From this L.A. Times article, it gives details about how Gore is bringing in people to help count votes:
Oh, yeah…
“We just want every vote counted.” “We just want it to be a fair count.” Oh yeah…
Hmmm…I read that article to try to get a better handle on the context, but it is so poorly written that it is pretty hopeless. I mean my gut reaction is that I am not happy to hear this and the counting should not be done in such a partisan manner.
On the other hand, it sounds like the lawyer in question is lecturing those who are going to be the “challengers” representing the Democratic side (which is what the word “challenge” seems to suggest). As I understand it, each side has someone there to challenge as the ballots are counted. And, I suppose that the job of the challenger is to represent the side they are challenging for and not to try to be impartial. In that sense, it is sort of like telling a defense lawyer that he is not supposed to lead a witness toward bringing out damaging information about his client. I mean, I guess it truly isn’t the job of the Democratic challengers to say, “Wait…that ballot over there looks like it might have a mark for Bush on it.”
So, at this point, I would have to reserve judgement on this without understanding the context better. Why don’t you teach your friends out there in Ca. how to write…Is it all that sun that dulls their skills? 
Oh, c’mon, Y-babe, are you really surprised?
No - SPOOFE, not really.
I figured this “we want a fair and accurate count” stuff was all spin spin spin!
Well…They didn’t mean ALL votes.
How’s this for fair and accurate:
Biased and Slanted Democrat Vote Counting
Somehow I keep forgetting that the democrats have the high moral ground. I will have to keep on working to remember that.
Democrats = High Moral Ground
in this heated rhetoric, it would be helpful if BOTH sides looked at the matter objectively instead of selective quotes and repeating the appropriate mantra.
The first step in counting overseas ballots is to look for the postmark. No postmark, no vote, so they are rejected (unopened). This according to wire services reports.
Yes, obviously each party will charge their observers with being scrupulous looking for votes on their side. For this to be a balanced charge of improper bias, you should demonstrate that A. the Republicans are NOT in the next room saying something pretty darned similar, AND B. that questionable ballots were counted.
Fortunately, there is SOME record of questionable ballots being counted ON BOTH SIDES. here’s a link to a news report.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/florida_election_recount_001116.html
You’ll notice that I’m linking the entire story, and not simply cutting and pasting partial quotes to support “my side”. Nor am I simply spouting party rhetoric of “they’re not bein’ fair”.
This is a debate, not a playground. If you want simply to sit around and talk about how bad the other guys are and how supremely fair and reasonable your guys are, I’m sure there’s a party headquarters that would be happy to serve the purpose.
I suspect when all the chads have settled, that Bush will be declared the winner. And frankly, I would think his job would be MUCH tougher had he been declared the winner without the recounts.
So, please remember, at the end of all of this, we are still a nation together, and need the cooperation and hard work of ALL of our citizens in order to continue to thrive.
Ummm…The point is that many, if not most, things mailed by the military do not use post marks.
???
You will also note that I linked the entire story also. We are not supposed to violate copyright laws, so all I could do was excerpt from the article. Use the link and pull out anything you find contradictory to the way I presented the story.
I think the issue here is the validity of the mantras, Every Vote Counts, Fair and Accurate Count, The Will of the People.
Those are some fairly charged statements that the dems are making, and now it is becoming apparent how fake their “supposed” desire is.
From my previous link:
And to finish off your points…
Hanging Chad. Pregnant Chad. Bulging Chad.
I think that is self-explanatory.
To summarize:
I am not argueing that these ballots should be accepted. My point is that it is fairly disingenous for the democats to be running around in circles screaming about counting every vote, while quietly working on disqualifying votes on technicalities that may or may not be relevant. They have been claiming a “moral high ground” in this matter, and neither side has command of it. That is my point.
and MY point was that the republicans are doing exactly the same thing.
Witness: in the link I provided, about 100 votes for Bush were counted although the person checked two spots (Bush and write in candidate, then put Bush’s name).
Witness: the Pregnant chads are BY LAW recounted in Texas, the law signed by Mr. Bush. So, to claim in Florida that it’s obviously unfair (where counting those chads might cost him the election), while signing it into law in his home state is an interesting display of “high moral ground”.
You state: “many, if not most (military ballots), do not have a postmark”, however, that statement is refuted by the link you provided, where the guy states that military mail is “REQUIRED” to be postmarked but then claims “Sometimes” if the plane is ready to go and some mail comes in… doesn’t sound anywhere close to many, most or even often.
