John Kerry and his dead horse

[Rojo]

on the other hand they are unable to construct a machine which is able to correctly count the votes of an election

Not unable, just unwilling.

And this is intransigence is one of the bigger threads in the great unraveling, so I don't expect change anytime soon.

[GAC]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

Al Gore would have won in Florida in 2000 if the Supreme Court had allowed the recount.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html

A document, revealed by Newsweek, indicates that the Florida recount that was stopped last year by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court would have taken into account so-called “overvotes” that heavily favored Gore.

If those “overvotes” were counted, as now it appears they would have been, Gore would have carried Florida regardless of what standard of chad – dimpled, hanging, punched-through – was used in counting the so-called “undervotes,” according to an examination of those ballots by a group of leading news organizations.
...
The “overvotes” in which voters marked the name of their choice and also wrote in his name would be even more clearly legal votes than the so-called “undervotes” which were kicked out for failing to register a choice that could be read by voting machines.

What is an overvote RF?

Basically, ballots which machines read as having marks for more than one candidate. State law, at least in Florida, says that a vote would be invalidated if a voter marked a ballot more than once in a contest. That meant if a voter punched out a chad for a candidate and then wrote in the candidate's name or circled the name on the ballot, for example, it would be labeled an overvote and rejected -- never to be seen again, even in a manual recount.

That's the law.

Here's examples of Florida ballots from the 2000 election where both candidates may have lost votes due to overvotes....





George W. Bush and Al Gore both lost votes when people put extra marks on their ballots.

The problem could have been avoided if these voters had asked for a new ballot. They have signs/directions right in the polling booths and on the ballots that tell voters this very fact...if you mismark or make an error...return the ballot and get another one from the poll worker... no problem.

And what really astounded me is that the districts in Florida where they hasd these problems were Democratically controlled districts. They said people left the polling place confused and not sure who they voted for? Whose fault is that? How about that local board of elections who chose the type of ballots to be used, and the system implemented?

RF... I'm not denying that there were problems in Florida (or anywhere else for that matter). And as I stated earlier, they need to establish a more uniform and modernized system. Each state is left on their own, and the guidelines are so wide for interpretation. But I don't think any system is gonna be fail proof.

The 2000 election was an abberation IMO. Its not something we experience very often. And in such tight contests, both sides were maneuvering and trying to manipulate the system, as well as the law, in order to give their side an advantage. And there was strong evidence of that in that election.

Repubs did it... and so did Dems. It's sad, and it's wrong. But neither side cares about this "every vote counts" rhetoric when it comes down to their side wining or losing. And that is the bottomline.

And I do not believe that political party can say they take the "high road" when it comes to winning and accruing power.

Now I am no lawyer, so I'll leave it to the lawyers on her to correct me if I am wrong. But didn't the Supreme Court ruling basically say that to only have a recount in certain counties in Florida and not in the entire state was unconstitutional, and when one cannot "divine" voter intent when that intent is not evident?

Some of you lawyers weigh in on this.

[Redsfaithful]

State law, at least in Florida, says that a vote would be invalidated if a voter marked a ballot more than once in a contest.

Right, but if the supreme court had ruled the opposite way in Bush vs. Gore then the overvotes would have been counted. And from what I've read that would have been a rather large help to Gore.

[Redsfaithful]

But neither side cares about this "every vote counts" rhetoric when it comes down to their side wining or losing.

They should. That's what the electoral reform crowd is trying to say, but too often we get shouted down by people that just think it's all about sour grapes. I believe the US can do a much better job with it's elections, and hopefully that'll happen. It benefits everyone.

[CbusRed]

Ive been an advocate of an intelligence test in order to vote, for some time now actually. But I never brought it up for fear of being lambasted by liberals.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by CbusRed

Ive been an advocate of an intelligence test in order to vote, for some time now actually. But I never brought it up for fear of being lambasted by liberals.

I am sure you know by now that I am not liberal, Cbus... and I am not planning on lambasting you!

This country was founded on "all men are created equal". It hasn't always been true in this country since that was written by the founding fathers, but I think all people should be allowed to vote. I don't believe felons can vote, which I am okay with, but I think all others should vote. I firmly believe that the U.S. normally will not have results that are decided by those with less intelligence (I am asking for witty comments w/ that remark!). Now an intelligence test at the Driver's Bureau would be just fine with me... they are operating a deadly machine.

The real "unintelligents" are those who do not vote IMO!

[zombie-a-go-go]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

The real "unintelligents" are those who do not vote IMO!

I think we can all agree with that. :gac:

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by CbusRed

Ive been an advocate of an intelligence test in order to vote

Good luck getting those folks who don't pass your intelligence test to pay their taxes. Ever hear of 'taxation without representation'?

[CbusRed]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

Good luck getting those folks who don't pass your intelligence test to pay their taxes. Ever hear of 'taxation without representation'?

If they fail the test, then they dont get to vote, AND they have to pay more taxes. It's a stupid tax. And if they dont pay their taxes, then they get their TV's and radios taken away. And then if they dont like that? They can move to Canada. :MandJ: Maybe that will motivate people to get educated on the issues and not piss away their vote because some whale from Michigan (who oddly enough is registered to vote in D.C. also) told them to.





of course, im kidding, you know.

[Dan]

About the Florida election, I heard it well put thusly:

If every person who went into a polling place that day had correctly expressed his or her desire, Gore would have been elected President.

BTW, there already IS a "stupid tax." It's called the State Lottery.

[GAC]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

Right, but if the supreme court had ruled the opposite way in Bush vs. Gore then the overvotes would have been counted. And from what I've read that would have been a rather large help to Gore.

I've read articles that have gone both ways. Some say Gore would have won, and others say it wouldn't have changed the results.

But the bottomline is that overvotes are invalid according to state law and are disqualified for very legitimate reasons.

So it is really a moot point to say that "so and so" would have won if they had counted overvotes when they are not counted.

Every state had at least 2% of their ballots disqualified as undervotes and overvotes. Some states had as much as 3%. Florida falls into that range.

As was the case in every state, there were numerous ballots in Florida that were disqualified because they were either improperly marked or too ambiguous to be deciphered by normal machine tabulation. 113,820 ballots throughout the entire state were disqualified as overvotes (voting for two Presidents). 61,190 were undervotes (not clearly selecting even one candidate.) The total number of disqualified ballots was 175,010, or 2.9% of the total ballots cast.

Respectfully RF... I don't fault Gore for trying to get manual recounts in only selected counties where it was heavily Democratic, and where his chances of overtaking Bush may have increased. The Repubs would have done the same thing. As I stated previously....when it comes to winning, neither side cares about this "every vote counts". It's basically whatever it takes to pull out a win.

And that is what bothered me when I kept hearing this chant from the Gore camp and Democrats that "every vote counts" and "disenfranchisement", when in fact, they weren't really concerned about every vote being counted or people being disenfranchised. Only those, in those districts that would help them.

And that is the truth.

16 counties had a higher rate of disqualified ballots than Palm Beach County. Even though Palm Beach County (where the butterfly ballot was used) was the primary location of protest and chaos, there were sixteen other counties who had a higher percentage of disqualified ballots. The Florida counties with the highest percentage of disqualified ballots were "Bush counties". Duval County had over 26,000 ballots invalidated, but Gore didn't seek recounts there.

And that is why the Supreme Court had to get involved, and was the basis behind their rendering. Why was the Florida Supreme Court only ordering recounts in certain counties when the counties Gore wanted the manual recounts were no higher (percentage-wise) then the other counties and on a national scale? Why not a recount in all the other counties also?

Ohio just did a manual recount in all of their counties for this election.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by Dan

About the Florida election, I heard it well put thusly:

If every person who went into a polling place that day had correctly expressed his or her desire, Gore would have been elected President.

So what you are saying is that someone or something asked every person who voted in Florida in 2000? And this someone or something also received 100% honest answers from all of those voters in Florida. I am curious to see the scientific data on this study.

Not trying to rip on you, Dan. But when comments like this are made by the media or an individual in the public eye and people believe it... where is the proof of such a thing? And how do you find out the true answer from all the voters in a big state like Florida? Or is this just a "comment" from a person or a partisan organization... with no real proof?

[WVRed]

How many times would the votes have to be "recounted" in order for Gore to win?(insert Republican wink here)