GWB: Stolen Election Fair and Square

[Dancing David]

George Bush stole the election, fair and square. He didn't have the popular votes and he may not have had the electoral votes. But he did get the okay of the Suprememe Court. So while he stole the election, it was all on the up and up.

Peace

PS He did me a favor, I am not sure Gore wouldn't have been an embarrasing Democratic president. OOOK what if Dukakis had won, eeeww.

[Jedi Knight]

If Gore would have won his home state he would be president right now. Do we even want a candidate running for president that can't even win his own home state?

Bush won the election via electoral votes, the way the system is designed. The US Supreme Court got involved over the Florida recount issue, an issue later proved that Bush won anyway in actual recounts by district.

BTW, I see a radical leftist tilt to this board in a short amount of time...everything from bashing America, to bashing the greatest president in the history of America--President Bush.

Threads like this one attacking my president is just asking for Jedi Knight to come back to JREF forum.

JK

[Monketey Ghost]

Good to see you back JK.

"...the greatest president in the history of America--President Bush."???????

Your humor has been sorely missed!

[Ladewig]

"...the greatest president in the history of America--President Bush."???????

Your humor has been sorely missed!


Yes. If I may paraphrase Gene Kelly: "Now, THAT'S irritainment."

[RandFan,Jr.]

Heeeees Baaaaaack!

I can collect my winnings now. Welcome back JK.

FWIW the election was not stolen. It was bought and paid for by TVRWC. We don't know if we got our money's worth but we get to write gun legislation right from the White House and we are going to abolish the constitution and institute marshal law.

"Your nuts. 'Yeah,' . . . . 'Ain't it cool?'"

[a_unique_person]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...the greatest president in the history of America--President Bush."???????

Your humor has been sorely missed!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Yes. If I may paraphrase Gene Kelly: "Now, THAT'S irritainment."



Chuckle.


Yes JK, without you here, they are all coming to see things my way. Already, there are people out there seeking my leadership to oust Hal.

[Whoracle]

" the greatest president in the history of America--President Bush."


That made me physically ill.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Chuckle.


Yes JK, without you here, they are all coming to see things my way. Already, there are people out there seeking my leadership to oust Hal.

Those people where put back in their padded cells AUP the doctors promised it wouldn’t happen again.
Welcome back JK the leftist where starting to get out of control why you where gone!

[blackadder65738]

Actually, the recount of the five disputed counties shows Gore won by thousands, no matter which chad standard thing you use (pregnant, hanging, perforated). If you only count Broward County, that's where Bush wins by a few hundred. I would direct you to this site:

http://www.gregpalast.com/

for a complete explanation of the theft of the 2000 election.

[Thanz]

Couple of minor points...

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If Gore would have won his home state he would be president right now. Do we even want a candidate running for president that can't even win his own home state?

Why does this make a difference? I would hope that people vote for a president for reasons other than where he was born.

Bush won the election via electoral votes, the way the system is designed.

What is the point of the electoral college anyway? It seems to be a rather stupid system. Shouldn't a vote count the same no matter where you live?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Thanz
Shouldn't a vote count the same no matter where you live?

NO

[Thanz]

Thanz: Shouldn't a vote count the same no matter where you live?

Originally posted by Kodiak


NO

Uh, can you elaborate just a little bit? Why not?

[Kodiak]

Both proposed Florida recounts would have favored Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12623-2001Nov11?language=printer)

[Dancing David]

The point to the electoral college was two fold, one to keep the common man from mucking up the presidency. Two to keep the larger states from dominating the presidency.

Gore blew it by not being himself, he listened to his handlers and lost the conservative democrats that had sent him to the senate in the first place.

Peace

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Thanz




Uh, can you elaborate just a little bit? Why not?

Sigh... Sorry, but this has been covered on this forum a dozen times, but you're new so there it goes...

The electoral system was created so that a candidate couldn't win enough large states by a wide margin (enough to win the popular vote) and lose the remaining 45 or so states, and win the presidency.

