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
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
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
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
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
« Older Let the American Boycott of CO2-Denying Corporatio... | NBA Finals Fixed,... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt