Join 3,557 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


In fact, 18 of the state's 67 counties never recounted the ballots at all. They simply checked their original results. To this day, more than 1.58 million votes have not been counted a second time.
June 1, 2001 5:02 AM   Subscribe

In fact, 18 of the state's 67 counties never recounted the ballots at all. They simply checked their original results. To this day, more than 1.58 million votes have not been counted a second time. Via New York's WEVD's Bill Mazer
posted by ParisParamus (103 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
"W" MUST Be neutralized. Then removed.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:05 AM on June 1, 2001


Paris, I detect a certain theme in your posts. Are you perhaps suggesting that the deluded, spend-o-cratic pinko queer-theorist liberal elite has got it in for Bush Jr?
posted by Mocata at 5:08 AM on June 1, 2001


Mocata: can't tell when you're being sarcastic. Please e-mail me a guide.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:12 AM on June 1, 2001


Surfeit of adjectives = probably sarcastic.
posted by Mocata at 5:16 AM on June 1, 2001


That article is replete with so many jaw-dropping errors it's hard to know where to start. My favorite is this, though: [Manatee supervisor Sweat] showed them the place on the pre-printed mailing labels that identified the voters' party identification. Contrary to standards of fairness, elections officials in Manatee and Okaloosa counties knew voters' political affiliation before deciding whether their votes would count.

posted by rcade at 5:17 AM on June 1, 2001


Manatee supervisor! Now there's a job.

[Dugong manager Sweat]...
posted by Mocata at 5:20 AM on June 1, 2001


Stop stepping all over my outrage about the election, Mocata. You're disenfranchising me.
posted by rcade at 5:23 AM on June 1, 2001


In fact, 18 of the state's 67 counties never recounted the ballots at all. They simply checked their original results. To this day, more than 1.58 million votes have not been counted a second time.

In other words, the Supreme Court was right. Florida is so fundamentally incapable of counting its votes correctly and fairly that any recount results would have been completely unreliable.

"W" MUST Be neutralized. Then removed.

"Neutralized"? Care to explain what that means? Do you have any concept of the laws in this country?
posted by aaron at 5:42 AM on June 1, 2001



aaron, chill buddy, I'm pretty sure Paris meant "neutered" not neutralized. Oh no, that was Clinton that should have been neutered. W is the one set for neutralizing. Commence neutralization. Disregard laws of this country. Disregard sarcasm on internet subdomains. Disregard any post henceforth that has to do with 2001 elections, Florida, or rabid Manimals terrorizing the populace on the Indian sub-continent.
posted by FPN at 5:52 AM on June 1, 2001


October 14, 2004 - Experts claim to possibly have what could reasonably be determined by some adopted standards a definitive vote count in the State of Florida. According to Dr. D. Apathy at the Institute of Misplaced Concern, "We've counted the votes so many times we have lost count. Therefore, with the conclusion of George W. Bush's term only months away, we have come to the aprehensive conclusion the he won the election."

When asked how his colleagues felt about their sacrifice of four years of quality life in pursuit of "the truth", Dr. Apathy responded with "I feel unnaturally hollow. I always thought that it would make a difference and people would care. Maybe I should have just concentrated my efforts on things that mattered."
posted by fluxcreative at 6:14 AM on June 1, 2001


'Nutrealized' does not necessarily refer to violence. At its core, it refers to taking someone else's offensive power away, and making the situation even (or nutreal) you might say.

Unfortunately, Bush will not be nutrealized by this: unless the errors can be tied to either Jeb Bush or the Bush campaign, even finding out that Gore really won the election is sort of pointless; most voters will still say 'well, this guys the President know, so we'll judge him on how he does.' Even as a Gore supporter, Id have to question whether it would be best for the country to 'switch Presidents' and put Gore in there right now.
posted by brucec at 7:37 AM on June 1, 2001


i don't like bush, and i'm really really happy that the democrats will be the majority party in the senate now, but i'll say this: i'd buy his daughters a beer. ;)
posted by moz at 8:00 AM on June 1, 2001


In other words, the Supreme Court was right. Florida is so fundamentally incapable of counting its votes correctly and fairly that any recount results would have been completely unreliable.

If Florida is fundamentally incapable of counting votes, how is it fair to award its electors to any candidate?

The conclusion I take from the 18 never-recounted Florida counties is that the state's top elected officials lacked the will to force the counties to follow the law, largely because they were afraid a recount would put Gore ahead. The Supreme Court should have corrected that, rather than accepting a final total from Florida that was bogus.
posted by rcade at 8:02 AM on June 1, 2001


i don't like bush, and i'm really really happy that the democrats will be the majority party in the senate now, but i'll say this: i'd buy his daughters a beer. ;)

Excuse me for being pedantic, but they are not the majority. In a 100 member body, 51 is the majority.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:03 AM on June 1, 2001


"Nutreal." What a great coinage. This country has been nutrealized -- the situation it's in is nuts, but it's nonetheless real.
posted by kindall at 8:04 AM on June 1, 2001


lj, you can be pedantic all you like, but it won't change the fact that the democrats are the majority for what counts: the senate majority leader, the leaders of committees, etc.

i suppose you're going to tell me that democrats also have scuffs on their shoes.
posted by moz at 8:08 AM on June 1, 2001


lj, you can be pedantic all you like, but it won't change the fact that the democrats are the majority for what counts: the senate majority leader, the leaders of committees, etc.

What I'll tell you is that they are bound by a power sharing agreement they made (Senate Resolution 8) that requires they share all committees with the other party until one party has a majority - which hasn't happened yet. That is, if the Democrats keep the agreements they make. I guess we'll see.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:15 AM on June 1, 2001


How stupid do you think the Democrats are, ljromanoff? There was a 49-48-1 Senate in the '50s and the party with 49 members made the rules and led the committees. That's what's going to happen here.
posted by rcade at 8:31 AM on June 1, 2001


How stupid do you think the Democrats are, ljromanoff?

You don't really want me to answer that, do you?

There was a 49-48-1 Senate in the '50s and the party with 49 members made the rules and led the committees. That's what's going to happen here.

There wasn't an explicit agreement in the '50s between the majority and minority leaders at the beginning of the term like there is now. Not the same situation - although I suspect it will be treated as such.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:39 AM on June 1, 2001


Actually, regardless of party affiliation, Jeffords is joining the democratic caucus, which does give the democrats a 51 - 49 majority, because it is the majority caucus that makes the rules, not any national party. The party affiliations are just convenient labels when comes to the parliamentiary rules governing the senate.
posted by trox at 8:55 AM on June 1, 2001


There wasn't an explicit agreement in the '50s between the majority and minority leaders at the beginning of the term like there is now. Not the same situation - although I suspect it will be treated as such.

Well, the Dems can just force a vote to abandon that power-sharing resolution, and win it 51-49. Simple.
posted by holgate at 9:01 AM on June 1, 2001


The Republicans had a good reason to agree to the power-sharing agreement: They had to get their new president off to a fast start and knew Thurmond's declining health put their majority at huge risk. The Democrats could have sat on their hands until they got what they wanted, knowing that the delay was only hurting Bush.

The Democrats have no reason at all to keep the power-sharing agreement.
posted by rcade at 9:06 AM on June 1, 2001


Actually, regardless of party affiliation, Jeffords is joining the democratic caucus, which does give the democrats a 51 - 49 majority, because it is the majority caucus that makes the rules, not any national party. The party affiliations are just convenient labels when comes to the parliamentiary rules governing the senate.

He is not joining the Democratic Caucus. The rule states 51 members, not 51 votes. Although I doubt the Republicans will press the point, they are not obligated to turn over any seats to the Democrats based on a resolution that the Democrats themselves wanted.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:12 AM on June 1, 2001


Well, the Dems can just force a vote to abandon that power-sharing resolution, and win it 51-49. Simple.

Presumably, the Republicans would filibuster such a vote.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:14 AM on June 1, 2001


"Neutralized"? Care to explain what that means? Do you have any concept of the laws in this country?

Neutralized signifies negating his effect on public policy by not passing his legislation and exposing his policies for the corporation oriented vapid ones they are.

I still want to know if my $300 rebate is taxable; anyone?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:14 AM on June 1, 2001


The Democrats have no reason at all to keep the power-sharing agreement.

Except that they MADE THE AGREEMENT. If you're saying the word of the Democrats is worthless, then we're in agreement.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:15 AM on June 1, 2001


Jeffords will caucus with the Democrats, therefore there is a 51 member Democratic caucus and therefore a majority, although agreed it is not a majority of people actually members of the party, it is a majority of those who are in a caucus, and that is how the Senate is run.
posted by brucec at 9:22 AM on June 1, 2001


Jeffords:"I will make this change and will caucus with the Democrats for organizational purposes once the conference report on the tax bill is sent to the president."

Hopefully in this case neutralize means "lame duck" which would be the political equivalent of putting him in a padded cell so he can't do any harm to the country...
posted by owillis at 9:48 AM on June 1, 2001


ljromanoff, the Senate has always been ruled by a plurality, not a majority. You might want to check the wording of the resolution. Whether or not Jeffords caucuses (which he will) with the Dems, the Democrats are the "Majority Party." (A misnomer, yes, but the Dems are in control.)

Now back on-topic....I was in FL during the recount. And I cannot tell you how mad it made me that:

** One county flatly refused to recount its results. Of course, there was no pressure applied by Harris.
** Many Northern FL counties (coincidentally, where most Supervisors of Elections are Republican) didn't run the ballots through the optical scanners again. They simply ran the disks again.

If you were to gather a bunch of information, enter it into an excel spreadsheet, and save it onto a floppy -- then "recheck" your figures by inserting the floppy into a computer and opening the document again to check the result....you would essentially be mimicing the recount procedure used by many Northern FL counties.

"Matthew Hendrickson, a sailor aboard the cruiser USS Ticonderoga, mailed his overseas absentee ballot from Puerto Rico on Nov. 13, six days after the Election Day deadline. He knew the presidential race was undecided and he wanted Bush to win. Records show that Duval County included his vote in its results." -- This makes me sick. How Un-American.

Republicans were crying about invalidating ballots without postmarks that were received after Election Day -- but they call a ballot with a mark for Gore and a write-in for Lieberman an "overvote."
posted by jennak at 9:50 AM on June 1, 2001


Jeffords will caucus with the Democrats, therefore there is a 51 member Democratic caucus and therefore a majority, although agreed it is not a majority of people actually members of the party, it is a majority of those who are in a caucus, and that is how the Senate is run.

OK, but has Jeffords joined the Caucus and in effect become a Democrat with a label, or is he voting with the caucus "on organizational issues"?
posted by ljromanoff at 9:53 AM on June 1, 2001


ljromanoff, the Senate has always been ruled by a plurality, not a majority. You might want to check the wording of the resolution. Whether or not Jeffords caucuses (which he will) with the Dems, the Democrats are the "Majority Party." (A misnomer, yes, but the Dems are in control.)

I'm well aware how the Senate has been ruled, however, in this case the wording of the resolution specifically states that a majority is needed to invalidate the resolution.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:55 AM on June 1, 2001


"Matthew Hendrickson, a sailor aboard the cruiser USS Ticonderoga, mailed his overseas absentee ballot from Puerto Rico on Nov. 13, six days after the Election Day deadline. He knew the presidential race was undecided and he wanted Bush to win. Records show that Duval County included his vote in its results." -- This makes me sick. How Un-American.

Is this a violation of election rules? What is the deadline for military votes? It's my understanding that the military has an extra 10 days.

Republicans were crying about invalidating ballots without postmarks that were received after Election Day -- but they call a ballot with a mark for Gore and a write-in for Lieberman an "overvote."

