Canned Meat, I admit that web site is a little hard to navigate. If it wasn’t 3:30 in the morning, I would have tried to give you the explicit urls for the past elections stuff…It took me a while to find them originally too. Here is the page where they have data on past elections in general: http://election.dos.state.fl.us/online/Elecresu.shtml. From there, click on “1996 election results” and then on “March 12, 1996 Presidential Primary” and finally on “President of the United States”. [I tried to give you just this final url too, but it has weird characters in it and doesn’t seem to work right when I embed it here, hence the directions from a page that does link okay.]
Just to be complete, with the links, this year’s Presidential election is broken down by county by going to http://election.dos.state.fl.us/ then clicking on “Nov. 7th General Election Results”, then finally “President/Vice President” and finally on “President of the United States”. (This last step is important in that if you skip it, you just get the statewide totals rather than broken down by county!)
Counsellor, let me start out by saying that most of what I’ve learned recently on this message board regarding the legal issues of this election has been from your excellent posts. I also find your language clear, your arguments reasoned, and your treatment of the issues quite non-partisan.
But please drop your arrogant derogation of the opinions expressed by the lay posters on this board. You are espousing elitist crap when you wag your finger at us for venturing opinions without benefit of case law knowledge. The last time I checked the airwaves, there were plenty of opinions being voiced without such benefit, mostly by legislators and professional pundits, many of whom are lawyers such as yourself, and most of which could easily be cut to pieces by the perspicacious non-lawyers frequenting this forum.
I do not need a knowledge of the case law involved in order to form a valid opinion on the matter of equal protection; I would need such knowledge only were I to argue my opinion in front of a court. Case law may disagree with my opinion, sir; but it cannot “invalidate” it. waterj2:
Let me help you out here; you can find a higher level discussion this way, in the BBQ Pit, of all places. Oh, and Shame On You! (“But, but… he started it!” Yeah, right. :rolleyes: ) canned meat, welcome to GD. As you’ve been shown, we kinda like accuracy and honesty in here. I’m sure that if you can bring yourself to try that approach at some point, you’ll enjoy it.
Nothing like a good ol’, down home execution to expess your committment to civil rights. Ahhh, Texas, that paragon of civic virtue and justice for all.
ad hominem 1
Not so. See below.
And if it is the truth? If the “damage” done results from legally cast votes, the damage should be done. Well, yes, the Dems are hoping the Gore might pull ahead. Well, shame on them for trying to win! (Lord, how I wish Molly Ivins would post here!)
ad hominem 2
Reports? What reports? Whose reports? Keep in mind, to my personal knowledge, a Texas Democrat is generally to the right of a Minnesota Republican.
numbers? what numbers? Are you them pulling the out of your…hat?
You have contempt for both men. Understandable, I suppose, but a little hard to buy when you have only expressed contempt for one of them. Got my hat right here, salt shaker next to it. Show me where your even-handed contempt for “Bambi” Bush is expressed, and I’ll start in eating it. That dog won’t hunt, partner.
Esquire(ooooh):
I haven’t claimed a superior standard in Texas, just that there was one. It doesn’t mean much for us with only 14 counties using the system. You did sidestep the question, however, which is understandable if you’ve seen the “process” of “divining” voter intent in action.
Elucidator:
I’m not going to repost polling numbers that are available from numerous sources. Unless, of course, you tell me that this is the only site you visit, then I’ll see about putting it into my schedule to keep you updated. I think my most recent source was the NY Times, although if you want sources you can discount as “kneejerk conservative” I can probably find a few of those, as well.
One of the sources of “defections” I recall is quoted as originating from the County Clerk’s office in Tallahasee, Fla…I don’t keep catalogs of this tripe, and I’m not here (or anywhere) to provide a thesis with footnotes.
Of course, I’m sure Texas Democrats aren’t as “pure” as you’d wish but it’s good to see that you also are not above “ad hominem” remarks, eh?
By the way…the “two” of them were Gore/Lieberman. I’m about as tired of hearing Lieberman’s whining as I am of hearing “fair and accurate count”…as long as it’s Democrats being counted BY Democrats, and NOT military members.
Also, when speaking to people from Texas, it’s not necessary to sprinkle cute sayings (dog won’t hunt–partner) to make your point. It is a pretty good illustration of the condescending attitude that makes liberal folk think they know what’s best for everyone else,though. But, then I should be GRATEFUL that the great liberal-massas’ wants to take care of us poor folk, right?
