posted on December 20, 2000 10:18:10 PM
While this will only stir the pot concerning who really won the Presidency it does serve to illustrate that optically scanned ballots are just as likely to be spoiled as punch card ballots.
posted on December 20, 2000 10:43:50 PM
I doubt Bush is concerned that he will have to vacate the Presidency.
If you are going to be AW's cyber reporter, you should know that the media is bias and reports in a bias manner, obligating you to include (all) relevant, but excluded, information. In an interview with one of the person's involved in the belated count, he admitted that the standards being used were loose and varied among the individual counters. Not just the counties, but the individual counters.
Also, it was reported,
"The review found 376 discarded ballots in Lake County that were clearly intended for Gore: In each case, an oval next to his name was filled in with a pencil and the voter mistakenly filled another oval next to a spot reserved for write-in candidates, writing Gore's name in there as well. HAD ALL SUCH BALLOTS BEEN COUNTED, THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN A NET GAIN OF 130 BALLOTS FOR GORE."
What part of "spoiled ballot" do they not understand?
"Another 246 such ballots showing clear votes for Bush were thrown out."
posted on December 20, 2000 10:59:06 PMIf you are going to be AW's cyber reporter, you should know that the media is bias and reports in a bias manner, obligating you to include....
Is this addressing me, or the topic? If me, I must say that there is a little flaw in your "instruction". That flaw is that if I were a "cyber reporter" or any kind of reporter in fact, then wouldn't I be included as part of the media which reports in a biased manner and then certainly not under any odd obligation that you might envision?
Maybe if you stuck to topics you could avoid such embarrassing oversights?
posted on December 20, 2000 11:11:13 PM
Unless your access to the various (pro/con) reports regarding this particular topic is not as great as it is for most of us, you (are) being bias and misleading with your posted info or links.
posted on December 20, 2000 11:26:38 PM
"spoiled ballots" for Gore, GOP illegally entering information onto absentee ballots -- most of which were not post-marked and there was no proof that any had ever been mail in the first placew. Stinks of ballot-box stuffing.
You see, it doesn't matter how illegal, unethical, or immoral Republicans are -- they just keep on babbling about how much more "moral" they are thn anybody else. Twisted minds think alike.
posted on December 20, 2000 11:33:38 PM
Borillar the Republican workers didn't enter illegal information on the ballots
they entered the registration #'s of the voters on the absentee request application.
I do believe this whole thing is over, and we really should see what happens in the next four years.
posted on December 20, 2000 11:40:57 PMIf you are going to be AW's cyber reporter, you should know that the media is bias and reports in a bias manner, obligating you to include (all) relevant, but excluded, information.
stg. mike,
I agree your remarks. However those standards wouldn't apply to someone that was bucking for the title "Minister of Propaganda".
Gore had 130 more in Lake Co.Fl.
That title has much better impact than the total story. Gore favored by more voters that were unable to follow directions
posted on December 21, 2000 12:02:59 AMNearTheSea: if you don't give all parties equal treatment when it comes to voting, you may as well call it ballot box stuffing.
And, you may recall, that there was quite a deal made out about absentee ballots being counted that had no postmark. No postmark means that anyone could have filled out a stack of them and slipped them in under the office door. How would a registered voter overseas who didn't vote ever know that their vote had been made for them? Also too, that only republican absentee ballots without a postmark were counted -- democratic ones were tossed in the unuseable pile. More ballot box stuffing. Immoral. Unethical. Theft of an election.
Look forward instead to the next four years? I am. With the GOP and the Bush camp all so willing to overthrow democracy even BEFORE Bush gets into the White House, what we can expect from the next four years is pretty clear to anyone with their eyes open.
posted on December 21, 2000 12:27:43 AM
Borillar, There's that, but what sort of a leader is it that predicts an economic recession and a fuel crisis even before he is the president? Wouldn't a leader be a bit more optimistic about his approach to such problems?
Or are they problems? If there's a recession the valuation of the dollar would decline. So how about defaulting on national debts because there is no ability to pay them? Defaulting loans is old hat to the incoming president.
So too are the advantages of fuel shortages to an old failure in the Texas oil fields. Make a shortage so the government will bail you out. Sort of a daddy will fix it way of operating.
Who has time to worry over all of the people who either can't pay or will pay extravagant amounts to heat their homes this winter? There's agovernment to run.
Kinda' like a new train set for Dubya.
posted on December 21, 2000 06:19:09 AM
Well, I am interested in a final vote tally. And no, it's not going to change the fact that GW is going to be the next President. So what are the Republicans worried about? I'm reading editorials by Republican commentators and statements by Republican politicians that such a count by the media will only serve to "cast a pall over the legitimacy of Bush's Presidency". Well DUH! That "pall" was cast from the moment GW went to court to stop the ballots from being accurately counted. The ballots that krs referenced above were from a "republican" county, which was never involved in the recount litigation to begin with. There are approximately 6 or so news organizations involved in examining Florida's cast ballots, as well as Judicial Watch, the conservative organization responsible for such nuggets as Paula Jones, Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. Wonder what THEIR spin will be on it? And for the record, these 130 ballots were ballots where Al Gore was marked for presidency, and then again Al Gore written in under the "write-in" candidate. I'm pretty sure that these would have met Florida's "Clear intent of the voter" statute, seeing as how the voters seemed to go out of their way to indicate that they were voting for Al Gore by marking the spot by his name, and then writing it in . Sure looks like they wanted no misunderstanding about WHO they were voting for. But then again, being from a Republican county, perhaps they knew how "things worked" in Jeb Country.
Experience in watching Larry Clayman of Judicial Watch in action tells me it will be in favor of Bush and the spin will be a doozy. I am sure you have heard the saying, "he would sue his own mother?" Well, he did/is. I don't know the outcome of the trial.
posted on December 21, 2000 07:23:36 AM
krs said, "but what sort of a leader is it that predicts an economic recession and a fuel crisis even before he is the president?"
Predicts??? I don't think he's predicting anything. He's looking at a problem that is facing us, as a nation and his presidency) and trying to find ways to avoid it. I think most economists have seen this coming for quite a while now, even Greenspan said he didn't think the economy would fall so quickly. Greenspan himself said that maybe he acted too quickly in raising the interest rates when he did.
Since I too am watching to see how Bush handles our nations problems, I was pleased to hear him (on FNC) say that one of the issues he feels must be dealt with right away is avoiding a recession. (Two quarters of a down turn in the econony.)
Then on predicting the fuel crisis. Who needs to predict? Krs, this didn't just start. Give the guy a break. Our gas prices here have gone from $.99 a gallon to $1.50 - $1.60 in about a year and a half. NOT under Bush's presidency.....under Clintons. So I ask, what were the democrats who've been in power for the last 8 years doing about it for the last year and a half?
I think we need to give him a chance, maybe avoiding a recession can be accomplished if acted on immediately.
posted on December 21, 2000 07:39:07 AMI think we need to give him a chance, maybe avoiding a recession can be accomplished if acted on immediately.
Avoiding a recession? HAH! It's already here. And neither here nor there, but Greenspan is no fan of GW.
Where I live gas is at $2.09/gal. We're in such an energy crisis, that rolling blackouts are predicted this weekend if FERC doesn't approve rate hikes for the energy distributors who are being extorted by the energy suppliers, who by the way have posted all time high profits for this last quarter, which incidentally followed the implementation of "deregulation" of energy in our state. Even more interesting, GW is a big fan of deregulation (he learned well from Reagan and his dad), and of course his major campaign contributors were power companies who pushed for said deregulation. And of course Bush's wealth (and Cheney's) derives from oil. Oh yeah, we're really going to get some relief from ol Dubya. NOT! He's got some outstanding "debt" to repay, and unfortunately it aint gonna come out of HIS pocket, but mine (and yours).
posted on December 21, 2000 07:44:40 AM
Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. (Taken from 'findlaw' site.)
Sure don't know how everyone reading this can 'see' it so differently.
posted on December 21, 2000 08:00:56 AMSeven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. And
the Supreme Court voted 7-2 that those votes should not be counted"
do not compute. The language of the Supreme Court opinion did indeed cite so-called Constitional issues in undertaking a recount. But it was addressing the methods and standards for the court ordered recount. And of course questioned the "remedy" in relation to the "time" question. But no, the US Supreme Court did not rule on the Lake County votes, and nowhere in it's opinion did the Supreme Court say "those votes should not be counted". A question of "semantics" yes, but then so is the Courts interpretation of the Constitution "equal protection" clause. This is what happens when the Court already knew what it's answer was going to be before the "question" was ever asked. And this "opinion" will come back to bite the Court in the ass. It's just a matter of time, and I can't wait.
I have always been under the impression that in order to BE IN a recession, the economy must have had negative growth for the last two quarters. That does not go with what you are saying. If you feel we're now in a recession, then this started 6 months ago, and certainly can't be blamed on Bush.
Guess what I'm trying to say here is that most of the posts that I see are blaming Bush for things he hasn't had any (or little) control over. Like the energy crisis. This came about under the Clinton administration. But you're blaming Bush for it? I just don't see how his agreeing with deregulation can cause him to right now - present time be blamed for it. That's what I mean in saying "give him a chance". I'm sure he'll make mistakes of his own, or do things we don't agree with, but blaming him for things he's not responsible for are what I'm talking about.