RE: the overseas votes not being counted because of lack of postmark - all of the threads and links I’ve seen (including yours) specify that the absentee ballots MUST be postmarked by last Tuesday. This has been WIDELY reported. Widely.
If the ballots in question HAD been postmarkable by Tuesday the 7th, and everyone KNEW they had to be postmarked by that date, why did this person wait until Friday 11/17, ten days later to issue a letter saying “Gosh darn, they MIGHT not have been postmarked?” Since this is the first and ONLY time some one has suggested there may be a problem with military ballots, it would be incumbant on HIM to provide evidence that this ACTUALLY happened in this case, not that it sometimes MIGHT happen or COULD happen, but DID happen.
From all other reports, there was a SINGLE country in Central America that doesn’t use postmarks (and they’d made arrangements about that, the postmarks would be affixed in the US).
Besides, the votes in question were tossed without counting. (as were votes in many other counties and every other election for irregularities.).
RE: “these are some very charged statements the dems are making” - Oh, and “now see how faked their ‘supposed’ desire is” or the thead TITLE (“oh yeah, we want EVERY vote counted”) aren’t “charged statements” ? It’s rather disingenious of you to suggest that the Dems are suffering from spin doctoring while engaging in it yourself.
RE: mantras: I’m not chanting anything except : BOTH sides here have things to be ashamed of. BOTH sides are doing everything in their power to see their guy win. BOTH sides claim the high road. BOTH sides will “spin” events to make their side look better.
AND, most importantly, BOTH sides need to be able to cooperate with each other in the very near future.
I’m glad that your final statement is that neither side has a command of the moral high ground. Focusing attention on the wranglings of BOTH parties will only serve to show us what we had for lunch.
I may need more coffee to get as excited as you this early on a Saturday:)
Wring,
Listen…
Since the get go we have heard statements like:
*More people in Florida went into the voting booth with the INTENT to vote for Al Gore than George Bush. *
Now, if the democrats are really so worked up over the INTENT of a voter, why are they looking to disqualify ballots based on a technicality? The military is engaged in all sorts of crappy situations, and moving the mail is not always their first priority. Stamping it as they move it falls even further down the list. You would think that the future president would take the military and their circumstances into consideration. Having a candidate for president go on a jihad against military ballots while crying about the poor souls in Florida who didn’t have the strength to punch their ballot all the way through looks a little contradictory.
Personally, I am all for the Rule of Law. The Rule of law says that the SOS of Florida has discretion on whether or not to accept any certifications after last Tuesday at 5pm. Absentee ballots had until 12 last night to get in. IMHO, the election is over. (if only my opinion counted:))
We only get into these arcane arguements over:
“The intent of the voter.”
Texas law and how it relates to Florida’s election
Pointing out that Daley uses the same butterfly punch ballots in his state.
Pregnant Chads.
Do we accept military ballots without a postmark.
When we throw out the rule of law. You can not consistently argue that the Florida SOS does not have the discretion and authority to certify the election as of last Tuesday, but yet we have to disqualify the military ballots because the law says so. It seems to me that the Florida legislature was very smart when they wrote that Tuesday law. They forsaw a situation like this, and moved to minimze the circus that would accompany it.
So don’t try to use obscure Florida arguements against me. I have a very simple and straightforward postion. The only votes that should be counted (IMPO of course) are the non-partisan machine counts, handcounts where the machines had a mechanical error and absentee ballots that arrived by the deadline.
Once we take one tiny step out of this, we end up with the mess we now have in Florida. It is like the arms race with Russia. Once one side starts moving, it FORCES the other side into action. Neither side can back down. Have you seen the army of lawyers on TV down there? I’m sorry the election was close. I’m sorry that Gore lost, but he needs to step back now or we will forever have lawyers deciding our elections.
Ok. Not to confuse things, but please call me on things I’ve personally stated, not party line stuff. I don’t belong to any party, am not on any mailing lists (e-mail or otherwise) for same. I have ONE friend who e-mails be Bush stuff and ONE who e-mails me Gore(well, actually it was for a local dem but same idea).
My position (so we can see where we differ) is Rule of law includes the option of any particular candidate in a statistically close race to request for hand counting ballots. To suggest in ANY way that hand counting is less preferable to machine counting is one of those “disingenous arguements”.
I agree that the Rule of Law should prevail. I also believe that every attempt should be made to count valid ballots. This would disallow (as a matter of law) absentee ballots w/o postmark, duplicate votes, votes where two different candidates were marked for the same office (as in the whatever thousand in PBC). Let the chips of law fall where they may. Bush may have lost a probable hundred military ballots, Gore lost a couple probable thousand in PBC. I’m not about to quibble about these.
The issue of “pregant chads” etc, according to FL law (from other threads, I’m sure you remember 
) the canvassers are to set the distinction. IIRC, only one county (PBC) is using the “pregnant” chad standard. FTR, I think that’s wrong. But doesn’t matter, as a rule of law, they get to decide. Don’t like it? if you’re a voter in FL, lobby to change next time (same statement I give re: the butterfly ballots), if you’re not a voter in FL, get over it.
RE: role of the SoS. As a matter of law, the office holds certain powers. As a matter of law, the officer is given discretion. As a matter of public policy, any elected official that has a bone fide and demonstratable conflict of interest should recluse themselves from decisions in which they have a conflict. I would submit that being the co-chair of a campaign indicates a level of interest that surpasses party affiliation. And while her OFFICE is allowed discretion, her dual role calls into question her ability to make an impartial decision. I believe Ms. Harris should have reclused herself from the decision making process here in the interest of public policy and fairness. I will also state that it MIGHT not have made any difference, that some one else may have made the same decision. However, as a matter of LAW, she has now made her dual roles an issue that will probably be dealt with in a court. This was not a wise move on her part. I wish she hadn’t done it. But she did.
In real life, I’m at public meetings all the time with elected officials. It is ROUTINE and EXPECTED that they abstain from discussions and voting when the conflict is even merely that they also sit on a board of directors for an agency.
You are very talented at recollecting the “arcane arguements” on the one side. I’d rather we each recall all of them . You’ve already counted the ones on t’other side. here’s the others:
remember the folks who quickly pointed out how many COUNTIES nationwide Bush won vs. Gore? and this was when 3 states still hadn’t finished voting! Nobody reports numbers like that (it’s all done in precincts, which may encompass one or more or only part of counties). Where do you think those numbers came from? and especially so what??? geez.
Arcane arguements like claiming to have won an election before the state of Florida certified their vote?
arcane arguements like “handling these ballots increases their inaccuracy” (I’ve NEVER seen a cite from a reputable source that can claim this).
or how about the contention that since the only candidate that requested recounts was GOre that somehow, this is unfair to Bush (who decided NOT to recount)? How is exercizing a legal right to be percieved as being sneaky, unfair etc?.
** So you don’t want the rule of law when it applies to candidates legal requests for a hand count? why ever not?
At this point, I think it’s premature to declare a winner, since the state has not certified one yet. I believe that Bush will eventually win. I STRONGLY believe that if the handcounts are not allowed to be counted that Mr. Bush would have a much more difficult presidency. (please note that I believe that even WITH the handcount, he’ll still win).
( and by the way - I’m the parent of a 16 year old. we never get to sleep. 
- he can’t drive yet, so I was out til midnight last night providing transportation, then again he had to be at work at 7:30 am…)
Ahh…In a calm cool and collected way, I can see that we differ in opinion on several things at a fairly basic level. There are also a couple of facts that we do not agree on, and I think it is possible to determine which set of facts are the real facts.
This is one of those places where I think we have a basic difference of opinion. I see handcounting ballots, in the absence of a mechanical malfunction, to be less accurate and more susceptible to fraud than mass machine counting. There are currently 5 affidavits accusing Mrs. Roberts of manhandling and attempting to manipulate the ballots. The accuracy of the affidavits may be in question, but it is undeniable that the two sides can not agree on how truthful this hand re-count is.
Spin…spin…spin…
Please refrain from trying to make Gore look like the winner unless he actually wins the certification. Only the certified winner is the winner if we are to follow the Rule of Law.
We have another difference of opinon here. I think both the State Attorney Butterworth, (Gore campaing manager) and SOS Harris (Bush Campaign Manager) should stay involved. The people of Florida knew what kind of baggage went along with these people when they were put into office. This baggage is going to be indicitive of the way they make their decisions. I think this goes right along with what you said about the voters of FLorida changing it the next time around.
Jeb has a family involvement, I support him recusing himself. That had to be done, no doubt about it. But having a political conflict, which has to happen ALL the time, is not reason enough to demand that someone recuse themselves. Now…even though they may have a bias (who doesn’t?) they have to stay within the bounds of the law. So far Harris has not stepped out of line.
I don’t consider this an arcane issue. It is a fact that they are picking up chads from the counting room floors. It may be debatable about whether or not this changes the vote, but it is certainly not deniable that it is changing the ballots.
Now here we have a difference in what we perceive the actual facts to be.
We hear it said all the time that a re-count was mandatory in Florida. My understanding is that means that if a candidate wants a re-count, he doesn’t have to pay for it.
So Gore had a right to the first re-count at the State’s expense in order to ensure that there were no mechanical errors that may have cost him the election. I have no problem with Gore exercising his right on this recount.
But he lost the recount.
He lost the original count.
And now he has lost the absentee ballot count.
So on we go to the handcount…
My understanding of the rule of law here, is that a manual re-count is only provided for in Florida in case of a mechanical breakdown of the machine or voter fraud. Neither of these have been alleged. The PBC election board sought a binding opinion on this, and they were told they had no authority to hold a manual re-count.
That was waaaaaaaayyyy back on Tuesday. Now we are 5 or 6 court cases past that and I have no idea how to unravel all the opinons that have come out.
It is now almost 12est on Saturday. Harris had delared her intent to certify today at 12. She is now under a court order NOT to certify. I would submit that the FSC court has no authority to order her not to certify, and therefore we have left the Rule of Law once more. The partisan in me would love for her to certify anyway, and see what happens.
<Standing ovation, deafening applause>
Stoid
Do you have anything to add or is your role now to be a friggin cheerleader who goes from thread to thread cheering on one side over another?
If there is one person around here who has been the focus of a signifigant amount of angst, it is you. Either debate or head over to the pit. I’ll be happy to meet you there if you promise not to run away again.
Well here’s why the postmark is important:
If you don’t require that the vote be postmarked by election day, then you open the door for partisans to vote after election day and after they know how close the race is and after they find out how much difference their vote could potentially make.
Wasn’t that one of the arguments against a re-vote in Palm Beach County?
I can certainly imagine a lot of conservative military personnel overseas rushing their ballots into the mail on the day after the election to try to influence the outcome.
And Freedom2 you are wrong about military mail. It is normally postmarked. (Which in itself raises questions about why these absentee ballots are coming in without postmarks. Use your imagination.)
This is to say nothing of the risk of utterly fraudulent ballots from overseas. The postmark requirement was known by all going in, and should be enforced.
Maybe you should re-read my posts up there.
**
THere’s an accusation of “manhandling”. Show me, please any reputable (non partisan) evidence that whatever she did could have caused some vote to appear or disappear.
The cards are heavy cardstock, COVERED with little points that can be punched. what exactly are you contending could have happened by this “manhandling”? That chads that had been punched would fall out? well, that’s ok, since if it HAD been punched, it was a vote. To contend that a chad that wasn’t punched WOULD have fallen? In the first place, I’d like to see evidence that ANY of them might have, but more to the point, it isn’t sufficient that ANY would have dislodged but that the EXACT one for a presidential vote should become dislodged. Is it really a viable position that somehow Ms. Roberts ‘manhandled’ ballots she KNEW to be blank for president to cause them to dislodge the ONE single chad for GOre or that she ‘manhandled’ ballots she KNEW to be for Bush to cause them to dislodge an additional single chad for another candidate, thus making them invalid? Or are you contending that she discovered sufficient Bush ballots to sway the election and manhandled them all enough so that none of them could be counted and ALL of this in full view of cameras and witnesses, subjecting herself to felony charges of vote tampering? Or maybe is it that she fanned several ballots and folks used the term “manhandled” to give a (what was that word? oh yea) spin on the situation?
you quote me “Bush may have lost a probable hundred military ballots, Gore lost a couple probable thousand in PBC. I’m not about to quibble about these.” and say "Spin…spin…spin… ". Nope. Actual numbers. It’s not spin, it’s indicating that regardless of the actual damage to either camp, I’m not trying to count those ballots.
And back to the SoS. The voters voted her in BEFORE she became Bush’ co chair. The voters did NOT have a choice in the matter. The issue with Ms. Harris is that in HER state, the results are VERY close and VERY contentious. And actually, I believe that BOTH Harris and Butterworth should refrain from exercising their authority IN THIS matter alone.