The point about “pick-ups” was made to remind you folks that your “side of the house” has no shortage of people making the connection–or the slurs…I’ve heard it from multiple sources (most recently, and specifically Begala’s diatrabe).
I’ll recheck my source for the gains…I read it quickly in passing and may have made an error.
Though what I would have hoped for is a changing of the law about recounts to stop what Gore did from repeating itself. Had his recount of those democratic counties actually given him the election there would be hell to pay every time there was a close race. I am sincerely glad that Bush has won because if he hadent there would be legal precedent to steal the election every time it comes close and the person with more legal knowledge, not votes would win.
Im guessing that no one has addressed stoid post since theres no reason to, canned meat shows that he actually reads the post against him and doesen’t turn around and use old arguements that have been heard before and refuted.(I like the one about claiming Bushes hypocracy over hand counts whereas anyone following the election would know that Bushes position that all the standards for the counts are subjective, making the margin of error larger than a machine recount.)
(1) One statistic: In the original post, which I gave you the link to, I found 3 separate major errors of fact in the claims in the link that you cite, with each major error including several pieces of data, if you count numbers from each of the counties as a separate piece of data. (As I noted, after that, I stopped looking for any more errors. I have only so much time to waste.) And, the one I noted isn’t really just “one statistic”. He claimed that Buchanan got this time over half as many votes as he had in 1996 in all counties except Palm Beach. In fact, the truth is that this probably happened in NONE of the counties…and was not even close in most or all of them. [I can’t say for sure it was none, because I don’t feel like doing the division for all 60-odd (?) counties…I did most of the big ones and then got bored.] By the way, I have now spoon-fed you the link to the Florida elections pages that provide corroboration for my claims, so you can’t use that excuse anymore.
(2) Why I couldn’t “figure these things out”: Yes, indeed, mathematics does seem to be awfully confusing to some folks. As for myself, I have a PhD. in theoretical physics from Cornell University and my specialization is in statistical physics. Suffice it to say, I have to use a little bit of math and statistics here and there ;).
I have no qualms with people on this board who have argued that there is no remedy which can or should be applied to the problems with the Palm Beach County ballot. (In fact, I myself tried to explain to those who said, “Why not just have a revote?” why I thought such a remedy was very problematic.) But, it takes willful disregard of the facts to believe that those 3407 votes that Buchanan got were meant for him. Every piece of data that has been trotted out, many by Republicans trying to discredit this fact, when looked at in a reasoned manner shows how anomalously high this Buchanan vote is! [I won’t comment on the overvotes because I just haven’t been able to get data on that from a source of as high reliability as the Department of Elections and I ain’t going to analyze secondhand data in this hot political climate. But, I know others who have carefully looked at it argue that this data also strongly supports claims that voters were confused into voting punching for Buchanan.]
As xenophon41 has already said and I will echo, welcome to the board but you will find this place quite inhospitable to people who are not rigorous in the accuracy of their facts. Now, everyone makes mistakes…I have had to eat a few words here myself…But, willful disregard of fact and logic will not serve you very well.
I agree with your conclusion re the Buchanan votes. But having said that, how does that advance the question of how to determine the “rightful winner” of this election. Even if we agree that those votes are the result of confusion, we cannot arbitrarily assign them to Gore. How many other votes are the result of confusion, intoxication, experimentation with mind altering substances, etc.?
Keno, the point in this context is that we have a new poster who has come to the board and has made several wild claims, including one in which he provided a link to a piece of statistical analysis which he considered to be “a VERY good analysis” (emphasis his). This link tries to argue, among other things, that not only did the Buchanan fiasco not occur, but that if not for fraud in PBC perpetrated by the Democrats, Buchanan would have gotten many more votes. In my mind, there is a real problem of credibility here with any person who would advance this argument.
The context in which I was previously discussing these issues was severalfold: (1) to try to separate points of fact from points of opinion [I’m a physicist, dude. We are often studying things purely for the desire to know!]; (2) because I am not a lawyer and was thus not sure at that time what the legal issues and possible remedies were; (3) as an interesting study in how the Right wing media simply makes up “facts” to suit their puposes; (4) as a sort of Rohrschach (sp?) test of whether someone is so partisan that it has seriously affected their judgement of fact; (5) in the context of arguing that Gore has some moral ground to stand on while he makes his legal challenges. (I.e., many are trying to say that Gore is trying to get the election “overturned” by legal strategies. So it is important to point out that Gore was most likely [many would say almost certainly] the one that more people in Florida intended to vote for when they went to the polls, even if, in the end, the tally can only reflect legally cast votes. It just gives more moral weight to his right to fully pursue the legal issues involved with the counting of votes in light of charges that he is trying to overturn the will of the people.)
