Pointed questions for Bush supporters

Great Debates
1

The partisan tenor of this post may cause it to be moved into the Great Debates forum, but I want facts, not opinions. If I’m wrong, please elaborate. But here goes:

  1. The Florida election was so close (1/2 of 1 percent) it triggered an automatic recount. Therefore, there has not as of now, one week later, been announced an official winner of Florida’s electoral votes. Why do you think your guy won, when Florida hasn’t even certified anything?

  2. Fox News was the first to declare Governor Bush the winner of Florida, and the other networks followed suit four minutes later. This prompted Al Gore’s concession phone call to Dubya, later retracted. But now it turns out that Dubya’s OWN FRICKING COUSIN was behind Fox’s premature declaration. Is this declaration why you think Gore is a “poor sport”, and if so what do you have to say about Bush’s cousin, John Ellis?

  3. Have any recounts that Gore’s supporters demanded not been legal under Florida election law?

  4. Katherine Harris, the Republican Secretary of State and a George and Jeb Bush supporter, imposed a deadline of 5pm EST today, Tuesday, for hand recounts to finish. Besides the partisan advantage in invalidating the pending hand recounts, most of which had no chance of finishing by then, was there any justification in finishing so soon–especially when you consider that overseas ballots have until this Friday to be received?

  5. There has been a lot of quibbling about how any election is not going to yield 100% certainty, which is true enough. But given the closeness of this one and the high stakes involved, are the Democrats really wrong to try to insist on as much accuracy as possible?

  6. Given the antics of Katherine Harris and John Ellis, and the excruciatingly close vote, and the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote nationwide, won’t there be an unholy stink over the legitimacy of a Bush administration? Is that what you really want for the country?

Bombs away . . .

2

2.At least Bush was ahead when they declared Florida for him, as opposed to the first time. Bush was ahead by 50,000 votes with only a few left to count when they made the declaration, it just happened that a large number of Bush votes got reported, then a large number of Gore ones came in.

as far as number 4 goes, I have heard that Harris is not a supporter of Jeb. One news station says that they have a fairly bitter rivalry because Jeb refused to endorse her bid for SOS.

  1. Gore claims to be searching for accuravy, but he seems to be concentrating on getting accuracy where it benefits only him. He is doing what he thinks is the best way for him to win, so is Bush, and they would do the exact same thing on the other side.

  2. Either way the president is going to be under a storm of controversy. There are reports of people in Wisconsin voting multiple times, and someone in Iowa bought votes by offering cigarettes, both very close states. Anybody claiming the moral high road and a mandate from the people in the matter is full of shit.

3

I’ll try to stay in GQ mode, myself.

The actual vote count(s) are well known (shy the overseas ballots), despite the fact that the Official Stamp of Approval has not yet been applied. Bush has been ahead after every re-count.

If someone is calling Gore a “poor sport” for retracting his concession, I think they’re on crack. Bear in mind that this was the second erroneous call of the Florida election by the networks that night. If anything, Fox should carefully re-examine the wisdom of letting a close relative of one of the candidates make their calls for them. But, I honestly don’t see how it matters. You may have to explain in a little more detail what effect you think he had.

I’m not as up on this as some, but I don’t think so.

Unless I’m mistaken, the 5 p.m. Tuesday deadline was not “imposed” by the SecState, but rather by state law. There was some question as to whether Harris could waive it, and the court decision today was something of a non-answer: “Yes, the deadline is firm. However, you must consider granting exceptions.”

Why was that deadline before the overseas ballot deadline? I don’t know, but that’s what the law reads.

The Republican response to your question might be: “Besides the partisan advantage in carrying out another recount in these cherry-picked counties, is there any justification for doing them in the first place?”

No, I don’t think they are. The beef of many is that, if we’re going to start hand-counting ballots in these pro-Democratic counties (which will likely increase vote totals for both sides, but more for the majority party), we should do it for the whole state. The Democrats are claiming to be interested solely in a fair count, but their actions are calling those claims into question.

In my mind, the fact that Gore won the popular vote nationwide is utterly irrelevant. We all knew the rules going in, and the popular vote doesn’t play into them.

I’m not sure how John Ellis really fits into this, to be honest. Prematurely calling an election for Bush seems to be as likely to scare away Gore voters as Bush ones.

I honestly don’t see what “antics” you’re referring to by the Florida SecState. Please elaborate.

My feeling is that the “stink of illegitimacy” that will hang over either side, should they win, is being vastly overstated. I don’t have much to base this on, except for my observations that things like this are never as bad as the doomsayers predict.

4

Wuz up now Airblairxxx.?!

5

Actually, Bush was given the chance to do a recount of districts in Florida that have historically voted Republican. He chose not to. Because he wants to keep this a speedy process? I don’t think so. As much stink as the Republicans are raising about time, they say they’re not ruling out asking for recounts in Iowa, et cetera.

I think the reason why the Bush campaign is not asking for recounts for the whole state is because they know that the majority of newfound votes are going Gore’s way and they’re not too interested in that which might spoil a Bush win (whether it be an honest win or not). Then again, that’s just what I think.

As far as Democrats asking for the whole state to be recounted - I think most democrats will say that’s fine, but there’s been enough trouble getting just a few districts recounted. They have the energy and resources to question the districts whose voices will change the election and that’s it.

One more question to add to this heap…
I know ballot counters work long hours and don’t get paid too well, but couldn’t there have been some way to increase the manpower, bringing in more people to tally and so forth? I don’t know what kind of training ballot counters go through, but it seems like everyone down there has been learning on the job anyway.

6

Another factual element in the state-wide recount question is that most of northern Florida uses optical scanners to count ballots, in countrast to the punch card system used in south Florida. The optical system tends to have more consistent results (no issues of partially detached chads) and therefore Bush would be unlikely to garner more votes from them.

I’ll leave the debatable aspects of these questons for the Great Debates forum.

7

glad you asked, will try to comply

Well it helps that Bush won both recounts, Algore just wants to keep recounting till he gets the results he wants. The counties he requested recounts in were highly in his favor, IIRC one had double digit votes for Bush and 4 digit votes for Algore. Also because Fl was called by the press (for Algore) before the voting in the pan handle was called, it discougaged many would be voters, perhaps 10s of 1000s. The early call of MI, Fl and PA would have discourages many voters across the country and IMHO Bush deserver the pop vote along w/ the ele vote. (not to mention the Algore vote bought with a pack of cigaretts)

All news agencys get their election results from the same source and each wants to scoop the other. Most of the media supported Algore. Fox news shows a more ballanced viewpoint and presents both sides of the story. It just makes sense that a media outlet that supports Algore would be hesitent to show he lost a state.

Yes, the law is very clear the deadline is 5 pm on 11/14. Algore’s group has insisted that the deadling be extended. Also the canidates have no right to demand, only request. One county has refused a recount and might be forced to despite the law. Also a side note, hand recounts were historically used only when the difrence was in the single digits.

This is not Katherins’ whim, it is the law. A very clear law. Imposed way before this election. Stating that All counties shall have their official totals or be ignored. There is no question about it.

Yes, Algore has stated (before the election) that if one canidate wins the ele vote and the other wins the pop vote, the pop vote winner should accept it and concede. That was before Algore knew he would be the one loosing. Also the time to fix the voting process is BEFORE the election not after. If you do it after you are doing another ‘fix’ to the election. I have no problem with making the election more accurate for next time around.

Well we can only blame sore looser Algore for this.

Thanks for asking, needed to vent

8

In no particular order …

  1. I tend to ignore posts from people who can’t even remember to put the capitals and the space in Al Gore’s name. To me, it’s the same as saying “I’m a dittohead who just spills back whatever Rush Limbaugh tells me.”

  2. Fox News has nothing to do with Bush’s legitimacy. ALL the media made the same calls at about the same time based on the same data. Of more interest re Fox is the story that Ellis was on the phone to his brother-in-law’s campaign people all day to report exit poll results. As for Fox News’s impartiality, just reflect on their choice of director for election-night coverage, their head being Roger Ailes (remember his Willie Horton ad?) and its ownership by Rupert Murdoch (a huge-volume GOP contributor, and owner of such other trash as the NY Post and Boston Herald). But my favorite example is their primary commentator, Bill O’Reilly, stating that he hates Hillary Clinton so much he’s going to run against her himself in 2006.

If you think Fox is balanced and objective, you’re welcome to do so, of course. But please compare them to other media before making that statement.

  1. Given Sec. of State Harris’ role as CO-CHAIR of the campaign of one of the candidates, and the intense need for the nation and history to see her office’s decisions as fair and impartial, why has she not recused herself? If the final call does go Bush’s way, and there is any question of votes not being properly counted, then his presidency will always be questioned and it will be largely her fault. Her decisions so far do not show any sense of history, or citizenship larger than simple partisanship.

  2. It’s been reported in other media (but apparently not Fox News) that FL law allows candidates 72 hours to request hand recounts. The Gore people took advantage of it, but the Bush people did not, and now the clock has run out. I would like to see the entire state recounted in the interest of accuracy, but I have little sympathy for the Bush people complaining after they screwed up themselves.

  3. How can FL law “require” certified votes before a hand count can even be completed, or before absentee votes have to be counted? Judge Lewis’ ruling looked OK to me in that regard.

  4. Why are the Bush people anxious to claim victory based on the ASSOCIATED PRESS count of all things, and to prevent any further, more accurate count? Baker’s claim seems to be that speed is more important than democracy itself. I don’t think that will stand the test of history. How can anyone else think so?
    See you in Great Debates.

9

Which states have certified an “official winner”? The CNN news reports show some states allowing protests/recounts into early December. The states like Iowa and Wisconsin allow protests until the end of the week, yet people say that Gore “won” those states without “certified” results.

Bush won the “official” count on election day and the “official” recount the next day. The election is past that and is now in the protest stage [literally].

Gore is doing more than asking for manual recounts, he is suing Broward county which did a spot count and decided the original count was acurate. Today, Miami-Dade did the same thing. No word on Gore suing them.

At this time, Gore has LOST the election. He has nothing to lose by fighting the results and stalling. If he can manage to drag it out long enough, past the electorial college vote, into the House vote, he has a good chance of winning. If the House can not select a President, then the existing Vice President, which is Gore, becomes President.

10

At least you used quotation marks. When did CNN and the AP get “official” status, and why are you even using that word?
As for concerns about Gore’s legitimacy if he ultimately wins, keep a couple of things in mind:

  1. He WON the popular vote nationally. More people wanted him to be President than anyone else.

  2. He also WON the electoral vote outside of Florida, and it would take an overturn of Wisconsin and 2 of the 3 other contested states’ results to change that.

11

May I make a couple of comments from an outsider’s viewpoint?

I am amazed at the inconsistencies that are allowed to creep into your electoral system.

How can every vote be even remotely equal across the nation when electoral laws vary between states?

Shouldn’t there be a national standard of eligibility for electoral franchise? Why should one state rule an entire group of people arbitarily ineligible to vote, when those same people are OK in another state?

Why are there differing methods of vote counting within the same state? Does this mean that there were different types of ballot papers?

How fair is the “winner-take-all” method of attributing electoral college votes? It certainly does not reflect that a sizeable portion of a state’s population favoured the “losing” candidate.

Such inconsistencies are quite amazing in a country that loudly proclaims itself as the world’s leading democracy. No wonder the lawyers are having a feeding frenzy.

12

The Constitution sets the number of electorial votes each state gets. It does not require “winner-take-all”. Each state gets to decide how to award it’s electorial votes.

I agree with you about the lack of fairness with winner take all. It is something that all but two states chose to use. It makes a state more important in an election since a candidate can steal votes that would otherwise go to an opponent.

Another thing to keep in mind, neither Bush nor Gore got the majority of the votes. More people voted against them, than for them.

Bush won in 29 states, Gore in 18. The other 3 have not decided.

13

Um…from what I understand, the actions of John Ellis were not exactly illegal, but HIGHLY unethical, and I read in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette yesterday that he’s probably going to be canned.

Bush and Jeb were TELLING him what to put out, I think.

That’s not to say that Gore is a good pure boy-no, they’re politicians, they all play the game.
I’m just saying that Ellis was NOT in the right.

14

Who has been arbitrarily ruled ineligible to vote in this election?

The controversy in this election revolves around recounts and confusing ballots. Those who were disenfranchised were disenfranchised because they punched a ballot twice or misread the ballot and voted for a candidate they did not want.

There were some anecdotal reports of people being turned away at the polls and being told they were ineligible to vote, but that has not been a major part of the recount controversy in Florida. It’s mainly about voting procedures that resulted in some voters’ votes not being counted. But that is not the same thing as one state having a law that says “The following people will not be allowed to vote:…”

15

**

Of all the remarks, this particular view is short sighted and until Friday of this week, plain wrong. Until the overseas votes are in and counted, no one has won. Unless there are fewer total overseas votes than Bush’s current lead, everyone is going to have to wait and count those. While many people expect these votes to be heavily swayed towards Bush, no one can be sure until they are counted. Past voting trends are not always accurate in predicting the outcome.
On another matter, I think the parties tactics say much more than the lip service they give to the population. The Republicans, so-called flag bearers of state rights, immediately filed suit in Federal Court to stop a recount when Fla law states that a recount is required due to the closeness of the vote. Talk about the jack-booted thugs attempting to stomp all over states rights. The Democrats aren’t any better. Both sides have already shown that what they believe in and stand for will be brushed aside in their attempted power grab. Yeech!

16

Something that I have yet to see mentioned is the fact that the recounts uncovered disproportionate numbers of ‘new’ votes – that is to say, more miscounted votes for Gore than for Bush have been revealed. For instance: if, in the initial count, the vote had been split evenly, why is it that FAR more of the miscounted votes were for Gore? That’s what a margin of error assumes – if a fraction of votes were miscounted, the error would shake out evenly on both sides. The fact that it didn’t - in Florida, of all states -suggests impropriety to me.

17

Hmmm…never thought of that…You know, something’s rotten in the state of Florida right now…

18

different explanations for different areas. different voting systems (punchcard vs. paper vs. electronic etc.) have different error rates.

Granted the method of voting will have errors across the board and will not favor one candidate vs. another, however: if the method of voting in a certain area has a higher error rate than other methods AND that certain area has a history of voting more for one side than the other, the error rate will disproportionately affect the one candidate.

Example: the punchcards, we’ve learned, have a relatively high “reject” rate - that is the machine will NOT count a ballot where the ‘chad’ is not completely detached. this will toss a percentage of actual votes cast. This was the case in PBC, a highly democratic district. So, if say 5% of the votes cast were erroneously not counted, and the county traditionally votes 70/30 democratic, then, for 10000 votes cast with 7000 going to Gore, this would toss out 350 votes of Gores, while only loosing 150 for Bush.
I’ve heard of other errors in other places (a New Mexico person mistakenly keyed in Gore’s vote as 160 vs. 660 in one district) and, in a race this tight, simple mistakes like that will make the difference.

If nothing else, we’ve all become far more aware of the different ballot methods and rates of error (I’d voted with the punch cards for 15 years, and NEVER knew that you had to make sure your little ‘chad’ :rolleyes: had to be completely detached. I mean, who looked???)

19

My wife, apparently. Where we used to live, they vote with punch cards, and somewhere in the instructions (she tells me) it says to check to make sure they are detached. Of course, she never told me this at the time. (Did I mention she’s a republican, and I’m a democrat?)

She also reads the manuals when something comes with “some assembly required”, instead of just plunging ahead. :rolleyes:

20

This is cool! I’ve actually been flamed!

So, some points that I want to make, based on the responses so far. Again, feel free to correct me.

–Do we all agree that Al Gore’s concession phone call to Dubya late election night is irrelevant?

–Wolfman says: “Gore claims to be searching for accuravy, but he seems to be concentrating on getting accuracy where it benefits only him. He is doing what he thinks is the best way for him to win, so is Bush, and they would do the exact same thing on the other side.” I say, DUH. I agree Gore has a strategy for where he is asking for recounts. Now I ask everyone, if this works and he gets the election, does this make him legitimate? Before you republicans answer, let me throw out that Dubya has the same rights to ask for a recount, but didn’t exercise them.

–k2dave says: “. . . the law is very clear the deadline is 5 pm on 11/14. Algore’s [sic] group has insisted that the deadling be extended. Also the canidates [sic] have no right to demand, only request.” If this is true, thank you for providing me with some FACTS, heretofore lacking in this debate. To be honest, all I had seen from the GOP boiled down to, “We’re still winning, you lost, please stop recounting, ignore all the questions that this has raised, neener neener neener.”

–Farmer says: “Wuz up now Airblairxxx.?!” WAZZUPPP!!!

–As of this morning, Dubya is leading by 300. Why should Gore concede even though there are a few thousand overseas ballots that have until Friday to arrive? What is the harm in counting everything?