Thus, the electoral college was created because the founding fathers feared direct democracy and because a compromise was needed that ensured the electoral importance of the small states in the Union.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The point to the electoral college was two fold, one to keep the common man from mucking up the presidency. Two to keep the larger states from dominating the presidency.



How does the electoral college keep the common man from mucking up the presidency? Do Americans just want the illusion of a democracy, or democracy itself? Do you not even trust yourselves to vote?

Second, why should state lines matter for electing the president? Isn't he president for the entire country? Don't the larger states get more electoral votes anyway? If the degree of electoral votes is out of line with population by state, haven't you given too much influence to the smaller states?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Thanz


How does the electoral college keep the common man from mucking up the presidency? Do Americans just want the illusion of a democracy, or democracy itself? Do you not even trust yourselves to vote?

We prefer the constitutionally-limited republic we have, with it's checks and balances and three-branch government.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Thanz
Don't the larger states get more electoral votes anyway? If the degree of electoral votes is out of line with population by state, haven't you given too much influence to the smaller states?

Electoral votes are the same as each states representation in Congress (Senators + Representatives).

Thus even the tiniest state will have at least 3 electoral votes.

[Gregor]

I love how the legal argument from the left passes to 'fact.' DD, you and Michael Moore really need to focus on the truth.

Bush won the first count
Bush won the second count
Florida did not allow a third count

But if it had, let me quote from the Guardian:

"George Bush would probably still have won the disputed presidential election vote in Florida if the US supreme court had allowed a recount, a comprehensive study of disputed ballot papers has found.

"The study, commissioned by eight news organisations, showed that under the existing electoral laws in Florida, Mr Bush would have won by several hundred votes. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sigh... Sorry, but this has been covered on this forum a dozen times, but you're new so there it goes...



Apologies. I did a search and have read some of those other threads. I will drop this here now.

Nothing left to see here. Move along, people....

[DialecticMaterialist]

George Bush stole the election, fair and square. He didn't have the popular votes and he may not have had the electoral votes. But he did get the okay of the Suprememe Court. So while he stole the election, it was all on the up and up.

Nothing like a conspiracy theory to create sensation.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Thanz


Apologies. I did a search and have read some of those other threads. I will drop this here now.

Nothing left to see here. Move along, people....

No need to apologize. You're relatively new here, so we don't mind restating material for the truly deserving. You fit that category, Thanz.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Gregor
I love how the legal argument from the left passes to 'fact.' DD, you and Michael Moore really need to focus on the truth.

Bush won the first count
Bush won the second count
Florida did not allow a third count

But if it had, let me quote from the Guardian:

"George Bush would probably still have won the disputed presidential election vote in Florida if the US supreme court had allowed a recount, a comprehensive study of disputed ballot papers has found.

"The study, commissioned by eight news organisations, showed that under the existing electoral laws in Florida, Mr Bush would have won by several hundred votes. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story



Me and Micheal Moore, in the same sentence, wow. Sorry I already have had my fiveteen minutes.

I thought that there were counties in Florida that never had a machine recount. There was only one count so there couldn't be a recount.

Funny how the right passes mythology into fact: Like R. regan beat the CCCP.


Peace
Yall

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Both proposed Florida recounts would have favored Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12623-2001Nov11?language=printer) True. But there was more to it than recounts. Bush still stole the election: (http://www.mediachannel.org/views/whistleblower/palast.shtml)

Here's how the president of the United States was elected: In the months leading up to the November balloting, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, ordered local elections supervisors to purge 64,000 voters from voter lists on the grounds that they were felons who were not entitled to vote in Florida. As it turns out, these voters weren't felons, or at least, only a very few were. However, the voters on this "scrub list" were, notably, African-American (about 54 percent), while most of the others wrongly barred from voting were white and Hispanic Democrats.

Beginning in November, this extraordinary news ran, as it should, on Page 1 of the country's leading paper. Unfortunately, it was in the wrong country: Britain. In the United States, it ran on page zero — that is, the story was not covered on the news pages. The theft of the presidential race in Florida also was given big television network coverage. But again, it was on the wrong continent: on BBC television, London.

