February 26, 2001

1:16 PM

Undervote Count Supports Bush Win I'd like to believe that this will put an end to the endless whining, but I'm not that much of an optimist...
posted by justkurt (35 comments total)

Several of us got into that discussion in an older thread.

The news doesn't prove that Bush won Florida, because the recount stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court was not confined to selected counties in South Florida.

However, it does show that Bush worked against his own interests by opposing recounts in South Florida. He could have given Gore the cherry-picked counties he wanted and ended the recount crisis weeks earlier.
posted by rcade at 1:22 PM on February 26, 2001

Alas, I know I will be jumped on for what I will say but hey that's ok. I pay taxes.
The vote count you cite is for one county and is not yet complete for the entire state. The final vote count will not not count those Black Americans turned away who wanted to vote but were not able to.I don't know if this would have changed things. I do believe that had Gore been ahead the Supremos would have allowed vote counting to continue.
The process had ended of course the day Bush was certified, and post season stuff does not count except to indicate how the highest court in the land, partisan one or the other way, can micromanage our nation. Remember when years ago separate but "equal" was ok for black schools?
posted by Postroad at 1:22 PM on February 26, 2001

I'd personally like it if we didn't talk about it all, much more specifically the whining, but you had to bring it up. I'll leave it at that.
posted by howa2396 at 1:32 PM on February 26, 2001

This article from MSNBC does a good job explaining why Gore's strategy would have worked against him even if the votes had been counted in the counties he wanted, but also why Gore probably could have won Florida if hw had tried to recount the entire state and not just 5 counties.

It also does a good job of explaining why today's news report (the link above) is virtually meaningless.
posted by cell divide at 1:40 PM on February 26, 2001

I don't understand the reluctance to discuss this - while the outcome has been determined, and is irrevocable, the issue itself warrants discussion.

For those who wish it would go away, I'm afraid you're going to have to get used to it. Richard Nixon is dead and gone, but the discussion of Watergate continues unabated.

The 2000 election will be just as (if not more) pervasive.


posted by aladfar at 1:46 PM on February 26, 2001

I suppose if my candidate had stolen an election, I'd want everyone to stop talking about it, too.
posted by jpoulos at 2:10 PM on February 26, 2001

Hee hee. "Stolen." Hee hee. That term's not working any more.
posted by aaron at 2:21 PM on February 26, 2001

Neither is the canard about Black Americans turned away at the polls. I'd give a kidney for the name of one who would be willing to testify to such under oath.
posted by Dreama at 2:26 PM on February 26, 2001

no matter that happens in these recounts, the margin of victory will still be less than the margin of error.

the margin of error gets even larger if you account for all the discrepancies and miscellaneous wrongdoing throughout the state.

why are we overlooking this issue? why were the words "margin of error" rarely uttered throughout the whole election rigmarole?
posted by ignu at 3:15 PM on February 26, 2001

Because we're attached to the myth about elections: instead of being a device for measuring a large aggregate of individual choices, we believe that there's some sort of mystical body politic--"the American people"--that's making a decision. It's the "we error" and it's hard not to commit--I did it above. See also: representative democracy.
posted by rodii at 3:21 PM on February 26, 2001

Good point Ignu. For me, it's interesting to look at the potential for corruption on both sides, however it is important to note that the election, for all intents and purposes was a tie. What happens in a democracy in case of a tie? In a healthy democracy, ties are decided by the courts, which is exactly what happened.

Now it's interesting to see if the court made their decision based on legal principal, or on politics, which they are supposed to be above.
posted by cell divide at 3:42 PM on February 26, 2001

"I don't understand the reluctance to discuss this - while the outcome has been determined, and is irrevocable, the issue itself warrants discussion.

For those who wish it would go away, I'm afraid you're going to have to get used to it. Richard Nixon is dead and gone, but the discussion of Watergate continues unabated. "

Well, I never said it isn't something to look back on in retrospect and realize how dumb we really are. Its just that right now I'm tired of hearing about recounts, pardons, sex scandals, etc. What the world needs now is Sienfeld to start a new sitcom. That would make it all better.

"I suppose if my candidate had stolen an election, I'd want everyone to stop talking about it, too."

I hope this wasn't in refrence to my desire not to talk about this issue any longer. I don't recall claiming a candidate at all, and I know I didn't put anything on metafilter about such nonsense.
posted by howa2396 at 5:13 PM on February 26, 2001

someone please correct me if i am remembering this wrong, but weren't there hundreds of blacks and other minorities in FL that signed sworn affidavits testifying to irregularities at and around the polls that they had either witnessed or experienced firsthand.

dreama, i'd say thats worth a kidney or two.
posted by saralovering at 6:40 PM on February 26, 2001

What I can't understand is why everybody is so stuck on Florida when the real problem is the electoral college.