Well, what would you call it if someone votes for two people for president? Sure sounds like an overvote to me.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:57 AM on June 1, 2001


You mean they didn't fully do the recount?!?! Oh man...


wait.. just remembered..


i still don't care
posted by Zebulun at 10:01 AM on June 1, 2001


lj, if you feel that the word of the democrats in the senate (if not everywhere else) is worthless, why are you concerned with an "agreement" to share power? by your own testament, there is nothing of substance to concern yourself with since, obviously, the democrats will not honor such an agreement.
posted by moz at 10:19 AM on June 1, 2001


The little known fact remains that under most recount scenarios, Bush STILL would have won. This was conducted my the Miami Herald and several other newspapers that I doubt you could call conservative....
posted by mtstover at 10:23 AM on June 1, 2001


lj, you sound like a certain president who was reviled for splitting hairs with the definitions of words.
posted by dhartung at 10:34 AM on June 1, 2001


[Matthew Hendrickson blah blah blah ... ] This makes me sick. How Un-American.

(What, no sickness over any illegal actions by Democratic voters?) I'm not surprised the Washington Post chose not to mention this, but: It doesn't matter one bit what Florida law says about the postmarks on military absentee ballots. Federal law overrides Florida law, and federal law - specifically, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act - says postmarks are irrelevant. (And, indeed, much military mail is shipped in such a way that they never get postmarks anyway.) As such, the local county election canvassing board really had no legal reason to reject Hendrickson's ballot unless it had arrived past the state's hard Nov. 17 deadline. Hendrickson did nothing wrong.

Republicans were crying about invalidating ballots without postmarks that were received after Election Day -- but they call a ballot with a mark for Gore and a write-in for Lieberman an "overvote."

It doesn't matter what the Republicans call an overvote; it matters what the counters considered an overvote. And the counters (as well as everyone else on the planet not obsessed with finding a way to push Gore over the top w/o regard to the law) consider your example an overvote. People stupid enough to mark for Bush and write in for Cheney had theirs thrown out too.
posted by aaron at 10:37 AM on June 1, 2001



rcade said:

The conclusion I take from the 18 never-recounted Florida counties is that the state's top elected officials lacked the will to force the counties to follow the law, largely because they were afraid a recount would put Gore ahead.

Not to infringe on your right to make conclusions or anything, rcade [ =) ]... but I think that the general sense of the article is that the bungling began long before the eve of the election, and was not the result of some overarching conspiracy to rob Gore.

As for the whole "Gore lost because of Florida" sentiment out there, it's not entirely true. Gore lost because he didn't take his home state of Tennessee, Clinton's home state, Missouri, Ohio, or any number of states where Democrats have triumphed in the past. Succinctly put, Gore lost because his campaign did not afford him the votes that would have made the Florida debacle inconsequential.
posted by silusGROK at 10:39 AM on June 1, 2001


ljromanoff -- an extra 10 days to vote?!? My god, no. WHAT would be the point? So they can skew the election?

Florida law states that overseas military ballots that are postmarked by the election date can be counted in the vote tally up until 10 days after the election date. Ballots without postmarks received before election day can also be counted. Where Harris came up with the "optional" bit is beyond me.

Also, ljromanoff, I didn't realize that you didn't know that Lieberman was the vice-presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket. It was all over the news.

(But really, one shouldn't get in between the intent of the voter. That is always the basis on which votes are determined in recounts. For instance, I encountered many Bush votes that were filled in with pencil -- despite the requirement of blue or black ink -- and hence hadn't been picked up by the scanner. Should those votes be thrown out? I don't think so. They were indeed counted.)

mtstover, if you're going to cite the Herald, you should note that their study also says that if all the votes were counted again (since some weren't the first time), Gore wins.

aaron, counters (and most importantly, county judges) didn't consider my example an overvote. The point of this thread is that the Northern counties didn't count the ballots again -- if they had, they would have caught these votes. Secondly, from my understanding the Act says nothing about postmark -- hence leaving it up to the discretion of the state.
posted by jennak at 10:48 AM on June 1, 2001


Sheesh, dhartung, he was only pointing out that "majority" doesn't mean "most". What the Democrats enjoy (aside from membership in the majority caucus), is a "plurality".

At any rate, dhartung, many of us are word-hounds, and appreciate a certain level of precision. So there's bound to be a little correcting going on; it's certainly not a new phenomenon around here.
posted by silusGROK at 10:49 AM on June 1, 2001



Vis10n: As for the whole "Gore lost because of Florida" sentiment out there, it's not entirely true. Gore lost because he didn't take his home state of Tennessee...


By that same logic, Vis10n, the Bucks are actually up 3-2 in this series, since the Sixers winning by one point in Game 5 doesn't really count as "winning"- the Sixers were supposed to win by at least 7 or 8 points, so they're winning by a hair means, really, the Bucks won.


The point was to get the 270 electoral votes. Which states they're won in is irrelevent, regardless of the punditocracy belief that you have to win your home state (more applicable if a governor or senator runs, not so much an 8-year VP). A different turn of events, and we could have been looking at a situation where, say, New Hampshire (4) was the undecided state, Gore had won Tennessee et al but not Michigan f'r example, and the candidates stood at 269-267.


I just don't get that claim that Gore was "supposed" to win by a large margin or it wouldn't have been real anyway, especially considering the way the media was in the tank for Bush....
posted by hincandenza at 11:05 AM on June 1, 2001



ljromanoff -- an extra 10 days to vote?!? My god, no. WHAT would be the point? So they can skew the election?

Florida law states that overseas military ballots that are postmarked by the election date can be counted in the vote tally up until 10 days after the election date.


Right...Florida law states that military ballots the come in 10 days after the election are counted. That's what I thought. I don't know if the law specifically mentions 'postmarks' or not, but if it does, that would be a bit strange as well all know that military mail in most cases has no postmark.

Also, ljromanoff, I didn't realize that you didn't know that Lieberman was the vice-presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket. It was all over the news.

