Yet another reason to hate Al Gore! Need last 5 minutes from West Coast

Can anybody on the west coast provide me with a tape of the end of tonight's ep??

-Matt

Why hate Gore (a Futurama fan himself)? Hate the state of Florida for not giving extra time to allow hand count votes to be counted.

Joe Klemm

Joe Klemm wrote:

Or better yet Hate the Idiots that started the whole mess down there in the first place; Dade, Miami, and Palm Beach for turning this election into a pathetic sham of democracy.

In article ,

No kidding. On election day, Bush won.But it was so narrow that they had to do a recount. And Bush won. Then Gore wined that he wanted a manual recount, and Bush won. I don't know how many times they've recounted, but Bush won every time. What a waste of time.

Paul

Actually, Gore won on election day.

Ask yourself why the exit polls for the other 49 states were accurate, but somehow the exit polls in Florida were wrong. The answer is simple. The exit polls accurately measured the voters' intentions, something the screwy ballots failed to do. The initial result after the exit polls that showed Gore took Florida were correct.

Whined? Hmmm. When Bush does it, it's following due process of law, but when Gore does it, it's whining. Gotcha.

Which would have clarified things if not for that mob-for-hire sent down to Dade to disrupt the counting process. That was as close to fascism as I've ever experienced in this country.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding the situation for the sake of argument or have you just not been paying any attention to the situation beyond Leno's and Letterman's late night jokes?

In article , Dave writes:

Ah, the newest output of the DNC fax machines. If I heard that once yesterday, I heard it a hundred times. It is, to put it mildly, nonsense.

If, theoretically, there were 25000 votes for Gore that should have counted, he would have won by .42% - as it is, he lost by .009%. Do you believe that the exit polling was accurate enough to distinguish between those two results?

I didn't think so.

There was a massive error in the exit polling in Volusia county, that skewed everything they were seeing. Projections of a .42% victory would not have led the networks to make any calls until most of the votes were actually counted. The exit polling when they made the call clearly had Gore winning by >6%. Do you really believe that there are 360,000 Gore votes that got misplaced or destroyed?

I didn't think so.

Bush won Florida. Deal with it.

(Were there 10-15 thousand people that tried to vote for Gore and were too stupid to do it correctly? Possibly. I believe that pales in comparison to the number of convicted felons, multiple votes, illegal aliens and illegally naturalized citizens which voted for him. You'll never convince me that Gore won Florida in any meaningful usage of the word "won.")

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/26/politics/26SEMI.html

Naturally, since they're Democrats, the cause for the mistakes *must* be stupidity. Of course.

Boy, I wish I thought as clearly and cogently as you Republicans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/26/politics/26SEMI.html

On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:55:36 -0500, Dave wrote:

Since Bush was the first candidate listed and the first punch mark, even the stupid people had no problem voting for him. Moral of the story, "Stupid people should just vote for Bush".

I would like to point out, that many of the people who had problems with the ballots are in their 70's. That means they were born in the 1920's. If you follow the math, they turned 18 between 1938 and 1948. In other words, many of them are WWII vets and the civilians who disrupted their lives and put the nation first. If someone feels that the ballots were marked wrong and they shouldn't count, they are well entitled to that opinion. However, I don't think there is any reason to call them stupid, or as one local radio commentator called them "A bunch of morons". We really do owe our freedom to what they went through, they may not deserve another chance to vote, but they do deserve respect.

I am likewise appalled at attempts to discard ballots from current active service people. Unless there is clearly something not legal about a ballot, like the person never registered, it should count. If a ballot is in a mail bag that left an aircraft carrier on or before Nov 7th. It shouldn't make a rats ass worth of difference if it has a postmark! It counts! If it costs Gore the Whitehouse, too bad.

--Larry

The whole buuterfly ballot fiasco comes down to this. The people who changed the ballot did not inform the people who were sent to retirement communities to explain to the elderly how to vote. Dozens of Democrat volunteers swarmed these condos and broke it down for the seniors so there could be no possible confusion. They told them, "If you want to vote for Gore, just punch the 2nd name. Punch #2. Punch #2." And the rest is history. If Bush wins, he owes it all to this confusion.

That's what's coming out now. Thousands of absentee ballots came in without voter registration numbers on them. ThDid you read the article in the link above?

No he didn't. Deal with it. (I felt this argument needed an equal)

Nor will you be able to convince me that Bush won.

Check out this article.

http://www.campaignwatch.org/update.htm

It seems Gore is closer to winning than many people think.

Were there 4,700 Republican voters in Seminole County who were too stupid to write their registration numbers, as required by state law, on their applications for absentee ballots?

Thank you for this. I was looking for some clarification.

In article ,

For some reason, this site only focuses on Bush's alleged election misdoings. If you look at the links on the site, they are to places like bushsucks.com, gwbush.com (a parody site), and several other sites designed to cast Bush in a bad light. Obviously, this site is a completely partisan joke. I would take anything you find on that site with several tons of salt.

Paul

in article 3a2540c4$0$12220$[email], Paul Tomko at [email] wrote on 11/29/00 9:45 AM:

I would agree with you except for the fact that they give specific references to back up their case. Most partisan sites don't take such care to be precise in their quotes.

