Stern Feels Bush-Whacked End Is Near

[Tony]

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=20252 ...full article


Howard Stern says the end of his career is closer than the two years left on his contract. "I know that it's over for me," Stern said Wednesday morning. "I have been really good at predicting my career and I know when I'm outmatched. It's over for me as a broadcaster. I'm checkmated. All they gotta do is fine us and then we're gone. And there's nothing we can do about it."


Yep. Government's a good thing. :rolleyes:

[HarryKeogh]

all he has to do is adhere to the clear cut rules the FCC has outlined as to what is indecent and what is not.

oh wait, the rules are incredibly vague and arbitrarily applied.

ok, he could always appeal the fines levied by the FCC

oh no, I forgot, you can't appeal the fines from the FCC



this bites.

[Brian]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
all he has to do is adhere to the clear cut rules the FCC has outlined as to what is indecent and what is not.

oh wait, the rules are incredibly vague and arbitrarily applied.

ok, he could always appeal the fines levied by the FCC

oh no, I forgot, you can't appeal the fines from the FCC



this bites.
Or we could all vote for new people to head the FCC next election.
Oh, wait, they're not elected, they're appointed.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Brian

Or we could all vote for new people to head the FCC next election.
Oh, wait, they're not elected, they're appointed.
Or we could elect a new president to appoint the FCC.
Oh, wait, the last one was selected.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
all he has to do is adhere to the clear cut rules the FCC has outlined as to what is indecent and what is not.

oh wait, the rules are incredibly vague and arbitrarily applied.

ok, he could always appeal the fines levied by the FCC

oh no, I forgot, you can't appeal the fines from the FCC



this bites.

Stop attacking Bush and start sucking up in a massive way. Suddenly the FCC will lose interest in his show, I have a feeling. .;)

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Brian

Or we could all vote for new people to head the FCC next election.
Oh, wait, they're not elected, they're appointed.

But I'm sure Michael Powell is the best man for the job and the fact that his father holds the third or fourth most important post in government had no bearing on his being selected to be the chairman of the FCC.

[Ladewig]

The good news is that this FCC/Stern fight has reduced the imminence of the Rapture. Rapture Ready's rapture index (http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html) now has a lower score after category 15: Moral Standards was reduced because "Clear Channel Radio pulls Howard Stern." Unfortunately, this reduction was offset by category 32 Mark of the Beast's being raised because of "The push to replace bar codes product labels with radio tags."

[scribble]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Ready's rapture index[/URL] now has a lower score after category 15: Moral Standards was reduced because "Clear Channel Radio pulls Howard Stern."



Jesus, you'd think those people would be in rapture at the fact that Howard Stern was pulled...

You know, Howard Stern always thought he was the second coming of Jesus Christ... I wonder if the Rapture Ready people have told him he's literally going to be responsible for it?

[Ed]

Howard is a whiner. Last time his contract was coming up, he started playing drama queen a year before. Same kind of issues as I recall. Now that CC has slapped him, he will play that up for all it is worth. If CC wants to rein Howard in, for whatever reason, it seems to me it is their nickel, right?

A far bigger issues, bigger even than an affluent radio talker, is the fact that CC is engulfing and devouring everything. That you can clearly blame the FCC for yet people seem strangely silent.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I haven't been involved in any CC debate on this forum yet, but I have in the past.

The fact is that CC [I}IS[/I] gobbling up everything in the country, and that is the fault of the FCC. However, the fact also remains that CC has to keep on the FCC's good side, which means that it has to stay on the good side of the current administration. That leads me to believe that Stern is most likely correct in his assessment of the reasons for his removal from the markets.

I forget which right-wing puppet I was listening to a few days ago who said "The decency laws are getting out of hand. They're not being abused yet, but what happens when a liberal gets in office and decides that conservitism is 'indecent'?"

If we remove the spin from what he's saying, we actually see that he is right on the money. The decency laws can very well be a tool used against free speech, and I believe that in Stern's case, that's exactly how they are being used.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
If we remove the spin from what he's saying, we actually see that he is right on the money. The decency laws can very well be a tool used against free speech, and I believe that in Stern's case, that's exactly how they are being used.

Perhaps but.......

Isn't it far more likely that rather than a Machiavellian plot to curtail free speech we are seeing a company fellating a government agency? And the public, by the way. I mean after all those CC guys can't be all bad if they kick the Jew-devil spawn Stern off the air. Hell, maybe they should control everything on the air, they know how to get stuff done unlike that flaccid FCC. More power to them.

I think that a far more likely alternative.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I disagree. Do you know the kind of fines being lobbied agaisnt what is considered "indecent" these days?

My brother and I both work in radio and we have both been warned that the policies regarding decency are being tightened because the FCC policies are ebing tightened.

My brother, who is a standard DJ, has been wrned about any potentially sexual material.

I host a political talk show. I have actually been warned against any direct comment disparaging the Bush administration. Whether that's my station's new policy or the FCC's, it makes no difference, since I was hired as a liberal talk show host, I now cannot make any negative comment about this administration because of pressure (whether real or perceived) from the FCC.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Ed


Perhaps but.......

Isn't it far more likely that rather than a Machiavellian plot to curtail free speech we are seeing a company fellating a government agency? And the public, by the way. I mean after all those CC guys can't be all bad if they kick the Jew-devil spawn Stern off the air. Hell, maybe they should control everything on the air, they know how to get stuff done unlike that flaccid FCC. More power to them.

I think that a far more likely alternative. And denial is a river in Egypt.

When are all you irreligious Republicans, or even the religious ones, who don't actually want our country to turn into a Christian theocracy, going to wake up to what George W. Bush and his puppet-masters are up to?

These people have said over and over again, in no uncertain terms, how they intend to increasingly use the power of government to promote the Christian theology and impose their interpretation of biblical teachings as public policy.

e.g., constitutional amendment defining marriage as man and woman.

Many more threads to follow on this...

[Ed]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
I disagree. Do you know the kind of fines being lobbied agaisnt what is considered "indecent" these days?

My brother and I both work in radio and we have both been warned that the policies regarding decency are being tightened because the FCC policies are ebing tightened.

My brother, who is a standard DJ, has been wrned about any potentially sexual material.

I host a political talk show. I have actually been warned against any direct comment disparaging the Bush administration. Whether that's my station's new policy or the FCC's, it makes no difference, since I was hired as a liberal talk show host, I now cannot make any negative comment about this administration because of pressure (whether real or perceived) from the FCC.

I am aware of the fines that they are talking about. Frankly, the fines that Infinity paid for Stern to date are laughable, was it $1.5mm in total? It was sorta like Judge Ito fining Johnny Cocherain $200 (about the price of one of his ties:D ). If they have rules they should be obeyed, if they are not there should be some consequences. That begs the question of the rules themselves. I have far less problem with restrictions on non-political speech on public airwaves, that has always been a slippery area with movable "lines". I personally am not happy with what I perceive to be a general corsening of society. That's my opinion and the degree to which it is shared by citizens in each radio market (I believe that it is market specific) is the degree to which more restrictive rules should be promulgated. If Howard wants to cover every ADI then he is going to have to broadcast for the lowest common denominator.

Political speech is another story entirely. How can you have a political show and not bash Bush? I don't mean you, but how can you pretend to be reasonably objective (tho' liberal) without having things said on your show that might be construed as a dig against the president? Perhaps a call-in discussion of censorship is called for wherein a caller (ahem) raises some pointed questions.

I think that it is dangerous to conflate lewd and lacivious speech with political speech and think of them as the same issue. A lot of folks would agree with restrictions on the former but not the latter. If they are one issue, you loose.

[Ed]

Originally posted by hgc
And denial is a river in Egypt.

What is this, Eubonics? The river is the Nile

When are all you irreligious Republicans, or even the religious ones, who don't actually want our country to turn into a Christian theocracy, going to wake up to what George W. Bush and his puppet-masters are up to?

These people have said over and over again, in no uncertain terms, how they intend to increasingly use the power of government to promote the Christian theology and impose their interpretation of biblical teachings as public policy.

e.g., constitutional amendment defining marriage as man and woman.

Bad choice for promulgating a conspiracy theory. History and public opinion would support that definition. I do think though that you have a point. Perhaps if it were stated in less perjoritive terms?

Many more threads to follow on this... [/B]

[Some Friggin Guy]

Unfortunately, as I have said, my station has told me to deal with it as though it is a single issue.

Does that mean I am sure the FCC has told them to do this? No.

In fact, I would seriously doubt the FCC would have the guts to come out at say something like that.

However, the fact that my station believes it to be the edict means that it is certainly applied.

As for the indecency fines, to judge that $27,000 per incident is laughable would cause me to think that you have $27,000 to throw away.

Yes, Stern makes a grotesque amount of money, to be sure, but that does not mean that because of him, other on-air personailties need to be put in jeopardy.

The indesency line is blurry, as is evident by the fact that Clear Channel has kept a Jock who has used words far more evocative than Stern, as well as a personality who called a homosexual "a sodomite who should die of AIDS". Also, the fact that it is a subjective line makes the issue even more dangerous.

I don't make anywahere near the money Stern does. Say that something slips out of my mouth that the one person in the audience decides is indecent (That is all it takes. One letter to launch the investigation and if it is determined that what was complained about was actually said, it will lead to the fine.) I could wind up facing a half-million dollar fine. This is something which would absolutely bankrupt me.

So, what is the choice? Remove anything even remotely controversial from my show? Then I become nothing like what I was hired for.

Let me give you this as an example, since it is something which is conceivable in my area. I am a huge proponant of gay marriage. I live in Nashville, a highly concervative and religious town. Should I say on my show that homosexuals are normal people who should have the right to express their love as anyone else, it is possible that someone in this town decides that I was being indecent, and complains to the FCC that I was condoning homosexuality.

Since the FCC can investigate, and would find that I was, in fact, condoning it as a valid lifestyle choice, I can be hit with a fine of $500,000.

And this is ignoring the ability to talk about the current administration.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Ed
...

Bad choice for promulgating a conspiracy theory. History and public opinion would support that definition. I do think though that you have a point. Perhaps if it were stated in less perjoritive terms?I am, first and foremost, going to focus on what is happening out in public, in front of our eyes. That is scary enough.

I don't doubt also that there are many hidden, coordinated activities underway to increase the power of those that would rob us of our secular government -- what you might call "conspiracy." But the history of outrageous and off-base conspiracy theories does not mean that conspiracies do not exist.

Sorry if my tone sounds pejorative. I am feeling an increased level of urgency about this particular trend which has alarmed me for more than 20 years. This president is a true believer, and he is coming closer to achieving his goals than either of his less-motivated predecessors, Reagan and Bush Sr.

[Marc]

Of course pulling Stern off had nothing to do with anything he said or did. From what I hear the alleged incident they used as the excuse was a caller to the show using the word ni**er, and Howard hung up on him right after that.

As SFG stated, there are far worse people on the air out there. Stern is the most famous so he gets all the attention and the most restrictions. CC pretty much lied as to the reasons they pulled him off the air. My question is why did they pull him? Was it a sacrificial offering to the FCC? Was it because they are big Bush supporters and Stern had recently come out speaking against the shrub? A combination?

Anyway, this morning Howard said he had a bombshell to drop later today. He kept hinting that it is too late to do anything to save his show. Will have to check the summary later today to find out the news.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Marc
...

Anyway, this morning Howard said he had a bombshell to drop later today. He kept hinting that it is too late to do anything to save his show. Will have to check the summary later today to find out the news. He said that he got a call last night from someone with an inside track at the FCC. There will be an announcement today or over the weekend of fines for something that happened on his program 3 years ago. He has been predicting for a long time that when the fines come down, Viacom/Infinity will fire him rather than fight it. They can't fight it because there is no avenue of appeal other than to sue in federal court. If they try to do that, based on previous experience, the FCC will make it impossible to business, by withholding license renewals and approvals for buying and selling stations, by means of red-tape.

[Samus]

I was listening to Stern on the way to work today. Interesting, because I haven't listened to him in years, but all this brouhaha has turned me back on to his show.

He thinks he will be hit with an FCC fine today, because as he said, they like to levy fines on Fridays. He thinks Infinity will be able to keep him on the air for a month at the latest, then he's gone. He was also taking calls from fans distressed about the situation.

Surely, Stern is a publicity whore, and this could all be an act. However, the FCC has made it very clear that they will be interpreting indecency laws as strictly as possible, with ridiculous fines to follow for violations.

My girlfriend works in television, and if her network airs something the FCC doesn't like, the FCC can fine both the network and her local station. Since she is in charge of programming, the fine would be levied against her. This would probably put her out of a job, over something she had no control over because it was network-mandated programming.

Now her and her assistant need to watch every movie that they air locally, again, and remove content that can even remotely be construed as obscene. It is absurd, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I don't think any given elected official has the desire, or testicular fortitude, to stand up against an out-of-control regulatory agency.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Unfortunately, as I have said, my station has told me to deal with it as though it is a single issue.

Does that mean I am sure the FCC has told them to do this? No.

In fact, I would seriously doubt the FCC would have the guts to come out at say something like that.

However, the fact that my station believes it to be the edict means that it is certainly applied.

Sounds like they are hunkering down. Is your station an Indie?

As for the indecency fines, to judge that $27,000 per incident is laughable would cause me to think that you have $27,000 to throw away.

Howard would laugh, as would Infinity. That was my point.

Yes, Stern makes a grotesque amount of money, to be sure, but that does not mean that because of him, other on-air personailties need to be put in jeopardy.

Agree. He is just the visible one. Same as Martha Stewart being nailed (I mean figuratively, not literally ...) she is an example and that is SOP, I think for the Government.

The indesency line is blurry, as is evident by the fact that Clear Channel has kept a Jock who has used words far more evocative than Stern, as well as a personality who called a homosexual "a sodomite who should die of AIDS". Also, the fact that it is a subjective line makes the issue even more dangerous.

Agree but life is gray. If you remove the subjective, what is the alternative? No rules is not an alternative

I don't make anywahere near the money Stern does. Say that something slips out of my mouth that the one person in the audience decides is indecent (That is all it takes. One letter to launch the investigation and if it is determined that what was complained about was actually said, it will lead to the fine.) I could wind up facing a half-million dollar fine. This is something which would absolutely bankrupt me.

So, what is the choice? Remove anything even remotely controversial from my show? Then I become nothing like what I was hired for.

Tough problem. Would you like to be a martyr? How is your contract worded?


Let me give you this as an example, since it is something which is conceivable in my area. I am a huge proponant of gay marriage. I live in a highly concervative and religious town. Should I say on my show that homosexuals are normal people who should have the right to express their love as anyone else, it is possible that someone in this town decides that I was being indecent, and complains to the FCC that I was condoning homosexuality.

Since the FCC can investigate, and would find that I was, in fact, condoning it as a valid lifestyle choice, I can be hit with a fine of $500,000.

Can and would are two different things. You could pull an O'Reilly and get guests who will mouth the words. It depends on how strongly you feel, I guess


And this is ignoring the ability to talk about the current administration.

Food for thought

[Ed]

Originally posted by hgc
This president is a true believer


Yes.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
I was listening to Stern on the way to work today. Interesting, because I haven't listened to him in years, but all this brouhaha has turned me back on to his show.




All because of one pedulous, middle aged, boob.

Really remarkable. Wonder what people will be saying when they sober up.

[Samus]

I see I was beat to the punch about the FCC fine.

While were on the subject, she (my g/f) was lamenting yesterday about Clear Channel specifically, because of their business model. She said they are ruining radio.

What Clear Channel will do is move in to a market, and buy as many radio stations as possible in that market. Then they fire DJs and syndicate shows, with their tightly controlled selection of music. Ever wonder why so many radio stations seem to play the same garbage over and over? That is Clear Channel at work, deciding what you should listen to and which artists should be popular.

Perhaps more discouraging is how large media conglomerates can lend their support to political causes, meaning the media can now be in bed with a specific political ideology. With the consolidation of media into the hands of the few (think Time Warner and Clear Channel), it is very plausible to see the day when the mass media are only agents of the elected officials they support.

Enough conspiracy theory for now, I need to get some work done...

[Samus]

Ed: All because of one pedulous, middle aged, boob. Yep. All because of one pedulous, middle aged, funny, boob that is in the process of getting the shaft for no good reason.

Ed: Wonder what people will be saying when they sober up. I will probably still be upset over undue suppression of free speech.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Perhaps more discouraging is how large media conglomerates can lend their support to political causes, meaning the media can now be in bed with a specific political ideology. With the consolidation of media into the hands of the few (think Time Warner and Clear Channel), it is very plausible to see the day when the mass media are only agents of the elected officials they support.

Enough conspiracy theory for now, I need to get some work done...

CC is nothing.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Ed


I am aware of the fines that they are talking about. Frankly, the fines that Infinity paid for Stern to date are laughable, was it $1.5mm in total? It was sorta like Judge Ito fining Johnny Cocherain $200 (about the price of one of his ties:D ). The size of the fine is not the issue. Is it just?If they have rules they should be obeyed, if they are not there should be some consequences.The rules are so ill-defined as to make it impossible to know what they are until after you've been tagged.That begs the question of the rules themselves. I have far less problem with restrictions on non-political speech on public airwaves, that has always been a slippery area with movable "lines". I personally am not happy with what I perceive to be a general corsening of society. That's my opinion and the degree to which it is shared by citizens in each radio market (I believe that it is market specific) is the degree to which more restrictive rules should be promulgated. If Howard wants to cover every ADI then he is going to have to broadcast for the lowest common denominator.

Political speech is another story entirely. How can you have a political show and not bash Bush? I don't mean you, but how can you pretend to be reasonably objective (tho' liberal) without having things said on your show that might be construed as a dig against the president? Perhaps a call-in discussion of censorship is called for wherein a caller (ahem) raises some pointed questions.

I think that it is dangerous to conflate lewd and lacivious speech with political speech and think of them as the same issue. A lot of folks would agree with restrictions on the former but not the latter. If they are one issue, you loose. This is the most dangerous miscontruence of the issue. Our constitutional guarantees of free speech do NOT make a distinction for political speech. Why? Because the distinction between political and non-political speech is in the eye of the beholder, and all manner of speech is worthy of protection.

And for the record, Stern talks politics, in an obvious way, almost every day, and has for years. He has recently come down against the re-election of Bush, and thinks that this precipitated his problem with Clear Channel. Clear Channel executives have very strong ties to the Bush administration. They sponsered rallies in support of the war in Iraq, and fired on-air personalities who refused to participate, or spoke out against the war on their programs. Check out the facts.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by hgc
And for the record, Stern talks politics, in an obvious way, almost every day, and has for years.



I have enjoyed Howard Stern for years. I find him insightful, smart and funny. I especially like that he calls a spade a spade and doesn't kiss butt or try to win brownie points by climbing up the 'guests' colon like 99% of all other morning D.J.s in America.

Do I agree with everything he does or says?..not really....do I find him offensive?...rarely, but when I do I have enough rationale and personal emotional control to not let it ruin my day or bother me to the point where I just have to complain to the FCC.

How come I can watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer behead vampires in prime time?...How come I can watch police shows with gun fights and murders in prime time?...but if Howard says "penis" or "oral" on the radio the entire fabric of America is threatened.

And there's the problem. People who cannot control their thoughts and emotions are so offended by what Howard says that they just have to make sure you don't have to hear such crimes against humanity.

Soon "those people" will not like what somebody else says, and then they won't like what somebody else says either, and on and on....soon everything will be vanilla-flavoured and politically correct, a nation of 'Stepford Wives'.

Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals in America enjoy...until now.

[Tmy]

Why is it OK to run an uneditied 911 explitive filled documentry on primetime??? Is the Fword not the Fword??

Thats what I hate about the FCC, there decisions are so politcial.

The Fcc fines arent the problem, the problem is that they screw with the radio station licenses. So if Clearchannel gets fined too much they can pull licenses or deny radio station purchases. Liek the mob the FCC gets there way, so these compaines wont even bother fighting them in court (where the FCC would lose a decency claim)

[pgwenthold]

Am I the only who is starting to wonder if the FCC isn't starting to ask for trouble? What are the chances that before long, someone gets POed enough and sues the FCC on grounds of restricing freedom of speech? The FCC will argue that there are limits, but I can imagine that in a case against inconsistent application of regs, that the entire issue of federal regulations gets reexamined.

Depending on the judge, I could see this getting very ugly for the FCC. The FCC has been sitting pretty safe for a while, with the claim that they are only protecting the airwaves, but if they start getting getting pi$$y, some judge might clamp down on them, taking their baby with the bathwater.

Federal agencies who live on the edge of restricting rights should walk cautiously, I think.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by subgenius

Or we could elect a new president to appoint the FCC.
Oh, wait, the last one was selected.

WOOWOO!


http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0102/SEC111.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0102->Section%20111

Title IX, Chapter 102, Sec. 111:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the county returns are not received by the Department of State by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified.





http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0102/SEC112.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0102->Section%20112
Title IX, Chapter 102, Sec. 112:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The above two statutes are in conflict for obvious reasons. They're also part of the contest phase -- before certification.



http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0102/SEC166.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0102->Section%20166
Title IX, Chapter 102, Sec. 166:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4)(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title IX, Chapter 102, Sec. 166 is part of the protest phase -- after certification.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by subgenius

Or we could elect a new president to appoint the FCC.
Oh, wait, the last one was selected.

SG,

If you want to be taken seriously then you should at least be seen to recognise certain solid facts that most everyone else figured out long, long ago.

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

sheesh!


Link to entire PBS Article (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html)

-z

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=20252 ...full article

No kidding. I don't see this as backlash against the stupidly planned Jackson/Timberlake stunt, but more an effect of the post-911 government policies. Someone is takig advantage of every little situation using the post-911 atmosphere to promote their goals. Aside from the tragedy, one of my worries after 911 was that there would be an opportunity for the fascists (for want of a better term) to start tightening the hold on people. Restriction of civil and personal liberties seem to be increasing all the time. Soon we will have to show papers at a checkpoint while going to the corner store or travelling from one state to the next, etc. We didn't lose a war, but it's starting to feel that way. If we have to live a certain way during a war, so be it, but then declare a war and quit screwing around by going after one bad-guy (OBL) and ignoring the other because they have money (Saudi Arabia).

I feel like in many ways someone wants the US turned back into a 1940's pre-Elvis, Christian country of repressed robots that do what they are told.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir


I have enjoyed Howard Stern for years. I find him insightful, smart and funny. I especially like that he calls a spade a spade and doesn't kiss butt or try to win brownie points by climbing up the 'guests' colon like 99% of all other morning D.J.s in America.

I used to enjoy Howard years ago when he used to be insightful, smart and funny. Now, he's just a shock jock. Toilet humor. His show is always the same old thing, day in, day out. He's not insightful. He's insensitive and a sell-out. I won't miss him.

Soon "those people" will not like what somebody else says, and then they won't like what somebody else says either, and on and on....soon everything will be vanilla-flavoured and politically correct, a nation of 'Stepford Wives'.

Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals in America enjoy...until now. [/QUOTE]

True, and even though I've no use for Howard, I am concerned that he and other media entertainers are being 'hushed' by the FCC. This is not to say that we aren't being bombarded everyday with non-relevant sexual and violent innuendo. We are. And I think many of us take liberty with the concept of "freedom of expression". Expression is one thing. Saying or showing something for pure shock value isn't a form of expression. It's just working to get a reaction. Especially for ratings.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Yep. All because of one pedulous, middle aged, funny, boob that is in the process of getting the shaft for no good reason.

I will probably still be upset over undue suppression of free speech.

I think you guys mean "pendulous", as in swinging like a pendulum. No, hers was not particularly pendulous, although it was middle aged. Pendulous = good, by the way.

[Bottle or the Gun]

I'm not a Stern fan, but he doesn't make me near as mad as that GOP-whore Hannity. Who's butt was around to suck on before Bush? Is it any wonder his artificially-induced popularity has grown in the last two years? (And I mean artificially-induced like Hillary Duff, Clay Aiken or a #1 selling book or CD that really isn't #1, just that the media outlets says they are)

As far as Janet's rack goes, I'm more upset that it wasn't better looking. Why couldn't Salma Hyek and Justin have done a show?

[Tony]

I don't understand why John Kerry isnt making an issue out of this. Unless he himself supports what's happening (i wouldnt be surprised if he did) he can easily paint the Bush administration as being against freespeech.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by rikzilla
SG,

If you want to be taken seriously then you should at least be seen to recognise certain solid facts that most everyone else figured out long, long ago.Though not addressed to me, I'd like to respond.

Your position (at least as revealed through your chosen quotation) presents a false dichotomy. One can argue that the US Supreme Court, in halting the recounts before any results were finalized, effectively handed the win to Mr. Bush, as he was ahead at the time. Ergo: they "selected" him, if not by intent (also arguable) then by default.

For the best, most thorough examination of the actions of the USSC in Election 2000, please see Vincent Bugliosi's The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156025355X/qid=1078515177/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2805330-6919214?v=glance&s=books)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Though not addressed to me, I'd like to respond. Your position presents a false dichotomy. One can argue that the US Supreme Court, in halting the recounts before any results were finalized, effectively handed the win to Mr. Bush, as he was ahead at the time. Ergo: they "selected" him, if not by intent (also arguable) then by default.