Uh, yeah. Thanks. I know very well who he is and I also know that if someone writes him in on the presidential ballot as you mentioned it would be an overvote.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:12 AM on June 1, 2001


I just don't get that claim that Gore was "supposed" to win by a large margin or it wouldn't have been real anyway, especially considering the way the media was in the tank for Bush....

Yeah, the media sure was in the tank for Bush when they all called Florida for Gore early and cost Bush thousands of votes.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:14 AM on June 1, 2001


lj, you sound like a certain president who was reviled for splitting hairs with the definitions of words.

No, I'm merely pointing out the accurate definition of the word, unlike our former pres.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:15 AM on June 1, 2001


Um...not overvotes, LJ. Many experts and judges have said it. Sorry.

Yes, FL law states postmark or signed date.
posted by jennak at 11:17 AM on June 1, 2001


ljromanoff -- an extra 10 days to vote?!? My god, no. WHAT would be the point? So they can skew the election?

Is the law meaningless to you?

you should note that their study also says that if all the votes were counted again...

In only one of the scenarios. The one most explicitly illegal.

Also, ljromanoff, I didn't realize that you didn't know that Lieberman was the vice-presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket. It was all over the news.

Irrelevant. An improperly filled out ballot is an invalid ballot. In many other countries such ballots are immediately destroyed, precisely so that this sort of game cannot ever be played.

aaron, counters (and most importantly, county judges) didn't consider my example an overvote.

A lot of them did. (Where does the term "overvote" come from, if it doesn't exist?) Which goes right back to the inability/unwillingness of Florida to establish a fair, uniform standard.

The point of this thread is that the Northern counties didn't count the ballots again -- if they had, they would have caught these votes.

And if they had, they still would have been overvotes. And thrown out in the end. You cannot vote for two different people for the office of president at the same time.

Secondly, from my understanding the Act says nothing about postmark -- hence leaving it up to the discretion of the state.

Balloting materials under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (individually or in bulk) - (1) shall be carried expeditiously and free of postage..." That means they won't get postmarks in many cases. Which means you can't use postmarks as a determining factor. Which means Florida law on this point is invalid. The only thing that matters is whether they arrived in time. Even Florida came around to accept this eventually (as did Lieberman himself), which is why such ballots were counted.
posted by aaron at 11:17 AM on June 1, 2001



lj, if you feel that the word of the democrats in the senate (if not everywhere else) is worthless, why are you concerned with an "agreement" to share power? by your own testament, there is nothing of substance to concern yourself with since, obviously, the democrats will not honor such an agreement.

I'm not making any assumptions about the Democrats, I'm merely stating what their word will be worth IF they choose to ignore an agreement they were eager to make.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:17 AM on June 1, 2001


Um...not overvotes, LJ. Many experts and judges have said it. Sorry.

Your example is someone who votes for two people: Gore AND Lieberman. How is a vote for two people for ONE office not an overvote?

Yes, FL law states postmark or signed date.

OR a signed date. Not AND a signed date, which means it's postmark optional.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:19 AM on June 1, 2001


The problem with the Senate power sharing agreement is that the GOP made it in the first place. Lott really wimped out on that one. I'm not the least bit surprised the Dems are finding it easy to make it go away.
posted by aaron at 11:20 AM on June 1, 2001


OK, but has Jeffords joined the Caucus and in effect become a Democrat with a label, or is he voting with the
caucus "on organizational issues"?


What is a larger organizational issue than the set up of committees?

To debate as to whether the Democrats are living up to their word or not is pointless, the Democrats are violating no deal. This is merely one poster misunderstanding the current situation in the Senate. Not even Trent Lott is making the argument you are attempting to make, (i.e that the deal made in January should still be in effect.) He clearly accepts his role as "former majority leader" though he's not happy about it.
posted by brucec at 11:22 AM on June 1, 2001


The problem with the Senate power sharing agreement is that the GOP made it in the first place. Lott really wimped out on that one. I'm not the least bit surprised the Dems are finding it easy to make it go away.

I agree. Lott's only redemption on this is if he tells Daschle to come back when he's got 51 Democrats and not a moment before. He should also demand that Jeffords return all the money provided to him by the Republican Party for the last election. I doubt he'll do either, though.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:22 AM on June 1, 2001


To debate as to whether the Democrats are living up to their word or not is pointless, the Democrats are violating no deal. This is merely one poster misunderstanding the current situation in the Senate. Not even Trent Lott is making the argument you are attempting to make, (i.e that the deal made in January should still be in effect.) He clearly accepts his role as "former majority leader" though he's not happy about it.

The fact that Trent Lott is spineless doesn't mean that the January deal is invalid.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:23 AM on June 1, 2001


What vis10n means is that the Gore campaign took for granted certain states that "Democrats always win" in order to spend more time trying to gain strength in other states with bigger potential electoral payouts, such as Florida. If he'd ignored Florida entirely and instead poured all that time, money and energy into just one of those Democratic-leaning states - like, say, Tennessee - he would have won the election.

Hindsight is always 20/20, of course...
posted by aaron at 11:24 AM on June 1, 2001


The problem with the Senate power sharing agreement is that the GOP made it in the first place. Lott really
wimped out on that one. I'm not the least bit surprised the Dems are finding it easy to make it go away.


Don't be so kick Lott now that he's down. Unlike many Internet posters, Lott saw the coming Center-Left majority in American politics. Lott, although personally a conservative, was a realist in the face of seeing 4 of his fellow Senators go down to defeat, including one by a dead man, and attempted to make the system work. If this deal was not made, Democrats would have had other weapons to use (i.e. filibuster) Zell Miller might not have been so willing to work with republicans if a percieved unfair deal was made.

But the point is, that deal was made as rules for a 50-50 Senate.
posted by brucec at 11:29 AM on June 1, 2001


Here's a thought, why don't the MeFi sleuths FOIA the ballots & start counting, then bust a scandal far surpassing the Kaycee fiasco.
posted by faith at 11:32 AM on June 1, 2001


The fact that Trent Lott is spineless doesn't mean that the January deal is invalid.

ouch. at least blame the right man. Lott isn't the one that didn't invite Jeffords to the White House for a teacher from his home state.