Oh, “divining”, my ass! Nobody is suggesting using a dowsing rod, and you damn well know it! If there is a physical impact precisely on that spot that a vote would be, we submit that it was placed there by the voter. Pretty fair assumption.
You’ll do fine. No need.
Round here, we call them cites. As in “prove it”.
Pure? Hell, I just wish they were Democrats! Never said I was above “ad hominem”. Thing is, round here it just doesn’t seem to work. Had to fall back on reason and facts. Luckily, we got 'em.
I have no idea what your talking about here.
Born and raised in Waco. Catfishing on the Brazos, sucking down Pearl beer and eating Mrs. Baird’s bread since 1950, so don’t try this down home poor mouth crap with me, bubba! Been there, done that. That dog is dead!
You do that. When you come back for your slice of humble pie, I’ll think better of you. I’ll give you this much. I think you will.
I’m guessing it means a great deal to the people living in those 14 counties. What do you think?
Really, canned, you shoulda spent some time reading the approximately 125 election threads around here before you decided to dive in. We have SO been there, done that already!
I believe you called it, “VERY DETAILED” - we all just assumed that the emphasis you put on it elevated it to something superior. And it does seem that the standard Gore has been looking to use is precisely the VERY DETAILED standard that Bush signed into law. It’s just that alot of people. why, even Mr. Bush himself-fancy that!, are arguing with that idea. Dubya’s fluid, ever changing principles and beliefs are a wonder to behold…they could be their own lava lamp.
You’d better start if you want to stay alive around here. This is one buch of citin’ fools and they’ll have you for dinner if you run around making statement of “fact” that you cannot back up.
Interesting that you should call it tripe, don’t you think?
See my tip above. really, canned, you won’t last five more minutes if you keep this up.
What is * ad hominem * about declaring that Texas conservatives are especially conservative? Isn’t that just acknowledging what they are, and now it’s just a matter of arguing degree?
This is SO last week! In case you hadn’t noticed, unlike your good buddy Dubya, when Gore is confronted with his hypocrisy, he backs down. It took, I think 24 hours for Gore/Lieberman to back off their stance on this. They were able to recognize their own hypocrisy and abandon it. Would that Dubya could do the same, we would never have been in this mess.
Uh, Canned… this appears for all the world to be the reaction of a man who is getting really tense and taking this * very * personally. You are reading things in that I really don’t believe were intended. May I suggest a nice herbal tea and a few deeep breaths before you return?
Stoid
PS: :The quotes are formatted oddly because of a cut and paste thing I did, but since they are understandable, I’m not gonna edit.
November 7 Election night–Bush Margin 1,784
November 10 Unofficial first recount–Bush Margin 327
November 14 Official first recount-Bush Margin 300
November 18 Including overseas ballots–Bush Margin 930
November 26 Certified Florida vote–Bush Margin 537
December 8 Tally based on (likely unconstitutional) FSC ruling–Bush Margin 154.
Two things seem apparent–Gore’s side wants to keep counting until they have their way, but Bush won, six times so far.
The “Sore-Loserman” moniker becomes more apt every day this goes on.
Let me see, Bush backers complain about the FSC and Gore backers about the USSC and each side has reason to complain and in many ways both sides are actually being reasonable. At the same time both sides want to app;ear to be acting out of some higher principle while we all know both are completely self-interested.
Hey I have no problem with folks feeling strongly about their candidateetc. but for anyone to claim either side is acting at a higher standard of conduct then the other is fooling themselves. Isn’t it obvious, however, that all you guys are talking past one another?
I first heard about Begala’s alleged diatribe in Michael Kelly’s Washington Post column of Nov. 22 (“Send in the Thugs”, appropriately published on the day the GOP’s paid (according to Time, 12/4/00) thugs did their best to intimidate the Miami-Dade election officials). Begala points out that, in the bit took him to task for (and the bit you’re no doubt referring to), he was setting up a straw man, which he then demolished.
We’re hardly at the thesis-with-footnotes level here (I’ve done one of them, thankyewverymuch, so I know we’re not there), but we still debate at a fairly high level, all things considered. If Person A claims to have seen something in the news that has eluded everyone else’s notice, but bolsters A’s case nicely, then A’s credibility will be pretty low here if he uses such ‘evidence’ without a cite. We may disagree at length on what to make of the facts, but it makes for a much cleaner debate if we can at least agree on what the facts are.
You are incorrect. You may have an opinion, but your opinion is not ‘valid’ to the extent that you espouse it for the purpose of criticizing an action by a court on a point of law. I’m not saying that anyone’s opinion on ‘equal protection’ is ‘worthless’ unless they’ve studied up on the issue. What I said was that making an assertion that the Supreme Court of the United States has made an error of law when you don’t have any idea whether or not that is true is something that you shouldn’t do. That isn’t being elitest; it’s simply taking anyone to task for offering uninformed opinions, a practice I shall continue with unabated vigor, since I see it as one of my primary functions around here. Anyone can HAVE an opinon, but offering it in debate when you don’t have any reason to know whether it is correct or not hardly does anything to ‘fight ignorance’, the main purpose of this web site, though that might be difficult to divine from the election debate thread postings we’ve seen.
Now, if you want to express an opinion that you don’t think what Florida’s Supreme Court did was unfair, or that you don’t see what is so wrong with it that Justice Scalia and four other justices saw fit to enjoin it, be my guest; that sort of opinion does not require any knowledge, just the fortitude to be willing to express it.
Second, in response to canned meat, who stated:
This is an incorrect retelling of your prior statement, which I post here for review:
From this statement we divine the following assertions:
Texas has very detailed standards of “what constitutes an ‘intent to vote’ on hand recounts.”
George Bush didn’t want ballots recounted in a system with no standards.
From these statements we divine your conclusion: Florida’s system has no standards for divining voter intent, unlike Texas which has detailed standards, so stop criticizing Mr. Bush (the Texas Governor) for assailing hand counts allowed in Texas, since you are comparing apples to oranges.
In response to which I posted the following facts:
Texas has no standard of what constitutes ‘intent to vote’ other than the nebulous statement that it must be ‘clearly ascertainable’, it simply offers a couple of conclusive situations where the ‘intent to vote’ must be inferred.
Florida has virtually the same ‘standard’ regarding ‘intent to vote’, with it’s statement that there must be ‘clear indication’.
Thus, the criticism of Mr. Bush remains: he assails Florida for doing what his own state would do.
And for what it is worth, I watched some of the manual recounting and I saw nothing about the process that I found inherently unfair. Like anything with subjective standards, it is open to interpretation. Had the process been allowed to go as it should have, the manual recount would have identified ballots for which the canvassing board thought there was a ‘clear indication of intent’ to which objection by Mr. Bush’s representatives had been interposed. Mr. Bush could then have challenged the result of the manual recount by bringing a contest under §102.168, if there were sufficient such votes to place the result of the election in doubt; presumably the judge in the contest would have had to determine for each such ballot whether such ‘clear indication’ was evident.
Now WHERE in all of that is it so hard to accept that the result would be ‘fair’?
Earlier in this thread, mil, I’d explained to you the difference between counting ballots and counting the votes thereon. The point remains: you can ‘count’ as many times as you want, but if one side has successfully fought to have a bunch of the votes remain uncounted, it don’t - or shouldn’t, in a democracy - mean donkey dirt. Winning by keeping votes from being counted is banana-republic stuff, and shouldn’t be happening in the U.S. of A.
Gore won the national popular vote. It’s been strongly argued (without successful rebuttal, I might add) in other threads that, if not for shoddy, outdated voting equipment, Gore would have likely won FL by a much more substantial margin than any of the numbers you list above. It’s unfair as hell, IMO, that there’s no remedy for the ‘Buchanan’ votes in Palm Beach, and the tens of thousands of double-punches in PB and Duval that were likely intended as Gore votes. (If you want to challenge my assertion of likelihood, I’ll direct you to the appropriate threads.)
So it should be no surprise that, if the machines didn’t recognize a vote for President on a ballot, we’d like a person, a human being, to make sure that the machine got it right. We know that machines have very definite limitations, and that there are many ways that a machine can fail to recognize a clearly indicated attempt to punch the ballot.
If we manually inspect those ballots, and count any votes thereon, and Bush is still ahead - then it may still be unfair, but Bush will be President, and this long election will be over. If not, then Gore should be the winner - and, barring any banana-republic garbage from various legislatures, he will be. If that’s being ‘sore’, I’ll wear the label with pride.