posted on November 20, 2000 08:26:01 AM
Yup, pretty ridiculous isn't it. I just figured as long as everyone else could keep coming up with reasons why 1000's of people were unable to penetrate their ballots, I would throw out my own theory. After all, no one can prove that it DIDN'T happen.
posted on November 20, 2000 08:29:31 AMDonny The "books" I refer to are the books that contain the guidelines that they've followed for years. I realize that it is only pure coincidence that the democrats deemed those guidelines as unfair *after* they realized Gore wasn't picking up as many votes as he needed. Just like it was a complete coincidence that the only questionable ballots were those in heavily democratic counties. First we have to buy into that idea - then the rest follows easily enough.
You said: You really shouldn't automatically trust and defend everything either political side tells you, especially now, when candidates' camps will say just about anything to sway the public to their side.
Actually my distrust of the Gore camp started long before this. It was reports such as the following that gave me a hint that Gore tends to stretch the truth. Of course, this is only a small sampling of his documented lies.
Chyron: "The Whopper," The Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2000; Richard L. Berke, "Tendency
To Embellish Fact Snags Gore," The New York Times, October 6, 2000; Carter M. Yang,
"Facing Facts: Gore Shows Pattern of Exaggeration," abcnews.com, October 7, 2000
in 1988, his press secretary, Arlie
Schardt, warned the candidate in a memo, ‘Your main pitfall is exaggeration.’ That character flaw,
this relentless willingness to prevaricate and demonize his opponents, might have been barely
excusable in a young senator making a premature run for the White House. But it is deeply
troubling in a senior statesman who has served two terms as vice president." (Walter Shapiro, "To Tell
The Truth, Al Gore Is Having Trouble Out There," USA Today, January 31, 2000)
"It has come to this: Al Gore
says in a presidential debate that his uncle was gassed in World War I and then his campaign
searches for records to back him up. The campaign knows no claim by the Democratic candidate
about his family or professional resume will be taken at face value. His occasional tendency to
embellish has not stopped, even now when scrutiny of the candidates' every word is so intense."
(Calvin Woodward, "Gore’s Embellishments Persist, Even In The Spotlight," The Associated Press, October 6,
2000)
"AL GORE AND THE FIB FACTOR" "The danger to Gore is that the fibbing will blossom into a
full-blown credibility crisis, giving Bush an opening to cast doubt on everything Gore says. The way
around that is simple: stop doing it." (Jonathan Alter, "Al Gore And The Fib Factor," Newsweek, October
16, 2000)
"Why should we believe you would tell the truth as president if you don't tell the truth as a
candidate?"
-Bill Bradley to Al Gore, Democratic Presidential Debate, January 26, 2000
I've already accepted the fact that Gore will become our next President. So, am not inclined to debate. I just have to say that it is personally distressing to see a man who has proved himself to be an habitual liar defended as having pure motives for the "will of the people." Of course, I didn't believe Clinton when he said "I didn't have sex with that woman." The American people let Clinton lower our standards of expectations that we place on our President when he said with a straight face: "It depends on what your definition of the word is is." And, we bought it.
Now, Gore camp claims that we are able to discern the will of the people by looking at ballots that have been shuffled, dropped, put through machines numerous times and generally handled/mishandled by numerous people. And, we buy that... I agree that if a ballot has indentations that are straight party lines then it's safe to assume that the Presidential choice would coincide with the others - but, that's not what they're proposing.
posted on November 20, 2000 09:13:25 AM
But you know, Biff, the law doesn't see it that way. The law doesn't require that a person perfectly and properly excercise each and every step stipulated on a ballot to have an imperfect attempt be recognized as a vote.
posted on November 20, 2000 09:24:54 AM
"The "books" I refer to are the books that contain the guidelines that they've followed for years."
I'll ask again. Exactly what books are those?
Remember Florida law doesn't tell counties what criteria to use to ascertain voter intent. Florida statute merely tells counties to use their own discretion to ascertain voter intent.
Florida statute clearly recognizes that it is possible to ascertain voter intent on an imperfectly cast ballot, or else it wouldn't tell counties to do it.
No, it is not coincidence that Democrats have demanded that the accepted standards, as set out in Florida case law, be adhered to now. Of course they did it because they think they'll find Democratic votes.
But they're allowed to do that, under previously established Florida standards.
I'm not saying that Gore hasn't told lies. And the Democratic party either.
posted on November 20, 2000 09:25:21 AM
"But you know, Biff, the law doesn't see it that way. The law doesn't require that a person
perfectly and properly excercise each and every step stipulated on a ballot to have an
imperfect attempt be recognized as a vote."
Apparently it does if you're from Florida, and in the military.
Edited for clarity.
[ edited by toke on Nov 20, 2000 09:26 AM ]
posted on November 20, 2000 10:03:46 AMDonny I've assumed that these counties have written guidelines - standards that they apply in recount situations. I haven't seen them but assume that they exist. I don't question their ability or right to choose the standards they use - it just seems suspect to me when they suddenly decide to change the acceptable standards in midstream as they've done in this recount. My point is that I think we would all feel a little more comfortable with the recount if there was a consistent set of guidelines being used - not only between counties but within each county?
posted on November 20, 2000 10:07:16 AM
The stories about the disallowed military votes is a separate issue. To throw everything into the same pot, all together, only muddies up the issues of the separate instances.
I don't know which percentage of the absentee ballots which were disallowed were from the military. I don't know how the rate of disallowance of overseas ballots in this election compared to rates in previous elections. I don't know what the law says are the requirements for the acceptance of absentee ballots, I don't know on which grounds these ballots were challenged.
Before I take as gospel anything I hear, and then use it to bolster an argument for something that's different, I'd have to know more.
posted on November 20, 2000 10:13:16 AM
Thanks for that mybiddness. This whole thing just sickens me. Everything else aside, the fact that Gore didn't even win in his own state should tell us something! Not to mention the fact that the little worm slithered into a corner and wouldn't speak up while his buddy Bill lied through his teeth for months on end, while we had to hear about semen stains on a blue dress and watch our "leader" point his finger at us and prolaiming "I did not have sexual relations with that woman.....". If I had lied under oath I'd still be locked up and so would any other average joe. Gee.....I wonder why Gore isn't jumping up and down wanting to make sure the military people's "voice is heard" - giving them the benefit of the doubt like he is giving these Democratic counties in Florida.
Sgtmike - Do you have a link to that pic of clinton touching those skeletal remains? PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!
posted on November 20, 2000 10:17:18 AM
I don't see it as a separate issue. They are citizens and they voted. Many of their ballots were thrown out for lack of a postmark...which often is impossible for a military person to obtain. Seems if they only had penetration of chads to worry about, they'd get more consideration.
posted on November 20, 2000 10:22:55 AM
"Donny I've assumed that these counties have written guidelines - standards that they apply in recount situations. I haven't seen them but assume that they exist."
Mybidneness, that's the thing. There aren't written standards in the counties.
Since they don't exist, the counties began by playing it by ear. Unfortunately, their decisions were contrary to established Florida case law. Once directed to by the court, they had to change their standards.
Yes, we'd all feel more comfortable if there were already pre-established, clearly defined, written standards set down in statutory law that could easily be referred to by section number. There aren't. So it takes a judge to determine what the already existing case law (a body of law that consists of the written decisions of judges of previously decided similar cases.)
is.
Case law can be, by its nature, a bit messier and more difficult to ascertain than something set down in statute, but it's law nonetheless.
The present judges have looked at it, and they've determined, through it, that the original standards that the counties were using were too strict under existing case law.
posted on November 20, 2000 10:23:42 AMDonny
I'm pretty certain you're more attuned to what the "law" says than I am. Without a doubt, there are other laws I also have trouble accepting.
But in this case, if a voter circled their choice instead of punching a chad, I could agree that was their intent. Or even if a chad was dangling or hanging, I could likely agree that was the voter's intent (though the more these ballots are handled, the less faith I have in their integrity).
But pregnant, dimpled chads, or no apparent vote? My common sense says those should have no bearing on the outcome of a manual count.
posted on November 20, 2000 10:28:17 AM
No, toke, you're wrong. They'd get more consideration if it were thought these votes would be democratic.