In article ,

Well, sure they give references. But nowhere on the site do they even mention Gore whatsoever. They don't have any links to any sites that mention Gore. They only have links to sites that badmouth Bush. The only articles on the site are about Bush and his alleged corruption. That's what I call a partisan mudslinging site.

Paul

in article 3a2559c8$0$87477$[email], Paul Tomko at [email] wrote on 11/29/00 11:32 AM:

That does not diminish the facts of the case. And now it seems Martin County went one step further and allowed Republicans to remove applications from the site, correct them, and then return them. I don't want to throw out any votes, but if the Dems (or indeed the Green and Reform Parties) weren't allowed the same opportunity, then that is illegal!

In article ,

It sure is. But just to be fair, they should also rake up some muck on Gore. You know he must have done something really, really bad, like smoking a cigarette when he was 13 or something.

It's really sad when the election is not about who is most suitable, but about who is the least unsuitable. With all the muckraking and character slamming, how can we make an informed decision about who is actually the best leader. This is probably why the vote was so close. Nobody knows what Tweedledee and tweedledubya stand for. We only know that both sides have skeletons in their closet. Throw 'em both out. Let's have an election where the candidates talk about what they stand for and what they will do in office. Let's not hear about who slept with whom and who tried marijuana once. Talk about yourself, not the other guy. I bet we'd see record turnout.

Paul

in article 3a2676bc$0$87482$[email], Paul Tomko at [email] wrote on 11/30/00 7:48 AM:

Hurrah for a bit of sanity!

No, it also details a lot of his non-election related misdoings.

http://www.campaignwatch.org/hustle.htm

Didja read that part about the Harken stock? And *this* is a man 47% of the population wants holding the most powerful office in the country? God help us all.

Irrelevant. The site may be a "joke" but the article is factual and it's festooned with footnotes to publications decidedly more respected than a typical "I hate So and so" web site.

Seems to me like you're attacking the medium because you don't like the message.

I'm just saying don't try to make any informed decision based on the muckraking that that site has done. After all, there is certainly just as much 'evil' stuff that Gore has done, only they don't show it on that site, because they love Gore.

Paul

On 29 Nov 2000 15:01:13 -0600, [email] (Paul Tomko) wrote:

Gore supporter though I am, I certainly don't claim he's clean. Both sides have mud (at least I hope that's what it is) on their hands.

What's going on here is not new. When one side starts to push past the limits of what's legal and/or proper. The other side complains, they are called partisan or sore losers etc. so to keep the playing field even, the other side starts to do the same or worse. Once both sides are dirty, they are both afraid to call a fowl and it escalates. This was a major and very old issue when Nixon's team broke into Dem headquarters and planted bugs. At this point, I don't think it matters too much who started it or when.

Finally, we had an election so close that the shenanigans on either side amount to more the margin. If they throw out the allegedly illegal Republican ballots, then Gore goes ahead. What if they determine how many non-citizens and dead people voted for Gore and throw them out? Perhaps that would put Bush ahead again. Then what about the mis-marked ballots . . .

I really don't think there is a good or fair way out from here. Neither candidate can say they were elected by entirely legal votes alone.

(Yeah yeah, I know "Just declared XXXX the winner. That would be fair . . .)

If you feel that your side is a bit better and that once all the smoke clears, your candidate is the one who deserve to take office, fine. It only makes sense. However, if you believe that every more your side has made is right and every move the other side made is wrong, then you are clearly partisan.

I've said this before and I think it's worth repeating, if the entire situation were reversed, Gore's brother were governor, a member of his campaign were Sec of State, if the state's supreme court was stacked with Republicans etc. We'd be right where we are, but the players would be reversed. A few details and tactics may be different, but we'd still be seeing a fight right down the line.

--Larry

in article [email], Larry F at [email] wrote on 11/29/00 2:40 PM:

I agree whole heartedly!

Me too. Good post, Larry!

Fair enough, but the information in that article mirrors info found on many more nonpartisan websites. Where I happen to go to find the info doesn't matter as long as the info is accurate. Which it is.

"Yeah, we did very illegal things, but it's ok because of all the bad stuff our opponent did." That's no defense.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:53:19 -0500, Dave wrote:

Holy sh*t!! That was news to me. I have been glued to CNN for several hour a day and I haven't heard one word about this. This amounts to 10 time the current Bush lead.

Thanks for posting the link!

--Larry

My pleasure. Considering the implications, I'm really surprised this story isn't getting the coverage it deserves. Maybe it's because the suit was filed by a regular citizen and not a party lawyer?

I just started getting coverage tonite. Look for the headlines tomorrow.

MSNBC has been talking about this for the last two hours.

No, Bush won on election day. The number of votes for Bush was higher than the number of votes for Gore, at least in Florida. Gore did win the popular vote, but it is the elctoral votes that determine the president. I'll bet Gore is pissed that he ever invented the Electoral College.

I don't care about exit polls. Neither does the election process. I care about the votes. More people voted for Bush (in Florida) therefore he won.

I don't recall Bush asking for a recount.

The only thing that would clarify things is if they actually revoted. Recounting the same old votes does nothing but confirm that Bush won by a narrow margin. If Gore was convinced that people really MEANT to vote for him, then they would have to have a complete revote with ballots dumbed down to the level of Florida voters.

Sorry, I don't watch Leno or Letterman. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Paul

Nope, Gore got about 200.000 votes more than Bush did.

He asked for a recount in some state where Gore won by a narrow margin.

In article ,

In Florida? Wrong. Bush had a couple of hundred votes lead according to the machine count. No matter how many times they recounted, Bush was always ahead.

I didn't even hear about that. The only reason to do that would be if the state had a lot of electoral votes, as Florida did. A recount in a smaller state would not be enough to push Bush over the 270 electoral votes needed.

Paul

Bush had his lawyers on the ground in Iowa, Oregon, New Mexico and I think Minnesota, ready to demand recounts if the need arose. I guarantee you if Gore took Florida from the beginning, this situation would be so much uglier right now.

Or if four states *combined* had a lot of electoral votes.

Imagine the current madness times four.

Oops, well, I meant popular votes, but you already said that yourself, sorry :)

Actually it's around 300,000 now.

The Bush team didn't ask for any recounts. It didn't fit in their legal strategy.

Individual canvassing boards in mostly republican Florida counties did ask for hand recounts and got them. These counties were small enough that they could recount before the deadline. These recounts netted at least 400 votes for George Bush.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Dave stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Are you serious?!

Peoples true voting intention is what they put (or mean to put) on their ballot paper - even exit polls are less accurate than that. Recent General Elections in the UK prove that.

Our elections are all manually counted anyway, so that lessens the likelihood of error, especially since all ambiguous ballot papers are rechecked after the main count.

This is such a cop out. There is substantial evidence of voting irregularities. George Bush and his cronies have done everything they can to stall/stop the hand count. Repeating quips and catchphrases is not an argument. It's a waste of time.

In article ,

Well then why don't they vote again? Not that that will help. If Gore loses again, he'll want another manual recount.

Gore has stated quite clearly that he would abide by a full, fair manual recount. You are making assumptions to the contrary of any stated positions.

Pete

Because all those idiots who though votes for Nader would mean something would probably vote for the more Nader-like of the two remaining candidates, giving Gore a decicive victory.

That's why.

That, and the fact that there is no provision for that in the constitution.

Pete

Oh yeah.

That too. :-)

Don't use the statement that Gore is more Nader-like, if that's true, it's too bad for Bush. I'm sick of this lame republican BS that the votes were counted properly. Then there's the Republicans in Seminole county who had access to nearly 10000 ballots - oh, that's legit. So just shut up until they actually count the ballots in a nonpartisan manner, and count them accuately and fairly.

Sean Rea

In article , petben wrote:

in article [email], Sean Rea at [email] wrote on 11/30/00 4:09 PM:

No argument here!

In article ,

You refer of course to the manual count. The machine count of course has already been done twice in a non-partisan manner and the results were the same both times. The problem with the manual recount is that they are trying to interpret who people really meant to vote for on ballots where it was not clear to the machine. Ideally the hand count should be the same as the machine count, but due to human imagination, they are able to 'determine' who people really wanted to vote for.

Paul

This is a very popular misconception.

If a chad is half punched, a counting machine isn't smart enough to recognize it as a vote but a human being is, particularly if a number of other votes on the same ballot are similarly partially punched. That the machines are unable to give a completely accurate count is a failing of the machines, not of the people who hand count the ballots that the machines weren't able to.

The 10,000 ballots the machines spit out MUST be hand counted and included in the total. The only question is whether or not the Republican filibuster is successful and time runs out before the true will of the people can be ascertained.

Is that Florida law that a machine rejected ballot must still be counted? I must say that I am not aware of any such law in Wisconsin. If you don't clearly mark the ballot here, your vote doesn't count. Perhaps Florida made that rule because their crappy equipment sometimes doesn't completely mark the ballot, so it is not always the voters fault that the ballot is not machine readable.

At any rate, the will of the people is very clear to me. They can't decide between Gore and Bush in numbers great enough to overcome the uncertainty of marginal votes. What do we do about that? Beats me.

Paul

Watch more Futurama and then go antiquing....

DGH

I don't think Florida law specifically states that rejected ballots much be hand counted, I think that's a court decision. Honestly, I'm getting a little burnt out on this. I'm getting sick of Chris Matthews and I can't even stand to look at Pat Cadell's face anymore (But Campbell Brown is just as pretty as ever.) :-)

That's really the problem. What happens when a race is truly 50-50?

Dual presidency? I'm not sure either of them can handle the job on their own.

In article , [email] (Paul Tomko) writes:

Farnsworth's answer, of course, would be to combine Bush and Gore into a single composite being called Bure, eighty feet tall, with razor sharp claws and eyes that fire laser beams....

Who's voice would it have?

In article , Dave writes:

Ron "Horshak" Palillo's.

in article [email], Jeremy B at [email] wrote on 12/4/00 3:38 PM:

Ooh, ooh ooh, ooh, ooh.

in article 3a267ac0$0$54354$[email], Paul Tomko at [email] wrote on 11/30/00 8:05 AM:

I really don't buy this argument. I don't believe in the "pregnant chad." I do however believe that a voters intent can be determined if the chad has been punctured, but has not come off. These cannot be read by the machine count and should be examined.