Oh and this election was not a tie: Gore won by 540,000 votes.
posted by locombia at 6:52 PM on February 26, 2001

Oh and this election was not a tie: Gore won by 540,000 votes

Except that individuals don't vote for the President. Electors do. I know we've gone over this and I know you are opposed to the Electoral College, but that's how the system works now. The electors have all long since voted and Bush won. Feel free to try to change the Constitution, but this election was won by Bush, so please get over it.
posted by daveadams at 7:53 PM on February 26, 2001

What always strikes me about these discussions is how the pro-Bush side says things like, "We won. Stop talking about it," but not, "Our candidate won. Keep talking about it if you want, but we think you'll still ultimately find that he won."

One tends to be more convincing by being secure enough to invite further discussion, instead of phrasing arguments in terms of closing discussion.
posted by Joe Hutch at 8:52 PM on February 26, 2001

You're right.

[start robot voice]

I will accept the status quo, I will not question "the system" and I will get over my silly ideas about popular democracy.

[end robot voice]
posted by locombia at 8:53 PM on February 26, 2001

Funny this story gets played up big time, but a lot of other stories stating Gore led after recounts, like in the Palm Beach Post and Guardian, hardly get any play.

Regardless, Bush fought against state law forcing manual recounts in Florida, for state law forcing manual recounts in New Mexico. In the end, his party’s Supreme Court judges sided with him, re-writing laws as they went, then asking that no one should consider their ruling as precedent. No reason to question whether or not the system works for democracy. It clearly doesn’t. it works for political power players and the super-rich. This election is the elites’ shining moment for squelching particapatory democracy.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 9:31 PM on February 26, 2001

And another thing, damnit.

Ignu, this has to do with your statement.

Quoting from two sources.

The most striking fact about the election is that it was a statistical tie. It is highly unlikely that 100 million voters would divide 50-50 if some serious issues were at stake, though that would be the anticipated outcome if, say, people were asked to choose X or Y as president of Mars. About three-quarters of the population regarded the elections as largely a game played by powerful moneyed interests, party bosses and the public relations industry, which molded the candidates to act and speak in ways that would garner votes, so that it was impossible to believe the candidates even when they were intelligible. And that was rare. Most people were unable to determine the stand of the candidates on leading issues, and not for lack of interest or intelligence. More than half the population feels that it has little or no influence on government, surpassing previous peaks by far. This has been increasingly the case since the early Reagan years, and is a natural concomitant of the "neo-liberal policies" that are designed to undermine functioning democracy by shifting decision-making to an unaccountable private power, and to marginalize a good part of the population.

A second important fact is the disenfranchisement of a large part of the Democratic voting bloc by incarceration. This program, too, was initiated 20 years ago along with the "neo-liberal reforms." President Clinton and Vice President Gore have carried it further, adding about 600,000 new prisoners to the 1.4 million when they took office. Twenty years ago, the United States was similar to other industrial countries in locking up its population. By now, it is completely off the spectrum, and holds a world record (per capita) among countries that have meaningful statistics. The prisoners are disproportionately poor blacks and Hispanics, groups that vote heavily for Democrats. Under the harsh U.S. sentencing laws, not only are prisoners disenfranchised, but in many states (including Florida) so are released prisoners, permanently. The numbers are large. As Human Rights Watch and academic studies have pointed out, Florida and other swing states would have been won easily by Gore, and Congress would have been Democratic for years, if it were not for the disenfranchisement programs. These were pursued vigorously by Clinton and Gore, relying heavily on draconian laws of the Reagan-Bush era and the "war against drugs."

In these respects, too, the U.S. has departed sharply from the pattern of most other industrial societies in the past 20 years. The discrepancies reflect the more extreme commitment of Washington (and London) to a curious form of "neo-liberal fundamentalism." One should, incidentally, bear in mind that these policies are neither "new" nor "liberal." The advocacy of free markets follows the traditional dual pattern: market discipline for the poor and defenseless, while the rich and privilege rely for protection on the nanny state. These are important aspects of the election. The questions that have received such passionate attention - odd-shaped ballots, dimpled chads, and so on - are trivia of no significance.

Given a statistical tie with numerical differences that fall well within the expected 1-2 percent margin of error, the rational procedure would be to select a candidate at random; say, by flipping a coin. That would not do, however. The process must be conducted with appropriate solemnity, and a pretense that issues of grand significance are at stake. Educated elites have devoted great efforts to achieving this result, but with limited success among the general population, it appears.


posted by capt.crackpipe at 9:39 PM on February 26, 2001

... liberals should generally tread carefully when calling on the right to "stop trying to stifle debate." You're aligned with groups that think nothing of rational-discussion-killing actions when it suits them...

How do you know who I am aligned with? How do you know that I am a "liberal" (whatever that word means now!)?

First, people are trying to stop debate. Now, the "L word" is being dragged out to smear the dissidents. Can this get any sillier?

So what? Bush and Gore played the game by the rules...

"So what?" Is there something wrong with questioning and debating "the rules"? Last time I checked, the US was still a titular democracy where the people were supposed to have the power to change "the rules".
posted by locombia at 10:10 PM on February 26, 2001

Ah, damn it. Itals off.
posted by aaron at 10:19 PM on February 26, 2001

About three-quarters of the population regarded the elections as largely a game played by powerful moneyed interests, party bosses and the public relations industry, which molded the candidates to act and speak in ways that would garner votes, so that it was impossible to believe the candidates even when they were intelligible.

Wow. That's quite an assertion, that 75% of eligible American voters (I assume Chomsky means the segment of the population that can vote, not literally "the population," which would include minors) agree with that statement. I'd love to know where this tidbit comes from. I assume it's some type of poll. Do you happen to know? (No foul if you don't.)

I don't understand why Nader didn't do better if those beliefs (which Nader expressed more or less verbatim at every opportunity) are really shared by three quarters of the voting public. I mean, even with the corporate-owned media refusing to give him any substantive coverage, you'd think he'd have done better than 3%, given that so many basically agree with him.

Chomsky's entirely correct that the results are within the margin of error and that they are virtually indistinguishable from random selection. His suggestion of flipping a coin appeals to my perverse nature.
posted by kindall at 10:20 PM on February 26, 2001

Aaron, if you meant that comment for Joe then you should have made that clear. You specified a universal you earlier in the post and then it appeared that you were commenting on the other people in the thread who were on the other side of the issue than you.

Though I still must admit I don't see why you are trying to put limits on the topic. If you think this shouldn't be discussed, then maybe you would be happier if you didn't participate in threads on this topic?
posted by locombia at 10:34 PM on February 26, 2001

Aaron, the stories I was referring to have nothing to do with “conjecture.” They all had to do with actual recounts, not computer models. The fact that you apparently don’t know the stories I’m referring to serves my point rather well.

This is good review.

Kindall, if people feel disempowered, then they aren't going to vote. That is the most basic reason Nader didn't do better on his empowerment platform.

Chomsky didn't say 3/4 of the elecorate, he said 3/4 of the population. He was referring to Harvard's Vanishing Voter Project which tracks this sort of thing.

Basically, I see American democracy as a sham, and most people agree with me.

“Public opinion studies lend further credibility to the simplest model. Harvard’s Vanishing Voter Project has been monitoring attitudes through the presidential campaign. Its director, Thomas Patterson, reports that “Americans’ feeling of powerlessness has reached an alarming high,” with 53 percent responding “only a little” or “none” to the question: “How much influence do you think people like you have on what government does?” The previous peak, 30 years ago, was 41 percent. During the campaign, over 60 percent of regular voters regarded politics in America as “generally pretty disgusting.” In each weekly survey, more people found the campaign boring than exciting, by a margin of 48 percent to 28 percent in the final week. Three-fourths of the population regarded the whole process as largely a game played by large contributors (overwhelmingly corporations), party leaders, and the PR industry, which crafted candidates to say “almost anything to get themselves elected,” so that one could believe little that they said even when their stand on issues was intelligible. On almost all issues, citizens could not identify the stands of the candidates—not because they are stupid or not trying.

It is, then, not unreasonable to suppose that the simplest model is a pretty fair first approximation to the truth about the election, and that the country is being driven even more than before towards the condition described by former President Alfonso Lopez Michaelsen of Colombia, referring to his own country: a political system of power sharing by parties that are “two horses with the same owner.” Furthermore, that seems to be general popular understanding.”
posted by capt.crackpipe at 11:02 PM on February 26, 2001

"think for yourself. question authority."
- Tool, live performance

fro.morpheus.net


Im drunkagain, but its still how i feel.

Fro
http://www.casafidel.com


posted by howa2396 at 11:58 PM on February 26, 2001

Chomsky... said 3/4 of the population... referring to Harvard’s Vanishing Voter Project...

Thanks for that info. For others who might be interesting in tracking the discontent of the American electorate, their Web site is: http://www.vanishingvoter.org/.

I'm not so far I'd go so far as to say most people think American democracy is a sham. There are an awful lot of happy Republicans right now. My father, for instance, firmly believes that the system worked just fine. After all, the country is safely back in Republican hands after eight years under the control of a lying, dope-smoking draft dodger. Things are Right Again, and if the purpose of the system isn't to make things Right Again, what is? (Bleah. He and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, obviously.)
posted by kindall at 1:31 AM on February 27, 2001

According to the law, those messed-up ballots are all null and void, period.

There's nothing in Florida law that states a ballot is null and void if it can't be read by a counting machine. In North Florida, the canvassing boards in nine out of 12 largely Republican counties never counted votes the machines ignored in a recount, even though the law indicates that they should.
posted by rcade at 6:59 AM on February 27, 2001

Oh and this election was not a tie: Gore won by 540,000 votes.

Isn't that still statistically a tie? What's the margin of error for the total vote count?
posted by straight at 7:07 AM on February 27, 2001

I will accept the status quo, I will not question "the system" and I will get over my silly ideas about popular democracy.
Don't assume please. I used to be in favor of abolishing the electoral college, until I looked into it deeper, and changed my mind.
Just becoz one doesn't think something requires any change, doesn't mean one is brainwashed and steeped in tradition.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:55 AM on February 27, 2001

Isn't that still statistically a tie? What's the margin of error for the total vote count?

I don't know, but I'm sure that it's more than a quarter of a percent.
posted by drothgery at 8:43 AM on February 27, 2001

Just becoz one doesn't think something requires any change, doesn't mean one is brainwashed and steeped in tradition.

In fact, it usually requires a lot more insight to see why something should not be changed than it does to demand that it be changed.

It's a lot easier to criticize an existing system than it is to weigh the merits of the old and the new and determine which would be better.

I'm not aiming this point at any poster here, it's just something that occured to me when I read drothgery's comment.
posted by straight at 9:27 AM on February 27, 2001

I still stand by having an complete and accurate history of the Florida election scandal. It's not a matter of winners and sore losers--another vexing way in which some Republican supporters phrase it, as if the presidential election were a high school football game--but of learning the whole story of a remarkable event.

I don't know if this needs stating, but paying attention to minority concerns is in fact compatible (if that's the word) with rational discussion, and not every mention of race matters adds up to race-baiting. And, let's not be naive, demonizing occurs on both sides e.g. the Republican strategy of dubbing Gore a liar or Hillary Clinton as a "ruthlessly ambitious woman." It's brilliant (anti-)marketing, which the better organized Republican party has always been better at.
posted by Joe Hutch at 10:31 AM on February 27, 2001

[Joe Hutch] What always strikes me about these discussions is how the pro-Bush side says things like, "We won. Stop talking about it," but not, "Our candidate won. Keep talking about it if you want, but we think you'll still ultimately find that he won."

[locombia] [start robot voice] I will accept the status quo, I will not question "the system" and I will get over my silly ideas about popular democracy. [end robot voice]

[aaron has already addressed many of my points. I'm not sure if these comments were directed at me, but I feel compelled to respond to make my position clear. ]

First of all, I'm not "the pro-Bush side."

Secondly, the only thing that decides who the president is in this country is how the electors voted. Now, I watched the counting of those votes (by Al Gore) on C-SPAN, and it was pretty clear that George W Bush won. Do you dispute that?

My point was that Bush did win the election, so statements such as, "this election was not a tie: Gore won by 540,000 votes" are pointless.

If you want to argue that the vote in Florida was incorrectly counted or that some fraud was committed, then great, argue about that! Let's hear your point of view. Personally I don't know whether such claims have merit, but I'd love to hear it if you had some great evidence to share.

If you want to argue that the Electoral College is archaic, irrelevant, unjust, or just plain evil, I want to hear your arguments about that and whatever evidence you have for your case. What I don't want to hear is "Gore won! Ignore the EC!" because that kind of talk won't get us anywhere.

Ultimately, I think the big misunderstanding here is semantical. Some of locombia's statements came across as if he were denying the authority of the Electoral College. No matter how wrong the EC is, that's the system we use to elect a President. There's no point in saying "Gore won" or even "Gore should have won," although there might be a point in saying "Gore would have won if the system were more fair." Then argue about how to make the system fairer, not who should have won the 2000 election.
posted by daveadams at 10:33 AM on February 27, 2001