As far as Greenspan not liking Bush...don't really think that matters. Greenspan has his own reputation to protect, and is more influential in making our economic decisions that any president has been so far.
posted on December 21, 2000 08:15:01 AM
krs - bye? Is that because if anyone 'reads' or 'sees' things differently than you do, they are putting a 'spin' on the issue? We all see things from our own perspective. While I don't agree with yours, I don't think that makes me a 'spinner'. Not changing the facts, just interpreting the words and statements differently than you do.
posted on December 21, 2000 08:15:27 AM
Oh, I never blamed GW for our current economic woes, and yes I call it a recession, which speaking of "semantics", in the "old" days (say 1920's or thereabouts) would have been called a depression. We're just at the beginning of it. And yes, I do think a large portion of blame goes to the Republican Party for it, which I won't go into right now, but can be summed up in the words Corporate Greed. As for Bush, I will refer to the adage "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". And IMHO, GW is not part of the solution, ergo he is ....
KatyD
(ubbbbuh!)
[ edited by KatyD on Dec 21, 2000 08:17 AM ]
posted on December 21, 2000 08:21:03 AM
But getting back to the topic of this thread, do you feel the Florida votes should not be looked at by the news organizations, Linda?
posted on December 21, 2000 08:26:43 AM
krs - "Do you read stock market reports? Retail sales reports? Any reports? The economy is falling apart right now, Linda, and it was not a month ago."
Yes, I do krs. This downturn started last October on the stocks we own (mainly the technology ones) and has been getting worse each month.
But my point is, we can't lay this at Bush's doorstep. He will have to handle the result of the whole economy, which IS now in a very steep slide. But he is inheriting it, he has not caused it. That's the point I'm trying to make.
posted on December 21, 2000 08:48:29 AM
I wonder how many of those spoiled ballots were the result of people thinking they could make their vote count twice?
I suggest that anyone truly concerned with the irregularities that surfaced in this election spend the next four years working to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
How about advocating the change of the Presidential election fund writeoff on the tax form to a fund to standardize election procedures acros the entire country?
How about advocating a ballot validation procedure at every polling place? After you complete your ballot you run it through the validating machine and the machine indicates whether you have spoiled the ballot or have undervoted for any national or statewide office?
posted on December 21, 2000 08:49:34 AM
KatyD - If you do feel the Republicians are to blame for the current down-slide, then I guess we just need to agree to disagree about that.
What I'm just not understanding about your statement is how you get from enjoying great economics under Clinton to the current down-slide being the Republicans fault. How then were we able to enjoy the good economic times under Clinton? Seems like if what you're sharing were true...the problems the Republicans started wouldn't have allowed the good times under Clinton either.
Now, on the subject of the invalid-voter error-rejected by the machines-etc.... (IMO) votes being rejected....I don't care who counts them or how the count turns out. Bush is our next president. No matter how the counts go. If the counters are baised one way or the other to their parties, then the count will show that. My thought is that there never should have been a recount in the first place.
This subject has been picked to death. Your feeling one way, me feeling the other is going to do anything except create hard feelings. As we see by the many threads that have been posted here, no one is going to change the way anyone thinks/feels about how this was handled.
posted on December 21, 2000 09:06:00 AM
Coda - Great suggestions you made there.
I think this mess, we had with the votes in Florida, could have happened in any of the states where the vote was so close.
I do hope you are right and that there will be many changes in way all elections are handled. This certainly has been an eye opening experience for our nation as a whole.
posted on December 21, 2000 09:18:37 AM
Back in the 80's when Carter lost to Reagan---there was the release of the POW's from Vietnam. Even though all the negotiations were done with Carter and his adminsistration--the man waiting on the Airport tarmac was Reagan.
So if a new adminsitration can lay claim to the good, it has to lay claim to the bad and not whine and pass the buck by saying "It's not my fault, I wasn't here"
Bush will have to play with the hand that was dealt to him because in the long run it will be 'HIS' economy--nobody else's
[ edited by Zazzie on Dec 21, 2000 09:27 AM ]
posted on December 21, 2000 09:52:56 AMI don't care who counts them or how the count turns out. Bush is our next president. No matter how the counts go. If the counters are baised one way or the other to their parties, then the count will show that. My thought is that there never should have been a recount in the first place.
No one here is saying that Bush ISN'T the next President. My question had to do with what "harm" looking at the actual ballots in the light of day will do? The truth is going to come out, as it should. It appears that you believe that the news media has some "bias" reflected in the method in which they are looking at the ballots cast. Seems like your mind is made up. Personally, I would like to know WHO DID get the popular vote in Florida, but small details like that don't seem to bother you, because the Supreme Court has ordained that Bush is to be our next President. Life is so easy when our choices are made for us.