No, not alone. But it is indicative that the deal only applies to the 50-50 Senate situation that occured before, as more research on your part will indicate.
posted by brucec at 11:35 AM on June 1, 2001


He should also demand that Jeffords return all the money provided to him by the Republican
Party for the last election. I doubt he'll do either, though.


Following the exact procedure that Richard Shelby, Ben Nighthorse Cambell, Phil Gram did before?


If anything Jeffords should GET a check from the Republican party for his service in getting a Republican vote for Majority Leader from a state that is clearly swung to the left since the late 80's. And for his vote FOR a tax cut that is unpopular in his state.
posted by brucec at 11:40 AM on June 1, 2001


Aaron -- I don't believe anyone can be so stubborn! These votes are *not* overvotes. An overvote with one oval bubbled in for the president and a write-in for the candidates vice-presidential candidate is a vote for the presidential candidate that was bubbled in. THIS WAS ACCEPTED all throughout Florida (and academia). An overvote is when a voter votes for two different tickets for the same office.

(And Gore didn't take TN for granted, but it *is* almost 2/3 Republican.)

OR a signed date -- Yup. Which means those without either should have been thrown out; it doesn't make the requirements optional.

Free of charge doesn't exclude them from meeting election law requirements -- or else the exception would have been included in the act. The reason why the ballots weren't thrown out (though they should have) was because there was no way to prove the ballots were corrupted....and because of the poltical pressure, national spotlight, the judge was too scared to throw out the ballots (in accordance with the law) without hard evidence.

My point: Aaron, you want to follow some laws to a "T" (overvotes) and not others (military overseas votes).
posted by jennak at 11:45 AM on June 1, 2001


Hincandenza... I think you've missed my point (but by a very slim margin :).

I actually like the comparison of the electoral college to a sports series (I even posted an interesting link to an article on the subject last year...), but the comparison breaks down when one considers that -- in this "series" -- the games are all played simultaneously. So in the end, one can't say that someone lost because of any one state race... there's no way to assign hegemony to any particular state.

Gore lost because he lost every state that he did loose... and Florida's place in the mess is neither higher nor lower than any other state that Gore didn't carry; the election was close in many many states, and the margin of victory/loss was narrower than the margin of error in more states than just Florida.

Florida's ignominy is due to a number of factors... none of which can claim the majority of fault. That ignominy, however, does not absolve Gore's team of their failures in so many other states -- including states that many consider to be Democratic strongholds.

Finally, my comment that alluded to Gore's need to have made a bigger showing overall is simply one of strategy: had Gore been a more appealling candidate, then the craziness in any one state would have been inconsequential... which is a good strategy in any contest: why make the 7th game so important (to bring us back to the analogy)?
posted by silusGROK at 11:46 AM on June 1, 2001


Aaron -- I don't believe anyone can be so stubborn! These votes are *not* overvotes. An overvote with one oval bubbled in for the president and a write-in for the candidates vice-presidential candidate is a vote for the presidential candidate that was bubbled in. THIS WAS ACCEPTED all throughout Florida (and academia). An overvote is when a voter votes for two different tickets for the same office.

There is no such thing as a "ticket" running for office. Any additional write-in on the same line, if you will, is an overvote, whether your undefined academians or unnamed counters throughout Florida believed so or not. If you vote for Al Gore for president, you are automatically voting for Joe Lieberman for VP. If you vote for Al Gore for president and write Lieberman's name in on the line in the presidential column you have just invalidated your ballot by overvoting in the presidential election, period.

This goes back to the "we punched the wrong hole because we couldn't tell" argument. There are resources available to all voters to explain how the ballot works, and there is more than enough time before the election to educate oneself about the procedure and the candidates. If you fail to ascertain the requisite knowledge of what you're doing in the voting booth, and you make a stupid error, you're SOL, and it's your damn fault. Too bad, so sad, bye bye.
posted by Dreama at 11:54 AM on June 1, 2001


Florida's ballot said: "Vote for Group."

Dreama, I was there. I can name counters (which are inconsequential, since they followed the by-laws that were determined by the judges) and judges and academians galore.

Why don't you check out the recount by-laws for Volusia County, the county that completed the first hand recount?
posted by jennak at 12:09 PM on June 1, 2001


ouch. at least blame the right man. Lott isn't the one that didn't invite Jeffords to the White House for a teacher from his home state.

That had nothing to do with anything. I at least give Jeffords credit for not being that petty. Jeffords made this move because he correctly figured that the Republicans would lose their majority anyway by 2002 (with the likely death of Strom Thurmond) and if he jumped the gun it would allow him to gain a position of more political prominence than he's ever had. It was a pure power play.

No, not alone. But it is indicative that the deal only applies to the 50-50 Senate situation that occured before, as more research on your part will indicate.

The language of the resolution clearly states majority, which requires 51 - not merely any change to the 50/50 balance, invalidates the agreement.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:21 PM on June 1, 2001


Following the exact procedure that Richard Shelby, Ben Nighthorse Cambell, Phil Gram did before?

Yeah, well they should have done the same thing.

If anything Jeffords should GET a check from the Republican party for his service in getting a Republican vote for Majority Leader from a state that is clearly swung to the left since the late 80's.

Had he not been willing to assist in the ascention of the Republican Party, most of the Republicans in Vermont would not have voted for him. His position in the party was the only palatable thing about Jeffords for many Republicans - they certainly weren't voting for him due to his political views.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:24 PM on June 1, 2001


Aaron -- I don't believe anyone can be so stubborn!

Well, being right helps. ;)

Florida's ballot said: "Vote for Group."

Yes, and the overvoters didn't do so. They "voted for group," and then went on and voted for someone on the write-in line as well. It's a double vote, an overvote. You can't do that.

Basically, what this is coming down to is, I'm trying to explain why things happened as they did, and you're trying to argue why you think things should have happened differently. Which is fine, but in the end there's only one case of what actually happened, what decisions were made.

To be honest though, I'm not sure where this whole overvote discussion is coming from anyway. The way I remember it, the entire legal pissing contest at the time was about counting the undervotes, while the overvotes issue was pretty much ignored, mainly because there wasn't much to argue about on that point: Double voting is invalid, period. Am I blanking on something?

Maybe it was a bit strong to say Gore took TN for granted, but his campaign made a very public tactical decision in the last few days to concentrate on Florida, instead of shoring up TN and a couple of other close states.

Ugh, big-ass thunderstorm over my head, gotta log out w/o finishing.
posted by aaron at 12:28 PM on June 1, 2001



There are resources available to all voters to explain how the ballot works, and there is more than enough time before the election to educate oneself about the procedure and the candidates. If you fail to ascertain the requisite knowledge of what you're doing in the voting booth, and you make a stupid error, you're SOL, and it's your damn fault. Too bad, so sad, bye bye.

Ummm. Ok. So if I make a stupid error in the voting booth, realize that I've done so, go ask the Volunteer for a fresh ballot and am denied one (in violation of state and (I believe) federal law), is that also "too bad, so sad"?

Or is it yet another indication that the State of Florida cares so little for the integrety of its election system that it can't even be bothered to even minimally train its volunteers?
posted by anastasiav at 12:31 PM on June 1, 2001


Lott saw the coming Center-Left majority in American politics. ... including one by a dead man,

Can you site some evidence of this "Coming Center-Left" majority? Sounds more like wishful thinking on your part. If anything, after the new Congressional districts are drawn up based on the last Census, the Congress will be skewing even further right.

As for the Ashcroft defeat, that was based on sympathy rather than politics - had Carnahan not died he would have lost.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:33 PM on June 1, 2001


There are resources available to all voters to explain how the ballot works,

...unless you speak spanish....
posted by jpoulos at 1:08 PM on June 1, 2001


had Carnahan not died he would have lost

The fact that this is a true statement just kills me. Forget sympathy for a second, they voted in someone who they knew would not be able to serve.
posted by srw12 at 1:14 PM on June 1, 2001


had Carnahan not died he would have lost

The fact that this is a true statement just kills me. Forget sympathy for a second, they voted in someone who they knew would not be able to serve.


I think most of the voters in Missouri knew quite clearly what they were doing was voting for a widow.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:23 PM on June 1, 2001


There are resources available to all voters to explain how the ballot works,

...unless you speak spanish....


Maybe people should take the time to learn English then and take responsibility for knowing the basics of voting.
posted by gyc at 1:49 PM on June 1, 2001


gyc: not that hoary old bone again, please.
posted by rodii at 1:55 PM on June 1, 2001


Maybe people should take the time to learn English then and take responsibility for knowing the basics of voting.

From the article:

Federal law requires ballots to be printed in two languages in any county in which voting-age citizens with English-language deficiencies make up at least 5 percent of the population. Miami-Dade and seven other Florida counties have printed bilingual ballots for years.

But in Osceola, where 29 percent of residents are Hispanic, Elections Supervisor Donna Bryant refused to print ballots in two languages, helping to trigger an inquiry by the U.S. Justice Department.
posted by redfoxtail at 2:03 PM on June 1, 2001


ljromanoff: His position in the party was the only palatable thing about Jeffords for many Republicans - they certainly weren't voting for him due to his political views.


Well, that was their own damn fool fault, then. They should vote for the candidate who matches their views, not who claims temporary allegiance with one party or another. All this "party" stuff is damaging to the true spirit of democracy, and the sooner it is done away with, the better; it just leads to mindless partisan demagoguery.


Vermonters voted for a real centrist, that is what they got. As long as he still holds the same views, what party he claims shouldn't matter. And those who just voted for him because he's a "Republican" will maybe know better next time.
posted by jammer at 2:04 PM on June 1, 2001


Lance, can you give a reference to that Senate rule you mentioned early? It was my understanding that -- foreseeing a situation in which a Senator died -- the powersharing agreement was explicitly predicated on a a 50-50 split. But I'm perfectly willing to believe I'm wrong.
posted by snarkout at 2:05 PM on June 1, 2001


I thought Dick Cheney was prezdent
posted by clavdivs at 2:41 PM on June 1, 2001


Well, that was their own damn fool fault, then. They should vote for the candidate who matches their views, not who claims temporary allegiance with one party or another.

Temporary? He'd been an elected Republican 20 years!!!
posted by ljromanoff at 3:38 PM on June 1, 2001


Vermonters voted for a real centrist, that is what they got. As long as he still holds the same views, what party he claims shouldn't matter. And those who just voted for him because he's a "Republican" will maybe know better next time.

Why would they know better? Jeffords never once hinted before the election that he'd been considering this.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:38 PM on June 1, 2001


Lance, can you give a reference to that Senate rule you mentioned early? It was my understanding that -- foreseeing a situation in which a Senator died -- the powersharing agreement was explicitly predicated on a a 50-50 split. But I'm perfectly willing to believe I'm wrong.

Here is the text of the resolution (emphasis added):

SENATE RESOLUTION 8--RELATIVE TO SENATE PROCEDURE IN THE 107TH CONGRESS

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Lott) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 8

Resolved, That, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule XXV,
or any other provision of the Standing Rules or Standing
Orders of the Senate, the committees of the Senate, including
Joint and Special Committees, for the 107th Congress shall be
composed equally of members of both parties, to be appointed
at a later time by the two Leaders; that the budgets and
office space for such committees, and all other subgroups,
shall likewise be equal, with up to an additional 10% to be
allocated for administrative expenses to be determined by the
Rules Committee, with the total administrative expenses
allocation for all committees not to exceed historic levels;
and that the Chairman of a full committee may discharge a
subcommittee of any legislative or Executive Calendar item
which has not been reported because of a tie vote and place
it on the full committee's agenda.
Sec. 2. Provided, That such committee ratios shall remain
in effect for the remainder of the 107th Congress, except
that if at any time during the 107th Congress either party
attains a majority of the whole number of Senators
, then each
committee ratio shall be adjusted to reflect the ratio of the
parties in the Senate, and the provisions of this resolution
shall have no further effect, except that the members
appointed by the two Leaders, pursuant to this resolution,
shall no longer be members of the committees, and the
committee chairmanships shall be held by the party which has
attained a majority of the whole number of Senators.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to the provisions and exceptions listed
above, the following additional Standing Orders shall be in
effect for the 107th Congress:
(1) If a committee has not reported out a legislative item
or nomination because of a tie vote, then, after notice of
such tie vote has been transmitted to the Senate by that
committee and printed in the Record, the Majority Leader or
the Minority Leader may, only after consultation with the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee, make a motion
to discharge such legislative item or nomination, and time
for debate on such motion shall be limited to 4 hours, to be
equally divided between the two Leaders, with no other
motions, points of order, or amendments in order: Provided,
That following the use or yielding back of time, a vote occur
on the motion to discharge, without any intervening action,
motion, or debate, and if agreed to it be placed immediately
on the Calendar of Business (in the case of legislation) or
the Executive Calendar (in the case of a nomination).
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule XXII, to insure
that any cloture motion shall be offered for the purpose of
bringing to a close debate, in no case shall it be in order
for any cloture motion to be made on an amendable item during
its first 12 hours of Senate debate: Provided, That all other
provisions of Rule XXII remain in status quo.
(3) Both Leaders shall seek to attain an equal balance of
the interest of the two parties when scheduling and debating
legislative and executive business generally, and in keeping
with the present Senate precedents, a motion to proceed to
any Legislative or Executive Calendar item shall continue to
be considered the prerogative of the Majority Leader,
although the Senate Rules do not prohibit the right of the
Democratic Leader, or any other Senator, to move to proceed
to any item.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:41 PM on June 1, 2001


ljr -- he was best serving VT. Bush was going to screw over VT in order to screw over Jeffords. If he didn't switch, he was going to have to go back to VT empty-handed, or consistently and severly compromise his beliefs with no compromise in return from the Repubicans.

Are you from VT? Then it's really not our place to judge. I want to hear the Vermonters say whether they think the switch was in VT's best interest.
posted by jennak at 3:41 PM on June 1, 2001


ljr -- he was best serving VT. Bush was going to screw over VT in order to screw over Jeffords. If he didn't switch, he was going to have to go back to VT empty-handed, or consistently and severly compromise his beliefs with no compromise in return from the Repubicans.

Can you site any examples of what you claim (i.e., Bush "screwing over" Vermont)? Bush had no personal vendetta against Jeffords, he treated him like he would any other Senator with whom he rarely agreed.

Do you really think that Jeffords is NOW in a position to do more for Vermont? His switching hasn't changed how anyone votes, and he's now made enemies of half the Senate. If, in 2002, the Senate swings back to Republican control, what kind of authority will Jeffords have then? The only thing Jeffords did for Vermont was get it on the front page for a week.

Are you from VT? Then it's really not our place to judge. I want to hear the Vermonters say whether they think the switch was in VT's best interest.

I'm sure there's as many opinions in Vermont as anywhere else. I'm sure those Vermonters who voted for Jeffords, though, aren't happy about it, as most of them are Republicans.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:52 PM on June 1, 2001


I'm sure there's as many opinions in Vermont as anywhere else. I'm sure those Vermonters who voted for Jeffords, though, aren't happy about it, as most of them are Republicans.

Um. I think most people who voted for Jeffords were actually Democrats.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:58 PM on June 1, 2001


Can you site any examples of what you claim (i.e., Bush "screwing over" Vermont)? Bush had no personal vendetta against Jeffords, he treated him like he would any other Senator with whom he rarely agreed.

* Senator's Defection May Doom Milk Bill
* "After that, the White House passed over Jeffords when it issued invitations to a ceremony honoring a Vermont educator as teacher of the year. Senate sources have suggested that the administration might oppose a dairy compact that is especially important to Vermont."
posted by jennak at 4:07 PM on June 1, 2001


Or at least independants and nominal Republicans.

As a number of commentators have remarked, the Republican Party as done an unbelievable right-shift in the last 20 years. Richard Nixon would be too liberal to be a Republican, as would, likely Barry Goldwater. Jeffords action was completely honorable. Hopefully, New Englands' other Republican Senators will follow. And then ljr and aaron will...well, it would be fun to watch! : )
posted by ParisParamus at 4:10 PM on June 1, 2001


Um. I think most people who voted for Jeffords were actually Democrats.

Well, some certainly were. But most were Republicans. The Democrats had their own candidate.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:11 PM on June 1, 2001


* Senator's Defection May Doom Milk Bill

OK, so Bush didn't screw Vermont - Jeffords did by defecting.
* "After that, the White House passed over Jeffords when it issued invitations to a ceremony honoring a Vermont educator as teacher of the year.

1.) Jeffords himself said that had nothing to do with his decision.
2.) It's not automatic that the senator from the state of the educator of the year gets an invitation. Bush not inviting him was not precendent setting.
3.) Big f'ing deal. How is Jeffords hanging out at the White House for a couple of hours have any affect on anyone in Vermont or anywhere else.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:15 PM on June 1, 2001


Dairy compact?! That's Communist! Only Corporate Republican Monsanto and ADM cows should get support!
posted by ParisParamus at 4:16 PM on June 1, 2001


As a number of commentators have remarked, the Republican Party as done an unbelievable right-shift in the last 20 years.

Which earned them huge landslides in three presidential elections.

Richard Nixon would be too liberal to be a Republican

If one examines them, you can see that many of Nixon's policies were pretty left-wing - price controls being one fine example.

as would, likely Barry Goldwater.

