# The Certification, Coming Court Cases and What's Next... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 27, 2000, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817 "2000-11-27T02:15:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2000, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/41 "2000-11-27T20:40:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSYoungEsq \* > \*\*5) Debate does not include refusing to listen, or stubborn adherence to one’s own beliefs in the face of evidence casting doubt on them. > > There are certain members who have been involved in the discussion of this general topic, both in this thread and elsewhere, who don’t seem to grasp that you don’t engage in debate by pointing a finger at the other side and saying: “I’m right and you’re wrong” over and over. **Stoidela** and others here may have learned, I hope, that it doesn’t make anyone feel like engaging in discussion with you when you behave substantially like that. Of course, based on the responses from both **Stoidela** and **ElvisL1ves** , it is clear that they, so far, do not. NOT that some of those who have advocated for Mr. Bush have necessarily been better. \*\* Thanks for pointing me out there. In fact, I was trying to make the same point you were. I WELCOME facts and logic to support positions, and I’m not sure how the opposite could seem to be the case. My compliments on the most cogent summary of the legal situation that I’ve seen so far, btw. Of course, courts could rule differently - we’ll see this week. And of course, legality does not always equal justice - if the courts’ rulings acknowledge Gore’s point that the partial recounts would actually give him the WIN, even without the Seminole Cy. absentee ballot issue, then it would be very hard for the public to accept Bush as the winner based on legal rulings, especially based on the way the count has been conducted. Of course Gore wants to win. Look, part of the problem here is that he has a plausible claim to actually be the winner in Florida, and that’s without the fiascos in PBC and Duval, or even the DeLay-organized raid in Miami-Dade (not just a claim - even the hard-right Wall Street Journal has reported that). He’s not just trying to jigger the final number of an inevitability - if he were, I’d be willing to call him a sore loser, too. Can we at least agree that the interest of We the People in getting the fairest and most accurate result of this election is paramount, no matter the candidates’ interest? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2000, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/42 "2000-11-27T20:48:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > **I’d like you to reconcile this with your own “point 3” in which you said that not all dimples are votes. It happens that Bush shares your view with regard to this matter, but this view is not the one adoprted by Broward or Miami-Dade counties** Dimples, or “hanging chads”, are neither Republican or Democratic. They’re either evidence of a good-faith attempt to cast a valid vote, one way or another, or they’re not. Yes, there should be standards (even better, there should be less error-prone voting methods, but too late this time). Can’t “dimpled chads” go as easily in Bush’s favor as Gore’s in a recount, in theory? Note that Bush picked up quite a few votes in the recounts, too. The Bush emphasis on not counting them in Florida (while accepting them in Texas) looks like part of the overall strategy of suppressing any votes which might threaten their certification, combined with slowing down or stopping the recounts to prevent them from being done in time. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2000, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/43 "2000-11-27T20:50:55Z")
> [@](#): > > But this is silly in light of the fact that a) there was not one single county that managed two machine counts with identical totals for the two main candidates Cite please? ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2000, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/44 "2000-11-27T21:00:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > I think there’s an inconsistency in the way many well-meaning people’s attempt to be evenhanded by judging every issue in a complete vacuum, independent of all others. To judge the proper course of action which is justified, one must consider the outcome in context of all the issues. \*\* That’s mighty um. _liberal_ of you Izzy. But it sort of conflicts with the idea of “You have to follow the laws, even when you don’t like the results”. You remember the rule of law, don’t you? tj ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2000, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/45 "2000-11-27T22:23:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > **Dimples, or “hanging chads”, are neither Republican or Democratic. They’re either evidence of a good-faith attempt to cast a valid vote, one way or another, or they’re not. Yes, there should be standards (even better, there should be less error-prone voting methods, but too late this time). Can’t “dimpled chads” go as easily in Bush’s favor as Gore’s in a recount, in theory?** Apparently reasonable minds may differ with regards to what extent a dimpled chad is to be construed as a vote. Just between me and you, there are alot more counties which favored Gore that used punch card ballots than there are counties that favored Bush. Thus, Gore stood to gain alot of unjustified votes if too expansive a definition of a vote is applied, and to lose votes unjustly if too strict a definition is used. Thus each is entitled to press for his definition of valid vote. (The fact that each is biased in arriving at his viewpoint is obvious beyond discussion). At the same time, the dimpled ballot standard of “intent of the voter” tends to favor Gore, as those judging intent are, for the most part, his partisans. (It should be noted in this regard that Judge Burton of PBC is one of the few who have distinguished themselves in this entire affair, and seems to be a conciensious man, trying to do the right thing. But there is no question that overall, the boards doing the judging are stacked to the left. It is incredible that Democrats who are so quick to attack Katherine Harris, express complete faith in the unbiasedness of Democrat election officials and Judges). Tejota, I’m not sure what you mean. Or, for that matter, if you mean anything. If you do, you might clarify. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2000, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/46 "2000-11-27T22:49:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Just between me and you, there are alot more counties which favored Gore that used punch card ballots than there are counties that favored Bush. Thus, Gore stood to gain alot of unjustified votes if too expansive a definition of a vote is applied, and to lose votes unjustly if too strict a definition is used. Now that we have moved into the contest phase, any additional hand recounts of ballots in any county will be performed by, or under direct supervision of, a judge, not by the local canvassing boards. Your second point, that Gore could lose votes if too strict a definition is used, remains valid. However, if you accept the judge as being impartial, if too expansive a definition is used, such that votes are attributed where they shouldn’t be, it should be equally likely for Bush or Gore to get “extra” votes. Random dimples should occur independently of the way the county as a whole voted. It’s could be equally likely for **all** the residential candidates, if they look equally at all of the numbered presidential locations, not just Bush and Gore. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2000, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/47 "2000-11-27T23:07:22Z")
Zb said > [@](#): > > . However, if you accept the judge as being impartial, if too expansive a definition is used, such that votes are attributed where they shouldn’t be, it should be equally likely for Bush or Gore to get “extra” votes. Random dimples should occur independently of the way the county as a whole voted. It’s could be equally likely for all the residential candidates, if they look equally at all of the numbered presidential locations, not just Bush and Gore. Ahhh, but if the county went 60% gore and the dimples are distributed randomly, then gore shoudl pick up 2 votes for every 10 counted. OCunting dimples in only 2-4 Highly democratic counties does not constitute “counting every vote.” Period. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2000, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/48 "2000-11-27T23:12:44Z")
> [@](#): > > The Bush emphasis on not counting them in Florida (while accepting them in Texas) looks like part of the overall strategy of suppressing any votes which might threaten their certification Mr. Elvis, I’d like you to tell me exactly how many “chads” are involved in Texas elections. I know that you know, since you’ve been told several times that the majority of Texas _uses a different effin’ ballot_ than Florida… **which means that they have an objective set of standards, and DO NOT have to worry about chads, dimpled, hanging, or otherwise**. Now, I trust, after being told this for the billionth time, that you’ll stop bringing up the “Texas does it, too!” argument. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2000, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/49 "2000-11-27T23:21:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aynrandlover \* > **Guys, when the vote is this close it stands to reason that it doesn’t matter who wins, they obviously have very similar stances on many topics.** No, it just means that some voters (perhaps a plurality) feel they have similar stances. The die-hard Gore voters and the die-hard Bush voters feel that there are major differences between the candidates. > [@](#): > > **Gore didn’t want every vote counted.** See above. At the very least, he made an offer for a (seemingly) fair and equitable solution – hand-count everything, and let the results fall. Bush’s craven refusal to accept the offer (along with the GOP excuses that hand-counting is “inaccurate”) merely deepens my own disgust. > [@](#): > > \*\*This is why I hate government: because of the cultists it creates. \*\* It’s either this or soccer. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2000, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/50 "2000-11-27T23:34:48Z")
You know, I don’t like Bush either. I really wanted Gore to win. HOWEVER…I think the idea that he’s planning on sueing the counties for not continuing their recounts is asanine. Bush is a jerk. I can’t stand Rush, or Newt, or Trent, or any of the GOP. But I don’t like the way this election is going. Yes, I think there are differences in the parties-yes, I wanted Gore to win very much. However, this is NOT the way to go about it. Yes, he won the popular vote. But you know what? Let Bush have it-he’ll screw up, and he’ll be out in four years. Every president who won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote was a one termer. ---
**Author:** ![nebuli](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/0ea827/32.png) [@nebuli](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nebuli)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2000, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/51 "2000-11-27T23:48:36Z")
Mr. Zambesi said; > [@](#): > > Zb said > > ## quote: > > ## . However, if you accept the judge as being impartial, if too expansive a definition is used, such that votes are attributed where they shouldn’t be, it should be equally likely for Bush or Gore to get “extra” votes. Random dimples should occur independently of the way the county as a whole voted. It’s could be equally likely for all the residential candidates, if they look equally at all of the numbered presidential locations, not just Bush and Gore. > > Ahhh, but if the county went 60% gore and the dimples are distributed randomly, then gore shoudl pick up 2 votes for every 10 counted. > > OCunting dimples in only 2-4 Highly democratic counties does not constitute “counting every vote.” Period. Sorry, Mr. Zambesi, that just does not hold true **if** the dimples are really random marks; it would only be true if the dimples are actually intended votes for Gore or Bush. What other factor would cause the dimples to be distributed 60-40 for Gore if not the intention of the voters? The fact that the Bush camp is so afraid of the dimples indicates to me that they strongly suspect the dimples were intended to be votes. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2000, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/52 "2000-11-28T01:24:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*Apparently reasonable minds may differ with regards to what extent a dimpled chad is to be construed as a vote. Just between me and you, there are alot more counties which favored Gore that used punch card ballots than there are counties that favored Bush. \*\* I’ve seen and heard that mentioned quite a bit, but don’t have any hard info as to which county used which method. If it’s true, then I agree with the rest of your statement. Do you have a cite, in the interest of getting facts out? > [@](#): > > \*\*At the same time, the dimpled ballot standard of “intent of the voter” tends to favor Gore, as those judging intent are, for the most part, his partisans. \*\* I think anyone with any political awareness has an affinity toward one party more than the other. Anyone interested enough in politics to take part in this effort is a party member almost by definition - call that “partisan” if you like. But, as has been pointed out repeatedly, all these recount efforts have BOTH parties represented on the commissions, and the efforts are/were being made under intense scrutiny. What would you like to see done differently that would be fairer? A 50/50 team that would be unable ever to reach a decision, or would find a way to split the difference? I don’t think so. Can we PLEASE get the statewide recount in the interest of the nation and our place in history? I think there’s still time to do it rightly and fairly, if the FL or US SC so rules. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2000, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/53 "2000-11-28T01:32:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > \*\*you’ve been told several times that the majority of Texas _uses a different effin’ ballot_ than Florida… **which means that they have an objective set of standards, and DO NOT have to worry about chads, dimpled, hanging, or otherwise**. > > Now, I trust, after being told this for the billionth time, that you’ll stop bringing up the “Texas does it, too!” argument. \*\* Re Texas’ “objective standards”: Cite, please? As you well know, bringing up the example of laws GW Bush has signed as Governor of Texas is the clearest way of illustrating what is his “principle” (a word I’ve heard used inappropriately far too often lately) and what is simple tactical posturing. Any way in which Gore has acted or made statements in the past that vary from his current actions or statements is similar fodder, of course. Now, I trust, you’ll stop bringing up how Bush’s position of refusing to agree to hanging/dimpled chads as being valid, or refusing to agree to anything else that has a risk of him losing, is a “principle”. Deal? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2000, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/54 "2000-11-28T01:36:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*Yes, he won the popular vote. But you know what? Let Bush have it-he’ll screw up, and he’ll be out in four years. Every president who won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote was a one termer. \*\* I might agree with you if I thought the damage he could do to us, or would be unable to prevent being done to us by the firebreathers controlling Congress, in the meanwhile would be inconsequential. Maybe it is, but I just can’t see my way clear to it yet. The way he’s handled himself these last few weeks is not an encouraging sign. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2000, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/55 "2000-11-28T01:41:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi \* > \*\*Ahhh, but if the county went 60% gore and the dimples are distributed randomly, then gore shoudl pick up 2 votes for every 10 counted. > \*\* How do you figure that? If they’re really randomly distributed, then all candidates (including Nader, Buchanan, et al.) would pick up equal numbers of votes, and the final margins would be unchanged. If there’s a significant net gain for any particular candidate, that’s prima facie evidence that they weren’t random, and therefore reflected someone’s intent. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2000, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/56 "2000-11-28T02:38:11Z")
