# no! No! Don't count the votes! Anything but that! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2000, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-no-dont-count-the-votes-anything-but-that/44691 "2000-12-08T21:31:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2000, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-no-dont-count-the-votes-anything-but-that/44691/81 "2000-12-11T16:14:57Z")
From a post by **ElvisL1ves** > [@](#): > > Please reread the post and you’ll find me simply wondering about Scalia’s partisanship. If you disagree, fine, but you’re way out of line commenting on the ignorance of someone’s not knowing something they haven’t even commented upon. The original post from **ElvisL1ves** , upon which I commented: > [@](#): > > It’s especially interesting that the order was accompanied by a statement by Scalia essentially saying that he’s decided already. He’s made clear his quasi-religious faith in strict constructionism, federalism, and judicial restraint, all of which should point him in the other direction, one would think. > > Could his motives in prejudging this appeal possibly be hypocritical? Could he possibly be thinking that a President Bush might appoint a soulmate (or 2 or 3) for him besides Clarence Thomas? We shall see his opinion soon enough. From this statement we divine the following: 1. An assumption that the opinion of Justice Scalia estblishes he has made up his mind already. 2. An assertion that his presumed coming decision is contrary to his general tenets of constitutional law which he often passionately expresses. 3. An assertion, buried in the first question, that the ‘fact’ Justice Scalia has made up his mind already is improper (‘prejudicial’ meaning pre-judged in absence knowledge sufficient to allow a correct judgment). 4. An assertion, made in the form of a question, that the justice in question is being hypocritical because he wants more conservatives on the bench, so he will do what is needed to get Mr. Bush elected. In response to this post I established that: 1. Justice Scalia did not say he had made up his mind, merely that five justices thought it highly likely Mr. Bush would win on the merits. 2. His decision to issue the stay, and his indication that the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court likely violated federal law is not contrary to his usual tenets regarding construction or federal v. state balancing. 3. His determination, if indeed one exists at present, that the decision of the Florida Supreme Court is violative of the constitution is not ‘prejudicial’ or improper, since he already had sufficient information from the pleadings and his knowledge of law to reach a decision in the matter. Thus, I took **ElvisL1ves** to task for reaching a clear determination that Justice Scalia was acting on the basis of political motivations, not his valid interpretation of the relevant law. I did so because that assertion was not based upon an understanding of actual fact or law. As I have repeatedly stressed on this message board: if you are going to make assertions, do so with application of reason and knowledge, since that is the main _raison d’etre_ of The Straight Dope. **ElvisL1ves** , if you can’t take being told that you are posting opinions which have no merit because you are misinformed or uninformed, you should be posting elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2000, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-no-dont-count-the-votes-anything-but-that/44691/82 "2000-12-11T17:41:51Z")
> [@](#): > > What proof do you have of this? Anything at all will do…ONE instance of some “manufacture” of a vote. Here’s some evidence for you - 1. The vote recount tallies themselves, and the disproportionate way original non-votes or incorrectly cast votes are becoming Gore votes in counties where Democrats are making the decisions. 2. Canvass board member and Democrat Sue Gunzberger’s calling EVERY SINGLE QUESTIONABLE BALLOT a Gore vote in Broward County. 3. The changing standards after the election over the criteria to discern voter intent. How many times did it change in Broward and Miami-Dade, Stoidela? Would you agree that each change made the standard more liberal as to what constitutes a vote (not that I care about your opinion; it did)? Did this have the net effect of putting more votes in the Gore pile? Were those decisions made by Democrats, over the protests of Republicans? 4. The chads on the floor that you so quickly dismiss, indicating the ballots are not in the same state that they were. Which would tend to mean that divining the will of the people on election night now involves evidence that’s different than what was there on election night. Evidence enough for me – and a sizeable portion of the rest of the country. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2000, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-no-dont-count-the-votes-anything-but-that/44691/83 "2000-12-11T18:06:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kiffa \* > **Take a look at Mugabe … He recently declared [ie: he issued a Presidential decree] which bans any opposition electoral challenge in the courts. The decree states this holds true even if there were corrupt or illegal practices committed during the election.** I personally suspect that, if George W. Bush gets “elected” into the Presidency, that he will do something similar in his first six months of office. Or maybe he’ll do something even dumber – “Since there has been so much arguing over the election, I’m a-gonna be a uniter and order that all of the ballots from Florida be burned…” ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2000, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-no-dont-count-the-votes-anything-but-that/44691/84 "2000-12-11T18:07:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mack \* > \*\*These are interesting times. > > \*\* I believe there is an old Chinese curse that goes something like: “May you live in interesting times.” ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2000, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-no-dont-count-the-votes-anything-but-that/44691/85 "2000-12-11T19:53:38Z")
James Baker has said: “Machines are neither Republicans nor Democrats and therefore can be neither consciously nor unconsciously biased.” True. _But what about their PROGRAMMERS?_ If you think it’s not possible to program a punch-card machine to throw votes from one candidate to another, or to _deliberately_ undercount votes, read this [column](http://www.creators.com/opinion/ivi/?dateId=975819600) by Molly Ivins. She quotes a writer, Ronnie Dugger, who wrote an article on the unreliability of punch-card voting machines for _The New Yorker_. The article contained detailed instructions on how to rig a Votomatic counting machine. It also details how Illinois officials tested the machines back in 1980, discovered how unreliable they were… and did NOTHING. The article appeared twelve years ago. More recently, Dugger said: > [@](#): > > Even the software’s own designers admit that without security checks on the process **and a hand count as a fallback,** we’d have no way to know whether such fraud had taken place. In 1988, Democrat Buddy McCay lost a Florida Senate race to Republican Connie Mack by a very few votes. A recount showed that in four counties _210,000 voters_ who DID vote for a Presidential candidate apparently cast NO vote for Senator! Three of those four counties are the counties wherein Gore asked for a recount, and they all use punch-card voting machines. Isn’t it possible that a substantial portion of those 210,000 voters did vote for Senator, but the machines failed to count them? Isn’t it possible that the same thing happened this year in the Presidential race, considering the disputed counties used the same machines from 1988? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2000, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-no-dont-count-the-votes-anything-but-that/44691/86 "2000-12-11T20:17:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Here’s some evidence for you - > > 1. The vote recount tallies themselves, and the disproportionate way original non-votes or incorrectly cast votes are becoming Gore votes in counties where Democrats are making the decisions. Could have something to do with the fact that there are far more Democrats in these counties to start with. A recount of the undervote would pretty much have to “find” votes in near proportion to the first-count votes, so that would add more actual numbers for Gore than Bush. Note that Bush has gained a significant number of votes through recounts, too. > [@](#): > > 1. Canvass board member and Democrat Sue Gunzberger’s calling EVERY SINGLE QUESTIONABLE BALLOT a Gore vote in Broward County. This doesn’t look right, I agree. > [@](#): > > 1. The changing standards after the election over the criteria to discern voter intent. Isn’t that more attributable to simple human confusion? This seems never to have come up before. Lack of statewide standards, as well as a statewide recount, is a real problem, I agree. [quote] 4. The chads on the floor that you so quickly dismiss, indicating the ballots are not in the same state that they were. Which would tend to mean that divining the will of the people on election night now involves evidence that’s different than what was there on election night. [QUOTE] Only a problem if you think the chads were being poked out of “virgin” holes by partisan counters under the eyes of a ton of interested observers. But remember that chads are INTENDED to fall out if they’ve been poked, and that there were a hell of a lot of other offices being voted for that would also have chad problems. Nobody’s perfect, no question, but the evidence for a malignant plot is still shaky. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2000, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-no-dont-count-the-votes-anything-but-that/44691/87 "2000-12-12T00:48:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > **James Baker has said: "Machines are neither Republicans nor Democrats and therefore can be neither consciously nor unconsciously biased."** Anyone who’s ever gotten a screwed-up phone bill (or electricity, or gas, or bank statement, or…) knows how erroneous **that** statement is. The fact that Baker keeps peddling it is just another sign IMO of how desperate the GOP is to win at any cost. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2000, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-no-dont-count-the-votes-anything-but-that/44691/88 "2000-12-12T01:59:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RugbyMan \* > Incidentally, nobody’s brought this up yet, but is there not an irony in Al Gore’s call for state rights? After all, under Clinton state rights took a beating like never before (and certainly appears likely to continue under Gore’s reign!!) and for him to bring that up comes across as rather hypocritical, wouldn’t you say? Are you actually willing to try to support your claim about the “beating” that states rights has taken under Clinton / Gore. I know it sounds good to the crowd who believes everyone Left of Attila the Hun is liberal, but is there really much evidence of this claim? I seem to recall, for example, that Clinton gave the states quite a bit of freedom to experiment on welfare reform, before a federal bill was eventually passed. And, by the way, neither Clinton nor Gore has explicitly campaigned on the slogan, "I’m going to take away rights from the states and give them to the federal government. On the other hand, someone who is currently running to the federal courts has, I believe, talked about the federal government being too intrusive in lots of matters that should be left up to the states! > [@](#): > > It’s also ironic that he stands up for individual rights when he certainly has no will to protect them once he gets elected! Well, I agree with you to a certain degree…On things like the drug war and the death penalty, Gore is no winner on individual rights. On the other hand, his opponent is even worse on civil liberties. Of course, if your definition of individual rights is one that includes “economic survival of the fittest” and basically failing to account for the benefits one reaps from society in such a way that screws the poor at the expense of the wealthy (not to mention any attempt to correct economic externalities), then yes, it is true that Gore is “worse” on individual rights than Bush. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-no-dont-count-the-votes-anything-but-that/44691.md?page=4)