posted on November 15, 2000 09:35:15 PMFlorida has an elected Republican Governor and an elected Republican Secretary of State. Why do so many people think it would be impossible to have a Republican majority for a presidential candidate?
By the same token, considering that Floridians in this election dumped Bill McCollum (R) and elected Bill Nelson (D) for the senate, isn't it possible to have a Democratic majority for a presidential candidate?
posted on November 15, 2000 09:51:48 PM
hayleigh, OMG that's HILARIOUS!!!
I've been busy working all day and haven't caught my daily dose of CNN but it's nice to know that I can get regular updates from you all here at RT, lol. If Bush really did say 'I'll meet with Gore after the election is over', hmmmmm... I would have thought he would be chomping at the bit to have America watch him trying to bring sides together.
I also haven't seen Gore's speech yet but I'm retiring to the telly shortly so I'm sure I'll see a re-run or 2 or 3 or 4, lol I think it's an excellent idea to have a statewide handcount since Bush has such a bug up his butt about missing the handcount request deadline... handcounting the Republican counties as well might obviously work in his favor, so why not?
It's actually way overdue for one of the two to reach out to the other and sit down to talk... might cut some of the edge off.
posted on November 15, 2000 10:08:29 PM
That's bad, but what is starting to bother me is the thought that the world will view us as so anal retentive that our elections are decided by the dangling of a chad.
posted on November 15, 2000 10:14:43 PM
Julesy...there is probability on both sides. My statement had to do with those who have felt Gore would be the winner if only all the dimples were counted.
posted on November 15, 2000 10:17:06 PMHope Bush has a plum appointment for her somewhere IF he ends up getting in office.
KatieD, Bill Maher tonight had a great idea for her next appointment: Ambassador to GW's a$$.
If Florida Republicans dislike handcounting so much, why do so many counties down there (and across the country) have statutes that rely on them, including Republican strongholds? Why haven't they been repealing these "inaccurate" handcounting laws? Goodness knows, before last week NOBODY would have given a hoot if they had.
Fact is, if they thought George would win with a handcount, they'd be screaming for one.
posted on November 15, 2000 11:25:40 PM
I'd always placed a high level of confidence in fairness in regards to a machine count on ballots. This news story has me questioning it also, I'm beginning to see Gore's reason for wanting the hand recount.
(Bugtussel Herald) reported by Joe King - In a new and shocking development it was learned that the machines used to count the ballots were designed by a Republican. Investigators are now examining the blueprints and electrical schematics of these machines to determine how much of a "Republican factor" has been manufactured in these machines. One Gore campaign official expressed shock on the revelation and has suggested that a court challenge will be forth coming. Larger questions have been raised on this discovery. How many machines that have incorporated this "subjective count option" and for how long is anyone's guess at this time. Robert Wexler the democratic congressman representing Palm Beach County called a press conference on the breaking news but was required to end it early when he began foaming at the mouth. Paramedics responded and administered a sedative.
posted on November 15, 2000 11:45:14 PM
Njazd, thanks for the link to the article. It's interesting, but most of the author's arguments don't seem to hold water.
One argument he makes is that Democrats steal votes by roughly handling ballots to cause the hanging chads to fall off, thereby creating a vote for their candidate. But it seems to me that it's accepted that if a chad is hanging, then it can already properly be counted as a vote; Making a hanging chad fall off would be unecessary, redundant.
Anyway, you have to take everything with a grain of salt. The title of the article makes its agenda clear, as the pushing of Bill O'Reilley's book makes the website's agenda clear.
The historian Arthur Schlessinger was on one of the talk shows tonight, and he commented briefly on the 1960 Illinois returns in the Nixon-Kennedy race. Much talk was made back then, and is still alluded to now, of the Daley machine fudging votes in Chicago. Yes, they did, and the Republicans fudged just as many in Southern Illinois, Schlessinger said.
Another funny thing, to me, is the way the Republicans were always making oblique references to Cook county. The Republicans can't seem to come right out and say that Gore point man, Bill Daley's father, was one of the most famous vote fixers and political machinists of his time, right up there with Huey Long. Rather, they just interject what they seem to think are magic words, "Cook County," as often as they can.
But I wonder if "Cook County" has the immediate resonance with as many people as it once did. If I asked my son in college what he thought of when someone said "Cook County," I don't know that it would mean anything to him.
Anyway, Bill Daley seems to have achieved a pretty successful rehabilitation of his name, I was surprised to see him right out in public in the forefront, instead of being hidden behind the scenes. His is almost as successful as Nixon's. Looks like Newt Gingrich is making early maneuverings on his own rehabilitation, I've caught glimpses of him scurrying around the edges in the last few days.
posted on November 16, 2000 03:43:07 AMnjrazd - Florida has an elected Republican Governor and an elected Republican Secretary of State. Why do so many people think it would be impossible to have a Republican majority for a presidential candidate?
No one thinks it's impossible or even unlikely. I think no one was really sure *which* way the state would go before the election. But the fact that it was so incredibly close, the confusion in the ballots, the fact that the governor is Jeb Bush, etc. etc. - all this raised questions in people's minds. I think most people would have no problem accepting either candidate as president as long as they feel the election was fair.
All the articles I have read said the recounts in the counties so far have been machine recounts. The only counties with hand counts are the ones requested by Gore's camp and include the 4 most Democratic. There have not been any hand counts anywhere else.
Actually, both Seminole and V_______ counties have already completed manual recounts. One ended up with roughly 100 additional Bush votes and the other had approximately the same Gore votes.
posted on November 16, 2000 04:33:04 AM"I think most people would have no problem accepting either candidate as president as long as they feel the election was fair.
Agreed, but the problem seems to be that the Gore seems to feel that the machines favored Bush, and I see the machines as impartial. Gore wants the count done by a politically active volunteer twisting and turning each ballot by hand making a partial decision on the voter's intentions. Isn't that the term Gore used "the voter's true intentions". That sounds like judgement calls to me.
Gore is trying to come across as being magnanimous and fair by offering hand recounts statewide. Gore has nothing to lose, as it stands he'll probably fail to get the numbers from the overseas ballots and he knows that. When you've got nothing to lose... what the hell, try and get yet another recount where they can try and guess the "voter's true intentions". This has gone on long enough.
posted on November 16, 2000 05:52:31 AMIf this decision stands, Mr. Bush will be given a hollow crown and will be the subject of constant belittlement from a significan number of Americans. As has been so often the case with Mr. Bush, he simply has no understanding of what he is doing, both to himself, to our system of just elections, and to our concept of presidential governance by the will of the people.
Gore will be remembered as the candidate who refused to accept the outcome of the election. The people have voted. The votes have been counted over and over again. And he's still whining. It's easy to see why the people of Tennessee rejected him as one of their own. He's an embarrassment to them.
That's bad, but what is starting to bother me is the thought that the world will view us as so anal retentive that our elections are decided by the dangling of a chad.
posted on November 16, 2000 06:58:52 AM
I think this story illustrates the problems and hazards of a manual record on ballots that are designed to be counted by a machine. I think if you pay attention to the squabbling at the end of the article you can see why Gore would be so anxious to have a manual recount as opposed to a machine that can't make a judgement call.
There are other problems surfacing with one of the democratic officials on the Palm Beach election board also, complaints are being filed against her actions with ballots and her refusal to accept some votes as a vote for Bush.
Machines aren't emotional, they don't purposely lie, and they don't care who wins. Hand counting is a BAD idea, well... its a bad idea unless you're Al Gore.
posted on November 16, 2000 07:06:32 AM
uaru,
Can you set aside your biased ire long enough to provide a working link so that people might know why you rant?
posted on November 16, 2000 07:14:44 AM"uaru, Can you set aside your biased ire long enough to provide a working link so that people might know why you rant?"
krs, I'm afraid you've asked the wrong way. I don't think the news article would have been a benefit to you. Should I come across an article related to online manners I will contact you.
posted on November 16, 2000 07:17:33 AM
I wouldn't read that either, coming from you. Nevertheless you've provided a general link to the AP news services, not to any article as you said that you had done.
posted on November 16, 2000 07:30:42 AMCounting ballots by hand is invariably bad, not to mention inaccurate, inefficient and possibly corrupt -- unless you happen to be a Republican running for any public office in the state of Texas or a Republican presidential candidate seeking a recount in Bernalillo County, N.M., or a Republican presidential candidate getting a recount in Seminole County, Fla, or an incumbent Republican senator from Florida named Connie Mack being reelected in 1988. (Other exceptions may also apply soon, depending on circumstances; please consult Jim Baker, Ari Fleischer, Karen Hughes, Karl Rove or any other available representative of Bush-Cheney 2000 for details.)
posted on November 16, 2000 07:31:46 AM
Thanks, KatyD, glad you appreciated that.
I don't think Republicans formally requested a hand count (or recount) in largely Republican Seminole county, where 100 extra Bush votes were found. From what Jim Baker said, Seminole county did their hand tabulation on their own initiative. Jim Baker said something to the effect that that wasn't a hand recount, that was just a review of ballots that the machine hadn't registered a vote for. Of course, that's disengenuous. It might have been a partial or complete hand count, just not at the (formal) instigation of the Republican party.
I think Bush goofed in using Jim Baker as his pointman. "All this counting, recounting, and recounting. It's craaaaazy!!"
He should have gotten Jim Nabors instead. Nabors would have been just as effective a speaker, and could sing us all a little song after each of his appearances.
Now, I wouldn't take what Jim Baker says at face value, anymore than I'd take what the Democratic spinners say at face value. However, I don't remember hearing any news report about a formal request on the Republican party's part for a hand recount of any county.
The Republicans have been pushing this idea of Democratic hand counters twisting and poking and throwing ballots on the floor, "divining the voters' intent" as if it's akin to entrail reading, in short, Baker's overused "potential for mischief" spiel. Republicans are not afraid of that, that's a spin they're pushing heavily.
What Republicans are afraid of is that the Democrats effectively used the laws pertaining to recounts that were available to either party under Florida statute. The Republicans' failure to make use of the legally available recounts was either their own oversight, or part of their strategy. Either way, it was the course the Republicans chose.
Democratic party spin that they requested recounts in Democratic counties because of some crusade to preserve the sanctity of every vote is a lie. Democrats are only interested in the sanctity of every Democrat vote. Some guy with googly eyes on one of the channels pointed out that there was much more evidence of voter or machine error in one of the large Republican counties (i.e. unvoted ballots), but the Democrats didn't chose this other county as one of their recount requests. Of course they didn't.
It's the right, perhaps even the duty, of both the Republicans and Democratic parties to use whatever legal remedies are available to them. No one should fault either of them for doing so. The laws were written without knowledge of which party would avail themselves of them, in that they're impartial.
posted on November 16, 2000 07:52:21 AM
Relax, they are counting the ballots as fair as possible and they aren't passing judgement on them... well they aren't supposed to be passing judgement on them.
posted on November 16, 2000 08:32:48 AM
For those of you who support the Palm Beach hand recount: Are you at all concerned about the chads found on the floor of the room where they're doing this recount?
posted on November 16, 2000 08:41:18 AM"For those of you who support the Palm Beach hand recount: Are you at all concerned about the chads found on the floor of the room where they're doing this recount?"
I heard about that on the news. Seems some republican officials had the sheriff department collect 50 or so chads from the floor at one of the counting centers yesterday, according to CNN TV. I don't remember if it was a Broward or Palm Beach. Yes, that report bothered me.
It also bothers me that Broward is going ahead with a manual recount on their own... sort of a damn the torpedos full speed ahead attitude.
Maybe they'll keep it up and offer the evidence needed to invalidate the manual counts.
posted on November 16, 2000 08:53:24 AM
I do support the Palm Beach hand recount (If they ever get around to doing the dern thing. If these Palm Beach County canvassers have a Democratic Party agenda, they're blowing their mission big time by not pressing ahead with counting.) I support any party, candidate, or group's pursuance of their statutory remedy.
It doesn't show me any evidence of impropriety that dislodged chads were found on the floor. It seems to me that those chads would have to be loose in the first place to be dislodged and then fall to the floor. If the chads were already loose, they were already properly countable as a vote. There would be no need to dislodge them to create a vote. The only mischief that could be done here would be to be to dislodge or poke out a chad on a ballot that already had an empty space where a previous chad had been. That would create an overroted ballot, which would then be not tallied for either candidate.
With all the constant watching by the public and the media of the Palm Beach hand counting process, I find it very hard to believe that any canvasser was poking or twisting these ballots, regardless of the Palm Beach GOP's claims. I think if something so blatant had happened, we'd all hear about it from someone else in addition to this GOP guy.
I find the insinuations that one completely unpunched space can somehow be opened up with some kind of handling, even rough handling or twisting, to be a pretty long stretch. If you twisted and handled it enough, without actually poking it out with a little puncher, you could perhaps dislodge several chads. But one particular chad, leaving the others unscathed? Unlikely.
But, then, I have trouble opening up bags of chips and the like. There's always a little line on the cellophane seam that says - "Tear Here." I can't tear it, it ends up that I either rip it open with my teeth, or get a knife or scissors to cut the whole thing open. Could be there are people in the world who can "Tear Here" and have it tear there, and could also dislodge one particular chad through adroit twising.
(Thought I had X number of words. Counting, recounting, more recounting and hand counting found 6 I had neglected.)
posted on November 16, 2000 08:56:47 AM For those of you who support the Palm Beach hand recount: Are you at all concerned about the chads found on the floor of the room where they're doing this recount?
I think that's an excellent point. It has been widely reported that the counting rooms are littered with chads (which aren't used in Texas). One has to wonder if the chads (which aren't used in Texas) were previously impregnated, dimpled, hanging, swinging, or otherwise - What was the prior status of all of those chads (which aren't used in Texas)? Are all those chads (which aren't used in Texas) representative of the "true intent of the voter?"
I found it interesting that CNN reporter, Ashley Bancroft accidently dislodged a chad (which isn't used in Texas) when she was doing a news report yesterday. Her comment was something like "oops, I don't know how that happened." I can imagine that echoing across the counting rooms... oops. So, are we counting oops now?
There is a reason that the chad ballots (which aren't used in Texas) are considered to be the most antiquated and unreliable method of vote count - mostly because the chad (which isn't used in Texas) can easily become dislodged just through handling. Handle it three or four, five or six times and it would logically become more and more unreliable. Palm Beach has been aware of the chad (which isn't used in Texas) problem for years now - are they too poor to update their equipment? It would seem that this should have been a priority BEFORE it went against their favored candidate.
I don't think it's possible to look at a chad ballot (which isn't used in Texas) and determine the "intent" of the voter after that chad (which isn't used in Texas) has been handled multiple times. I'm sure that the Gore folks know how unreliable the chad (which isn't used in Texas) is, but it's to their benefit to overlook the obvious at this time.
posted on November 16, 2000 09:53:11 AM
In the beginning I was only for Gore because I thought he was more qualified than Bush. I didn't agree with many of the Republians platforms. We basically have a two party system, and we each choose the party that would represent our beliefs and concerns.
In saying that, I was never against the Republian Party per say. Now my opinion has changed. Now I think the whole party stinks! I could use many adjectives and give reasons but, it's just my opinion and only matters to me.
I was watching them hold up the ballots and trying to see the punches, and was wondering if having a light behind the cards to show though the holes would help. Even if it was only partially punched you would be able to see where the light would shine if there was any perforation.
[ edited by chococake on Nov 16, 2000 09:58 AM ]
Think they might start calling it artificial insemination of a chad?
I have to say that I admire Ms. Harris. Right or wrong and I consider following the law correct, she has shown a great deal of strength and grace through all this.
I also thought VP Gore's inflection sounded a bit like Mr. Rogers in his comments last night. That bothers me as being insincere.
On the other hand, yes it was obvious that Gov. Bush was reading but at least he used facial expressions which made me listen to him.
posted on November 16, 2000 10:19:59 AM
Just another IMO
I think that the proposal by V.P. Gore to meet with Bush was setting him up, good PR on his part.
When Gov Bush said he would meet with Gore after the election, I thought it was a good response, I think the only response. We stopped the video, and Bush mentioned, 'there will be no deals'. And he did smirk when saying that. No one knows what Gore would say OR maybe, just maybe propose to Bush in this meeting he asked for....
We played both those statements from CNN on real player. Stopped them at certain parts, like when Gore (repeating again) about why the hand counts, and the need for a fair and accurate count of the intent of the ballot. He repeated this, the intent. Aren't they supposed to be counting the actual vote that is on each ballot, and NOT the intent. No one can possibly know the intent, except the actual voter, and that voters name is not on the ballot. No one can find out which ballot is whos.
Everyday this goes on, its turning into more of a mess. Counters looking for intent I don't know how anyone can miss all those pictures of the counters that have been shown over and over on the news, mostly of course on CNN, showing looking at the ballot thru the light, getting other people to look, it all looks very confusing, both to the viewer and the counters in those rooms.
posted on November 16, 2000 10:55:25 AM
Can't you just see that "Carol Davis" in PBC yelling across the room to the janitor...."Hey........ get over here and sweep these chads up off the floor QUICK"!!
posted on November 16, 2000 12:34:31 PM
"No one knows what Gore would say OR maybe, just maybe propose to Bush in this meeting he asked for...."
So are you saying Bush is afraid he would not be able to answer to Gore or be intimidated into doing something he would not want to do. IMHO - another reason to get as far away from Bush as possible. For a Bush supporter to say that Bush doesn't want to meet with Gore because you never know what will be proposed is to say the Bush cannot handle negotiations - very scary and my thought all along. Working with people, negotiating etc. is a top value of a President - one who runs or shies away from that is not secure enough to be in office.