For crying out loud, if a ballot has the chad for Gore halfway punched, and no other presidental chad is punched out, who do you think the voter votered for?! Same way with Bush - if it's not fully punched for Bush, but no other presidental chad is partially punched, then it should go to Bush.

Sean Rea

in article [email], Sean Rea at [email] wrote on 12/1/00 3:53 PM:

Isn't that what I said?

Seems to me like you both found different ways of saying the same thing.

FWIW, I agree with both of you. :-)

In article ,

If it's halfway punched maybe they changed their mind at the last minute and decided not to vote for the presidential office at all. It's unlikely, but it's also pretty presumptious of us to assume that that would never be the case. Better just to count the ones that are fully punched, whether for Bush or for Gore.

Paul

If they punched the chad, they punched the chad. To assume anything else would be presumptuous to say the least.

If they punched the chad _halfway_, they did _not_ punch the chad.

Ch.

in article [email], Christian Buggle at [email] wrote on 12/1/00 11:53 AM:

Your logic cancels itself out. The first half states that they punched the chad, be it halfway or not. The second half states the exact opposite.

Exactly right! We have a democracy where the voter decides who is elected. Not the legislature. What is happening in the Florida Legislature is the scariest thing I have ever seen in our government.

No, it doesn't.

First half states that they _tried_ (were starting to, whatever) to punch. Second half states they didn't complete it, for whatever reason there might be.

Ch.

in article [email], Christian Buggle at [email] wrote on 12/1/00 2:32 PM:

Do you really think that many people decided at the moment they broke the chad to pull back and not vote at all? That's just ridiculous, and you know it. Don't waste my time.

Don't try to judge what people do in the election room. I don't know what people think in that last moment, but what i know is: they either give a valid vote or they don't. BTW: i told you this before: _for_ _whatever_ _reason_ _there_ _may_ _be_.

(And what a valid vote is is clear in advance. At least it is here. In your case, USA, it is a punched chad, and a halfway punched chad is not.)

Good. I'm not into OT discussions anyway. After all, it was you wasting your time.

Ch.

in article [email], Christian Buggle at [email] wrote on 12/1/00 4:24 PM:

It sounds to me as though you're judging based on the fact that the voter didn't punch the chad "perfectly". The machine cannot read it if even the tiniest little piece is hanging there. I'll say it again: If you punched the chad, you punched the chad. That isn't a judgement. There were no rules stating you had to make sure it wasn't hanging.

So, obviously you feel the same about all of those absentee ballot applications that didn't have their voter ID #'s on them. It clearly states on the application that they have to have an ID # on it. The law also clearly states that NO ONE but the voter or his/her immediate family can fill out that application.

For the record, I don't really have a problem with the Republicans assisting their members in filling out this form. I do have a major problem with the fact that none of the other parties were invited to do the same. I also have a major problem with the fact that the Republicans were allowed to remove applications from state offices. This is also clearly a violation of state law.

So the difference here seems to be you assume that a half punched chad means that they didn't mean to punch the ballot. I assume the opposite - that a half punched chad means they meant to punch it.

This statement isn't even partly true. I think the problem here is that it wasn't clear.

On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 18:18:59 -0800, petben wrote:

Actually, in the voting instructions it says to make sure they aren't hanging. The problem is, even if you read the instructions, when the ballot is pulled out of the machine, the chad is folded back into place. The ballot is just a Hollerith card with a bunch of numbers on it. There is no way for a voter to reasonably determine if any of their votes are wrong.

For a chad to be half punched, by which I mean two adjacent corners are dislodged, the stylus must be pressed through the ballot. Pressing the stylus through the ballot constitutes a vote. If you change your mind after that you are supposed to ask for a new ballot.

If only a single corner is dislodged, or two diagonal corners are dislodged, or the chad is indented, then it is questionable whether it should count. That's what they are fighting about in court fight now.

--Larry

I voted in Broward County and I didn't check mine. There was no reason to at the time. You go into it figuring the equipment has integrity and that a visual check of the ballot card itself afterwards is something only people with OCD would do.

It's one thing to make a wild assumption based on a personal impression, it's another to apply what we know about human behavior to draw a more accurate conclusion.

What percentage of the undercounted ballots would you say were from people who began to punch one then changed their minds, not to vote for the other candidate but to not vote at all? I'm gonna guess around 2%.

[email] (petben) wrote in :

No offense, but you're wrong. We're a Republic. There is a difference, and it's important.

in article [email], a non-EE Mouse at [email] wrote on 12/1/00 12:32 PM:

No offense taken. Would you care to expand on that? What are the differences that you see? How does this relate to the current topic?

Woah, Pete. You're starting to sound like Mike.

in article [email], Dave at [email] wrote on 12/1/00 3:49 PM:

Somebody slap me! ;-}

No, it's cool. But if you had added "Why should I care?" I may have taken you up on the offer. :-)

Can Someone Please Post the THE FUTURAMA CHRONICLES ==== EPISODE CAPSULE�s

or at least a internet adress wehre ich can download them?

TIA
;)

On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:42:10 -0800, petben wrote:

In this case, it does make all the difference. In a democracy whoever or whatever the people vote for wins. In practice, democracy has never worked in a large group. There is a tendency for democracy to break down to "mob rule". Also, if the people had to vote on every government project, we'd never have time to do anything else.

In a republic the people vote for representatives who are entrusted to make decisions for you. "And to the *republic* for which it stands."

In reality, we are something of a hybrid, where some issues are voted on directly, but most government decisions are made by elected officials.

If the president was elected democratically, then the guy with the most votes wins. Instead we have the electorial college, where representatives are elected to go and elect the president for us. There are a number of reasons why it's done this way, some good and some not.

As for Florida's legislature, what is going on is a bit complicated and has either never been done or it was a long time ago. If the electors are not assigned by the election process (which has not happened yet), it's the legislatures job to select them. They can select Bush's electors, or Gore's or a split them any way they see fit. They could split them to intentionally create a 270 to 270 tie and force it into Congress. Again they can only do this if the election fails to do so.

Then there is another hoop to jump through. The US House of Representatives has the option of rejecting their choice, in which case, Florida doesn't count in this election. This would seemingly give the election to Gore, but there is yet another hoop. Since, without Florida's electors, Gore is ahead, but neither side has a majority* the decision could be passed to the Senate. This also happens, and it did once, in the event of a tie in the Electorial College. Then if the vote is tied in the Senate, and it's close enough that it may happen, the President of the Senate casts the tie breaking vote. That responsibility, like protecting the time space continuum ("Read the Constitution"), goes to the Vice President. If it goes that far, and I doubt it will, Al Gore will get to decide who the next president is.

*The law here is a bit unclear, Does it mean a majority of the electors, or just a majority of the ones that are accepted. Legal scholars are currently debating that one, just in case.

See, it's as simple as a Rube Goldberge voting booth. Plus I managed to drag something vaguely on topic back into it.

--Larry

in article [email], Larry F at [email] wrote on 12/1/00 4:25 PM:

Here I might have to disagree with you. It has been decided. The voters did go to the voting booths on election day. That decision is being contested in a manner set forth in Florida law.

Thank you for a very well thought out response. It's nice to actually discuss something as opposed to argue.

On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 17:36:24 -0800, petben wrote:

The election has been certified, but the electors haven't been assigned. But, since there is still time to assign them, they haven't failed to do it. At least I think that's where it stands. The whole thing gets more than a bit murky at that point.

--Larry

Good post, Larry. Thanks for taking the time to spell it all out like that.

In alt.tv.futurama, on the "Re: [OT] Re: Yet another reason to hate George Bush! Need last 5 minutes fromWest Coast" thread, Larry F wrote:

Gore: "I'll just indicate my choice by punching this ballot -- Oh, crap!"

... and that's how Pat Buchanan was elected President of the United States.

amen

in a democracy you could vote to abridge peoples rights we are a republic of laws

we should hand recount every ballot in the usa florida should not decide who the president is going to be

i say give it to bush he isnt going to get anything done and at least we can get rid of janet reno

i think were doing fine now do you want to take the chance of makin it worse

usa policy should be watch out for #1 dont step on #2

On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 21:05:22 GMT, "David St. Hubbins" wrote:

That's the best thing I've heard in favor of Bush so far.

For equal time, Gore can do a much better Lt Cmd Data impersonation.

--Larry

If the Florida legislature is allowed to essentially pick the president, this sets an amazingly bad precedent.

*Any* loser, if it's close enough and if the loser's party controls the house, will contest and wait quietly for his boys in the state capitol to install him in the White House.

Actually, it depends on which voting machine they punched their ballots on. There were two different machines used, an older one (Votomatic) that's much more reliable, and a newer one (Data-Punch) which is much cheaper and led to undervotes of up to 12% in some precincts. That's six times higher than the national average of 2% and the raw numbers show the new machines are 2 .5 times as likely to register an undervote than the older, more trustworthy machines.

So if voters punched the chad halfway on one of those inferior machines, they ABSOLUTELY did punch the chad.

Look at it this way. Have you ever used a three-hole punch? Know what happens when the holes get clogged with circles from previous punches? Same principle with the newer voting machines.

On 30 Nov 2000 10:05:19 -0600, [email] (Paul Tomko) wrote:

What?? The machine counts were very different. Both had Bush ahead, but the numbers shifted dramatically. Gore gained 1400+ votes overall. If the machine count was totally impartial, what are the odds that it would pick up that many more Gore votes than Bush votes? Is's possible, but highly unlikely.

This leads to three possible conclusions.

1. Random chance. The nature of the punched cards is to under count on all sides. It is generally assumed that this evens out in the long run, but The National Bureau of Standards said they aren't dependable back in 1988. Once again, the chance that this was just a "random change" is slim.

2. Shenanigans.
     a. Election workers intentionally skipped Gore votes during the
first count. Then in the second left them in because someone was
watching.
     b. Election officials adding Gore votes in the recount cause they
knew he was losing.

Both unlikely, I give them credit for being more honest than that. However, 'a' would be more likely than 'b' since there was less media attention the first time.

3. Machine bias. For some reason the machines were more likely to miss Gore votes then Bush votes. The physics of the voting machine or the tensile strength of the cards or who knows what may have been skewed so that votes lower on the ballot are more prone to leave the 'chad' half attached.

The solution?

1. Since the machines have proven themselves too inaccurate to count dependably, the ballots must be re-counted by hand. This solution is recognized as the most dependable by the State of Florida legal codes, The National Bureau of Standards and (like it really matters) The State of Texas legal codes as signed by Gov. Bush.