I too see these as two parts of the same issue. The overseas (presumably military) votes were thrown out because they didn't know when they were cast. The pregnant chads should be thrown out because we cannot know the voters intent.
No matter what you believe, assume, or can most effectively argue, the only votes that should be counted are the ones where we know what the vote is.
edited because I can't spell.
[ edited by UpInTheHills on Nov 20, 2000 10:29 AM ]
posted on November 20, 2000 10:34:15 AM! Not to mention the fact that the little worm slithered into a corner and wouldn't speak up while his buddy Bill lied through his teeth for months on end, while we had to hear about semen stains on a blue dress and watch our "leader" point his finger at us and prolaiming "I did not have sexual relations with that woman.....".
bobbi355 We had to "hear" about aforesaid "semen stains" for months on end, because apparently Republicans felt private sexual behavior between two consenting adults was important to our nations Affairs of State. I know you're having a hard time getting over it, and as much as you would like to be able to hold Al Gore responsible for President Clinton's perceived sexual misbehavior, it simply isn't so. Simply put, Americans by and large, just didn't give a damn about whether our President was guilty of adultery while in office. And most didn't care if he "lied" about it or not. Any husband with an ounce of "self-preservation" would have "lied" as well. It has nothing to do with this election, much as you'd like to believe otherwise.
KatyD
[ edited by KatyD on Nov 20, 2000 10:35 AM ]
posted on November 20, 2000 10:38:54 AM
On Politically Incorrect last week,again last night on I think 20-20 [I do not have control of the remote at my house so am never quite sure which chanel I am watching] and on one other show on earlier in the week I have heard [just a rumor mind you, just like all these other "facts" being thrown out]that there were double ballots sent to overseas absentee voters from Florida.Some in state voters as well.
One young military man they interviewed last night said that he and his wife both received two ballots from Florida. The instructions made it appear that they should fill out both of them and send them in but only the second one would be counted. HUH? So they sent all their ballots in.They said everyone they spoke too had gotten two ballots. A couple in another foreign country,not in the military also recieved two ballots.Also people can be registered to vote in more than one state. They spoke to someone from Virginia that votes in Florida because 15 years ago they lived there and said that they were going to retire there so they get to vote there. They can vote in Virginia as well. They said they only voted in Florida. Geez.
Sorry folks,if you believe what you hear, then the absentee ballots have as many problems as all the others. It would seem they should only count half of them.
Hi KatyD! I have another scenario [I made this up..it is not real] for your consideration. What if the republicans working at the polling places had put some kind of a rubber stopper under the punching hole for Al Gore! Then anyone who tried to vote for Al would have had their punch just bounce right back!The chads would be pregnant but they would have had no penetration.
posted on November 20, 2000 10:50:19 AM
Sorry if this repeats anything said before in the thread...
If the ballot is so ambiguous that the computer can't score it, why not just throw it away? To assume that a human being can retroactively try to what the voter intended is bordering on absurd. Of course, we've all heard this before.
On the other hand, and regardless of how outrageously costly, why not just have a run-off of the two finalists in all states. Let's see who those Nader and Buchanan votes would have gone to. AND, let's see how many of us have been so thoroughly disgusted by our particular candidate's activity over the past two weeks that we might change our vote.
And while I understand the need for the electoral system, I find it absurd that the deciding vote in a national election should come down to fewer than a thousand ballots. In the House or Senate, it takes a MUCH larger majority. Why not in the election?
posted on November 20, 2000 10:52:18 AM
rawbunzel...it is routine to send 2 ballots to each overseas absentee because of the high chance of the mail being waylaid. HOWEVER, when they are received in and counted in the home district, they discard any duplicates.
*****************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 20, 2000 11:04:54 AM
Hi Jules...
I quite agree. Just the thought of Clinton having sex makes me ill... What rankled then, and still does every time I think about it...is that he appeared on TV, addressed the American public, and lied. It only keeps coming up when people talk about Gore, because he's become known for telling a few whoppers himself.
Let's just hope someone wonderful comes along in four years. I'm ready to be enthused about a candidate...it's been a while. At least you had your Nader...
posted on November 20, 2000 07:40:23 PM
njrazd, Well of course that explains why people living right in the state of Florida were sent two ballots? We all know that domestic mail is waylaid fairly easily. That makes no sense at all unless we are at war which we are not. If it really is common practice it should be stopped.
How do they know which one is the duplicate? No names are on ballots.
posted on November 20, 2000 08:34:19 PM
Rawbunzel, I think Njazd is correct about two ballots being sent out 45 days apart (although I'm not sure if that's only for military or for anyone overseas.) Here's how I think it goes:
Remember, military people are subject to being moved from one place to another at short notice, even if there's not a war going on. Military mail is already pretty slow, since a substantial part of the military population is moving around at all time, and once you're trying to catch up with particular people who were here yesterday and today are someone else, that can make their mail particularly slow.
Mindful of that, these people are sent out preliminary ballots 45 days ahead of the election. These ballots may, or may not, correspond to the later ballots in terms of which choices are on it. Whichever candidates and questions you can be sure are going to be included on the final ballot are included on the preliminary ballot; But there are some times when you're not sure, 45 days before the election, what questions and which candidates will appear on the final ballot (remember, the ballot isn't only for presidential candidates, but for other offices and referendums, etc.)
So, the final ballot is the preferrred one to send back, but, just in case the final one doesn't reach someone on the move in time, they try to give people at least most of their voting choices by providing a ballot 45 days earlier.
Sometimes, people overseas don't understand why they were sent two ballots, and figure they'll just send back both. Sometimes, they send back both just thinking that it'll increase the chances that one will make it back.
When the ballots are received back in the states, the local voting people will know when someone has sent back 2 ballots, the preliminary and the final one, for the same race, because even if the ballot itself doesn't have the voter's name on it, the special envelopes that they've had to send them back in have the voter's name printed on the outside.
posted on November 20, 2000 08:47:29 PM
Donny, That may well be correct,I am not an expert but it still does not explain why some people living in Florida -NOT OVERSEAS- were sent two ballots. Or why people can vote in two states. Makes no sense to me.
posted on November 20, 2000 09:20:22 PM
rawbunzel...when you send in an absentee ballot, your name and address is pre-printed on the outside of the envelope. Also, there is a place for a signature on the back of the envelope. When the ballot is received in by the county, and prior to the envelope being opened, the signature is checked to make sure it matches the one on file. If the signatures match and there is no notations as to a previous ballot coming in, then the envelope is opened and the ballot put in to the count.
For example, in a previous election, I had requested an absentee ballot but did not have a chance to fill it out before election day. When I went to my polling place, they would not allow me to vote there because I was on the absentee list. I had to come back with my absentee ballot in hand to prove I had not already mailed it in.
It does not matter how many ballots you receive. What matters is how many ballots you return. And with the procedures in place like California, it would be impossible to double-vote.
*************************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 20, 2000 09:22:56 PM
Rawbunzel, you can't (legally) vote in two states. You can be a legal resident of only one state. Which state you're a legal resident of is decided by a couple of things that I can't honestly remember. Where you own a home, where you spend most of your time, whatever.
It's just like state income tax. Even if you were to spend half the year in one state and the other half of the year wintering in another state, both states aren't able to claim you as a resident for the purposes of making you liable to pay two states' income taxes.
Similarly, you can't use equal time spent in two states to claim the privilege of voting in two states. You might try, and you might get away with it, but you're casting one of those votes illegally.
There are always going to be some problems like that, in Florida, and elsewhere, just like there are always some problems everywhere with people who have recently moved within a state, whose voting district has changed, who haven't been given a green light to vote in their new district and are prevented from voting in their old district, or people who request an absentee ballot sent to one Florida address, happen to move to somewhere else in Florida while waiting, and then request one sent to a new address.
And, then, there are people who intend to use absentee balloting as a means to commit voting fraud. There had been, I think, quite a problem with that in Florida in the past, which is why Florida tightened up their rules and required each absentee voter to include their own special voter number with each ballot returned.
What rankled then, and still does every time I think about it...is that he appeared on TV, addressed the American public, and lied. It only keeps coming up when people talk about Gore, because he's become known for telling a few whoppers himself.