For the best, most thorough examination of the actions of the USSC in Election 2000, please see Vincent Bugliosi's The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156025355X/qid=1078515177/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2805330-6919214?v=glance&s=books)

So you're saying that no matter what the vote count says in Florida Bush was "selected"? Gee, wouldn't such a thing be illegal? Just because one partisan wrote a book proves nothing. That's his opinion. If I want such an opinion I'll buy his book. I'm not arguing from opinion though. Read the PBS article. Bush won Florida no matter how you count....pregnant, dimpled, and/or pimpled chads be damned. The election came down to who would secure Florida's electoral votes. Bush did. Game over.

Now, I will admit that I personally did not think that the FL Supreme Court should have been overturned. I was in favor of the full recount. IF the recount favored Gore, then you'd have a case for saying that the Supreme Court "selected" him...and I'd be there with you. In fact the Supreme Court was in grave danger of "selecting" him and I hope they stay the hell out of this kind of thing in the future.

But Gore did not win Florida....he lost in every re-count that was ever performed. The Supremes got lucky.

-z

[Ladewig]

I mean after all those CC guys can't be all bad if they kick the Jew-devil spawn Stern off the air.

As Howard, himself, would say, "hey, it's half-Jew devil spawn."

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by rikzilla
So you're saying that no matter what the vote count says in Florida Bush was "selected"?If it happened before all the votes were in, effectively, yes.Gee, wouldn't such a thing be illegal?Yes.

Vince Bugliosi (the former L.A. County D.A. who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson, among others) makes a compelling, if not airtight, demonstration that illegal is exactly what the Supreme Court decision in Election 2000 was.Just because one partisan wrote a book proves nothing. That's his opinion.Interesting you assume he's a "partisan" because you disagree with the opinion. Writes Bugliosi, "[L]et me say that if a five member majority of the Supreme Court had done for Gore what it did for Bush, I can give you a one-hundred per cent guarantee that I'd be writing the same, identical article you are about to read."If I want such an opinion I'll buy his book. I'm not arguing from opinion though.Really? What else is an argument but a presentation of an opinion. That Mr. Bugliosi, who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, can muster facts, evidence, precedent and the like to advance his position is what makes the book such an important read.Read the PBS article.I will when I have a moment. "The Betrayal of America" is $9.95 soft cover. Or, if you PM me, I'll gladly mail you my copy.

*snip*But Gore did not win Florida....he lost in every re-count that was ever performed.This is, of course, a different matter. The butterfly ballot issue as well as Pat Buchanan's unexplained spike of votes in one predominantly Jewish county (which he, himself believed were mistakingly given to him) contributed to Mr. Bush being ahead by the slimmest of margins.

As I've written in this forum before, knowing that he was well within the mathematical parameter for a statistical tie in Florida (with a certainty that that outcome would be in dispute) while a half-million(!) votes behind nationwide, you'd think that George W. Bush, a self-proclaimed man of the highest moral fiber, would concede to the will of the electorate he claimed to trust so much. But let's not derail the thread any further.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by scribble


Jesus, you'd think those people would be in rapture at the fact that Howard Stern was pulled...

You know, Howard Stern always thought he was the second coming of Jesus Christ... I wonder if the Rapture Ready people have told him he's literally going to be responsible for it?

It's amazing how many posts you see over there like "Oh--that's DISGUSTING" -----quickly followed by "Oh goody---it won't be long now---TAKE ME JEESUS!!!!!

The more prevalent the things they detest become---the better they like it..............

[American]

Suuuuure. It's not because people stopped laughing 6 years ago.....


He peaked during Private Parts, then suffered several crashes of his own making. Jackie's departure was a notable defeat, and it was all downhill from there.


Oh well! :p

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by rikzilla

IF the recount favored Gore, then you'd have a case for saying that the Supreme Court "selected" him...and I'd be there with you. In fact the Supreme Court was in grave danger of "selecting" him and I hope they stay the hell out of this kind of thing in the future.

But Gore did not win Florida....he lost in every re-count that was ever performed.I'm glad to hear that you'll be there with Regnad Kcin. Gore did win Florida in the media consortium recount that your PBS story refers to.

One reason why you (and many others) came to the incorrect conclusion that Bush won the recounts is that the initial headlines were misleading, titling the story "Bush Won" when the results actually showed Bush winning by some ways of counting and Gore winning by others. But the more important reason you have a mistaken impression of who won is because the PBS article you are relying on is dated April 3, 2001. You apparently stopped following the story much too soon.

The first reports of the recount were indeed headlined that "Bush won". This was not an accurate summary of the actual recount results. Corrections were subsequently made in the papers, but not prominently, so many people remain unaware of them. (I've linked to one below.) The actual (preliminary) findings of the recounts were that Bush would have prevailed if only the 3 counties Gore had requested were recounted and Gore would have won if a full statewide recount had been done.

That, however, was only the preliminary finding. If you had followed the story longer, you would have seen that it turned out Gore would have won whether a 3-county or statewide recount was done, and regardless of what standard was used for counting the ballots with dimples and hanging chads.

Here are some links, and short passages from them. I am sorry I am not able to link you to the newspaper stories themselves; I looked them up on-line a year or so ago when this topic came up, and was able to read and link to them then, but that thread appears to have been pruned and the deadline for access to the newspaper stories appears to have expired. Next time I go to a good library (in about 2 weeks) I will photocopy the relevant NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and (if they're available) Florida newspaper stories to have on hand next time this discussion comes up (or to quote for you if you'd like).

(Part 1) First, lets take the matter of the preliminary reports, such as the one you link to. As FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting -- a liberal media watchdog group) reported shortly after the newspaper stories were published, the headlines of the stories did not accurately reflect the recount findings. The actual stories published in the Times, the Post, and USA Today did state that Bush would have won under some conditions and Gore would have won under others, but you had to actually read the stories, not just the headlines, to discover that.

FAIR is a biased source, being predisposed to look for media bias against liberals, but I was able to look up the newspaper stories they referred to and in this matter FAIR was correct. This is easy to ascertain for yourself. Or wait and I will quote directly from the newspaper stories once I copy them.

(The Newshour story you link to does an even poorer job than the newspapers. It does mention "one scenario under which Gore could have scored a narrow victory" -- inaccurately implying there was only one -- while asserting that "Under most other scenarios, the papers reported, Bush would have retained his lead." Actually there were several under which Gore would have prevailed, and several under which Bush would have prevailed. The NY Times report, as I recall, was the best, because it gave a fairly lengthy explanation of the different scenarios so you could compare them for yourself.)

So even based on these initial newspaper reports, your statement that Gore "lost in every re-count that was ever performed" is incorrect. The media consortium re-counted by several different standards, and Gore won by some of these. The irony (which was pointed out at the time) was that Bush would have won if the re-count had been conducted on only 3 counties (as Gore had asked), and Gore would have won if there had been a state-wide re-count (as the Republicans said it should be done).

Link 1: FAIR on the initial newspaper coverage of the consortium report (http://www.fair.org/activism/usatoday-recount.html) [b]USA Today Conceals Key Information in Recount Story

April 11, 2001

On April 4, USA Today announced the results of its long-anticipated re-examination of Florida ballots (done in conjunction with the Miami Herald) with the headline: "Newspapers' Recount Shows Bush Prevailed in Fla. Vote."

The headline touting a Bush win referred to the paper's estimate of what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not blocked the hand recount of 60 Florida counties that had been ordered by the state Supreme Court. The paper found that Bush likely would have won such a recount.

But USA Today's investigation also found something else-- something it chose not to tell its readers: The official hand counts in the remaining seven Florida counties, completed before the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, had missed hundreds, even thousands of potential Gore votes. If those votes had been properly counted, under two of the four counting standards used by the paper to determine valid votes, Gore would have won the entire state by 300 to 400 votes.

... The Miami Herald, which worked with USA Today on the study, also played down the fact that the re-examination showed that Gore got more votes than Bush under two of the four standards (4/4/01). But the Florida paper at least provided its readers some valuable information about the limitations of the official recounts from the seven counties....
Link # 2: The media acknowledges the accuracy of Fair's complaint, as in this AP correction. (http://www.fair.org/activism/ap-florida-update.html)Fri Sep 6,11:18 AM ET

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - In an Aug. 25 story on former Secretary of State Katherine Harris' upcoming book, The Associated Press reported that some inspections by news organizations of uncounted Florida ballots in the 2000 presidential race showed George W. Bush winning more votes than Al Gore.

The story should also have noted that some scenarios showed Gore coming out ahead. For example, a vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots by The Associated Press and seven other news organizations found Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Gore, but that Gore would have finished ahead by the barest of margins had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.

(Part 2) But that's only half the story! In November 2001 it became clear that Gore won the vote in Florida by almost any standard of counting used.

What Gore and the media had focused on during the aftermath of the election were the undervotes -- ballots where the chad was not sufficiently punched, and over which there was considerable dispute about how each should be counted. But where Gore's margin of victory actually lay was in the overvotes.

An overvote is a ballot where more than one candidate is indicated, and many of these would be invalid. If, for instance, someone marked off both Bush and Buchanan on the ballot, the ballot would be invalid. But if the person checked off Bush in the check-box section, and then wrote in Bush's name on the write-in section, that would under Florida law be a perfectly valid vote for Bush because the voter's intent would be plainly evident.

And a number of voters made exactly that mistake. They followed the ballot instructions literally, and so when it told them to check off the candidate they preferred they did so and when it told them to write in the name of the candidate they preferred they did that as well.

The number of overvotes for Gore was sufficiently large to wipe out Bush's lead virtually no matter how the undervotes and other disputed ballots were counted!

Link # 3: an article from the Consortium of Independent Journalists (CIJ) explaining the overvote situation (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html)

I am not familiar with the CIJ. They appear to be left-leaning and strongly anti-Bush, but their summary of the overvote situation matches what I recall reading in other sources at the time.A document, revealed by Newsweek, indicates that the Florida recount that was stopped last year by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court would have taken into account so-called "overvotes" that heavily favored Gore.

If those "overvotes" were counted, as now it appears they would have been, Gore would have carried Florida regardless of what standard of chad – dimpled, hanging, punched-through – was used in counting the so-called "undervotes," according to an examination of those ballots by a group of leading news organizations.

In other words, Bush lost not only the national popular vote by more than a half million ballots, but he would have lost the key state of Florida and thus the presidency, if Florida’s authorities had been allowed to count the votes that met the state’s legal requirement of demonstrating the clear intent of the voter.

The Newsweek disclosure – a memo that the presiding judge in the state recount sent to a county canvassing board – shows that the judge was instructing the county boards to collect "overvotes" that had been rejected for indicating two choices for president when, in reality, the voters had made clear their one choice.

"If you would segregate ‘overvotes’ as you describe and indicate in your final report how many where you determined the clear intent of the voter," wrote Judge Terry Lewis, who had been named by the Florida Supreme Court to oversee the statewide recount, "I will rule on the issue for all counties."

Lewis’s memo to the chairman of the Charlotte County canvassing board was written on Dec. 9, 2000, just hours before Bush succeeded in getting five conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount.
edited to add: Here's a link to a mainstream paper, the St. Petersburg Times (in Florida), regarding the overvotes. This is slow to load, but looks to be an excellent story to read. (http://www.sptimes.com/News/111201/Lostvotes/Without_overvotes_Gor.shtml)
... the ballots were labeled as overvotes, or ballots which machines read as having marks for more than one candidate and were never recounted by hand. Had election officials looked at them, the intent of these voters would have been abundantly clear.

The ballots were unearthed in an analysis of 113,820 overvotes for the St. Petersburg Times and other media companies.

... Gore could have picked up 2,182 votes last November on overvotes where voter intent is clear, and Bush would have gained 1,309 votes, the media companies' analysis shows. That difference would have enabled Gore to defeat Bush in any statewide recount that included overvotes, regardless of what statewide standard for counting undervotes was used. I'll be away until Tuesday, but will be glad to continue this then.

[Demigorgon]

Could it be that the Howard Stern show sucked?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Nova Land

An overvote is a ballot where more than one candidate is indicated, and many of these would be invalid. If, for instance, someone marked off both Bush and Buchanan on the ballot, the ballot would be invalid. But if the person checked off Bush in the check-box section, and then wrote in Bush's name on the write-in section, that would under Florida law be a perfectly valid vote for Bush because the voter's intent would be plainly evident.


While such a move would clearly indicate the voter's intent, it would also clearly indicate their IQ, or lack of it.

Is it really true that there were 3500 voters in Florida who voted for someone and then also made gave them a write-in vote? Why, just to be sure?

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Demigorgon
Could it be that the Howard Stern show sucked?

doubtful, especially since he's number 1 in his timeslot in most markets and was a cash cow for Clear Channel.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


doubtful, especially since he's number 1 in his timeslot in most markets and was a cash cow for Clear Channel.

Clear Channel boss is also a good pal of Bush. Hmmmmm, what could be the connection? The Wild Card Stern is out, GOP-Whore Hannity in. Hmmmm.

