Well, here it is. Just setting up the room, straighten everything up, get ready. The numbers are in, so the “moot court” proceeding can begin.
If a statewide recount had been done (as, IMHO, it should have been) and a statewide standard adopted ( hanging chads, yes, pregnant no, dimpled yes, dimpled no, whatever) and all undervotes/overvotes counted, Al Gore would be parking his pedantic butt in the Big Ass Chair. Leastwise, that’s what I think I just read. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. No, really.
And, of course, as suspected, if it hadn’t been for the remarkable impact of the “Jews for Buchanan” vote in Palm Beach, as above.
No doubt, some hard-headed, realistic, clear thinking 'Pub is already itching to point out that this is all moot, nothing can be done about it, get under it, yadda-blah, yadda-blah. Howzabout we make that a given?
OK, all set.
Now, of course, it may be that no one wants to discuss this at all, in which case this thread will simply dribble off the bottom of the page and vanish. We’ll see.
You don’t seem to understand that in a democracy it isn’t the person who receives the most votes who wins. America has evolved beyond that simplistic concept to the really important issues like who has the best litigation strategy. Thats why CNN leads with who would have won under particular litigation strategies rather than focussing on silly things like who got the most votes.
It is important that we also only consider one issue at a time so we don’t, for instance, add in all those ilegal votes Bush got counted to inflate the total Gore win. Better to keep it nice and close.
We wouldn’t want to acknowledge that getting the most votes means Gore was the legitimate winner. It would make the republicans look pretty nasty for their villification of him during the recounts.
Sorry elucidator, but all my psychic energies continue to be devoted to getting Samuel Tilden declared the rightful winner of the 1876 election over Rutherford Hayes.
If you let the Republicans get away with that one, who knows what could happen.
And thus concludes yet another “Great Moments in Media History.”
Yeah, frame the question as “Which legal strategy was the best?” because no one gives a damn about who actually recieved the most votes in Florida. Six of nine recounting scenarios would have given Al Gore the victory, but it headlines that Bush won. No surprise here. Nor should we be shocked that election reform has died a slow and painful death over the past several months.
You know that we elect electors and not actual presidential candidates. I think we should take Ned’s advise and and choose the lawyers for the candidate instead.
But I’m not going to say anything about a presidential election until January 2004. I don’t need the headaches.
Are you positing that Gore would have won in perfectly run election, or just if we only fixed the things that cost him votes, and left the things that worked to the detriment of Bush in place?
Once you have clarified that (I’ll certainly concede the second scenario,) it usually falls to the part of the OP to make some sort of argument to back up the assertion; post some evidence, list some reasons, provide an accounting, something like that. It generally does not fall to us to prove you wrong, you must prove yourself right.
As it stands, a simple assertion of opinion need only another simple contrary assertion to rebut it. i.e.
Backing up this assertion is of course the fine link previously posted.
The headline in my paper says, “Gore strategy would have cost election”. According to the paper, the recount shows that, if the Supreme Court had not stopped the partial recount that the Gore camp had requested, Gore would still have lost.
Gore would only have won a full, statewide recount - which he never once requested in court. And the paper points out that his victory was ‘probable’, and by the ‘slimmest of margins’.
That’s all I know right now, but it seems clear that if the Supreme Court would have ruled in Gore’s favor, he would still have lost the election. So I don’t see ANY scenario that puts Gore in the White House. So I hope we can put all this talk of Bush ‘stealing’ the election to rest.
The NY Times says Gore “might have” won a statewide recount. They use “might” because they were unable to check around 1500 votes, and because they had to assume that this hypothetical recount would have made the same judgments as they did.
So, we are left with the conlclusion that a very close election might have turned out differently, had counting been done in a partiular different fashion, ignoring 1500 ballots, and under a number of unprovable assumptions.
Jackmannii, yeah, the Garlic Chew-Ums could be a problem. But at least cats don’t insist on licking all over your face like dogs do!
Demise, don’t sweat it. The Bears will be around come playoff time. I’m really concerned for my New Orleans Saints, however. We expected a 12-4 or so season, and we stand at 4-4 now.
If I hold up a store that happens to have no cash at the time I am still a thief. I understand that republicans are incapable of seeing how offensive the conduct of their party was during the recount.
As usual you distort the situation to make your point. The count showed that Gore got the most votes. This has nothing to do with the NY Times statement which is commenting on whether the process could have realistically reached that conclusion had the Supreme Court not stopped the count.
The point remains that the most accurate count of ballots shows the wrong guy is in office. Sure, no news here.
Let’s see… a scenario in which Gore wound up in the White House? Oo! Oo! I’ve got one! No, two! I’ve got two!
Scenario One: Gore demands a statewide recount. An honest, careful, painstaking statewide recount is conducted. Gore is found to have slightly more votes then Bush. Gore wins Floridia, and therefore the Presidency.
(According to accounts by the AP, NY Times, etc., a group of media companies conducted their own recount. The result was that Bush would have won if the only counties recounted were the ones Gore requested – but Gore would have won if a statewide recount had occured.)
Scenario Two: Florida manages to conduct a sensibly-run, reasonably fair, reasonably error-free election. Gore gets more votes then Bush. Gore wins Florida, and therefore the Presidency.
(In a sensibly-run, reasonably fair, reasonably error-free election, the whole West Palm Beach mess would not have occured. Sensible rules would not have permitted the adoption of the well-meant but poorly-designed butterfly ballot. In a sensibly run election, in the event of the results being disputed, it would not be up to the candidates to decide which counties to recount; a statewide recount would be automatic. Changing either of these factors would cause a Gore win. Also, in a reasonably fair election, all districts would have good voting methods and well trained election workers. Changing this factor might also have caused a Gore win.)
I saw this in the paper this morning as well… They listed seven of the scenarios:
Prevailing standard - Gore wins
Least restrictive standard - Gore wins
Most restrictive standard - Gore wins
State wide recount - Gore Wins
Supreme Court simple - Bush wins
Supreme Court complex - Bush wins
Gore 4 county recount - Bush wins
Not that it matters - it’s over and done with (and I voted Gore). I imagine that Gore is happy he’s not in the big chair now…
I have to wonder about the media when they report on this story, knowingly stirring up controversy about the Commander-in-Chief during wartime, on Veterans’ Day. Couldn’t they have waited a single day?
Of course, the real news is that the election was still a statistical tie. The claim that this recount showed a theoretical win for Gore by 42-151 votes is ridiculous. In order to confidently state such a claim, they would have to be 99.9993% accurate with the tallies. That’s fewer than one mistake in 100,000. I doubt any human could be that accurate in a handcount. Count again and we’d get a different set of numbers.
I’ll note simply that these stories fail to mention other problems, like the media costing Bush about 10K votes because of the early call of Florida, the disqualification of military votes, etc.
Oh, and
Pipe down there, Ralphie[sub]Simpsons reference[/sub].
Do you have a link to those accounts? According to the CNN link posted earlier in this thread, this is not true.
If you have a cite showing a careful full recount with uniform and accepted standards that shows Gore won in FL, by all means, please post it.
We already have a link that shows the opposite is true, from a fairly impartial source.
That’s speculative. In a well run election FL. wouldn’t have preannounced in error while the polls were still open in the panhandle, a strong Republican bastion, thereby potentially causing many Bush supporters not to bother. It’s also reasonable to assume that such a large proportion of the overseas and military votes would not have been dismissed.
The assertion that the Palm Beach fiasco would have tipped the scale is also purely speculative. While errors were certainly made by voters, it’s impossible to ascertain to exactly what extent they effected the vote. You can only take a guess, and in a vote this close, that’s not good enough.