Bias vs. impropriety. An elected official can show support by signs in their yard etc for any candidate they choose, even if their position is to certify election results. They can also choose to drive any kind of car they wish, even if their position has them vote on which car company to award a contract to. HOWEVER. They CANNOT put the "VOTE Pee-WEE bumper sticker on their state supplied vehicle, nor have the same sign on their office door. AND if, they become a chairperson or spokesperson or member of that person’s election team, their level of involvement is similar to that of an elected official who owns stock - they should, as a matter of public policy, recuse themselves to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
LOOK at this. As a Secretary of State in MI, Candice Miller has the presumption of objectivity in this election. She did NOT participate in the campaign of either party. (she’s a rep). Ms. Harris lost the presumption of objectivity IN THIS ELECTION only because of her chosen post of co chair of the campaign.
At the point when the decision was to be made, she had 3 choices: to recuse herself, to allow for the hand counts (which would have promoted Gores chances) or not allowed the hand counts (which would have promoted Bush’s chances). had she taken option 1, or 2, no discussion of her possible motivation would have been generated. But she chose option # 3. Since She PERSONALLY may (and I grant you, it’s only may) benefit from a Bush presidency vs. a Gore one, it was truly in her, and Bush’s best interest that she avoid even the appearance of impropriety. If her decision was such a clear and obviously right choice, then she should have been able to presume that her second in command would have made the same choice. Sadly, she failed to think the entire thing through.
The chads again, and the ones on the floors. When you open a box of unvoted ballots, there aren’t chads in the box. Otherwise, the ballots themselves would be invalid. To dislodge the damn things you have to punch a hole with a stylus (not a pen) this info is from the source of the equipment. So, loose chads on the floor, in your hair whereever, represent VOTES that had been made. those chads drop off at different times. MOST drop off when the ballot is punched. If the chad is hanging by 1, 2 or 3 corners, they’ll drop later. If static electricity comes into play they may hang for a while. You’re entitled to believe what you want. Please, however check where your information is coming from. I spent an hour looking up cites all over the country about these damn things. the only people at this point who claim that “manhandling” and "chads on the floor " are significant are republicans (and obviously, not even all of THEM, since a majority of rep. Texan legislatures as well as their governor went with hand counting even the dimples… )
And for the next part: the chronology is: vote on Tuesday. State issued recount immediately. Gore asked for certain counties to be recounted. SoS attempted to stop that. Florida Judges and Supreme Courts BOTH have issued rulings to allow the counts to continue. I would submit that the Florida Supreme Court would accurately reflect State of Florida law. so, rule of law (via the Florida SC) is that the recounts as requested, are legal. Now, they will hear full arguements on Monday weather or not to accept the recounts into the vote total. I am prepared to accept their ruling. Period. End of story. But, frankly, that IS the rule of law.
So you suggesting that the SoS overrules the State Supreme Court? So, then, tell me, how did you reconcile that point with the Federal Supremes ruling over President Clinton?
and ** Freedom** you keep on saying “refer to my prior post” about the lack of postmark on absentee ballots. Didn’t you see in your OWN cite where the standard is that they DO have postmarks. damn near all of them. So, how likely would it really be that of all times 100 or so BALLOTS would ‘oops’ not have them???
and, for the record again ** Freedom** I believe that EVEN with the recount, BUsh will be elected.
Can’t you see that without a recount he would face 4 years of “yea buts”??? do you really wish that on our country?
What’s really too bad is that with all this wrangling, there is NO chance that EITHER of them will look like a gracious winner. and that is really sad.
Thank you, Wring!
Your extreme thoroughness in rebutting these weak arguments is deeply appreciated.Fight on for truth, justice, and the American Way!
stoid
Gore’s challenging all these overseas votes, getting nearly 1/3 disqualified while arguing so earnestly for the poor people of PBC who have been disenfranchised is pretty shitty.
Great things aren’t happening on both sidses of the party line, but how somebody could defend thiss, or pretend it makes sense, is beyond me. If Bush was doing it, I would condemn him for it.
**Scylla ** how so please? I remember the venom (and indeed, pit thread) dedicated to the “if you’re too stupid to know which hole to punch…” and frankly, I had no problem tossing those ballots. I think they were obviously flawed, but there is no remedy for that. At this point, the overseas ballots that have been disallowed have: no postmark (which is standard and always has been) or the instructions weren’t followed.
It’s interesting to me that the same side crying foul now over 100 absentee ballots were calling dems “whiners” when they complained about the several thousand votes tossed in one county alone as being improper. No one seems to want the high road anymore.
I’m glad I’m not a resident of Florida- the range and variety of voting anomolies is frightening. .