(FYI: Just because it's number 1 doesn't mean it's good, ie: Bonanza, Survivor, The Apprentice, Friends.)

[Skeptic]

If it happened before all the votes were in, effectively, yes.

The SC did the right thing.

The real problem with the election was that it was TOO CLOSE TO CALL. To get accurate results in a "recount", the recounters would have to be accurate within one card in 10,000 or more, if they want to avoid the margin of error completely swamping the difference in the votes--an obvious impossiblity.

The SC had three choices:

1). Stop the latest recount, choosing the candidate that at least had, up to this time, had won all of the recounts.

2). Continue the recounts, and one of two things happen:

a). Another recount is in Bush's favor, making him president just like in case (1);

b). A recount goes in Gore's favor, focing the SC to either:

i). choosen between two candidates when now BOTH had won at least one recount, thus "choosing a president" in a much more gratuitous way than by stopping the recounts (if that is "choosing" the president at all), or

ii). try to "order" a new elections, something which they would have had no power to do.

Clearly the latter two alternatives in (b) are far worse than what actually occured.

Things would have been different if there was the possiblity that the new recount would somehow be significantly more accurate, or could give statistically more significant results, than the previous ones.

But this was not the case: another recount, whether Bush or Gore winning according to it, would not bring us closer to the truth of who really one than the previous recounts.

So having another recount would simply not settle the question who had won. No recount could, in this situation. It would AT BEST result in the SC "choosing" (by refusing to hold yet another recount) Bush president anyway, while at worst it would throw the whole system into chaos and calling for far worse juducial intervention.

Going forward with the recount could only have made things worse, and could not have made things better. There was no point to it.

That Mr. Bugliosi, who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials,

(Sarcasm)

on a side note: why is it that when a succesful prosecutor is a liberal, his success is evidence of his intelligence and superior legal acumen, while when he is a conservtive, it's proof he is "abusing the racist system to railroad people of color"?

(/sarcasm)

The butterfly ballot issue as well as Pat Buchanan's unexplained spike of votes in one predominantly Jewish county (which he, himself believed were mistakingly given to him) contributed to Mr. Bush being ahead by the slimmest of margins.

This sort of thing smells of paternalism and dictatorship: "Why, yes, the votes are for my opponent, Mr. X, but I'm sure they REALLY wanted to vote for me!" Now, in what countries in the world do we tend to hear that?

knowing that he was well within the mathematical parameter for a statistical tie in Florida (with a certainty that that outcome would be in dispute) while a half-million(!) votes behind nationwide, you'd think that George W. Bush, a self-proclaimed man of the highest moral fiber, would concede to the will of the electorate he claimed to trust so much.

Why? The voting for the president of the United State is NOT a direct vote, but an indirect one through the electoral system. It always was.

Why should Bush concede defeat just because if the voting was done in another method he would lose? That's like saying that your game of chess with me is a tie, but if we were playing by the rules of checkers you'd be winning, so I should concede defeat and admit you beat me at chess.

If you start looking at other systems of voting, there is no end to which one you can choose. If the voting system was still that used originally--only white males with property could vote--Bush would have won overwhelmingly. Should Gore have conceded due to that? Of course not.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The SC did the right thing.I humbly suggest that your verdict is in error. Indeed, dozens of constitutional law professors and attorneys from around the country took great issue with the Supreme Court majority's decision in Election 2000.The real problem with the election was that it was TOO CLOSE TO CALL.Well, I don't know that the Florida vote's closeness was the "real problem." There are systems in place for such occurrences, and the Florida process was moving along properly and deliberately, albeit slowly (not that there's anything wrong with that).To get accurate results in a "recount", the recounters would have to be accurate within one card in 10,000 or more, if they want to avoid the margin of error completely swamping the difference in the votes--an obvious impossiblity.I disagree. To get accurate results in a recount, all that has to be done is...recount. Rather, I should say, manually recount. It is after all the automated systems and the diverse methods of polling that undoubtedly result in errors in every election in the country. It's only because of the initial Florida result closeness as well as its importance to the final national outcome that the problem was brought to light.The SC had three choices...You left out one: Stay out of the state's business. And before you say that the Florida vote was ultimately the nation's business, I'd like to remind you that by moving as it did, the Supreme Court not only stopped the process of determining an actual winner in the Sunshine State, but they invalidated the half-a-million more votes for Al Gore in the other states combined.Things would have been different if there was the possiblity that the new recount would somehow be significantly more accurate, or could give statistically more significant results, than the previous ones.There wasn't the "possibility" that the new recount would be more accurate; a hand recount is more accurate. You do know that then Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed a law stipulating hand recounts should preliminary automated voting results fall within a certain margin, the very same incident that occurred in Florida, yes?

Incidentally, I take issue with your phrase "statistically more significant results" as well as your earlier use of "margin of error" in regard to a hand recount. I don't know why you suggest that a manual recount is anything less than the most accurate method of counting a ballot.But this was not the case: another recount, whether Bush or Gore winning according to it, would not bring us closer to the truth of who really one than the previous recounts.Stipulations as to votes, undervotes, overvotes, etc. are quite clear. This is rightly stated prior to an election so that no one can claim that the subsequent result is not fair and impartial. "Who really won" is the candidate who receives the most votes by the agreed-upon preset parameters. Pretty simple.So having another recount would simply not settle the question who had won. No recount could, in this situation.A full recount had yet to take place when the Supreme Court ordered a halt. Had it proceeded and the artificial and meaningless tabulation deadline was set aside (no thanks to partisan Sec'y of State Katherine Harris) then the question would certainly be settled.It would AT BEST result in the SC "choosing" (by refusing to hold yet another recount) Bush president anyway, while at worst it would throw the whole system into chaos and calling for far worse juducial intervention.I'll repeat: The Supreme Court of the U.S. had no business interfering in the Florida process. None. Indeed, any examination of the majority justices' prior opinions, both specific and general, reveals that they agree! That the case was before the court in the first place was due to the Bush team's efforts to find a way to put a stop to the process while their candidate was ahead.Going forward with the recount could only have made things worse, and could not have made things better. There was no point to it.I'm stunned that anyone would think this. If anything, a complete and accurate recount that ultimately favored Mr. Bush would certainly put to rest any but the most extreme partisan questioning of the legitimacy of the results, something that has certainly not happened.Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
That Mr. Bugliosi, who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials...(Sarcasm)

on a side note: why is it that when a succesful prosecutor is a liberal, his success is evidence of his intelligence and superior legal acumen, while when he is a conservtive, it's proof he is "abusing the racist system to railroad people of color"?

(/sarcasm)I'm laughing out loud. Anyone who considers Vincent Bugliosi a liberal certainly doesn't know the man or his work.

And on my own side note: Why is it that, even on a skeptic's board, people are so often quick to ascribe an opposing philosophy to a person they have a disagreement with before first investigating that person's philosophy? In other words, just because the man takes issue with the process that resulted in a conservative candidate's victory does not automatically mean that he must therefore be a liberal.

Let me also add that, like Bugliosi, I would feel the same way regarding Election 2000 no matter the outcome. The difference is that he has the extreme intellect and background to be able to lend overpowering force to the argument.

Oh, and I fail to understand your use of the "sarcasm" parameters. You don't seem to be kidding.Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
The butterfly ballot issue as well as Pat Buchanan's unexplained spike of votes in one predominantly Jewish county (which he, himself believed were mistakenly given to him) contributed to Mr. Bush being ahead by the slimmest of margins.This sort of thing smells of paternalism and dictatorship: "Why, yes, the votes are for my opponent, Mr. X, but I'm sure they REALLY wanted to vote for me!" Now, in what countries in the world do we tend to hear that?Perhaps I wasn't clear. Pat Buchanan, known for his controversial opinions on, among other matters, Nazi Germany, received a small number of votes for president statewide. Knowing his probable appeal (as well as taking into consideration population by religious affiliation) we can calculate a ratio of likely (or at least possible) Buchanan-to-Jewish and Buchanan-to-all-faiths votes beforehand. This ratio held afterwards except in places where Mr. Buchanan received an anomalic high number of votes. So much so that Buchanan himself stated that the votes he received were probably not intended for him but rather for Al Gore (and his Jewish running mate Joe Lieberman). (This was in concert with the famed "butterfly ballot" and its counterintuitive placement of the candidate's names vis-a-vis their respective punch holes.)Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
...knowing that he was well within the mathematical parameter for a statistical tie in Florida (with a certainty that that outcome would be in dispute) while a half-million(!) votes behind nationwide, you'd think that George W. Bush, a self-proclaimed man of the highest moral fiber, would concede to the will of the electorate he claimed to trust so much.Why? The voting for the president of the United State is NOT a direct vote, but an indirect one through the electoral system. It always was.Why? I already stated why I think why. Mr. Bush had a choice: win legitimately or by-any-means-necessary. Since even you agree that Florida was too close to call and might never result in a decisive win for the purposes of the Electoral College process, we might've hoped that he would consider other factors: Nationally, approx. 500,000 more people who cast ballots preferred that Mr. Gore be the next president. The already discussed problems with the Buchanan vote which, as was likely the case, meant that more Florida voters preferred Mr. Gore. The conflict between Sec'y of State Katherine Harris' professional duties and her personal interest in a Bush family win. His own oft-repeated mantra that he would "restore honor and dignity to the Oval Office" (which presumes he held such qualities in the first place).Following the last point, it would hardly be a stretch to hope that Mr. Bush's actions would speak as loud as his words and might result in other words such as these:

"My fellow Americans. From the very beginning of this campaign I held myself and my staff to the highest of standards. Perhaps in the heat of battle we did not always live up to those ideals. However, now the battle is over. And now we take stock of our efforts.

"Considering that the result of the voters' wishes from the state of Florida is so close as to be virtually unknowable, and considering too that the national results are, on the contrary, quite clear, I have reached a decision. One that I believe is in concert with yours.

"In the interest of the greater good of the United States of America, that we might smoothly and without further delay begin the transfer of executive power from one administration to the next, I do hereby concede the election to Vice President Al Gore. I offer him congratulations on this occasion as well as my admiration for conducting himself during the campaign in a way that reflects positively on all people, regardless of their political philosophy.

Our country is facing any number of problems in the days and years ahead. It is now time to move on and face those problems, not without our disagreements on how best to solve them, but with the full power that comes from combining our diverse intellects and opinions. Together with President Gore, I am confident that we will move ahead, and I hope you will join with me in offering my support and prayers.

"I so appreciate your votes and the confidence in me that they imply. I'm humbled and honored to have met so many of you and listened to your concerns. Indeed, it was a tough campaign. But as I said a moment ago, the battle is over; the race is complete. But because we are all Americans, because we always ultimately pull together, we all win.

"From the bottom of my heart, thank you. And God bless America."Why should Bush concede defeat just because if the voting was done in another method he would lose? That's like saying that your game of chess with me is a tie, but if we were playing by the rules of checkers you'd be winning, so I should concede defeat and admit you beat me at chess.No. Your example is simplistic and erroneous. Try this one: We've just played 60 minutes of American football. When the game is over we discover that a referee did not enforce a particular rule that ended up resulting in one team winning by a margin that would not be enough to maintain a victory if the ruling had been made. (Never mind that, had that judgment been made in real time, the dynamics of the game would've certainly been changed. But I digress.) Now the winning team could very well say, "Tough. We won. Get over it." They'd be within their technical rights. But the right thing to do is say, "We can't accept this win in light of the new information that we are all now aware of. We have no choice but to forfeit." I'm not entirely comfortable with this example because I think it also doesn't take into consideration the nuances of Election 2000, but it'll do.

I agree that, prior to the campaign, all parties agreed to abide by the rules of the Electoral College, so they should all be held to its rules post-election. However, there has never before been an election that showed the antiquated E.C. to be out of step with what is presently an integral, if not central, component of the American democratic process: One person, one vote.If you start looking at other systems of voting, there is no end to which one you can choose. If the voting system was still that used originally--only white males with property could vote--Bush would have won overwhelmingly. Should Gore have conceded due to that? Of course not. Despite your suggestion that there is "no end" to other systems of electing officials, you present a false dichotomy. As I stated above, we, today, are in agreement that one person/one vote is a proper refinement of processes and considerations that preceded it. (I am, of course, referring to progress in ending women's suffrage as well as the ascent of minority voting rights.)

I repeat my suggestion that the Electoral College is today in place for little reason other than tradition and the fact that it would require quite a bit of work to eliminate it. No, we haven't bothered dealing with the E.C. because presidential election returns have always coincided with what the electors would have done anyway.

Thank you for joining the discussion, by the way. I regret that we have veered off-topic, but I couldn't let rikzilla's nor your comments go by without responding.

[Marc]

getting back on topic, it looks like Stern will be on for a few months yet.

Head of the FCC Powell is apparently upset that word leaked of the case being built against Stern. He worries that to take him off now would make him a martyr and cost Bush the election. So they are postponing the case, probably to just before the election?

[c0rbin]

" don't understand why John Kerry isnt making an issue out of this. Unless he himself supports what's happening (i wouldnt be surprised if he did) he can easily paint the Bush administration as being against freespeech."

I think because it's a complicated issue to package and sell to Joe Six-Pack-Voter without sounding like some conspiracy nut-job.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Nova Land
I'm glad to hear that you'll be there with Regnad Kcin. Gore did win Florida in the media consortium recount that your PBS story refers to.

One reason why you (and many others) came to the incorrect conclusion that Bush won the recounts is that the initial headlines were misleading, titling the story "Bush Won" when the results actually showed Bush winning by some ways of counting and Gore winning by others. But the more important reason you have a mistaken impression of who won is because the PBS article you are relying on is dated April 3, 2001. You apparently stopped following the story much too soon.

The first reports of the recount were indeed headlined that "Bush won". This was not an accurate summary of the actual recount results. Corrections were subsequently made in the papers, but not prominently, so many people remain unaware of them. (I've linked to one below.) The actual (preliminary) findings of the recounts were that Bush would have prevailed if only the 3 counties Gore had requested were recounted and Gore would have won if a full statewide recount had been done.

That, however, was only the preliminary finding. If you had followed the story longer, you would have seen that it turned out Gore would have won whether a 3-county or statewide recount was done, and regardless of what standard was used for counting the ballots with dimples and hanging chads.

Here are some links, and short passages from them. I am sorry I am not able to link you to the newspaper stories themselves; I looked them up on-line a year or so ago when this topic came up, and was able to read and link to them then, but that thread appears to have been pruned and the deadline for access to the newspaper stories appears to have expired. Next time I go to a good library (in about 2 weeks) I will photocopy the relevant NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and (if they're available) Florida newspaper stories to have on hand next time this discussion comes up (or to quote for you if you'd like).

(Part 1) First, lets take the matter of the preliminary reports, such as the one you link to. As FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting -- a liberal media watchdog group) reported shortly after the newspaper stories were published, the headlines of the stories did not accurately reflect the recount findings. The actual stories published in the Times, the Post, and USA Today did state that Bush would have won under some conditions and Gore would have won under others, but you had to actually read the stories, not just the headlines, to discover that.

FAIR is a biased source, being predisposed to look for media bias against liberals, but I was able to look up the newspaper stories they referred to and in this matter FAIR was correct. This is easy to ascertain for yourself. Or wait and I will quote directly from the newspaper stories once I copy them.

(The Newshour story you link to does an even poorer job than the newspapers. It does mention "one scenario under which Gore could have scored a narrow victory" -- inaccurately implying there was only one -- while asserting that "Under most other scenarios, the papers reported, Bush would have retained his lead." Actually there were several under which Gore would have prevailed, and several under which Bush would have prevailed. The NY Times report, as I recall, was the best, because it gave a fairly lengthy explanation of the different scenarios so you could compare them for yourself.)

So even based on these initial newspaper reports, your statement that Gore "lost in every re-count that was ever performed" is incorrect. The media consortium re-counted by several different standards, and Gore won by some of these. The irony (which was pointed out at the time) was that Bush would have won if the re-count had been conducted on only 3 counties (as Gore had asked), and Gore would have won if there had been a state-wide re-count (as the Republicans said it should be done).

Link 1: FAIR on the initial newspaper coverage of the consortium report (http://www.fair.org/activism/usatoday-recount.html)
Link # 2: The media acknowledges the accuracy of Fair's complaint, as in this AP correction. (http://www.fair.org/activism/ap-florida-update.html)

[b](Part 2) But that's only half the story! In November 2001 it became clear that Gore won the vote in Florida by almost any standard of counting used.

What Gore and the media had focused on during the aftermath of the election were the undervotes -- ballots where the chad was not sufficiently punched, and over which there was considerable dispute about how each should be counted. But where Gore's margin of victory actually lay was in the overvotes.

An overvote is a ballot where more than one candidate is indicated, and many of these would be invalid. If, for instance, someone marked off both Bush and Buchanan on the ballot, the ballot would be invalid. But if the person checked off Bush in the check-box section, and then wrote in Bush's name on the write-in section, that would under Florida law be a perfectly valid vote for Bush because the voter's intent would be plainly evident.

And a number of voters made exactly that mistake. They followed the ballot instructions literally, and so when it told them to check off the candidate they preferred they did so and when it told them to write in the name of the candidate they preferred they did that as well.

The number of overvotes for Gore was sufficiently large to wipe out Bush's lead virtually no matter how the undervotes and other disputed ballots were counted!

Link # 3: an article from the Consortium of Independent Journalists (CIJ) explaining the overvote situation (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html)

I am not familiar with the CIJ. They appear to be left-leaning and strongly anti-Bush, but their summary of the overvote situation matches what I recall reading in other sources at the time.
edited to add: Here's a link to a mainstream paper, the St. Petersburg Times (in Florida), regarding the overvotes. This is slow to load, but looks to be an excellent story to read. (http://www.sptimes.com/News/111201/Lostvotes/Without_overvotes_Gor.shtml)
I'll be away until Tuesday, but will be glad to continue this then.

Why yes,...by April of 2000 I had put the election behind me and out of mind pretty much since Bush had already been in office for 3 months and continued crying by the Dems was not only irrelevant, but repetative. (Here we are in 2004, and still some are crying about 2000!) Your links refer to a conclusive result at their printing..which was November 2001!! Do you really think that this should have been drawn out that long?? If you do, then you've single handedly changed my mind in strong favor of the USSC intervention.

Obviously most Dems would have been content to re-count the ballots at least until such time as Gore won. So who would be President till Nov 2001? Clinton? Can you imagine the danger of the on-going election confusion AND the attacks of 9/11, with a disputed lame-duck do-nothing like Clinton taking up room in the White House?? I don't even want to think about it.

As far as the CIJ and their "recount until our guy wins" strategy, calling them "left leaning" has got to win you at least a nomination for a JREF award for understatement of the year. The link I posted to was PBS...not exactly a pro-Bush right-wingnut site,...yet you attempt to counter it with a Bush-basher site. That's not what I would call a legit attempt at evenhandedness my friend.

So, to recap....I was in favor of letting Florida recount,...but I would never have been in favor of such a thing had it held up results until Nov 2001!! I would not even have been in favor of allowing the re-count to delay the inauguration. But even if we had allowed it to be held up till April of 2001....Bush would have won. Only when we start counting this and allowing for that do we get to November with a Gore win massaged out of a few "gerrymander-like" recount areas or methods. Sounds like cherry-picking to me.

The fact is, we survived election 2000 with an intact nation and no civil war. I now believe we have the USSC to thank for that. Apparently, they did precisely what needed to be done. I have little doubt that they'd have had to do the same no matter if Gore had been in the lead.

-z

[Skeptic]

I disagree. To get accurate results in a recount, all that has to be done is...recount. Rather, I should say, manually recount. It is after all the automated systems and the diverse methods of polling that undoubtedly result in errors in every election in the country.

And human recounters are somehow not prone to error? To repeat: the difference in votes was 500 or so out of about three and a half million votes. This is (roughly) a 1-in-10,000 difference. If, for some reason, human vote recount error is more than 0.01%, which is very likely, then the error will determine the winner, not the number of votes.

To put it simply, it is impossible, for all practical purposes, to know who really won. But if I had to guess, I'd certainly say it was Bush--he won the original and all the other counts, all of them by a similar margin of few hundred votes. Certainly, he had the stronger claim.

It's only because of the initial Florida result closeness as well as its importance to the final national outcome that the problem was brought to light.

What did you expect? When you count millions of votes, you're going to make mistakes. The fact that voting machines are only accurate to within some degree, say 1% or 0.1%, is not exactly surprising; and it's irrelevant as long as elections are decided by a wider margin, as they always were before. The freak occurence--an election decided by 0.01% of the votes--was not something anybody had imagined.

by moving as it did, the Supreme Court not only stopped the process of determining an actual winner in the Sunshine State,

It didn't, since as I said before, another recount would not determine the winner with any more certainty than the previous recounts.

but they invalidated the half-a-million more votes for Al Gore in the other states combined.

Once more: it doesn't matter, since the elections for president are not a direct election and never were, for a variety of good reasons. The popular vote does not determine the president--the number of votes in the electoral college does.

Lincoln, for example, would also have been defeated if the election were done according to the popular vote.

There wasn't the "possibility" that the new recount would be more accurate; a hand recount is more accurate.

Yes, but in this case, it would not have to merely be ACCURATE; it would (again) have to be accurate to within 0.01%--one part in 10,000--or so to make sure it's the votes and not some error, bias, or mistake that determies the winner. That is sheer fantasy; it can't be done.

You do know that then Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed a law stipulating hand recounts should preliminary automated voting results fall within a certain margin, the very same incident that occurred in Florida, yes?

And what is that margin? Let me guess: a few percent. Sure, by all means, if the margin is 1% or 5%, the greater accuracy of manual counting over machine counting might matter. But when it's 0.01%, it doesn't.

It's a bit like saying that you need to put on your glasses if you try to read something and the print is unclear. Sure, it would matter if you're holding a newspaper three feet away; it has no effect if you're trying to read tiny type at 500 feet.

Incidentally, I take issue with your phrase "statistically more significant results" as well as your earlier use of "margin of error" in regard to a hand recount. I don't know why you suggest that a manual recount is anything less than the most accurate method of counting a ballot.

MOST accurate--sure, accurate ENOUGH (within 0.01%)--certainly not.

they agree! That the case was before the court in the first place was due to the Bush team's efforts to find a way to put a stop to the process while their candidate was ahead.

...as opposed to the Gore team's demand for continous recounts, which were, surely, SOLELY motivated by absolutely impartial, disinterested desire to discover who "really won", and had NOTHING to do with their belief that those recounts might favor their candidate.

What the hell did you expect? When a supreme court hears a case, it is, by definition, a case brought forth by an interested party, which usually has a stake in the outcome going one way and not another. (That's what this whole "law" thing is about, after all).

This has nothing to do with whether or not their decision was correct. It was. That it satisfied the group which brought the case to them is no more proof of some sort of "conspiracy" or "unfairness" than the fact that sometimes the plaintiff, who brought the suit, wins in court.

I'm stunned that anyone would think this. If anything, a complete and accurate recount that ultimately favored Mr. Bush would certainly put to rest any but the most extreme partisan questioning of the legitimacy of the results,

To repeat for the 354th time, surely: there was no possible recount that would be remotely accurate enough to determine the winner, manual, machine, or whatever.

In other words, just because the man takes issue with the process that resulted in a conservative candidate's victory does not automatically mean that he must therefore be a liberal.

I was speaking sarcastically. I should have said "supported the recount" instead.

Let me also add that, like Bugliosi, I would feel the same way regarding Election 2000 no matter the outcome.

Oh REALLY? You make it quite clear that, in your view, the recount should have gone ahead and, supposing Gore would have won it, he should have been made president.

Now, suppose Gore lead in all the recounts, the Bush team kept insisting on a reount, three were made that favored Gore, and eventually--after the SC declined to intervene--a manual recount gave Bush a lead, and he became president due to this last, manual recount.

Would we keep hearing how Florida did the right thing? No, we'd keep hearing how it was all a conspiracy by Jeb Bush to make his brother president; that manual recounts are susceptible to biases and mistakes and couldn't possibly pick out the real winner; that the SC should have intervened and stopped the recount, showing it to be a political ploy against the "will of the people" (as the 500-people Gore lead "repeatedly showed"); that Bush, who only won one suspected recount, is the "thief".

The real resentment is about the fact that Bush won.

Oh, and I fail to understand your use of the "sarcasm" parameters. You don't seem to be kidding.

"Sarcasm" isn't the same as "kidding". It is to exaggerate something to make a point. I put the tags there to make people realize that yes, I KNOW what's in the "Sarcasm" tags is exagerrated, in order to make the more serious point that bias against someone's views tend to color one's perception of their career in significant ways.

So much so that Buchanan himself stated that the votes he received were probably not intended for him but rather for Al Gore (and his Jewish running mate Joe Lieberman).

Yes, indeed so. But if you voted for Buchanan, even by mistake, that's your vote. You cannot go back on election results and claim that, since the results in a certain place are "anomalous", they should officially be changed. We know where THAT road leads, don't we?

Since even you agree that Florida was too close to call and might never result in a decisive win for the purposes of the Electoral College process,

(laughing)

Why is the onus of "considering other factors" solely on Bush? Why didn't Gore "consider other factors"--like the fact that he lost all three recounts before the SC stopped further ones--before demanding yet another recount?