2. a & b. The votes must be re-counted in front of observers and the press. In this case, a machine count should be good enough, but what if the total changes again?

• The same as #1.

The problem with a hand re-count is that Florida needed to write a detailed and fair set of standards before there was an election in doubt. Since there is now clear partisan preference to how they should be counted, it is a near impossibility to come up with a fair set of standards.

Conclusion: Florida blew it big time. It's broke and it can't be fixed. They have had a long history of election BS there and this is just another chapter. Both side will have to accept that somehow and get on with the important work of fixing the system before it happens again.

The closest thing I can think of to a solution is the set the voting machines up again, with random names on the ballots. Then volunteers are sent in and told to "vote for candidate #1", then #2 etc. the sample should also include the same number of "no choice" ballots. Once we have a sample which is a standard with 1000 votes, or however many are statistically needed, for each candidate, run them through a machine. The count should be exactly a tie. If not, they now have a standard for "voter intent" to work from.

The difference between the hand count and the machine is due to inherent problems with the machines AND, as you stated, the bias of the hand counters. The only way I can come up with to weigh the relative effect of each is the standardized vote I detailed above.

Even if we give the hand counters the full benefit of the doubt, and I think we should, that they are being as fair as they can be. Could you, under these circumstances, be 100% unbiased. I doubt it. I couldn't be.

--Larry

Another possible solution would be to complete eliminate punch-card ballots altogether.

Here in Escambia County, FL (western-most part of the state), we simply fill in the head and the tail of an arrow that points to our candidate of choice. I believe the marker used has some sort of UV-based ink that the machine can read.

Under this system, there's almost no room for error, unless a voter marks for 2 or more candidates. No hanging chad, no dimpled chads, no chads whatsoever.

pax

nik

On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 12:58:17 -0600, internik wrote:

Absolutely!! I've posted before that this technique should be eliminated. It was a major breakthrough when Hollerith sold the idea to the US Government, but that was for the 1880 Census. Since then, we've gotten light bulbs and replaced the horse as our primary means of transportation.

The question remains, what to do about the 2000 election? At this point I think it is safe to say that there is no good answer. We are stuck picking the best out of a list of bad answers. But then that's how we got here in the first place.

Have you seen the National Bureau of Standards 1988 report on punched cards?

from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/11/27/vote.html

The only reason the punched cards are still in use is economics. The poorest counties are the most likely to be using punched cards and other out dated voting systems. So the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to have your vote counted. This is clearly in violation of the voting rights act. We need to have a national mandate to standardize the voting process.

They know it, you know it and I know it. Who the hell isn't getting this?

This is the same system we use here in Maricopa County (Phoenix, AZ).

We had up to 5% of the ballots cast thrown out for one reason or another. This is much better than the punched cards, but not perfect.

The best system going is the electronic voting machines. As soon as a vote is cast, the name of the candidate you voted for is flashed on the screen. Then you can hit a cancel button if it's wrong. Once you hit the "Is that your final answer?" button, you know your vote is counted.

Lacking that, you could run your ballot through a counting machine before you drop it in the box. It would tell you if your ballot is invalid or under voted. If you intended to not vote for the president, you don't have to, but you'll at least be warned if you failed to vote properly for any office or issue.

I also like the idea of having "none of the above" as an option. That way, there is no question if your ballot is under voted, or you just don't like any candidate.

--Larry

So in other words, given a choice between just Bush and Gore, the majority of the people would choose Gore. Therefore Bush should be the president? Have I got that straight?

No, not exactly. I was only trying to point out how intrinsically unfair a revote would be because there's no way to recreate all of the voters' states of mind from November 7. My response spoke only to the "why don't they vote again?" question, not what preceded it in this thread.

Such as the statistical evidence of someone punching Gore holes in 15,000 Palm Beach county ballots, thus invalidating Bush and Buchanan votes and leaving Gore votes unspoiled? Such as the evidence of massive Haitian (unnaturalized, and thus illegal) voters?

Which has accomplished exactly nothing. Miami/Dade stopped counting because they couldn't finish by the deadline, and incomplete counts cannot be counted. None of the courts have granted the Bushies any relief.

Did you watch any of the hand counting from Broward county? Can you blame them for trying to stop Democratic election officials for giving blank ballots to Gore?

So why does Gore come out twice a day to do it?

"We want every vote to count"

(So why are they trying so hard to throw out LEGAL, though unpostmarked, military ballots? Why are they trying to disenfranchise 218 voters in Nassau county? Why, if every vote is so important, did they only request hand counts in three heavily Democratic counties?)

"10,000 votes have not been counted a single time"

Wrong - they've been counted twice. (Or, to be consistent, there haven't been votes counted ANYWHERE, since every state uses machines to count the ballots.)

Do you have a link to a creditable source? It's just that I thought I was following this debacle pretty closely and this is one story I haven't heard before.

The *only* reason they made the decision to stop was because they were accosted by a loud angry mob of Republican protestors. Next you'll find a way to justify Harris throwing out the Palm Beach recount because they finished, get this 2 hours and seven minutes later.

You're simply wrong. These were the 10,000 ballots that were spit out of the machines, uncounted. They were fed through the machines a second time and again, no votes were registered from these 10,000. Now, if this is your idea of being counted twice, then we have no reason to continue this thread.

As to the ballots that were uncounted in other states, if those states mattered at the end, you can be sure the same issues we're dealing with in Florida would be occurring there. And to go one step further, if the positions were reversed and Gore had the fractional lead and Bush was making up votes left and right, *both* parties would be acting the same exact way the other is acting right now. You know it.

Interesting that you are so sure of that. Especially since the people that made the decision are strenuously denying that.

"But none of the three members of Miami-Dade's election board were intimidated. One member of the board, David Leahy, says he saw only "a noisy, peaceful protest." He told the Los Angeles Times, "I was not intimidated by that protest. I saw it for what it was." " - Wall Street Journal, November 26, 2000

Miami/Dade didn't think a hand count was warranted to begin with, and acquiesced only when the Gore legal machine threatened to take them to court to force it. When the FLSC made that hideous ruling, rewriting the election statutes a week ago, Dade looked at the process, and decided that they couldn't complete by the deadline, and therefore it would be a waste of time to continue.

The "mob" scene occured when they took the undervotes BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, in violation of Florida's sunshine laws, to count. It was partly caused by the fact that the manual recount had done entirely anglo precincts that had heavily favored Gore, and the next precincts due to be recounted were the Cuban precincts that heavily favored Bush. That was the point in time at which the canvassing board decided to skip the full recount and just look at the undervotes. Behind closed doors. This (justly) caused loud complaints in the hallway, but the board members realized that a partial recount would not (and could not, by law) be accepted, and that they could not finish a full recount in time, and therefore shut it down.

Next you'll find

The deadline was five. Palm Beach wasn't done when the canvassing board met. They took Thanksgiving off. They didn't count for a half a day on Wednesday, as the Gore campaign had them in court, trying to force them to manufacture more votes by changing their counting standards. The SOS had no idea whether they'd be done in 2 hours and 7 minutes or 7 hours and 2 minutes or 2 days and 7 hours. The deadline passed (actually 8 days and 17 hours after the legislated deadline) and she performed the job that her office required of her.

And what difference does it make, anyway? If they included the Palm Beach recount, then Bush wins by ~337 as opposed to 537. If Gore has any chance of winning a contest, those votes will be included anyway. So its entirely moot.

No they weren't. They didn't register a vote for president. Not at all the same thing as "spit out of the machines, uncounted."

That's exactly my idea of being counted twice. That's how every vote in the country has been counted. That is the standard technique, agreed upon by all parties beforehand, for counting votes, and has been since the 60s. This way the votes are counted in an objective, not a subjective manner.

Up to 3 million ballots nationwide had no vote for president - those 10,000 are among that group. Miami/Dade actually had a lower percentage of undervotes that 34 other Florida counties - most of which did not have recounts requested by Al "every vote (except the military) must count" Gore.

But for you (and Gore) to say that those 10,000 ballots haven't been counted is equivalent to saying that no ballots have been counted anywhere. They were counted. The way that ballots are counted is with counting machines. Unbiased, non-partisan, objective counting machines. They went through the machines twice. Not registering a vote for president is NOT the same thing as an uncounted ballot.

And to go one step further, if the

I not only don't know it, I don't believe it. What I do know is that the media uproar would be overwhelming for Bush to get out, but I believe that he would already have done so. I believe that, had Gore been ahead after the absentee ballots were counted, Bush would have conceded.

Of course they are. I'd be too ashamed to admit it as well. But they went from "full steam ahead" to "we're giving up" within a 3-hour span. The only things that happened during those three hours was ballot counting and the Republican rent-a-mob hell bent on disrupting the process.

Bullshit. They were counting happily before the mob scene. They stopped shortly afterwards. Spin this however you wish.

Funny, but all the camera shots of the nasty mob were from the inside of the CLOSED DOORS. Seems they allowed the right observers in and tried their best to keep the wrong ones out.

So she couldn't possibly use her discretion and allow legal ballots to be accepted after the deadline. The law says she can, but I guess the call of Paris was too strong.

You're right, it's moot, because if all the legal votes thhat should be counted are counted and all the illegal votes that shouldn't be counted aren't, Gore wins by a mile.

The machines didn't pick up any of the undervotes, regardless of who the votes were for. To call them nonvotes is to distort the truth.

I don't say this often, but you're an idiot and I'm strongly considering killfiling you. Life's too short and I get so little on-line time to begin with. I'm sure you understand.

No, it's equivalent to saying the counting machine is a stupid box that cannot infer, even when presented with enough evidence. If the ballot isn't entirely punched through, it's not counted as a vote, regardless of how obvious the intention was when the ballot was cast. Swinging, hanging, dimpled, the machines don't know and they don't care. People are smarter than machines.

Funny, I watched some entirely partisan counters passing ballots between them and deciding as a group. Seemed as non-partisan as anything I've seen during this election.

Not punching a chad entirely though is NOT the same thing as a non-vote.

You're so full of shit, my coworkers are asking about the stench wafting up from my cubicle. So rather than face ridicule and shame amongst my peers who think it's coming from me, I think it's time to cut you loose. Have a nice life.

In article , Dave writes:

And your evidence for this is what? That I disagree with someone who chooses to go by the name 'ratboy'? That's a pretty compelling argument. Not.

and I'm strongly considering

Please do.

Life's too short and I get so little on-line time to

If you can't handle a discussion of the issues, why the hell get involved in it? If you feel your time is wasted by responding to me, then don't. I'm not wasting your time, you are. I haven't personally insulted you, notwithstanding what you've done.

"Deciding as a group?" You must have been watching a different count than I was. If the two Democrats inferred a Gore vote, it became a Gore vote, regardless of the intent of the voter or any Republican input.

Well, that certainly improved the tone and substance of your argument. I didn't realize that your evidence was so strong. I concede.

Please killfile me. Don't respond again. Please.

Actually, they recanted earlier statements to the contrary. Perhaps they were afraid of legal action?

One of its members, David Leahy, acknowledged the protests were a factor in his decision. The other two declined all interviews.

They originally decided not to count based on an erroneous legal opinion from Katherine Harris, not because they didn't think it was warranted.

So elections are decided by the votes that can be counted on time? Funny, I thought this was a democracy, where every vote counts.

Yes, they went to another room. They also took with them observers from both sides, fully in compliance with all laws. The mob originally went nuts because they thought a democratic official was stealing a ballot. Guess what? It was a sample ballot. More stall tactics.

If this is true, why are the republicans so afraid of the recount. If this is true, then George Bush would even out by the end of the count.

Isn't this my point. Stall tactics have kept this legal recount from happening on time.

She was given the discretion to wait. She chose to make the deadline as short as possible. If I were Bush, I would bend over backwards to make sure there was no hint of impropriety in a state my brother ran.

The makers of the machine have stated, in no uncertain terms, that a hand review of those ballots is preferable as the machine cannot pick up a partially punctured chad. I'm not talking about pregnant chads. I personally believe that the chad should be punctured.

Are you telling me there were no hand counts in anywhere in the country? You know that's not true.

The rules also allow for recounts.

Any evidence to that. I think not. I said irregularities not fraud. in an election this close, let's make sure we get the count right.

My point exactly. Miami/Dade would have finished the recount if the "Bushies" hadn't stalled the count both with Katherine Harris' false legal viewpoint, then with that army of paid "protesters."

Yeah, those republican observers protesting any vote that didn't go their way sure slowed the process down. They almost didn't get it done. Thank God they did.

I'm talking about your argument not Gore's. Let's stick to the subject, okay.

I don't agree with this tactic, anymore than I believe that a machine is better at determining a vote than a human.

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

That is their prerogative. The Republicans could have done the same in the time period allowed. The offer is still on the table to recount the whole state.

The machine has not been able to determine the vote on those ballots. The people who make the machine have come out publicly and stated that a hand count is preferable to the machine in such cases.

The main point is this: We in America have the right to protest an election if there is found to be evidence that the count could be wrong. Whether through fraud or simple mistakes. It's a basic principal of democracy.

I watched the coverage of the hearing. Gore's attorney laid out a timeline in the event the judge decides to order the counting to continue, so that it would be finished in time to get the case to the US Supreme Court. Bush's attorneys want a nice long hearing to determine the true difference between a hanging chad and a dimpled one. The Republican strategy is essentially a courtroom version of a filibuster. I'd bet every one of them has December 12 circled on their calendars.

Anyway, the judge compromised. He's having the ballots brought up from Dade and Palm Beach to Leon County just in case they decide to count them after all. He also requested sample ballots and balloting machines from each county. David Boies seemed pleased with the decision.

In article , [email] (Joe Klemm) writes:

I think that I'll just hate Fox for breaking in with a news story that was not urgent, and could easily have been summarized in a 30-second news story after the signing was over. There was no need for that cut-in, none whatsoever.

Lyfwork wrote in message news:[email]...

(Joe

not

I agree. Why did they show us a bunch of old crusty white folks signing papers for five minutes? That was something I could've done without. I just wanted to know who got the freakin' electoral votes! Yeesh.

-Fraggler?

Fraggler? wrote:

Would you have felt the same if in July1969 they just showed 30 seconds of footage and said "And in other news, Astronaut Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the moon." "But I guess we'll have to wait until he comes back down to find out just what kind of cheese the moon's made of. Hahahah...Back to you Judy" This is big deal stuff. You can't have it summed up in 30 seconds.

first man

back

Hahahah...Back to

seconds.

Well yes, but I mean the signing of things dragged on a little. That must have taken up about two minutes, which from what I hear in general from people who missed the ending of the show, was about how much they'd missed. They could have signed all those papers in silence before the news on fox or whatever channel cut the show to begin coverage.

-Fraggler?

Fraggler? wrote:

No that need's to be done in front of a public audience. And now days that's the whole of the US and anyone else tuning in.

In article ,

The first thing Whatshername said was that this was usually done individually, but because of all the uproar about the vote that they were doing it in public. Generally, the do require a notary public which is supposed to represent the public.

Paul

Paul Tomko wrote:

Notary Public that's it! So much unused information gets corrupted in my brain it's a miracle I can even speak.

Honestly, you can't blame Gore for making a speech - it was just bad timing and poor choice of what the network aired.

Sean Rea

I would put the blame on George Bush