# 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:** 9\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/161 "2000-12-06T13:17:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gEEk \* > \*\*\*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Change of topic, slightly: > > The [Miami Herald](http://www.herald.com/content/archive/news/elect2000/decision/104268.htm) had a study done of what the Florida vote would have been if there had been none of the problems we’ve heard so much about lately. They figure Gore really had more voters intending to vote for him, by well into 5 figures. > > Just a quick partial rebuttal from Jacob Weisberg in [Slate](http://www.slate.com): > > [Who Lost Florida](http://slate.msn.com/code/BallotBox/BallotBox.asp?Show=12/4/2000&idMessage=6613) > > Even though I prefer Bush to Gore, I can’t fault his analysis, nor can I ignore my objective impression that Gore would have won Florida and thus the election if so many people hadn’t screwed up (voters, election officials, racist cops, etc). > > Ahh well, nobody said democracy was pretty. > > gEEk > > \*\* [Weisberg has corrected his corrections](http://slate.msn.com/code/BallotBox/BallotBox.asp?Show=12/5/2000&idMessage=6624), based on some help from professional statisticians, and now concludes that Gore most likely DID win Florida by 700-odd votes (not accounting for Seminole and Martin - different thread). The math remains fuzzy as long as the ballots aren’t all inspected, of course, but fuzzy math is what statisticians DO. Not only is democracy not always pretty, but when We the People don’t get the candidate we voted for, it isn’t even democracy anymore. But it’s the Billhillaryalgores who are so desperate for power that they’ll stoop to anything to get it, naturally. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/162 "2000-12-06T17:36:18Z")
From a post by **ElvisL1ves** : > [@](#): > > You can’t cover that up by using ad hominem arguments, and I’m sure you’d be thrown out of court if you tried that in your job. You made a similar assertion in another thread, wherein I suggested that you obtain the facts and read the relevant law before making assertions about the application of that law to facts. In that post you asserted as well that I was “some guy in Toledo, with apparently as much free time on his hands…”. These posts show that you have no understanding of the term _argumentum ad hominem_. An _ad hominem_ argument is an argument that relies not on logic or reason related to the topic, but instead asks the listener/reader to draw an adverse inference about the validity of someone’s statements on the basis of some assertion about that person. That is, if I were to call you a ‘major doofus’ in response to your assertion about the legality of the ballots, in an attempt to get people to believe your arguments lacked value because you are a ‘major doofus,’ I would be engaging in an _ad hominem_ arguement. As another example, the attempt to paint me as someone who’s arguments lack value because I am from Toledo and have some free time is argument _ad hominem_. By contrast, my assertions have been directed at the value of your statements through attacking the logical or factual underpinnings of those statements. You have repeatedly admitted a lack of understanding as to what the actual facts are, then presented arguments as to what legally should or should not be done in the absence of such facts. You have admitted a lack of understanding of the law applicable to the contests by Mr. Gore, but then have felt free to attack the assertions that the legal results in these contests should be different from what you would like to see. And, in the specific example of this thread, you have once again failed to grasp the simple underlying point to the dispute in Seminole County: the allegation of impropriety is that some people voted by absentee ballot who otherwise wouldn’t have been able to vote that way, but who might have been able to so do, or might have been forced to vote in person. Voting by absentee ballot is not a right under Florida law, see the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in _Anderson v. Canvassing and Election Board of Gadsen County_, 399 So.2d 1021 (1981). People who apply to vote by absentee ballot don’t have a right to vote that way. Assuming for the sake of argument that some Democrats applied and had their applications denied for reasons that some Republicans didn’t isn’t reason to complain that Democrats didn’t get to vote by absentee ballot. It IS reason to complain that some Republicans got to vote who otherwise wouldn’t have, but then you have to get past the REMEDY issues, which you have repeatedly failed to address in this or any other thread touching on this issue. As for the assertion that I would be “thrown out of court if \* tried that in [my] job,” you are obviously quite ignorant of what it is that an attorney is or is not allowed to say or do during argument. As an attorney I have been the recipient of true arguments _ad hominem_, and never watched while the other attorney was tossed, kicking and screaming, from the court by a judge. If I were you, I wouldn’t display such ignorance readily; it really does affect the credibility of your arguments. You might also try practicing what you preach. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2000, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/163 "2000-12-08T23:08:24Z")
Hehehe, I didn’t do too bad in my predictions from my post of 11/29/00 in this thread. My predictions then: Butterfly contest loses, absentee ballot application contest loses, dimpled chads remain a problem, Dade County should be recounted, but can it be done in a timely fashion? Butterfly ballots? Gone as an issue. Absentee ballots? Out of question. Dade County? Count them up (but can they get done?). Dimpled chads? WAY still a problem… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2000, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/164 "2000-12-09T17:27:09Z")
Please take your personally-targeted comments to the Pit in the future, Counselor. They don’t belong here. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2000, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/165 "2000-12-10T17:19:28Z")
Bull pucky! Give 'em both barrels, Counselor! Talk over my head if you have to, I’ll get smarter! After all, _op. cit_s attract! (I already know I have no shame. Don’t even bother) ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2000, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/166 "2000-12-10T19:36:57Z")
Elvis, you complaining about someone elses ad homenin attacks is laughable. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2000, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/167 "2000-12-10T19:43:31Z")
Elvis, DSY wasn’t attacking you personally. Read his post, maybe, and you’ll see he’s pointing out areas in which you’ve demonstrated ignorance. You shouldn’t be be so sensitive and whiny when someone informs you if you’re being ignorant. Let the mods determine what belongs and what doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![No\_Fear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4491bb/32.png) [@No\_Fear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/No_Fear)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2000, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/168 "2000-12-12T17:18:37Z")
As we all know, the Florida Supreme Court then overturned this. They set their own deadline. They said the counties in question could submit their hand counts by 5 p.m. Sunday; or, if the Secretary of State’s office was not open on Sunday, by Monday morning. Harris made the determination, as set forth in the Supreme Court’s order to her to open the office on Sunday. For those who maintain she did this to undermine the hand-count process; A) Did she make this decision Sunday morning? I don’t think so. B) She didn’t set the deadline; the Florida Supreme Court, who Al Gore and his merry band of lawyers wanted to get this issue to so badly, did. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2000, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817/169 "2000-12-12T20:35:36Z")
She **could** have opened her office on Monday, she **chose** to be open on Sunday. Open on Monday, she would have given them time to complete the count. She chose to open on Sunday and when implored for \* two more hours\* to count ballots, refused. If its not clear to you that she was doing here level best to sabatoge the count (that’s _count_, mind you, not _recount_), what else could possibly clarify? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-certification-coming-court-cases-and-whats-next/42817.md?page=8)