Why didn't Gore "consider the factor" that recounts could, if they go in opposite ways, confuse the electorate as to who "really won" and deligitimize whoever eventually gets to the oval office, and not demand any such recounts in the first place?

Why didn't Gore "consider the factor" that even if he DID win another recount and WAS elected president (by, no doubt, stopping yet further recounts that would have been demanded by the Bush team), his legitimacy as president--based on a fourth recount, when all previous ones went against him, would be significantly lower than that of Bush in any case?

Why was the Republicans' strategy--trying to stop recounts when their man was ahead--any more "unfair" or "illegitimate" than the Democrats'--trying to recount again and again, until their man wins one of the recounts, and then declare that "the truth" about Gore being the "real winner" is finally out?

If anything, their strategy is worse: at least Bush had the previous results on his side. The Democrats had nothing.

I repeat my suggestion that the Electoral College is today in place for little reason other than tradition and the fact that it would require quite a bit of work to eliminate it.

Nonsense. The founding fathers were very wise in creating such a college.

They were afraid, quite rightly, of giving too much power to direct elections, for two reasons: it would allow the rise of demagogues and the "dictatorship of the majority", and it would allow candidates to campaign for the interests of the populous states and cities and ignore the less-populated ones.

If the electoral college is removed, then nobody will bother to campaign in New Mexico or Montana, for instance; it would be enough to get LA and NYC on your ticket. Good in the short run... if you win... but horrible in the long run.

No, we haven't bothered dealing with the E.C. because presidential election returns have always coincided with what the electors would have done anyway.

They haven't. Lincoln lost the popular vote, and yet was still president. The E. C., as it happened, probably saved the Union by making the greatest president it ever had in power at the time of its greatest danger.

[Tmy]

Why is it that Stern is a target, but the twp biggest shows the last couple of weeks have been Sex in the City and Sapranos. hardly family entertianment.

yeah, the TV shows are on pay cable. SO WHAT. What difference does that make. It still comes down to turning off what you dont want to hear/see.

[Beerina]

> The number of overvotes [checkboxed Gore and wrote in Gore
> on same ballot] for Gore was sufficiently large to wipe
> out Bush's lead virtually no matter how the undervotes and
> other disputed ballots were counted!

For large numbers, shouldn't just as many, percentage-wise, confused Bush voters do the same thing?

I am interested in why Gore voters seemed to become statistically more confused by this than Bush voters. Anal-retentive? Dopey? Someone told a bunch of people to do that "just to be sure?"

I don't know that a Gore supporter should take joy in apparent statistical evidence that people who support Gore get confused marginally more easily. "Here's another guy who got confused!" <-- such a voter's judgement that Gore is The Man! doesn't fill me with confidence. Especially if an election is to turn on this vote. :(

Moreover, if it was legal, why weren't they counted in the first place?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy

yeah, the TV shows are on pay cable. SO WHAT. What difference does that make. It still comes down to turning off what you dont want to hear/see.

pay tv is not the "public airwaves"

The reason the JJ boob was so controversial is because it happened during a show where no nudity is expected. There was no warning that there would be adult content.

Everything since then has been overreaction. However, stern has not been fined yet. Of course, his show is known as an adult oriented show. Listeners should expect obscene content. So its apples and oranges with the janet jackson boob. A few weeks ago on NYPD BLUE, they showed a female cop nude. It was no big deal since NYPD is commonly known as adult viewing.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by corplinx


pay tv is not the "public airwaves"



So whats the difference? Those cable wires travel over public land, and the compaines are given monopolies. They are not out of FCC jurisdiction. The "what about the children" line still applies.

And how many people use rabbit ears? Im sure 90 sumthin % of superbowl watchers watched on cable/satillite.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Skeptic
And human recounters are somehow not prone to error?Sure. But the error rate, what with checks and double checks, would be insignificant. And, probability shows that any errors (which, considering the methods, I believe would be minuscule) are likely to even out among the candidates.

Remember all the news photos of manual counters holding ballots up and scrutinizing them? And the screaming hoards making as if some kind of amateurish foul-play was going on? What idiocy. Those people were treating their work of counting ballots with a seriousness that was moving.To repeat: the difference in votes was 500 or so out of about three and a half million votes. This is (roughly) a 1-in-10,000 difference. If, for some reason, human vote recount error is more than 0.01%, which is very likely, then the error will determine the winner, not the number of votes.Even if what you argue is true, by the time the rechecked, supervised count were complete, all but the most rabid partisans would accept the results.To put it simply, it is impossible, for all practical purposes, to know who really won. But if I had to guess, I'd certainly say it was Bush--he won the original and all the other counts, all of them by a similar margin of few hundred votes. Certainly, he had the stronger claim.I can't go on with this. We are getting bogged down in tangents that require considerable time and length to analyze.

And your oft-repeated "guess" that Bush "won the original and all the other counts," has little bearing in fact. It was one of the talking points floated from the get-go (including, IIRC, by chief Bush advocate James Baker) designed to place Gore on the defensive. However, even if I conceded that your point was true, it has zero bearing on the issue. We don't "guess" who won -- we count. Accurately. By hand.Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
...by moving as it did, the Supreme Court not only stopped the process of determining an actual winner in the Sunshine State...It didn't, since as I said before, another recount would not determine the winner with any more certainty than the previous recounts.I'll make you the same offer I made rikzilla: "The Betrayal of America" by Vincent Bugliosi is $9.95. If you like, PM me your address and I'll happily send you my copy....but they invalidated the half-a-million more votes for Al Gore in the other states combined.Once more: it doesn't matter, since the elections for president are not a direct election and never were, for a variety of good reasons. The popular vote does not determine the president--the number of votes in the electoral college does.I know. Apparently you missed my theoretical musings above.

As to your "variety of good reasons" that the presidential contest is not a direct election, I can only say there are, today, far more good reasons why it should be. I'll cover this, albeit briefly, later.Lincoln, for example, would also have been defeated if the election were done according to the popular vote.When I read your words directly above, I had to stop for a moment. I consider myself rather knowledgeable on American Civil War history (certainly more so than the average person) and could not remember ever hearing that Mr. Lincoln was the beneficiary of the Electoral College. A simple search (http://www.ehistory.com/world/PeopleView.Cfm?PID=72) confirmed my memory:Lincoln won all the northern states except New Jersey, plus California and Oregon, pulling in 180 Electoral College votes and almost 40% of the popular vote. It wasn't bad for a candidate who didn't even appear on the ballot in Southern states. John C. Breckinridge took the South except for Maryland (which went for Bell) with 72 electoral votes and 18% of the popular vote. Stephen Douglas won Missouri and New Jersey, 12 electoral votes, and 29.5% of the popular vote. John Bell won Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee, carrying 39 Electoral College votes and 12.6% of the popular vote. Emphasis mine.Abraham Lincoln defeated his three opponents handily. The E.C. did not dispute, but merely confirmed this.There wasn't the "possibility" that the new recount would be more accurate; a hand recount is more accurate.Yes, but in this case, it would not have to merely be ACCURATE; it would (again) have to be accurate to within 0.01%--one part in 10,000--or so to make sure it's the votes and not some error, bias, or mistake that determies the winner. That is sheer fantasy; it can't be done.Yours is a distinction without a difference. I would have the authorities seek the most accurate method. Only in this way could reasonable people be satisfied.You do know that then Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed a law stipulating hand recounts should preliminary automated voting results fall within a certain margin, the very same incident that occurred in Florida, yes?And what is that margin? Let me guess: a few percent. Sure, by all means, if the margin is 1% or 5%, the greater accuracy of manual counting over machine counting might matter. But when it's 0.01%, it doesn't.

It's a bit like saying that you need to put on your glasses if you try to read something and the print is unclear. Sure, it would matter if you're holding a newspaper three feet away; it has no effect if you're trying to read tiny type at 500 feet.Yes, an election with the preliminary results within a few percent triggers a recount. And...I'd expect that the subsequent manual recount would be more precise.

Look, I understand what you're getting at. You're saying that, What if the manual recount revealed only a few votes--or even one-vote--difference? What then? Isn't that well within the parameters of error that could go either way?

My point is twofold. First, we presume that those supposed manual counting errors were divided among the candidates in a measure coinciding with the ratio of their overall percentages. And second, see my opinion earlier in the thread as to what an honorable man who was faced with a nationwide clear minority of popular votes, as well as the knowledge that there were real, not imagined, problems with the Florida ballots, might choose to do.[The Supreme Court majority] agree! That the case was before the court in the first place was due to the Bush team's efforts to find a way to put a stop to the process while their candidate was ahead....as opposed to the Gore team's demand for continous recounts, which were, surely, SOLELY motivated by absolutely impartial, disinterested desire to discover who "really won", and had NOTHING to do with their belief that those recounts might favor their candidate.We weren't talking about the Gore efforts, now were we?What the hell did you expect? When a supreme court hears a case, it is, by definition, a case brought forth by an interested party, which usually has a stake in the outcome going one way and not another. (That's what this whole "law" thing is about, after all).More of your sarcasm? Lovely.

The Supreme Court can, and I'll guess you are aware very often does, refuse to hear a case. Often, the refusal is due to the pleading's lack of merit on its face. This case, in no small measure revealed by the court's resultant opinion, was void of merit.This has nothing to do with whether or not their decision was correct. It was.No. No. And...no. Their decision was 100%, completely, absolutely incorrect. It was devoid of rationale and based on no sound legal reasoning. There was no precedent save for the prior opinions of the majority justices, the opinions which directly contradicted their Bush v. Gore finding.

And by the way (if you'll allow me a little sarcasm of my own), how wonderful that, upon handing down their decision, the majority justices were so very confident of its strength and efficacy that they stated that the decision was only applicable to this case and was not ever to be used as precedent for any future plea before the courts. Real confident of their legal footing.That it satisfied the group which brought the case to them is no more proof of some sort of "conspiracy" or "unfairness" than the fact that sometimes the plaintiff, who brought the suit, wins in court.That it was rendered by the conservative majority who, by their own words, stood to gain from a Bush presidency is compelling proof. See also: my comment directly above vis-a-vis the same conservative majority's prior individual opinions.I'm stunned that anyone would think this. If anything, a complete and accurate recount that ultimately favored Mr. Bush would certainly put to rest any but the most extreme partisan questioning of the legitimacy of the results...To repeat for the 354th time, surely: there was no possible recount that would be remotely accurate enough to determine the winner, manual, machine, or whatever."354," eh? I can see why your opinion on numerical accuracy is probably going to differ from mine. (That's a joke, son.) In any event, I think you are demonstrably wrong. Sorry you can't see how.In other words, just because [V. Bugliosi] takes issue with the process that resulted in a conservative candidate's victory does not automatically mean that he must therefore be a liberal.I was speaking sarcastically. I should have said "supported the recount" instead.Forgive me, but your point is lost on me. If a "liberal" claims that there is a Chevy Corvette submerged in a swimming pool directly behind your neighborhood YMCA, anyone can put the claim to the test. No messenger's political philosophy has any bearing on the equation and is likely only being raised in an effort by an opponent to divert attention from the facts at hand.

If Ann Coulter, James Carville, or Barney the dinosaur wants to make a point about a particular issue, the point will stand or fall on the evidence and supporting arguments. Pretty simple.Let me also add that, like Bugliosi, I would feel the same way regarding Election 2000 no matter the outcome.Oh REALLY?Yup. Not used to integrity, I take it.You make it quite clear that, in your view, the recount should have gone ahead and, supposing Gore would have won it, he should have been made president.

Now, suppose Gore lead in all the recounts, the Bush team kept insisting on a reount, three were made that favored Gore, and eventually--after the SC declined to intervene--a manual recount gave Bush a lead, and he became president due to this last, manual recount.

Would we keep hearing how Florida did the right thing? No, we'd keep hearing how it was all a conspiracy by Jeb Bush to make his brother president; that manual recounts are susceptible to biases and mistakes and couldn't possibly pick out the real winner; that the SC should have intervened and stopped the recount, showing it to be a political ploy against the "will of the people" (as the 500-people Gore lead "repeatedly showed"); that Bush, who only won one suspected recount, is the "thief".