Barry Goldwater's political views changed considerably over his life.

Jeffords action was completely honorable.

No it wasn't. You're just happy about it because it suits your political ends.

Hopefully, New Englands' other Republican Senators will follow.

Except for possibly Chafee, that's HIGHLY unlikely.

And then ljr and aaron will...well, it would be fun to watch! : )

I'll what? Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not a Republican.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:19 PM on June 1, 2001


ljr, you know, I have the impression that I would vote for a Republican candidate a lot quicker than you would vote for a Democrat or independent. Why is that?
posted by ParisParamus at 4:21 PM on June 1, 2001


How did Jeffords screw Vermont by leaving the GOP? He's still a moderate, he is in the majority party, he got his legislation back, and Vermonters love him.
posted by jennak at 4:26 PM on June 1, 2001


ljr, you know, I have the impression that I would vote for a Republican candidate a lot quicker than you would vote for a Democrat or independent. Why is that?

I don't know. You tell me. As I said someone before on MeFi in the last couple of days, I haven't voted for a Republican in 5 years.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:28 PM on June 1, 2001


How did Jeffords screw Vermont by leaving the GOP? He's still a moderate, he is in the majority party, he got his legislation back, and Vermonters love him.

Did you not JUST POST a story about how his defection will kill a bill? He's not in a majority party as there is no majority party and he's not in a party, and there are plenty of Vermonters who feel betrayed by him rather than feeling love for him.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:30 PM on June 1, 2001


How did Jeffords screw Vermont by leaving the GOP? He's still a moderate, he is in the majority party, he got his legislation back, and Vermonters love him.

Did you not JUST POST a story about how his defection will kill a bill? He's not in a majority party as there is no majority party and he's not in a party, and there are plenty of Vermonters who feel betrayed by him rather than feeling love for him.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:31 PM on June 1, 2001


Oops. Double post. Sorry.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:32 PM on June 1, 2001


Did you NOT read it? It was about Jeffords speaking out against BUSH when the VT Senator was a REPUBLICAN.
posted by jennak at 4:43 PM on June 1, 2001


Thank you, Lance; my reading of that is that a death would have invalidated that agreement, which is what I thought, by virtue of the Senate briefly becoming a 50-49 body, but that Jeffords' disaffiliation with the Republicans doesn't, which is what you said. (I appreciate being able to see the text; where did you find it?)

So per that agreement, the committees should remain split 50-50. But does that agreement cover committee chair positions?
posted by snarkout at 5:49 PM on June 1, 2001


Which earned [the republicans] huge landslides in three presidential elections.

Only not in the last three elections. They were 1972, 84 and 88 I believe. Heck, I'll even give you 68. If you think this is the same world, nay country as it was in 88, then I am suitably chastised. Or are you arguing for a Bush Jr. Mandate?
posted by trox at 6:24 PM on June 1, 2001


Only not in the last three elections. They were 1972, 84 and 88 I believe. Heck, I'll even give you 68. If you think this is the same world, nay country as it was in 88, then I am suitably chastised. Or are you arguing for a Bush Jr. Mandate?

I was thinking 1980 (489 - 49), 1984, and 1988. While Republicans did win huge in 1972, I would attribute that to the Democrats' far-left wing candidate that year, not that Nixon was conservative, and I mention those elections to counter the suggestion that the Republican move to the right was somehow an unpopular idea or a political error.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:15 AM on June 2, 2001


Thank you, Lance; my reading of that is that a death would have invalidated that agreement, which is what I thought, by virtue of the Senate briefly becoming a 50-49 body, but that Jeffords' disaffiliation with the Republicans doesn't, which is what you said. (I appreciate being able to see the text; where did you find it?)

It (and all other federal legislative action) is available at senate.gov. My understanding of this resolution is that any situation (death, the removal of a senator for some reason, resignation from the Senate) that would result in a 99 member body would make 50 a majority - which is not the case at this time.

So per that agreement, the committees should remain split 50-50. But does that agreement cover committee chair positions?

My reading of it is that the committee chairmanships would be divided 50-50 between the two parties. I don't know how that would affect majority leader.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:21 AM on June 2, 2001


Did you NOT read it?

I would have if the link had worked.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:22 AM on June 2, 2001


It's not automatic that the senator from the state of the educator of the year gets an invitation. Bush not inviting him was not precendent setting.

You gotta be kidding. A Vermont teacher gets a national award. A Vermont Republican senator who focuses heavily on education isn't invited. Do you think this kind of thing happens much in a town where the most dangerous place to be is between a politician and a television camera? The teacher went straight from the event to Jeffords' office to meet him.

Bush invited Ted Kennedy over for a movie to reach common ground on education. His staff would have to be hilariously incompetent to miss an opportunity to invite Jeffords, unless the snub was intentional.

Bush's aides talked off the record after the event to make sure the press knew it was an intentional snub. It was part of an overall effort to strong-arm the guy for opposing Bush's tax cut -- Andrew Card did interviews with Vermont radio stations to increase the pressure on him.
posted by rcade at 8:30 AM on June 4, 2001


Hendrickson did nothing wrong.

Aaron: No state allows absentee votes to knowingly be cast after Election Day. If 1,000 Americans in Israel had done the same thing, I find it hard to believe you would conclude they did nothing wrong.
posted by rcade at 8:32 AM on June 4, 2001


Bush invited Ted Kennedy over for a movie to reach common ground on education. His staff would have to be hilariously incompetent to miss an opportunity to invite Jeffords, unless the snub was intentional.

If Jeffords even for a second considered leaving the party over a 'snub' (if one even accepts that's what it was) then he's the most petty man in D.C.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:26 AM on June 4, 2001


Somehow I doubt that.
posted by rodii at 10:30 AM on June 4, 2001


« Older Let the American Boycott of CO2-Denying Corporatio...  |  NBA Finals Fixed,... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments