posted on December 9, 2000 12:20:28 PM new
I don't know how anyone can have any respect for Bush. All we want is a count, he may still even win with added votes. No one knows for sure.
In my eyes this makes him look like he doesn't have faith in the system, the will of people, or fair play. I will never trust this man now.
posted on December 9, 2000 12:26:20 PM new
Well why shouldn't they stop the recounts? Bush has been handed everything else on a silver platter in his life---.Stopping the recounts is stopping democracy . This shows you now clearly this country is ruled by partisans on every level of the balance of powers. Now it even affects the highest court in our land The Supreme Court.
posted on December 9, 2000 12:26:44 PM new
I don't have a problem with a recount, I just have a problem with the people doing the recount.
Machines don't care who wins, people do. The image of someone holding a ballot to the light, turning it sideways, scratching their head and then making a judgement call doesn't set well with me.
One of the bumper stickers on the other thread I think explains the problem with manual recounts.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Joseph Stalin
posted on December 9, 2000 12:56:02 PM new
You know here in Fla. you can blame the republican legislature for not giving guidance for the recounts. I can surely see the unfairness of them. But remember it was the legislature that wrote the laws. They allowed for recounts but did not give guidance to them. They left it up to the courts to do that. Then when the courts try and interpret their laws that they wrote, they cry foul and say the ruling was uncreditable.
No matter what happens I think the ruling by the supreme ct in Fla. was a gutsy one....
posted on December 9, 2000 01:13:25 PM new
I didn't vote for either Bush or Gore. I really have no strong feelings about who wins. Either way, we're a 'house divided' here in the US. With all that's happened in this election, I find it hard to believe either Bush or Gore would be very effective in initiating any legislation unless both parties are in complete agreement.
What I would like to see, though, is a fair and honest election. Obviously, we all have different opinions on how that can come about.
I don't understand how people can be upset by the U.S. Supreme Court placing a stay on the hand counts, until they can hear the arguments from both sides and be sure that US laws are being applied fairly. Not changing the 'game rules' after the election.
I find it interesting that most of the judges hearing the arguments about the hand recount, made rulings that things should stand, without the recount. The Florida Supreme count appears, to me, to be the only court who see's things differently.
You all must know that between 2 and 3 million votes were 'thrown away' by the machines across the US. Since many here speak of what's fair and what's not, that isn't 'fair' to all those people. But then, most of us have learned that life is not always 'fair'. I just don't understand why Florida should be the only state, where the count was so close, to be allowed to recount votes that were initally rejected....just like they were all across the US.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 9, 2000 01:16 PM ]
You all must know that between 2 and 3 million votes were 'thrown away' by the machines across the US. Since many here speak of what's fair and what's not, that isn't 'fair' to all those people. But then, most of us have learned that life is not always 'fair'. I just don't understand why Florida should be the only state, where the count was so close, to be allowed to recount votes that were initally rejected....just like they were all across the US.
It's very simple. Florida was - far and away - the *closest* count. We're talking here about a difference of less than 1/100th of one percent. This is well within any margin of error. If I were the loser, I'd want it recounted also.
If Bush had won after a manual recount in all the counties of Florida (as stipulated by the Florida Supreme Court), I would have accepted him as President. I wouldn't have been happy about it but I would have had no problems with it (although I'd want to abolish the electoral college before the next Presidential election).
But Bush's actions to *prevent* any recounts just strikes me as totally dishonest. Especially since this is a state where his brother is governor - where (acknowledged and illegal) irregularities have occurred (Seminole/Martin counties) - and on and on.
I will *not* accept Bush if he *wins* this way. If he wins by recount - fine. Otherwise - no.
posted on December 9, 2000 01:48:57 PM new
I notice that David Boise inferred that he wouldn't be the attorney arguing the case on Monday. Wonder why...
posted on December 9, 2000 01:51:44 PM new"I will *not* accept Bush if he *wins* this way. If he wins by recount - fine."
So if the recount was done by hand by a team of Bush supporters would you accept that?
My objection to the manual recount is humans are involved. The machine recounts weren't judgmental, they weren't biased, they were fair. In Broward county when they had the manual recount, they'd look at the ballot, 2 of the democratic members said "Vote for Gore", the republican member said "I don't see a vote". The result, they put it in the pile of Gore votes. Machines don't work that way, it's a vote for Gore or Bush or neither, no thought process, no biased judgement.
posted on December 9, 2000 01:54:04 PM new
Hi barbarake! I understand how close the election is/was. This is a time in our history that will never be forgotten. The issues will be discussed and debated for years to come.
I guess what I have the most trouble with is that the hand counts were not done 'within the law' of the state of Florida. By that I mean that when the Florida Supreme extended the time frame for these to be recounted, that seemed to go outside the current law.
I also have a HUGE problem with 67 Florida counties (or the 3-4 counties that initally were doing so) using different 'guidelines' to recount these ballots. There seems to be no 'standard' rule to follow. Just ordered to follow "the intent of the voter". That's too subjective for me. Personally, I would feel a lot better about a whole state recount that was conducted under the same guidelines.
I saw some of the recounting on TV and I have a very hard time with people guessing the intent of any vote. Any
posted on December 9, 2000 01:57:53 PM new
Linda_K - people are upset about the High Court Stopping the counts until they can hear the case. Because the counts themselves do nothing to hurt Bush. They do however let the American people see that this election in this State has been tainted. Infact the whole States's vote is so tainted that I hope the Florida Democrats just send their own slate to the college and let it get sorted out in congress.
The Bush Team makes you feel that their is something buried in these undercounts that they don't want the American people to see. And that is what scares me. I am reading some election stats from Miami-Dade, are you aware that the 9000 under votes represents almost 10% of the votes cast. A statistician can except a 1% to 2% margin but a margin of 10% signals something is very wrong.
So they will hear arguments and they will see that the Florida Supreme Court although very liberal in the ruling this time interpretted the law and not rewrote the law. On another note we see that idiot Clarence Thomas for the first time since arriving on the bench actually voted the opposite of Souter. He would choose to change his way of doing things the one time he should follow the man. Maybe he wanted to spite his fellow African Americans who always jump on that aspect of his sitting on the court todate. And to think we are stuck with this clown for life.
posted on December 9, 2000 02:01:15 PM new
Unbeleivable...
All I can say is, that being a strong Gore supporter, I hope that he concedes immediately.
That moron Bush has proved beyond any doubt that HE KNOWS he lost the election, and that is why he will have absolutely no part of a recount.
Alls I can say is, he will be a cripple in the White House, and destroy the economy, and ensure another 8 years of prosperity with a Democratic president in 2004.
That is, unless he can fix the election again.
Stand down Mr. Vice President, and let this beef jerkey eating daddy's boy and his cheating, lying, coniving corrupt family have their last hurrah.
After this, it will be unemployment for the whole screwed up bunch.
Maybe he can even get his dad to help him start a war to try and gain support?
Just a thought, since his morbid ole' man tried it.
I am so fed up with the way that Bush has communisted this election, that I want to leave this country that I love for the next 4 years.
At least in other communist countries they are upfront about the fix being in.
posted on December 9, 2000 02:14:51 PM new
Bush won...it was close.
Florida had a mandated recount because of the closeness of the election. Bush won. That should have been that. And it was, until...
Telemarketers, on behalf of the Dems, called many folks in Palm Beach County to ask if they were confused by the butterfly ballot. What a surprise...they were. A PR masterpiece.
The Dems said the butterfly ballot was illegal. This got Gore's foot in the door to begin campaigning for a hand recount.
Palm Beach County predicted 1,900 votes for Gore if a hand recount were instituted. It was...Gore actually gained a little over 200 votes.
What a surprise...the butterfly ballot was not illegal. We find that out just a little late. Gore is in full swing with the "count every vote" slogan. He turns out not to consider military votes as equally valid.
Every county has it's own idea of a legal ballot. Broward, where Gore gained the most, had an interesting view of a legal vote. They decided a dimple was a vote...and they were counted as such. Yet, where there was both a dimple and a clearly punched chad...it was not considered an overvote. Nope. The punch was now a vote...the dimple wasn't. Not good.
Skip ahead to the 25,000 votes Gore would have dearly loved to dump. In fact, in his news conference, he cheered on the lawsuits against the evildoers that altered the ballot applications while reminding viewers (3 times) that he had no part in those suits. Uh huh. I have to stop here. The litany of expedient and consistantly self-righteous and self-serving obfuscation apparently has no end in sight.
Gore insults the American public by assuming that we are truly so stupid as to fall for this transparent spinning.
I voted for neither of these men, thank heaven. I surely don't care for Bush. I finally do have to say I find Gore's behavior in all this...despicable. He richly deserves the next 4 years, should he win.
Personally, I would feel a lot better about a whole state recount that was conducted under the same guidelines.
I agree with you 100%. So - instead of stopping the recount and effectively throwing the election to Bush because of time constraints - why not just set up guidelines? Seems fair to me.
Actually, I wouldn't have had such a problem with the whole thing if the (US) Supreme Court met this afternoon or tomorrow (Sunday) to hear arguments (and hopefully make a decision ASAP). But Monday is the 11th. Even if the Supreme Court says 'go ahead and recount', there's simply not enough time (unless they extend the deadline from the 12th to whatever, which I don't know if they're allowed to do).
In any case, Bush is finished. He obviously doesn't want to see any recounts because he knows that they'll swing the election to Gore. But why does he think that? It's by no means certain - 25,000 (of the 43,000) 'undervotes' came from counties that BUSH won. Statistically, you would think that he should get more of these 'undervotes'. Yet every recount keeps coming up with add'l Gore votes. Hmmm.
posted on December 9, 2000 02:22:00 PM new
Now, now, folks, calm down. This thing has to be decided one way or the other. Personally, I'd rather see it left up to the US Supreme Court than the Florida Legislature. It's the way our system works, and while I don't know the ultimate outcome, and I'm not going to like it if the Supreme Court forbids a manual recount, I will accept it. It's the highest Court, and whichever way they decide, it should finalize this thing.
I do agree that Bush seems terribly afraid of a recount, and I have to point out to uaru, that in fact, a human count is much more accurate than a machine count. The IBM people, and the companies that manufacture the vote count machines will tell you that, and in fact they have. I understand what you are saying about standards, and to a large degree I agree with you. I do think the standard for counting the votes should be uniform from county to county. But I believe that a manual recount, even setting aside "pregnant", "dimpled", or "hanging" chads will show alot of Gore votes that weren't accurately counted. I also agree with Networker that something just isn't right in that state. The more the Bush people protest and try to block the recount, the more they look like they are involved in something unsavory, and this is what is going to remain in people's minds, even if Bush ultimately wins out.
posted on December 9, 2000 02:31:31 PM newHello networker - You feel the votes are tainted, others feel differently. I feel guessing at voter intent is too subjective and leaves the election open for wrong doing....by either side.
On the issue of Bush being afraid of the recount, I just don't happen to agree. I think he's behaving like any politician would when he was declared the one who won. I believe he is asking for/fighting for his 'declared win' and is within his rights to do so. I honestly believe that Gore would be doing exactly the same thing had he been declared the winner. (If this was totally reversed.)
I would prefer that since the votes were done by machine, the machines read them. Right or wrong, they discard them equally. I agree, Florida needs to look into the reasons the throw-away votes were so high in numbers. But not changing the law during or after an election is more important to me.
I don't blame Gore's team for asking for a recount since the vote was so close. Yes, Bush probably would have too. I just would like to see the laws followed.
Ponoco Good to see you posting here again. I'd like to share that I have thought the exact same thing about both canidates. I've thought, well if Gore wins (through the recount) people will not have Bush to blame for the currently (under Clinton) changing economy. Things aren't now doing as well as they were. If Bush wins, we'll have to listen to all the blame being placed on him...how we won the election unfairly....and telling people this wouldn't have happened if Gore had won.
If both parties had offered someone strong for it's parties selection, we wouldn't be in this mess. We'd have had a landslide election. Both parties giving us weak canidates, a lot of people chose the 'lesser of two evils'. Not a way we should chose a president.
posted on December 9, 2000 02:34:16 PM newI have to point out to uaru, that in fact, a human count is much more accurate than a machine count
A machine will not spend time making a judgement call, it will not try and determine the intent, it only registers actually votes. The machine is fair.
posted on December 9, 2000 02:43:39 PM new
barbarake - "So - instead of stopping the recount and effectively throwing the election to Bush because of time constraints - why not just set up guidelines? Seems fair to me."
Well, for me I think we must first find out if doing this is in line with current state and federal laws.
We don't know how the US Supreme court will decide, although, agreed it doesn't look good for Gore. But I have to believe that the US Supreme court has the Nations best interest at heart, before either of these politicians.
posted on December 9, 2000 02:50:29 PM new
"The machine is fair". It must be. After all, George and Abe depended on it being so. So did Franklin, and Dwight.
posted on December 9, 2000 02:54:16 PM new
If the complaints that some people have is that there are no guidelines, then why not set up some guidelines instead of (in effect) throwing the election to Bush because of time constraints.
So does this seem *fair* to you?
Linda_K - Well, for me I think we must first find out if doing this is in line with current state and federal laws
So are you saying that you would prefer *legal* over *fair*? Or don't you agree that simply setting uniform guidelines is fair? If so, why not?
posted on December 9, 2000 03:00:17 PM newkrs"The machine is fair". It must be. After all, George and Abe depended on it being so.
There is a rumor around that George and Abe weren't elected with punch card ballots. If you watched the news when Broward and Palm Beach county were looking for the voters intent and saw a non subjective process then I must have had my set turned to a different channel.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:01:26 PM new
krs - If the counties (or states) don't think these machines give a 'fair' count, then why are they using them? States are aware of the error (throw-away) votes and the regular margins of error.
Why aren't we all (the whole US) using the paper votes? (I have no knowledge how they did it in Abe's day.) They are the most reliable, as the voters true intent can easily be seen. And then with the people who chose not to vote for any president (left it blank) that could honestly be seen as their 'true intent'.
There probably will be many changes in the counties (states) since all this has happened. So, maybe a little good will come from this mess.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:04:21 PM new
The same defects that existed when the Supreme Court of the US RETURNED the case to the Supreme Court of Florida STILL exist after the most recent decision.
The US Supreme court gave the Floridians time and guidance to figure it out. They did not (somewhat based on David Boies WITHOLDING information regarding germane case law from the FLA Supremes). Fortunately the dissenters of the FLA Supreme court knew exactly what Mr. Boies failed to inform the court of.
I suspect that may be WHY Mr.Boies is not arguing in front of the Supreme Court of the US. A material witness perhaps?
posted on December 9, 2000 03:07:46 PM new
Linda_k - I agree that ambiguous language the voters intent is way too subjective. But that language is the law in Florida. I find it ironic that the law was actually changed to that in 1999. So if you buy into the conspiracy theory which I don't but find it interesting at times maybe the law was changed in 1999 in anticipation of this event. Let's get real here both parties knew last year that the election would come down to Florida. Now how they knew that is beyond me.
And discussing this thing with my father. He has another reason why Gore lost. And this same reason is why the US Supreme stepped in. I find it controversial and it says a lot about some Americans. But when I think about it dad might have it 100% right. Due to other posts on this same subject I won't go into detail let's just say that the Bible belt of America wasn't too happy with his choice as Vice President. Especially the folks in his native Tennessee. If he had of carried his own State we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
I find it insulting that Bible thumpers can't get past and acknowledge Separation of Church and State. But that goes to show you the ignorance of the pulpit in America.
