If the error in your original account skewed the results strongly in the direction of one candidate, and subsequent recounts were more accurate, this is precisely what you would expect.
There will always be errors in every count. Humans and all. If the counting was truly unbiased you should have errors on BOTH sides. Both sides should have an ebb and flow of votes. I don’t see how one side could keep gaining counts.
The problem was that the margin was so close that any defect rate in counting could change the result. Statistically, no one “won” Florida - it was a tie - and an argument for revamping the electoral college.
Now, procedurally, there was enough monkey business in the state - almost all of it believed to have favored the GOP, that makes a lot of people wonder if the election would have been a statistical tie.
Damn! I gotta get on my ISP so I can tuck in of an evening.
Firstly, Uncommon Sense: What Spavined Gelding said. I find it pretty astounding that you seem to believe that just because things don’t go your way, and the wheels of justice aren’t grinding along at a speed that you prefer, that you should riot to get whatever it is that you want.
Although, it would make the DMV wait a little more bearable. . .
Oh, and what DoctorJ said, too.
Oh, c’mon. If it had been Bush fils that had been increasing his take, you would be apoplectic if the DNC had amassed a large group of people and representatives to storm the center and bring the counting to a halt.
Apoplectic? Hardly. I expect the dems to do things like this…Really.
On what basis do you expect that?
This is the familiar old argument “Well, hell, *they’d * probably do the same thing if *they * had the chance, so it’s okay if *we * do it”.
Go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut, pal.
Damnit! What ElvisL1ves said.
And I’m still gobsmacked that you approve of rioting to get your way. That’s not a political stand, it’s a fucking temper tantrum. On a grand scale, granted, but still. . .
I don’t. Hell, I’d be the first to condemn them if they did.
I guess that just means I hold my politicians to a higher standard than you do.
Riiiiiight. And the only politicians these days that are not holding high standards are the ones that happen to be Bush or other republicans.
Please link the last thread that you posted something negative about a prominent Democrat.
See Elvis, this is what I meant in another thread about selectively choosing facts to support your position.
Rjung and others heavily favor picking on the Pubbies. Is it because there’s more material there or is it because that’s the way you guys work.
I almost hope Kerry gets elected so I can watch you guys run away from issues when the table’s turned.
Proof that both sides act this way will happen sooner or later when your guy gets in office and you have to try to defend the same things that you are criticizing in this admin.
If Kerry gets elected, all of a sudden there just wont be as much critical material coming out of your mouths anymore.
Mark my words (bookmark this post), when Kerry’s admin trots out some of the same mistakes that the Bush Admin made, you’ll be using the “You guys defended Bush when he did it” monicker. And I also predict that there will be a whole fucking shitload of rationalizing going on when you guys are in the drivers seat. The parrallels will be Ironic yet Impervious to you when they occur.
No need to respond to this, just keep this in the back of your minds for future reference. I can’t wait to say “I told you so”.
The former in my case.
From your mouth to fate’s ears. . .
Tell ya what, when Kerry gets elected in November and subsequently goes off on a tear against a nation that never attacked the US, I not only won’t defend his actions, I’ll condemn them. Ditto for choosing an AG that’s frighteningly religious, throwing in with those supply siders, allowing liars to smear his opponents while remaining above it all, &c.
Too late.
Sure you can. And you will.
Hey, just because you’re an immoral hypocrite doesn’t mean the rest of us are.
Well, if there’s an equal amount of “material” among the Democrats, surely you can find a few examples for us to denounce, right?
But since you haven’t been dredging up the dirt, we can only conclude that – like Iraq’s WMDs – they don’t exist, which leads to the conclusion that folks are busy pointing out the Republicans’ shortcomings because there’s more of it. QED.
I can’t wait for you to have the opportunity. My prayers are with you.
Let me see if I can extend DoctorJ’s remarks.
Errors should be normally distributed around zero, so if the counting process is imperfect, count totals (if there are enough counts) should be normally distributed around the actual vote totals.
Like DoctorJ suggests, what has happened with the recounts is what you’d expect if the initial count was in fact an outlier, and a slight plurality of Florida voters favored Gore.
This is similar to what I said once it was all decided in 2000. Something along the lines of, “Fine, let them have it [the Whitehouse], maybe even for eight years. They’ll fuck up the country so bad it’ll be three terms or more before they’ll regain the presidency and they’ll be forced to deal with their extremists in the meantime.” Of course, I had no idea they would fuck it up this spectacularly in just four years. I shudder to think the damage if they get four more years…
I think moderate Republicans could take the party back. Of course that would probably involve a presidential candidate who caters somewhat to the RR and moderates during the election, then completely ignores the RR agenda, and/or makes a very controversial decision. Of course, that would result in two smaller parties that would be hard-pressed to beat Democrats initially. In the long run, though, moderates could rebuild a party as big the Democratic Party (heck, they’d probably get some moderate Dem turn over)–t he RR would then become an extremist group because their numbers are unlikely to fluctuate much. I think the problem is that ridding the GOP of religious fundamentalists will necessarily entail ceding some power in the short term. I can understand why this might be a difficult choice to make. Of course, if moderates break from the RP, they are faced with the same problem.
If you’d been paying attention to what the facts are, that have been presented to you plainly, and that your countering “facts” are that the Democrats are just a bunch of whiners who’d do the same thing if they could, then the answer is pretty clear, isn’t it?
If, if, if, when, when, when. IOW, your basis for saying what you did is simply your own imaginings. How’s that flying fuck coming? Been practicing?
When come back, bring facts. Schmuck.
FTR, guys, Bud Dyer is also a twat.
grumble grumble Wayne Rich grumble
Sorry to come to this a bit late (and to post on topic)… But how on earth is it a conspiracy theory when all the facts are out there in the open?
If it’s voter fraud, why was the case dismissed in court?
If it’s a specific case, why make random searches?
etc…
Why is it every time the republicans are called on the carpet, someone runs out of the undergrowth accusing everybody of being conspiracy nuts. Why don’t they discuss the issues before making ad hominem attacks?
And… I was under the opinion that cites like this one
Detail the massive organized attempt in 2000 to disenfranchise many black voters…
This is all public record, right?
So why the fuck is it a ‘conspiracy theory’ to realize that, hey “they’re doing what they did!”
P.S. No, I’ve not done the research and I realize many of those above reported claims may not be correct.
But things have been verified… and even if it wasn’t a pattern, don’t we get to call “bullshit” on the idea that you need to do random police visits of an entire demographic in order to get at information?
2 whoops’
Whoops 1) my browser was wonky and I only saw one page on this discussion, sorry if I missed anything, I’ll re-read.
Whoops 2) I don’t mean to imply that all republicans will jump on a ‘conspiracy theory’ track when faced with facts, I’ve just found that a large number of republican mouthpieces attack a person and don’t deal with the facts.
You write it, I promise sing it out loud at work every day until the election. Heck, I’ll even continue to sing it during the 6 weeks of the recount/awaiting of the supreme court decision. And I’ll pass it along to everyone who sends me pro-GWB/anti-JK emails.
Is it a deal?
crosses fingers
Because people who call for the apology of someone (who obviously doesn’t believe an apology is owed) are assholes?
Say that again. I like it.