Join 3,439 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Hanging a dead chad . . .
April 4, 2001 4:28 AM   Subscribe

Hanging a dead chad . . . The Miami Herald has completed the recount of undervotes from all 67 counties in Florida. The findings? The Herald says it best: . . . under almost all scenarios, Bush still would have won. Indeed, in one of the great ironies of the bitter 2000 election, Bush's lead would have vanished only if the recount had been conducted under severely restrictive standards advocated by some Republicans. Go figure.
posted by iceberg273 (28 comments total)

 
Are we still talking about this?
posted by Su at 4:33 AM on April 4, 2001


I agree, let it go. See you in 4 years. Then we shall see if all the voting inconsistencies are straightened out.
posted by a3matrix at 4:37 AM on April 4, 2001


Are we still talking about this?
I agree, let it go. See you in 4 years. Then we shall see if all the voting inconsistencies are straightened out.

So you don't think that analyses like this can help to determine how the system broke down and how to proceed with these kind of controversies should they arise again? I think that research like this can tell us a lot about how not to conduct an election - especially about interesting things in human factors like what people do in the voting booth and the results of bad design (somewhat unrelated link). Now is a good time to start planning for 4 years from now (actually, 2 years for some seats in the house and senate) and these studies are probably giving us the clearest picture that we've ever had of what goes on in a polling booth. I think we got to the Florida recount problem because we've never really paid attention to how people behave while voting.

The preamble to the longest Mefi thread ever says it best (in a slightly different context): Is anyone holding a gun to your head [and] making you read anything on the web?
posted by iceberg273 at 5:08 AM on April 4, 2001


Wait a tick. Not to sound like a "Republican," but if these results showed Gore to be the winner (everyone say it with me) wouldn't we all be up in arms talking about it!

The answer is: you bet we would! There would be a discussion longer than a LA traffic jam about "Bush our Selected President" or how "Jeb stole the election" or what have you.

A good discussion is what MeFi is all about. And a good political discussion is even better. Why? Because we can't solve our nations problems here, but every one of us has an opportunity to work on the problem the minute we step away for our keyboards and engage the world around us.

So, let's not be too quick to forget that national nightmare that was the 2000 election. Regardless of your vote, or how you feel about our President, we must remember the frustration we all felt when the election took more than a day to decide.

Ultimately, we've got to encourage the lawmakers in D.C. (and Tallahassee) to pay for a better national voting system. Preferably it will run on Mac OS X or some flavor of Linux. ;-)

I really don't care, just as long as it works.
posted by hc at 5:47 AM on April 4, 2001


Wait until the NY Times-Post-WS Journal study is released. If it concludes the same, then "W" should be given some slack. But only then.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:05 AM on April 4, 2001


Actually, I take that back. No slack. The article's conclusion is not based on a recount of all 67 Florida counties. NO SLACK. NONE WHATSOEVER!!!!!
posted by ParisParamus at 6:15 AM on April 4, 2001


Actually, the analysis showed that if improperly discarded ballots had been considered, Gore would have come out on top. Other analyses of overvotes also showed Gore picking up votes. I still say let it go. Different counters will use different standards. Nothing can be done to change the result. Fix it by '04. Or '02.
posted by anapestic at 6:51 AM on April 4, 2001


The media recount seems to be making two things clear: The Peter Principle is alive and well in the American two-party system.
posted by rcade at 8:35 AM on April 4, 2001


Of course, this didn't address overvotes at all, like the 19,000 that were mysteriously cast for Pat Buchanan in a Democratic-leaning district. While legal recounts may reach different conclusions, it's clear that were it not for that fluke concentration of confused voters, Gore would have easily carried the state.

By the way, I think a3matrix was being sarcastic.
posted by dhartung at 9:10 AM on April 4, 2001


Of course, this didn't address overvotes at all
The National Opinion Research Center recount will include both over- and undervotes. It should be done soon. Then the statisticians will wade back into the fray (I'm taking a multivariate statistics course right now just in case :) ).

By the way, I think a3matrix was being sarcastic.
Upon second reading, I think you may be right. In which case I apologize for being brusque. I hadn't eaten breakfast yet. If only we had Semantic/Pragmatic Markup!
posted by iceberg273 at 9:20 AM on April 4, 2001


The main purpose of not forgetting is to remind the "President" that he was not elected by a majority of voters, even in Florida, and that radical departures from previous policy are unacceptable.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:31 AM on April 4, 2001


He who is in the White House has the mandate, as the first two months of the Bush Administration has made quite clear.

Your claim is Barbra Streisand anyway if you were a Clinton fan, as he only received 43 percent of the vote in 1992, and only 49.24 percent in 1996.
posted by aaron at 12:12 PM on April 4, 2001



I am fully confident that when all recounts are completed, it will become very clear that Pat Buchanan won the state of Florida and then this debate can die. =)

The sad part of all this is that I seriously doubt that this giant fiasco will actually bring about any change in how future elections are handled.
posted by bargle at 12:16 PM on April 4, 2001


He who is in the White House has the mandate, as the first two months of the Bush Administration has made quite clear.

Nah, they're trying to get their Christmas list finished before Strom or Jesse dies and they lose control of the Senate. The repubs have made it clear that they're not interested in sharing power, as if that were a surprise.

Of course, both major parties have subverted the Constitution and violate their oaths of office with impunity. They're fighting over who gets to have their hands on the wheel when the country rolls over that cliff ahead.

ps: BS? Aaron, you need to go to the AA, you're showing addictive behavior. Do try to meditate on your contradictions.
posted by retrofut at 12:39 PM on April 4, 2001


He who is in the White House has the mandate, as the first two months of the Bush Administration has made quite clear.

Nah, they're trying to get their Christmas list finished before Strom or Jesse dies and they lose control of the Senate. The repubs have made it clear that they're not interested in sharing power, as if that were a surprise.

Of course, both major parties have subverted the Constitution and violate their oaths of office with impunity. They're fighting over who gets to have their hands on the wheel when the country rolls over that cliff ahead.

ps: BS? Aaron, you need to go to the AA, you're showing addictive behavior. Do try to meditate on your contradictions.
posted by retrofut at 12:42 PM on April 4, 2001


He who is in the White House has the mandate, as the first two months of the Bush Administration has made quite clear.

Nah, they're trying to get their Christmas list finished before Strom or Jesse dies and they lose control of the Senate. The repubs have made it clear that they're not interested in sharing power, as if that were a surprise.

Of course, both major parties have subverted the Constitution and violate their oaths of office with impunity. They're fighting over who gets to have their hands on the wheel when the country rolls over that cliff ahead.

ps: BS? Aaron, you need to go to the AA, you're showing addictive behavior. Do try to meditate on your contradictions.
posted by retrofut at 12:44 PM on April 4, 2001


He who is in the White House has the mandate, as the first two months of the Bush Administration has made quite clear.

Nah, they're trying to get their Christmas list finished before Strom or Jesse dies and they lose control of the Senate. The repubs have made it clear that they're not interested in sharing power, as if that were a surprise.

Of course, both major parties have subverted the Constitution and violate their oaths of office with impunity. They're fighting over who gets to have their hands on the wheel when the country rolls over that cliff ahead.

ps: BS? Aaron, you need to go to the AA, you're showing addictive behavior. Do try to meditate on your contradictions.
posted by retrofut at 12:46 PM on April 4, 2001


How the hell did you manage to post the same comment 4 times?
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:56 PM on April 4, 2001


AIIIEEE! Desperate apologies! The posting kept timing out (lovely error message there) and I kept hitting the "Wait" button.

Apologies to all, I didn't mean to shout.
posted by retrofut at 12:57 PM on April 4, 2001


carpal tunnel.
posted by netbros at 1:11 PM on April 4, 2001


Nothing to see or look at here, people. I now have the current situation under control and in hand.
posted by RedundancyMan at 1:12 PM on April 4, 2001


I don't mean to quibble, RedundancyMan, but shouldn't you post that message twice?
posted by rcade at 11:16 PM on April 4, 2001


rcade, you are absolutely completely correct. I was contemplatively thinking this very thought as I fell asleep and dozed off last night in the Redundant-Underground-Cave.
posted by RedundancyMan at 7:07 AM on April 5, 2001


rcade, you are absolutely completely correct. I was contemplatively thinking this very thought as I fell asleep and dozed off last night in the Redundant-Underground-Cave.
posted by RedundancyMan at 7:07 AM on April 5, 2001


Redundancy is only funny if it's worded differently each time. I think you should have written the second post in a different way in order to increase the hilarity. Essentially, it would have been funnier if you'd changed the way you said the same thing repeatedly twice.
posted by daveadams at 11:36 AM on April 5, 2001


The original post that started this thread is, of course, incorrect. The Miami Herald has NOT completed a recount of undervotes from all 67 counties in Florida, as even a cursory glance at the article in question would show anyone willing to read it. Nobody has completed a recount of all Florida counties.

The Herald has counted a big bunch of counties. Several remain uncounted. Tallying the counts, using reasonable standards, Gore has more votes in Florida than Bush, before, during, and after the Herald's count.

Gore wins by a substantial margin, if you're using loose standards (http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181), and Gore wins by a smaller margin if you're using tighter standards (http://unknownnews.diaryland.com/returns.html).

To anyone taking an honest look at the recounts, one thing is clear: Gore got more votes in Florida.
posted by swanson at 2:57 PM on April 5, 2001


But of course, by now, the media is so stupid, so superficial, and so Fox News Channel-y, that the true on the votes, especially the overvotes, may never get across to a large number of people. Or it will get across, but they are too stupid by now to care. Oy.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:30 PM on April 5, 2001


WHOOPS!! Just kidding, says the Miami Herald. I guess this won't receive nearly the attention of the other story, though, and lord knows I don't want to start a new thread about it.
posted by norm at 8:18 AM on April 6, 2001


« Older Human Rights Watch report on USA....  |  Clean and of things to come.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments