the word “inappropriate” would be more accurate, then? As you wish. You asked a question which did not address the fundamental issues.
The very title of the Supreme Court case is Bush v. Gore. Here’s a hint: The plaintiff’s name goes first.
I did respond. You either didn’t read it or didn’t like what you read. Please read posts before typing pre-prepared responses.
Where’s the comment about your Canada doing it in a day?
Dunno how many people worked the media recount, but fer dam’ sure it wasn’t a board in every county working full time around the clock. Yes, given good faith, it could have been done in a few days. The complete recounts of several counties ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was in fact within hours of completion before Bush’s suit stopped it. Other counties could have worked in parallel.
Get real.
And there’s the rub. The law (remember that?) required every board to make its own standards. You and bordelond and Milossarian can whine all you want to about how that’s unfair, but tough shit - that was the law. Doing something different would have been changing the rules after the game was over - something you guys like to actually think Gore wanted to do, for some reason. Get real.
The media recount still didn’t determine the result according to the law. That has never been done. But only one candidate consistently tried to prevent the law from being followed.
The media recount doesn’t count either. Get real.
Because the law wasn’t being followed. Have you been listening?
No, I guess you haven’t.
I don’t know how they teach civics in Canada, but I hope it’s better than that. Sometimes courts have to help clarify the rules, yes - but they are never supposed to subvert the process itself. That happened here.
I assume you’re referring to the Florida Supreme Court. Yes, they did have to intervene to help make sure the law was followed.
I’ll stop reminding you of it if I ever see you refer to the US as ‘they’ or ‘you’ instead of ‘we’. The next time will be the first time. This is especially noticeable when you get indignant about an issue which isn’t even yours, and when you never post about issues involving your own country. I don’t know why you’re confused about what country you owe your allegiance to, but confused you are. If you really want to be an American, then come on down. If you really want to be a Canadian, then act like it. But for pity’s sake, decide who you are and then be it, OK?
FYI, the argument from ignorance is the hallmark of a very poor logician, not to mention a complete tool.
Also, everyone be extra sure to click on “why,” above, and notice who started the thread, the fourth post in the thread, the first three words in that post, and the last paragraph of that post. Then roll your eyes in amazement again at dishonest people who think that everyone else is stupid, or expect everyone else to buy their bullshit.
You’re already wasting time — mine, yours, and everyone else’s. Since you insist on this hillarious condescension, I challenge you to enumerate those people who have explained this to me. Provide links. Or else, admit your mistake.
Fundamental issues?
Say, are you the chairman of the Fundamental Issues Committee? Cause if you are, I’d like to petition to have a few issues added. Like the issue about the difference between smarmy preaching and skillful debating.
Here’s a clue: this stuff didn’t start in the Supreme Court. It started when the Wooden Indian renegged on his concession, and set in motion a proceeding designed to incite litigation.
You responded to a question you made up, a question that is of no interest to anyone. You did not respond to my question, except to say that my question was wrong. If that’s an answer, it’s a stupid one. What time is it? That question is wrong!
If you mean the list that includes Phil Dennison, I could not possible be more honored. Thank you.
Libertarian kindly advise as to why you think that Gore’s premature concession is even remotely relevent to the issue at hand. You’re not really suggesting that a concession phone call has the force of law?
Unless, of course, Our Leader had licked his forefingers, touched something black, and yelled “black, black, no takes back!”. Then, of course, you would be right.
Apparently not the force of honor either. But his invocation of statute had the force of law. There was one and only one way to defend against what Gore did. And that’s what Bush did. Can you give a good reason why Bush should not have been entitled to seek remedy?
Please don’t bring up the irrelevant fact that Gore recieved mor votes nationwide than Bush, because it is wholly irrelevant. The candidates did not campaign and individuals did not vote based on those principles. In Califrnia, for example, Bush did not campaign much and I would hazard to guess that more people voted third party knowing that Gore had California sewn up. Many people probably did not vote because of it. The fact is that since it was not an elction decided by a plurality nationally the actions of the candidates and voters was seriously influenced by that fact and therefore the reults ARE NOT indicitive of any claim that Gore had more support nationally except in the most superficial sense.
Mind you, I am not arguing for against the outcome in Florida, just the wrong-headed assertion regarding the national tally.
I don’t think Gore’s team changed any rules as his team understood them, or tried to. I do think they made an error in asking for a selective hand recount to follow the two mandated-by-law machine recounts. They would have done better asking for a statewide hand recount at that point.
Anyway, without a cite, I’m not sure if the law regarding standards said what you say it says or not. IOW, i’m not sure it’s not a matter of interpretation. I have no evidence to review. Regardless, wasn’t the “different standards in different areas” in direct opposition to the spirit of the SCOTUS’ ulimate decision (I realize this matters only academically, not legally)? Still, hypothetically, had it stood in the way of a decision, the “different standards” law might well have been declared unconstitutional based on the same “equal protetcion under the law” argument that the SCOTUS ultimately emplloyed.
If the laws say what you have written that they say, I realize that they were in force at election time, and any future opinions of the SCOTUS are just academic.
The “differing standards” law may have been in force – but it seems that it was on shaky ground and ma not have stood up to SCOTUS scrutiny.
Here’s something to think about – one interpretive media recount showed Gore ahead by 171 votes. However, that recount was NOT done according to actual standards that would have been used for a statewide hand recount, as every district had varying standards. Therefore, the final tally of a statewide hand recount would have been different than that media recount.
In whose favor? Who can say?
I’m unclear on what you mean. State law DID mandate two machine recounts in an election that was so close. In that sense, the law was being followed. Bush’s team, had they asked Gore’s team to stand down and accept the machine recounts, would not have been skirting Florida law.
Of course, Gore’s team would have been lawfully free to pursue other avenues.
…and since we all knew it, it’s therefore ok to manipulate the data or change the rules to make it fit what we all know to be true, right? If we have to break a few rules, cheat in a little way, or what have you, no big deal since all we’re doing is upholding the truth.
[/quote]
Strawman. Gore never tried to manipulate the data or change the rules.
It’s lot of inflamatory rhetoric from the Bush camp, to try and obscure the issue. It’s there to try and turn this into an emotional issue so that the Bush supporters can feel right about doing something so fundamentally wrong.
Bush’s ONLY proper recourse was to ask for recounts in counties that favored him in order to balance the (claimed, but actually non-existent) selectiveness in the recounts that Gore asked for. If he feared inaccuracy, he had the legal right to seek more accuracy.
What he did instead was to try and deny Gore his legal right to ask for more accuracy in places were there were indications of problems with the machine count.
Bush chose to subvert the process of determining the winner by counting the votes. No matter where you stand politicaly, this is wrong.
Bush had no basis in calling an accurate count ‘harm’ to himself and seeking to redress that harm in the court. This was a bogus suit all along, but he didn’t NEED to win in court in order to succeed. A delay was just as useful to him as a victory.
So he pitched a bogus lawsuit in order to subvert the law. There were procedures for handling disputed elections. Gore followed them. Bush went to court to try and have them not be followed. There is a clear right and wrong here, and Bush is in the wrong.
It is not, as the Bushes like to claim, a balance of bads. A sort of he said/she said with blame being apportioned equally. That’s nonsense, an attempt to shift blame from where it belongs: Completly on Bush.
Get the idea yet?
Now maybe, if the initial count had favored Gore they would have reversed tactics. I don’t think so, but that’s just my opinion.
What is not a matter of opinion is that the only one who tried to change election law after the fact was Bush.
If you are still confused on this issue, feel free to bring up your specific reasons for believing that Gore tried to change the rules. Some one the board will be glad to correct your misconceptions.
)