The real resentment is about the fact that Bush won.If these hypotheticals make you feel better, who am I to argue. The fact is, Mr. Bush is president. We can only discuss the events and players that contributed to that reality, not some alternative Bizarro chain of events. (Yes, I'm aware that I earlier suggested what might've been a noble choice on the part of Mr. Bush and his campaign; a fictional fantasy, of course. I'm referring to the events between election day and the date of the Supreme Court decision.)So much so that Buchanan himself stated that the votes he received were probably not intended for him but rather for Al Gore (and his Jewish running mate Joe Lieberman).Yes, indeed so. But if you voted for Buchanan, even by mistake, that's your vote. You cannot go back on election results and claim that, since the results in a certain place are "anomalous", they should officially be changed. We know where THAT road leads, don't we?This is the second time you've hinted at dark, insidious possibilities where I never alluded to anything of the sort. I'll repeat: I never suggested or implied that "votes should officially be changed." I merely remind you that the circumstantial evidence is pretty clear that George W. Bush's Florida vote victory was, and always will be, suspect (never mind his national vote deficit).Since even you agree that Florida was too close to call and might never result in a decisive win for the purposes of the Electoral College process...(laughing)

Why is the onus of "considering other factors" solely on Bush? Why didn't Gore "consider other factors"--like the fact that he lost all three recounts before the SC stopped further ones--before demanding yet another recount? There you go again. "The Big Lie" regarding "lost all three recounts."Why didn't Gore "consider the factor" that recounts could, if they go in opposite ways, confuse the electorate as to who "really won" and deligitimize whoever eventually gets to the oval office, and not demand any such recounts in the first place?

Why didn't Gore "consider the factor" that even if he DID win another recount and WAS elected president (by, no doubt, stopping yet further recounts that would have been demanded by the Bush team), his legitimacy as president--based on a fourth recount, when all previous ones went against him, would be significantly lower than that of Bush in any case?

Why was the Republicans' strategy--trying to stop recounts when their man was ahead--any more "unfair" or "illegitimate" than the Democrats'--trying to recount again and again, until their man wins one of the recounts, and then declare that "the truth" about Gore being the "real winner" is finally out?

If anything, their strategy is worse: at least Bush had the previous results on his side. The Democrats had nothing.We're probably going around and around here. Still, for one more time, I am not debating what the Gore team did or didn't do. I am talking about the Supreme Court of the U.S. (and, peripherally, the Florida recount process). Any other considerations only serve to muddy the water and are not germane to the central issue.I repeat my suggestion that the Electoral College is today in place for little reason other than tradition and the fact that it would require quite a bit of work to eliminate it.Nonsense. The founding fathers were very wise in creating such a college.

They were afraid, quite rightly, of giving too much power to direct elections, for two reasons: it would allow the rise of demagogues and the "dictatorship of the majority", and it would allow candidates to campaign for the interests of the populous states and cities and ignore the less-populated ones.

If the electoral college is removed, then nobody will bother to campaign in New Mexico or Montana, for instance; it would be enough to get LA and NYC on your ticket. Good in the short run... if you win... but horrible in the long run.Nonsense. The founding fathers had reasons for the creation of a number of things, both things and reasons which have been reevaluated through the years. No, the need for the Electoral College is passed.*

Furthermore, your contention that campaigns would take on some kind of radical new dynamic were the E.C. process eliminated is naive. Today national campaigns are served extremely well by every element of the mass media. Stopping in to a particular locale to give the same rote stump speech and kiss a few babies is neither necessary or a compelling reason to deny everyone a complete assessment of their vote. With your logic, we should require that candidates personally stop by every city in every county in every state.

Sarcasm aside, we have the Senate in place to balance regional interests and consider problems that might arise from differences in population throughout the country. Nevertheless, my vote, my voice should not count for less--nor another's count for more--simply because of population-based geographical proximity to others.No, we haven't bothered dealing with the E.C. because presidential election returns have always coincided with what the electors would have done anyway.They haven't. Lincoln lost the popular vote, and yet was still president. The E. C., as it happened, probably saved the Union by making the greatest president it ever had in power at the time of its greatest danger. I was mistaken. Not about Lincoln's ascendancy, the circumstances of which I detailed above. I'd forgotten about Rutherford B. Hayes and the heavily disputed contest with Samuel J. Tilden.

By the way, your point about Mr. Lincoln is purely academic. Sure, he endeavored to save the Union, but the irony is his election precipitated secession! (That might've taken place eventually, but the facts regarding the South's opinion of Lincoln, and those supporting him as abolitionists, are clear.)

In any event, we can't know what might happen (never mind what might have happened) if an alternative course of action is taken. That's why a civilized society endeavors to follow the letter and the spirit of the law. Out of justice, civilization. All of it a nice circular process.

*Even the Bush campaign thought so. Prior to election day 2000 they seriously feared a Bush popular vote victory but a Gore Electoral College win and were preparing to vigorously contest the election in the halls of Congress (as well as in the mass media) should that result have transpired. Hypocrites.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Tmy


So whats the difference? Those cable wires travel over public land, and the compaines are given monopolies. They are not out of FCC jurisdiction. The "what about the children" line still applies.

And how many people use rabbit ears? Im sure 90 sumthin % of superbowl watchers watched on cable/satillite.
The reason the FCC has regulatory authority over broadcast is the fact that there's a limited radio (and TV) frequency spectrum (and thus, a scarcity) suitable for broadcast signals. Obviously, different stations can't broadcast on the same frequency in the same area so the FCC was created to issue licenses for the available bandwidth. With the licenses, of course, come the inevitable rules.

Cable and satellite have virtually unlimited bandwidth available to them, so they are not subject to FCC jurisdiction. I hope this clears that up for you.

And hey, my TV still has rabbit ears! Girlfriend won't let me get cable, thinks I'll just flip channels all day. She's probably right. :p

[WildCat]

There was at least one othe relection with similarities to the 2000 election. The 1960 election which saw Kennedy defeat Nixon in a squeeker. Illinois played prominently in that Dem victory, especially Chicago where, it is acknowledged by almost every historian, there was massive vote fraud (even the dead voted early and often ;) ) orchestrated by the Chicago Democrat Machine under Mayor Daley (father of Gore's campaign manager Bill Daley). Enough to have made the difference in this closely contested state, which provided the winning electoral votes. Nixon's advisors urged him to challenge the election in court and fight it for all it was worth. Nixon refused, saying he didn't want to send the country into a constitutional crisis and dividing the country at the height of the cold war. So he graciously conceded an election he felt in his heart he had won for the good of the country.

If only Gore had shown as much class and dignity in 2000! The ongoing controversy from the 2000 election shows what a wise decision Nixon made in 1960, his disgrace years later for the Watergate breakin notwithstanding.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by WildCat
There was at least one othe relection with similarities to the 2000 election. The 1960 election which saw Kennedy defeat Nixon in a squeeker. Illinois played prominently in that Dem victory, especially Chicago where, it is acknowledged by almost every historian, there was massive vote fraud (even the dead voted early and often ;) ) orchestrated by the Chicago Democrat Machine under Mayor Daley (father of Gore's campaign manager Bill Daley). Enough to have made the difference in this closely contested state, which provided the winning electoral votes. Nixon's advisors urged him to challenge the election in court and fight it for all it was worth. Nixon refused, saying he didn't want to send the country into a constitutional crisis and dividing the country at the height of the cold war. So he graciously conceded an election he felt in his heart he had won for the good of the country.One of the most frequently made arguments for a Gore concession--made first by [George W.] Bush and [James] Baker but repeated by partisans in the media--drew an analogy to the election of 1960. Richard Reeves, biographer of both Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times that told the story of Nixon's alleged unwillingness to contest the close election for the good of the nation. William Bennett, William Safire, R.W. Apple, and many others made the same suggestion, using the same analogy. In a display of shocking naivete for a battle-hardened veteran, Apple even quoted Nixon's own memoirs on the topic, as if the famed unindicted co-conspirator could be trusted to tell the truth about his own actions, much less his motives. But as Salon's Gerald Posner and Slate's David Greenberg instructed the pundits, Nixon and his Republican allies actually mounted a massive vote challenge. Posner explained:Not only did Republican senators like Thurston Morton ask for recounts in 11 states just three days after the election, but Nixon aides Bob Finch and Len Hall personally did field checks of votes in almost a dozen states. The Republicans obtained recounts, involved U.S. Attorneys and the FBI, and even impaneled grand juries in their quest to get a different election result. A slew of lawsuits were filed by Republicans, and unsuccessful appeals to state election commissions routinely followed. However, all their efforts failed to uncover any significant wrongdoing.
Eric Alterman -- What Liberal Media? pp. 182-83Originally posted by WildCat
If only Gore had shown as much class and dignity in 2000!Ho-ho! Yes, the man who was well ahead at the time nationwide, not only by the popular vote but the much worshipped electoral vote, should've been the one to call off the legitimate process of vote recounting in Florida.

[Checkmite]

The FCC's fines and Clear Channel's possible firing of Stern are two seperate issues.

I wouldn't call the FCC's fines (if they are imposed) fair, because the comments (as I understand them) were uttered by a caller to Stern's show and not Stern himself. He has no control over what callers say.

On the other hand, if Clear Channel gets fined and decides to fire Stern, they are within their rights, and I see nothing wrong with it. In fact, I might make the same decision.

[Nova Land]

originally posted by pgwenthold:

Is it really true that there were 3500 voters in Florida who voted for someone and then also made gave them a write-in vote? Why, just to be sure?No, the reason appears to be that they were so serious about wanting to vote that they actually took the time to read the ballot instructions, and followed the instructions as they were written. Many were probably first-time voters who were unfamiliar with voting.

The ballot instructions said to check off their preference in the check-box section, and they did. The ballot instructions also said to write in their preference in the write-in section, so they did this too. The instructions did not say, write in your preference only if you did not check off a candidate in the previous section. The people writing the instructions, being already familiar with the procedure, took that for granted, as did the voters in these precincts who filled out their ballots correctly.

While such a move would clearly indicate the voter's intent, it would also clearly indicate their IQ, or lack of it.No, it wouldn't. There is a large difference between lack of IQ and lack of familiarity with something.

For instance: the fact that the ballot instructions were written in such a way that, taken literally, they indicated one should check off one's preference and also write in one's preference, was included in the St. Petersburg Times story I linked to. You were not familiar with this fact. I don't think that says anything bad about your intelligence. All it says to me is that either you didn't have time to read all the items I linked to, or that you read them but missed that particular point. I frequently don't have time to read linked articles in other people's posts, and frequently miss something when I do read them, so I'm not going to judge you more harshly than I'd judge myself. Neither of us appears to know the Florida voters who made these errors on their ballots, so I'm inclined to cut them the same slack.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Not only did Republican senators like Thurston Morton ask for recounts in 11 states just three days after the election, but Nixon aides Bob Finch and Len Hall personally did field checks of votes in almost a dozen states. The Republicans obtained recounts, involved U.S. Attorneys and the FBI, and even impaneled grand juries in their quest to get a different election result. A slew of lawsuits were filed by Republicans, and unsuccessful appeals to state election commissions routinely followed. However, all their efforts failed to uncover any significant wrongdoing.
Never heard that before, all the local TV reporters here cited the other version during that election. Seems to be the case though.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by rikzilla

...by April of 2000 I had put the election behind me... Your links refer to a conclusive result at their printing... which was November 2001!! Do you really think that this should have been drawn out that long?No, I do not. If the Supreme Court had permitted the recount to proceed, we could have had the results within a couple of weeks.

But that is not the issue we were talking about. The question before us was whether Gore had lost all the recounts, as you asserted. (And one reason for that question is that it relates to the question, would Gore have won if the Supreme Court had permitted a Florida recount?)

To answer the question of whether Gore lost all the recounts, we need to look at articles from after the recounts were done.

I am puzzled. You are willing to use an article from April 2001 as evidence that Gore lost the recount conducted by the media consortium, but reject one from November 2001 that shows he won it. Why? Both are well past the January date on which a president is usually inaugurated. The April article, as noted, was misleading (headlined "Bush won" although the content said Bush would have won by some standards and Gore by others) and inaccurate (noting that Gore won under one scenario, when actually both he and Bush won under several). No such charge of inaccuracy has been made or shown against the November one.

In following news stories and trying to determind the answers to factual questions, I generally give preference to a later, corrected story over an earlier, uncorrected version. You seem to want to reverse that here. The only reason I can see for you to accept the one and reject the other is that the PBS one, though inaccurate, supports your assertion, and the St Petersburg Times one, although accurate, shows your assertion was incorrect. I assume you do have other reasons than that, and would like to hear them.

[Nova Land]

originally posted by Rikzilla

The link I posted to was PBS...not exactly a pro-Bush right-wingnut site... yet you attempt to counter it with a Bush-basher site. That's not what I would call a legit attempt at evenhandedness my friend.You raise an interesting topic, one well worth examining and discussing: the use of biased sources.

There are a couple of dangers to be aware of with biased sources. One is the danger of accepting them uncritically because they happen to agree with one's own opinions, and another is rejecting them uncritically because they happen to disagree with one's own opinions. Coincidentally these are also dangers to be aware of when using less-biased sources.

My religious beliefs lead me to reject Authority and Dogma. I believe it is impossible to designate any person, or book -- or newspaper, TV program, radio program, or whatever -- and say in advance, "Whatever this source tells us will be correct, and the answer we will go with." Some people are more apt to speak wisdom, and I am more inclined to look to them when I am searching for answers, and others are more apt to speak without wisdom, and I am less apt to turn to them, but even the wisest are capable of being wrong and even the most foolish are capable of being right. Therefore I try to listen attentively to whoever is speaking (or writing) to me, to sift out the substantive matter from the rhetoric and the spin, and to analyze the substance critically to see what parts of it stand up.

I am sympathetic to your basic point. The other day, in another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870347368#post1870347368), I rejected a conclusion (that abortion has a higher death rate than carrying a pregnancy to term) because the source presenting this conclusion (Jack Willke) was one I knew from past experience to be unreliable. But I did not reject the source out of hand. I examined the piece being offered and rejected the conclusion because the piece did not provide verifiable factual evidence to support it. What was needed was a statement of what Willke believed the abortion death rate to be (with source I could check and which would turn out when checked to match what Willke claimed the rate to be), what Willke believed the carry-to-term death rate to be (with source I could check and which would turn out when checked to match what Willke claimed the rate to me), and for the first rate to be higher than the second rate. Willke carefully avoided giving anything like that. The piece was full of interesting rhetoric and arguments, but sifted out it came out (as far as I was concerned) to something of little weight.

If the FAIR and CIJ pieces are primarily rhetoric without relevant factual material, you would be right in rejecting them. Let's see.

We have a factual assertion at issue: your statement that Gore lost all the recounts. You offered as a source a PBS report, dated April 4 2001, regarding the recount conducted by a media consortium. I offered as sources (1) a FAIR report on that recount; (2) an AP correction of an AP story related to the recount (posted at the FAIR site); (3) A CIJ report on that recount; and (4) a St Petersburg Times report on that recount.

I agree that PBS News Hour is a relatively unbiased source. In general if the News Hour reports something as fact I am willing to accept that as good evidence the thing is indeed fact (keeping in mind the possibility of later corrections, revisions, retractions, and updates). There are many details to stories that the News Hour fails to bring out, and which I have to learn from other sources, but the details they do report as fact are likely to be reasonably accurate.

Likewise I would rate the AP and the St Petersburg Times as relatively unbiased sources. Again, I think they often leave out a lot of the story, but what they do include as factual assertions are likely either to be correct or to be corrected.

FAIR and CIJ I would rate as biased sources. That means, among other things, that they are more likely to pick and choose which details to present to make their case seem stronger, they are more likely to mix rhetoric and opinions in with their selected facts, and they may be more likely to present as facts things that do not check out.

The question at hand, however, is not whether PBS is more likely to be right this time than FAIR and CIJ, but whether PBS is in fact right. And my examination of the items in question (as presented in my post, and which you have not yet disputed or questioned) is that PBS was wrong and FAIR was right on the facts of the matter.

An examination of the PBS article shows that PBS headlined it as "Bush won" but the actual story was that Bush won the consortium recount under certain scenarios and Gore won it under others. I consider that misleading and an error on PBS's part. The PBS story also says that "under one scenario" Gore won, when actually Gore won under more than one scenario. (I don't have the newspaper stories at hand yet to know the exact number, but I checked this previously and it was more than one.)

An examination of the FAIR article shows it alleges the media headlined the stories "Bush won" but the actual story was that Bush won under some scenarios and Gore won under others. This was, in fact, correct, as a check of the newspaper stories in question shows. (Again, I do not have those stories on hand at present, but I have previously read them -- and will be glad to photocopy them and quote them for you soon if you so desire.)

I cited the CIJ item because it contained factual assertions regarding the overvote situation which matched what I recalled from previously checking this out. Again, the question is not whether CIJ is biased, but whether their representation of the facts is correct in this instance. Feel free to ignore any editorializing or Bush-bashing you see in the cited article. What CIJ reported about the overvotes -- that these were legal votes, and that there were enough more of these for Gore than for Bush to make Gore the winner of the recount virtually regardless of the way the undervotes were counted -- is a factual assertion, not an opinion. You have indicated dislike for the source, scorn for the voters who cast overvotes, and impatience that the full story did not see print until after your apparent April cut-off date -- but you haven't disputed that the essential facts about the overvotes as reported by CIJ are correct. Do you wish to do so?

Please note that, after having cited the CIJ item in the post as I originally wrote it, I was able to find the St. Petersburg Times item as I edited the post prior to submitting it. The St Petersburg Times -- a reliable source and one closer to the story than PBS, as it was one of the papers conducting the recount -- gives a more detailed account than CIJ and their account confirms the CIJ one. If you wish to dispute these stories, can you offer any factual reason to do so?

You made an assertion, that Gore lost all the recounts. The facts indicate that you were wrong. It turns out that Gore won the very recount which you cited. According to the facts as we now know them -- unless you have some other facts you would like to present for consideration -- if the Supreme Court had permitted the recount to continue, Gore would have been the winner, for the reason that more Florida voters voted for him than for Bush. Many Gore votes were miscast (as were many votes for Bush) for a variety of reasons, and many of these were properly discarded, but there were enough valid votes for Gore among the discarded votes that Gore would have won the recount.

[Nova Land]

originally posted by Rikzilla


As far as the CIJ ... calling them "left leaning" has got to win you at least a nomination for a JREF award for understatement of the year. Thank you.

One of my aims is neither to overstate nor understate, but to try to speak (and write) as precisely and fairly as I am able. From my (hasty) perusal of the CIJ site, it appeared to me to be left-leaning, and I said so. That appears to me to be a simple and accurate description. No hyperbolic put-downs were needed or called for, so I did not use any.

In society at large, people are so used to exaggerated rhetoric that things said plainly are often perceived as understatements. I feel complimented that you considered my statement an understatement.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Beerina, regarding the question of overvotes:

For large numbers, shouldn't just as many, percentage-wise, confused Bush voters do the same thing?No, that does not necessarily follow.

(a) The error seems most likely to have occurred among people who were not familiar with voting (e.g. first-time voters) who read and followed the ballot instructions. If there were more new voters for Gore than for Bush, then the error would be more likely to occur on Gore ballots.

(b) In upscale neighborhoods with touch-screen voting, the machines automatically caught the error and refused to accept the ballot until the voter corrected the error. In downscale neighborhoods with paper ballots, the error would not be caught until the ballots were counted and rejected. If Bush had more supporters in upscale neighborhoods and Gore had more in downscale neighborhoods, then we would expect the error to be more likely on Gore ballots.

picked up many more votes from overvotes than Bush would have if these had been counted correctly, he also probably lost many more votes due to overvotes than Bush did. There were 40,371 discarded votes for Gore-and-somebody-else where voter intent was not clear (such as votes for Gore and Buchanan) and 15,803 discarded votes for Bush-and-somebody-else where voter intent was not clear (such as votes for Bush and Buchanan)].
Moreover, if it was legal, why weren't they counted in the first place?(a) The machines that did the counting were programmed to automatically reject such ballots as invalid, even though many of them, as noted, were valid since the voter intent was clear. (This was covered in the St Petersburg Times article I linked to, but it was a brief mention so it would have been easy for you to miss.)

(b) Even in Florida counties that did hand rather than machine counts, many of these ballots were mistakenly rejected because the election supervisors were not sufficiently familiar with the law and assumed overvotes were invalid even when voter intent was clear. (This also was covered in the St Petersburg Times article.)I don't know that a Gore supporter should take joy in apparent statistical evidence that people who support Gore get confused marginally more easily. "Here's another guy who got confused!"As noted in my response posted above to pgwenthold, many of the voters in question were apparently new voters, unfamiliar with filling out a ballot, who read the ballot instructions and did what the instructions said to do. That may reflect on the intelligence of the people who wrote the instructions, but I fail to see how it reflects negatively on the people who followed them.

Oh, and don 't feel too bad that you didn't realize before posting that the questions you were puzzled about had already been answered in the articles provided. It does not indicate that you are more easily confused than other folks. It simply shows that you (like the Florida voters, and all of us) don't have time to read everything and are capable of missing or misinterpreting things in what you do read.

Let's not be too quick to judge the intelligence, or lack of it, of people we haven't met.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Skeptic

The SC had three choices:

... 2). Continue the recounts, and one of two things happen:

a). Another recount is in Bush's favor, making him president just like in case (1);

b). A recount goes in Gore's favor, forcing the SC to either:

i). choose between two candidates when now BOTH had won at least one recount, thus "choosing a president" in a much more gratuitous way than by stopping the recounts (if that is "choosing" the president at all), or

ii). try to "order" a new election, something which they would have had no power to do.

...[A]nother recount, whether Bush or Gore winning according to it, would not bring us closer to the truth of who really won than the previous recounts.

So having another recount would simply not settle the question who had won... This reminds me of a famous 18th century analysis of the US system of government. I can't find the exact quote, but basically the writer railed against the then-novel US idea of having a bicameral legislature. If the two houses are in agreement, then the effect of having a second house of legislature is superfluous, the person argued, and if they are in disagreement then the effect of having a second house is pernicious.

That seems to be your argument about a recount, in a nutshell. The thing is, for all the beauty of the logic, the analysis was wrong. Having a second house in our federal legislature has been neither superfluous nor pernicious. Over the years it has saved the US from the passage of a great many bad laws that likely would have sailed through a single house.

That's the problem with trying to prove things by pure reason: one often reaches a conclusion which turns out to be quite different from the reality most of us live in.

I suspect that, despite the beauty of your logic, the result of a full and fair recount in Florida would have been neither superfluous nor pernicious.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The FCC's fines and Clear Channel's possible firing of Stern are two seperate issues.

I wouldn't call the FCC's fines (if they are imposed) fair, because the comments (as I understand them) were uttered by a caller to Stern's show and not Stern himself. He has no control over what callers say.

On the other hand, if Clear Channel gets fined and decides to fire Stern, they are within their rights, and I see nothing wrong with it. In fact, I might make the same decision.

Actually the FCC planned fines are not on the same thing. The inside information is the fines are based on a show that aired 3 years ago.

Yes, Clear Channel is certainly within their rights to fire Stern to avoid fines. However there is compelling evidence against that. First is that his show has not changed significantly for years. Clear Channel employs a number of 'shock jocks', some of which are more offensive, such as one that had been fired from another company for calling a caller a fag and wishing him to get AIDS and die. Another thing is that other DJs had been disciplined at that company for speaking out against Bush and the war. Stern was pro-Bush until 2 days before Clear Channel dumped him.

A sacrifice for the FCC on their indecency witchhunt, and a gift to the Bush administration in one package.

[corplinx]

I usually wake up to Stern on my clock radio. I can't tell if this guy is mobilizing his listeners against a threat or alienating them by going on like a broken record.

I am sort of reminded of Lenny Bruce reading court transcripts during his act. Except Stern is not on trial and hasn't even been fined (which he predicted to happened last week),

And now he's started getting his news from the same place SubGenius does and he goes on about some kind of theocratic conspiracy and comes off as naive to those who know better on those issues.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Marc


Stern was pro-Bush until 2 days before Clear Channel dumped him.



Dunno. I sincerely doubt that any corporation could do anything in two days, that is if you are suggesting cause and effect.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Ed


Dunno. I sincerely doubt that any corporation could do anything in two days, that is if you are suggesting cause and effect.

Inertia is not a factor of all corporations, especially ones involved in the media and entertainment. When something happens that upsets the heads of a corporation how long do you think it takes for something to happen?

Personal incredulity is not enough of a reason to discount the possibility. It is certainly possible this has nothing to do with his change in stance on Bush, but other factors do support the possibility.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Marc

Stern was pro-Bush until 2 days before Clear Channel dumped him.


There are plenty of bush critics on my local clear channel stations.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Marc

Yes, Clear Channel is certainly within their rights to fire Stern to avoid fines. However there is compelling evidence against that. First is that his show has not changed significantly for years. Clear Channel employs a number of 'shock jocks', some of which are more offensive, such as one that had been fired from another company for calling a caller a fag and wishing him to get AIDS and die. Another thing is that other DJs had been disciplined at that company for speaking out against Bush and the war. Stern was pro-Bush until 2 days before Clear Channel dumped him.


Granted, but it changes nothing. If Clear Channel, for some ungodly reason, chooses to have a warm and fuzzy "we love Bush" format, they are able to hire and fire whomever they please to maintain that. I'm sure the radio dude who called a caller a "fag" and said he hoped the caller would die of AIDS would've been fired or harshly disciplined if he had done it while at a Clear Channel station...it's funny that way; a guy being inexcusably offensive in the past is a good sell now; but if the guy starts being offensive now, he's in trouble. Even television stations have been known to hire controversial personalities whose tone is still obviously much, much more muted on the new show.

On the other hand, I also have heard many DJs on local Clear Channel stations who make fun of Bush or the Iraq fiasco regularly.

[Nova Land]

The misimpression that a number of people have, that Gore lost the Florida recount, has cropped up again in another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41667). Since that got discussed in this thread, I thought I'd give this a bump. Anyone interested in re-running the discussion can click here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=201199#post201199) to jump up the page.