> [@](#): > > **As you well know, bringing up the example of laws GW Bush has signed as Governor of Texas is the clearest way of illustrating what is his "principle"** And what principle do you think it illustrates? That Bush signed law allowing hand counts in Texas? Big whoop de doo. The majority of Texas uses ballots that are similar to **scantron** tests, unlike the **punch ballots** used throughout most of Florida. “Big deal”, you may say. Yes, it is quite a big deal. Hand counting scantrons is far less likely to lead to tampering than punch ballots, hence Bush’s opposition to recounts in Florida. Have you ever stopped to consider, maybe, that Bush is opposed to a hand recount because he is afraid of tampering (As some allegations claim to have happened, some of which are possible), and not because he is afraid of a legitimate Gore win? ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2000, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/57 "2000-11-28T02:49:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monster104 \* > > And what principle do you think it illustrates? That Bush signed law allowing hand counts in Texas? Big whoop de doo. The majority of Texas uses ballots that are similar to **scantron** tests, unlike the **punch ballots** used throughout most of Florida. “Big deal”, you may say. Yes, it is quite a big deal. Hand counting scantrons is far less likely to lead to tampering than punch ballots, hence Bush’s opposition to recounts in Florida. Then how do you account for the fact that the language of the Texas statute on Hand Counting specifically mentions rules for counting chad? > [@](#): > > \*\* > 127.130(d) Subject to Subsection (e), in any manual count conducted under this code, a vote on a ballot > on which a voter indicates a vote by punching a hole in the ballot may not be counted unless: > > (1) at least two corners of the chad are detached; > > (2) light is visible through the hole; > > (3) 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 > > (4) the chad reflects by other means a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote. > > (e) Subsection (d) does not supersede any clearly ascertainable intent of the voter. > \*\* > [@](#): > > Have you ever stopped to consider, maybe, that Bush is opposed to a hand recount because he is afraid of tampering (As some allegations claim to have happened, some of which are possible), and not because he is afraid of a legitimate Gore win? Yes, considered and rejected. He has partisans watching every aspect of the recount. Actually, that’s a bit simplistic, I’m willing to believe that Bush actually _is_ afraid of fraud being committed under his nose. But that doesn’t consitute a _legitimate_ reason to shut down the hand counts. It is possible to commit fraud _before_ the ballots are counted too, but we don’t use that as a reason not to have elections, do we? tj ---
**Author:** ![pohjonen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pohjonen/32/423_2.png) [@pohjonen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pohjonen)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2000, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/58 "2000-11-28T02:53:57Z")
For interested parties, this link provides info on which Florida counties use which voting systems… [http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/cvs.shtml](http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/cvs.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2000, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/59 "2000-11-28T03:32:10Z")
Elvis… > [@](#): > > Re Texas’ “objective standards”: Cite, please? Actually, our friend **Tejota** provided a cite. Many thanks to him. As you can see, Mr. Lives, Texas already has plans to deal with hand counting. They already have standards in place, standards that will be followed should the need for hand counts arise. Florida, on the other hand, did not have such clear standards. The reason the Bush camp was opposed to the hand counts is because the standards _were developed AFTER the election took place_. Does that sound objective to you? Creating methods for judging an event AFTER it was over? Gore knew the rules (or he should have… you claim he’s smarter) going into the election. He knew what standards would be in place before the first vote was ever cast. He knew that ballots with more than one candidate marked would be thrown out. He knew that “dimpled chads” weren’t normally counted as votes. Instead of going along with the already-in-place standards, he tried to get the standards changed after he got his ass whipped. THAT, Mr. Lives, is why he’s being an idiot and a baby… he’s trying to get the rules changed, since the rules didn’t favor him. > [@](#): > > As you well know, bringing up the example of laws GW Bush has signed as Governor of Texas is the clearest way of illustrating what is his “principle” His principle is that changing the rules after the fact is wrong. What’s so hard to understand about that? It has nothing to do with chads, or votes, or voters… just simple, plain common sense that we learn in kindergarten… **you obey the rules**. Apparently, you, Stoid, or Gore can’t figure that out. > [@](#): > > Now, I trust, you’ll stop bringing up how Bush’s position of refusing to agree to hanging/dimpled chads as being valid, or refusing to agree to anything else that has a risk of him losing, is a “principle”. Deal? Deal, as long as you can provide ample reason for me doing so. Ignoring my posts and repeating what you’ve asserted several times before is hardly “ample reason”. Tejota… > [@](#): > > Then how do you account for the fact that the language of the Texas statute on Hand Counting specifically mentions rules for counting chad? Because the _majority_ of Texas uses a marked-ballot system. Not all of it. If anything, them Texans are thorough. > [@](#): > > I’m willing to believe that Bush actually is afraid of fraud being committed under his nose. But that doesn’t consitute a legitimate reason to shut down the hand counts. So you’re saying that the likelihood of fraud is no reason to cancel a recount? Betcha ten bucks you’d be saying the opposite if it was Bush who needed a few hundred votes to win. > [@](#): > > It is possible to commit fraud before the ballots are counted too, but we don’t use that as a reason not to have elections, do we? No, but we take steps to ensure that the possibility of fraud is minimized. What’s so bad about doing the same during the recounts, as well? ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2000, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/60 "2000-11-28T04:06:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > The reason the Bush camp was opposed to the hand counts is because the standards _were developed AFTER the election took place_. Does that sound objective to you? Creating methods for judging an event AFTER it was over? Actually, they claimed that they were against hand counts because of the lack of standards, NOT because standards were defined after the election. > [@](#): > > Gore knew the rules (or he should have… you claim he’s smarter) going into the election. He knew what standards would be in place before the first vote was ever cast. He knew that ballots with more than one candidate marked would be thrown out. He knew that “dimpled chads” weren’t normally counted as votes. No. Prior to the election, there was **no uniform standard** for counting in Fla. So there is no way that Gore could possible know that dimpled chad’s weren’t counted unless he researched past practices of all 67 canvassing boards. > [@](#): > > Instead of going along with the already-in-place standards, he tried to get the standards changed after he got his ass whipped. No he tried to get them _defined_. The definition that he is looking for is the one that most favor’s him, true. But it is _also_ the one most consistent with his stated goal of “counting every vote”. In fact, courts have routinely decided that the will of the voter can be determined by a dimpled chad although there is no uniform standard for this, and that rule seems to be used mostly when the court itself is examining ballots. > [@](#): > > THAT, Mr. Lives, is why he’s being an idiot and a baby… he’s trying to get the rules changed, since the rules didn’t favor him. Sorry, but your characterization of this as “changing the rules after the game” doesn’t hold up to an examination of the facts. Care to play again? > [@](#): > > Tejota… > > > [@](#): > > > > Then how do you account for the fact that the language of the Texas statute on Hand Counting specifically mentions rules for counting chad? > > Because the _majority_ of Texas uses a marked-ballot system. Not all of it. If anything, them Texans are thorough. True, the majority of Texas does not use punch ballots. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is language in Texas statute that is _relevant_ to the discussion of whether or not dimpled ballots are counted when counting by hand. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I’m willing to believe that Bush actually is afraid of fraud being committed under his nose. But that doesn’t consitute a legitimate reason to shut down the hand counts. > > So you’re saying that the likelihood of fraud is no reason to cancel a recount? Exactly. Also, the word **liklihood** is your word. I don’t think fraud is likely. I think it’s quite unlikely, but even it it _was_likely, it still isn’t a good enough reason to say “no handcounts”. > [@](#): > > Betcha ten bucks you’d be saying the opposite if it was Bush who needed a few hundred votes to win. You loose. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > It is possible to commit fraud before the ballots are counted too, but we don’t use that as a reason not to have elections, do we? > > No, but we take steps to ensure that the possibility of fraud is minimized. What’s so bad about doing the same during the recounts, as well? Exactly, the possibility of fraud is reason to take precautions with the handcounts, NOT reason to avoid doing them. tj [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817.md?page=4)