More here. (http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,409137,00.html)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by RichardR
True. But there was more to it than recounts. Bush still stole the election: (http://www.mediachannel.org/views/whistleblower/palast.shtml)

More here. (http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,409137,00.html)

Nice claim. Is there any corroborating evidence of this?

If it did indeed happen as you describe, was what the Governor and Sec. of State supposed did illegal?

Was the inclusion of non-felons to that list purposeful, or was it accidental?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Like R. regan beat the CCCP.

No, the USSR's attempt to match Reagan's military/defense spending is what destroyed the Soviets.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Thanz
Couple of minor points...

Why does this make a difference? I would hope that people vote for a president for reasons other than where he was born.

All politics is local. That is where our political system gains its roots and every politician knows it. If you wouldn't vote a guy in as mayor of your town he certainly wouldn't get your vote for president.

If you have a presidential candidate who can't even win his own home state, it is clear the country would find that suspect. Don't you? What was the political climate in Gore's home state at the time of the presidential election that caused the citizens there to vote for GW?

What is the point of the electoral college anyway? It seems to be a rather stupid system. Shouldn't a vote count the same no matter where you live?

You think the electoral college system is 'stupid' because another leftist did not get elected president.

The electoral college is quite ingenious, actually. It allows nominated representatives of each state to gather a pause and decide if the candidate who won the popular vote in those states is worthy of becoming president. I think the system is perfect because it will prevent a Stalin or a Hitler from seizing power.

There have been few cases where the electoral college has gone the other way--ignoring the popular vote. The votes of "the people" do count--if they didn't the electoral college would ignore the popular vote and put some dangerous leftist in. In the last election that did not not happen, to the celebration of all freedom loving people around the world.

Without the electoral college checks and balances on the presidential election, all a presidential candidate would have to do to steal the election was promise to hand over the US Treasury to the groups that vote them in. The US wouldn't survive 5 years if that happened. That is the importance of the electoral college vote. It prevents the United States from being overrun by Communist nation-destroyers.

What did Lenin and Stalin use to gain power? Bread, land and peace. That was their motto. They told their people "take whatever land you want" and they liquidated private property. They gained power by legalizing idle squatters.

The electoral college prevents that. You have heard the famous phrase written by the founding fathers--"We the People, In order to form a more perfect union".....what that means is that we, as "the people" work towards those things that are "more perfect". No one promised us it would be perfect. We try to make them "more perfect" and that is a continuous goal.

Socialism, communism and other perverse leftist traits are not what America is. A "popular" vote is not legitimate if it hands over power to a Stalin or a Hitler. No, that is not responsible.

Plenty of things are "popular". Pedophiles that rape children think that raping kids is popular. Serial rapists that rape women think that is 'popular'. Murderers who kill people for sport think that is "popular".

That doesn't make any of that right.

To me, popularity is "fashion", a temporary mindset. A human flaw. Popularity can be antiproductive in the security of the nation-state system. Movie stars are popular, but I can't think of one off the top of my head that I would want to see as President of the United States.

A crack-head rapper is pretty 'popular' with the people the crack-head rapper sells music to, but I don't think the crack-head rapper should be president.

Taking it a step further, I would like to see all voting solidified by people that own property. Non-property owners have no real stake in the health of the country, no attachment, and they can be manipulated more easily than people that do have a stake in the health of the country. I think when you allow non-property owners to vote in nation-changing elections, it slowly forces the country into the grip of socialist terror. That is the direction the US is currently heading. It becomes a race to the bottom where non-property owners vote simply to seize the wealth of property owners.

Thoughts?

JK

[Dancing David]

Very nice post JK, I agree about the lectoral college, although I am not sure that the founding fathers were so high minded, I thought that they just wanted to keep politicians out of the White House.

quote
Taking it a step further, I would like to see all voting solidified by people that own property. Non-property owners have no real stake in the health of the country, no attachment, and they can be manipulated more easily than people that do have a stake in the health of the country. I think when you allow non-property owners to vote in nation-changing elections, it slowly forces the country into the grip of socialist terror. That is the direction the US is currently heading. It becomes a race to the bottom where non-property owners vote simply to seize the wealth of property owners.

end quote

I take it JK that you mean property as in real estate? Would people who own a car get to vote?
What about condominiums? Would there be a limit on how small the size of the property could be. Is it still one person one vote, or would we give one vote per acre.

Funkolicious

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Threads like this one attacking my president is just asking for Jedi Knight to come back to JREF forum.

JK
Welcome back Jedi Knight, Scourge of the Radical Leftist Matriarchal Totalitarian Marxists.

[Baker]

Originally posted by RichardR
True. But there was more to it than recounts. Bush still stole the election: (http://www.mediachannel.org/views/whistleblower/palast.shtml)

More here. (http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,409137,00.html)

If this is the case, why did Al Gore ever concede the Election?
I for one would have gone straight to the Supreme Court.
Al Gore would have heard of this.

[Tricky]

Welcome back Jedi. It's nice to have you to poke fun at again! For example:
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
No, I don't want my account deleted. There is only one "Jedi" and that is me. I am still a member of JREF and will continue to be and want my account untouched. I am still going to PM some of my pals but won't be posting on the forum anymore.

JK
Your reputation for having a tenuous relationship with the truth is intact!:D

[subgenius]

Originally posted by blackadder65738
Actually, the recount of the five disputed counties shows Gore won by thousands, no matter which chad standard thing you use (pregnant, hanging, perforated). If you only count Broward County, that's where Bush wins by a few hundred. I would direct you to this site:

http://www.gregpalast.com/



for a complete explanation of the theft of the 2000 election.

Thanks for the great link. Guaranteed that no Bush supporter will read it or the book the article is based on.
The people who wanted Bush (and it was a minority of the voters) don't care how he got it, and willfully refuse to read anything about it. I have a standing offer to read every book written in support of the selection process of 2000 if the person will read only one: "The Betrayal of America" by Vincent Bugliosi. No takers.

And by the way here's the issue of Newsweek that was totally forgotten because it came out on September 11, 2001.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Baker


If this is the case, why did Al Gore ever concede the Election?
I for one would have gone straight to the Supreme Court.
Al Gore would have heard of this.
Believe it or not some people do what's good for their country.
By the way the Supreme Court did "hear" the case.
What's disappointing is how a person who became president under such circumstances has not bothered to reach out to those who's votes ended up not counting. Not good politics or statesmanship.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by JAR

Welcome back Jedi Knight, Scourge of the Radical Leftist Matriarchal Totalitarian Marxists.

Hi JAR. ;)

JK

[Mercutio]

In a totally unrelated story, a New Hampshire Republican Party official has resigned amid admissions (not accusations, admissions) that the party flooded the phone banks of a Democratic organization that offered rides to the polls during the last presidential election. No way of knowing how many votes were prevented, but New Hampshire, despite its conservative reputation, was very close. Only 4 electoral votes possibly stolen here, but what was the national electoral margin?

The outcome of any Florida recount will forever be in dispute--even those who posted links here must surely recognise that others have posted links with opposite conclusions. What is telling, though, is to look at which party was intent on stopping recounts.

[Zep]

Us non-Americans think that Bush is not a president, he's a sock-puppet. Honestly, he would be lost without the teleprompters following him around!

And it always astounds us that a country so abounding in intelligent, educated and skilled people, in wealth, in technological capability, and in many other bounties still manages to choose such sock-puppets as its leaders. Ronnie Raygun was another!!

Incidentally, the "Bush stolen election" was news here in Australia too, hanging chads and all (btw. Why do they hang Chads?). Many of us became reacquainted with the phrase "Tammany Hall". And you might also care to note this is not new or limited to the Republicans. Lyndon Johnson also managed to get re-elected by using vote-rigging in his own state - historical fact, folks.

Zep

[Malachi151]

Here is another mega post that you can object to :p

The Presidential election of 2000

Al Gore did actually receive more popular votes then George Bush, over 500,000 more votes nationwide. So it is a fact that more Americans voted for Al Gore then George Bush. It must also be noted that later assessment of the ballots in Florida reveal that Al Gore would have won the state had all ballots been recounted, including ballots that had been thrown out by Katherine Harris. It actually does not matter whether Al Gore would have won Florida or not based on a full recount, the fact is that actions were taken that unfairly biased voting in Florida and the decisions on how Florida's electoral votes would be used. Even if Al Gore didn't have the votes to win Florida, it does not change the fact that these various actions were taken.

It is also evident that the ballot confusion in Palm Beach County cost Gore thousands of votes, which would have been enough to win the election regardless of any type of counting measures. That ballot incident seems to be an innocent mistake, and I'm sure that it was. It should be noted though that it cost Gore somewhere between 3,000 and 33,000 votes, while Bush was ruled to win the Florida election by little more then 500 votes. Theresa LePore, the designer of the ballot in Palm Beach that caused so much trouble, was registered as a Republican until 1996, when she changed her registration to Democrat, and then she changed to Independent in the year 2000.

On several occasions Jeb Bush stated that he would "deliver Florida" for his brother. In addition Jeb vetoed voter education programs. In fact the state of Florida spent over $30 million on "Lottery Education" programs in 1999 and in 2000 and less then one million on voter education both years. The state lottery collects a disproportionate amount of money from poor and middle class citizens. The state has no qualms about spending money to ensure that it can collect money from this demographic, but apparently spending money in ways that are perceived to help this demographic vote was not deemed worthy by Jeb Bush.

For a full analysis of the 2000 Florida Recount see:

http://www.issues2000.org/Florida_Recount.htm

Let's look at the evidence that the elections in Florida were actually manipulated.

Legitimate voters removed from voter registration lists

As many as 22,000 voters, mostly black democrats, were "accidentally" stricken from Florida voter registration lists, keeping them from being able to vote in the 2000 election. This was done in what was supposed to be an attempt to clean up the voter registration lists by removing dead persons and convicted felons from the lists of applicable voters. This was done through the use of a private company named DBT, under the supervision of Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, who was paid over 4 million dollars to review and "correct" the voter registration lists. It turns out that up to 95% of the people that they struck from the list as felons were incorrectly struck.

Ninety fivepercent! That is unacceptable(if accurate), and in fact smells of intentional misconduct.

This issue was not even covered in the American media, at all. No news agency ran this story, or has run it since, yet the fact remains that the company DBT failed to comply with the terms of its contract, was paid over 4 million dollars to do what it did, and it prevented as many as 22,000 legitimate voters from being able to vote in Florida.

Florida is the only state in the union to implement such "voter scrubbing" policies and employ private companies to do the work.

DBT was given the following instructions by the Florida Division of Elections:

"Obviously, we want to capture more names that possibly aren't matches and let [county election] supervisors make a final determination rather than exclude certain matches altogether."

This conveniently put an undo burden on the local agencies, and the result was the predictable exclusion of many legitimate voters from the voting process.

DBT and other "voter scrubbing" institutions around the country are heavily linked to conservative Republicans including Helen Blackwell, who's husband was a member of the Reagan administration, and Bernard Marcus, a major Republican contributor and chairman of Home Depot.

The issue is this, the decision to use private company DBT was in the control of Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. It was recognized prior to the 2000 presidential election that there were serious flaws in the system that resulted in a large number of minorities and lower income people being wrongly purged from voter lists. The decision was made to continue with the program despite evidence that the program was wildly unreliable and disproportionately wrongly identified people likely to vote Democrat as people to be purged from voter lists.

I am confident that had the analysis of the data revealed that over 50% of the people set to be purged from voter lists were wealthy white corporate citizens that the program would have either been suspended or altered. It was allowed to go forward under the claim that its objectives, keeping a handful of convicted felons from voting, were more important then the protections of the rights of thousands of innocent people.

In the end thousands of people were denied the right to vote that should never have been denied that right, over 50% of them black in a state where only 11% of the population is black and 93% of blacks voted for Gore.

A special update on this issue shows that ChoicePoint, the company that bought DBT, is now enjoying increased access to data and is in fact getting more government contracts. This company cost America a legitimate election, period! Now that Bush is in office due to the "errors" of DBT/ChoicePoint laws have been passed enabling this company, and more like it, greater access to data on private citizens and its contracts are being increased. They were never punished in any way at all; in fact they have been rewarded.

Not only that, but their actions are inflaming the entire international community due to illegal acquisition of data from foreign counties.

For more on this updated story see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/colombia/story/0,11502,949607,00.html

For more on this issue see:

http://xpress.sfsu.edu/custom/elect02b/2000p.html

http://www.thedubyareport.com/felons.html

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html

http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/2001_09/20010909.html

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=167&row=0

http://www.examiner.com/opinion/default.jsp?story=OPeditorial0522w

Florida's Secretary of State was heavily biased

Florida's Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, was a staunch Bush supporter; she was co-chair of Florida's George W. Bush for President campaign. Katherine Harris' role in the 2000 presidential election is significant.

Harris was charged with the task of interpreting and upholding Florida's election laws during the 2000 presidential elections. Harris blocked the counting of 175,000 ballots in the 2000 elections. Harris also enlisted the help of Bush and Cheney attorneys in interpreting the voting laws of the state of Florida. Essentially Harris determined which votes would be counted, how they would be counted, and the deadlines for counting them, and she is a staunch Republican and Bush supporter who also had larger political aspirations.

She ran for Congress in 2002 and was elected. Not only was Harris a Bush supporter, but she also obviously had personal motive for directing the Florida vote counting in favor of Bush because it stood to benefit her own political aspirations.

For more on Harris and her associations with Bush:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/08/08/politics/main305435.shtml

http://64.225.50.226/news_details.asp?NewsID=332

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45926,00.html

http://www.geocities.com/floridavotecount/harrischange.html

Absentee ballot favoritism shown by Supervisor of Elections

Election officials in Seminole and Martin counties showed favoritism in how they handled absentee ballot applications. In these counties Republican officials were allowed to correct incorrectly filled out absentee ballot applications while incorrectly filled out Democratic absentee ballot applications were simply thrown away. Hundreds of Democratic absentee ballots were thrown away, while thousands of Republican ballots that could have been thrown away according to law were completed by Republican officials. This was because the Democratic ballot applications had instructions on them that told voters to put their voter registration number on the form while the Republican applications did not contain these instructions. So, many Republicans did not put that information on the form.

It was certainly appropriate for the Republican officials to be able to fill in the voter ID number on forms that didn't have it in this case; however, there is a problem. Republicans were allowed to correct hundreds of applications with incorrect voter ID numbers also, while no one from any other party was given that opportunity. In addition, no one from other political parties was notified of this and it was not discovered until after the election took place. Secrecy and favoritism was definitely shown to the Republican Party by both Supervisors of Elections, however, as the Florida Supreme Court ruled, no fraud took place.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant in both the Martin and Seminole cases. In the Martin County case the court did find that partisan favoritism and an opportunity for fraud in violation of Florida law was present on the part of the Supervisor of Elections, however, no action was taken. It was stated by the court that the integrity of the ballots was not compromised due to the completion of the forms by Republican officials.

The court documents for both cases can be see here:

http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/election/12-12-2000/sc00-2448.pdf

http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/election/12-12-2000/sc00-2447.pdf

Xavier Suarez was also involved with tampering with Republican absentee ballots during the presidential election, and in fact he had previously been involved an election scandal in 1997 involving absentee ballots. His 1997 Mayoral election was overturned due to findings that there had been tampering with absentee ballots.

Suarez was a member of the executive committee of the Miami-Dade Republican party at the time of the election.

For more on Xavier Suarez see:

http://www.thegully.com/essays/america/001113absentee_ballots.html

Jeb Bush's staff became vote counters

In order to make a public display of impartiality Jeb Bush took himself out of the official vote recount process. However, what really happened was that his staff took leave and volunteered as vote counters in the vote recount. Six members of the Jeb Bush gubernatorial staff volunteered as vote counters. There is of course no record of what they did and of the ballots that they counted, but I think that it should not have been allowed for Jeb Bush's staff members to participate in a hand recount of votes for obvious reasons of conflict of interest.

Jeb also invited his legal counsel Frank Jimenez over for Thanksgiving dinner during the recount. Frank Jimenez was volunteering in the recount as well. Jeb was asked about his meeting with Jimenez during the recount process to which he gave a written reply that stated:

"As it relates to Frank Jimenez and Thanksgiving, I can remember vividly. Columba and I invited him to dinner with the Towey family (Jim, Mary, Jaime, Joey, Max, John) and we talked about Marvin the Dog and Sugar the Cat who the Towey kids were fascinated with. We also talked about Mother Teresa who Jim worked with and he explained why she will become a Saint. We ate turkey with a chipolte laced stuffing that was awesome.

We invited Frank since he could not go back to Miami to spend Thanksgiving to be with his family."

Come on Jeb. Do you really expect people to believe that as a member of one of the most powerful political families in the world you invited a member of your legal team to dinner while he was working on a recount of votes in an election that your brother is involved in for presidency in a history making situation, and all you talked about is pets and saints?

Miami-Dade vote recount demonstration was staged

On November 22nd a violent demonstration occurred in Miami in protest to a recount of the Miami-Dade ballots. This demonstration was initially reported as a spontaneous outburst by local Miami citizens, due to Republican insistence that is was such, and shown on local and national television. This demonstration lead to the ceasing of recounts of Miami ballots.

It turns out that the demonstration was an organized Republican demonstration of party loyalists who were called to Miami (with all expenses paid) and organized to incite violence and disrupt the recounts in Miami, a heavily Democratic county.

The New York Times reported the event as follows:

"Further details are emerging about the riot in Miami on Wednesday that preceded the Miami-Dade County election commission's decision to give up recounting the votes in the presidential election. As election workers sat counting votes, a mob screamed outside, pounded on furniture, tried to force its way into the building, surrounded a Democratic Party official, knocked two television cameramen to the ground, and kicked and punched several people, including a Democratic spokesman as he attempted to hold a news conference."

In fact the violence was actually incited by New York Representative John Sweeney, who was involved in the protest.

The following picture was published in the Washington Post:



This picture is a frame from the television broadcast of the event. The people in the picture have all been identified as Republican Party loyalists from outside of Miami.

1. Tom Pyle, policy analyst, office of House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).
2. Garry Malphrus, majority chief counsel and staff director, House Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice.
3. Rory Cooper, political division staff member at the National Republican Congressional Committee.
4. Kevin Smith, former House Republican conference analyst and more recently of Voter.com.
5. Steven Brophy, former aide to Sen. Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.), now working at the consulting firm KPMG.
6. Matt Schlapp, former chief of staff for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), now on the Bush campaign staff in Austin.
7. Roger Morse, aide to Rep. Van Hilleary (R-Tenn.).
8. Duane Gibson, aide to Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) of the House Resources Committee.
9. Chuck Royal, legislative assistant to Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
10. Layna McConkey, former legislative assistant to former Rep. Jim Ross Lightfoot (R-Iowa), now at Steelman Health Strategies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=politics/fedpage/columns/intheloop&contentId=A30170-2000Dec5&notFound=true

In short, strings were pulled, and people were put on jets and flown to Miami in order to stage a fake local riot that used violence and intimidation to undermine the voting process with the intention of benefiting candidate George Bush.

For more on this see:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/ELECTION_protests001124.html

http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.Florida.recount18.html

Supreme Court Justices were biased

The Supreme overruled the Florida Supreme Court's decision allow a state wide recount of votes by the laws that existed in Florida at the time that the election took place.

This is significant for several reasons:

7 of the 9 Justices were nominated by a Republican
4 of the 9 Justices had questionable conflicts of interest
The ruling passed down by the Justices went against their own track records
The first point has obvious implications, but that can't be dwelt on too strongly because that's just the way that it is. Still, the fact remains that a strong majority of the Justices that ruled on this case were conservative judges that were nominated by Republicans and had an interest in seeing a conservative president in office.

The second matter is more pressing however.

Antonin Scalia has two sons, one was a partner of Ted Olsen, who was representing George Bush in the case, and the other was a partner in the law firm representing George Bush in the Florida case that the Supreme Court was then ruling on. So, both her sons were involved with the only two law firms representing Bush in these cases.

Clarence Thomas was also related to the case because his wife was working for the organization that was handling the job applications for Bush's administration, so his wife's job was directly tied to George Bush. This clearly gave Thomas incentive to rule in favor of Bush, not to mention the fact that he was nominated by Bush Sr. and had a difficult confirmation hearing during which Bush supported him. Can the incentive for payback be any more blatant?

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra O'Connor both expressed a desire to retire and be replaced by a conservative judge within the 2000 to 2004 timeframe prior to the time when they presided over the case of Bush vs. Gore.

At a party on the night of the election Justice O'Connor expressed dismay when she heard the news that Florida was initially called for Al Gore. Her comments that night were "This is terrible!"

There is in fact a petition to hold Justices Scalia, O'Connor, and Thomas accountable for their actions.

The petition can be seen here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/senate/petition.html

Now, what is significant is that in light of the conflicts of interest, which were arguably significant enough to have required that the Justices recuse themselves by law as is shown by the petition above, these same Justices, in addition to others, ruled in contradiction with their historical records. Their historical records show that they have a history of ruling is support of states rights. In this case they over ruled state authority and overturned the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, contrary to their positions on states rights.

In addition they ruled on "equal protection" in a manner contrary to their histories as well.

Shortly after George Bush took office he appointed Eugene Scalia as top lawyer for the Labor Department and Janet Rehnquist as inspector general of the Health and Human Services Department.

This of course bring into question whether deals were made prior to the rulings, or simply whether knowledge of impending future careers of their children with the Bush administration played a role in influencing the decision of the Justices.

For some analysis of the decisions see:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/legal_12-11.html

http://archive.nandotimes.com/election2000/story/0,3977,500289070-500457653-503018081-0-nandotimes,00.html

[Baker]

Originally posted by subgenius

Believe it or not some people do what's good for their country.
By the way the Supreme Court did "hear" the case.
What's disappointing is how a person who became president under such circumstances has not bothered to reach out to those who's votes ended up not counting. Not good politics or statesmanship.

Do you really think Al Gore would just sit back quietly and let Bush steal the election he would be screaming for justice who wouldn’t sorry but I don’t see how the one key person here is remaining quite.

[Pyrrho]

I voted for Al Gore. I watched his concession speech. Then I realized I should have voted for George Bush.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


Do you really think Al Gore would just sit back quietly and let Bush steal the election he would be screaming for justice who wouldn’t sorry but I don’t see how the one key person here is remaining quite.

That's exactly what he did. He knew that pushing the issue would only lead to destabilisation of the office of president. Plus, there also seems to be an unwritten law in politics that since both sides 'push the envelope' when it comes to dirty and marginal election tactics, that at the end of the day, the side that has been deemed to have won has won.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That's exactly what he did. He knew that pushing the issue would only lead to destabilisation of the office of president. Plus, there also seems to be an unwritten law in politics that since both sides 'push the envelope' when it comes to dirty and marginal election tactics, that at the end of the day, the side that has been deemed to have won has won.

Well this is the first that I have heard of this unwritten law its also convenient being a unwritten law there is no source or evidence to look up such a law.

[subgenius]

For more of the law and order party's respect for the rule of law:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/opinion/27TUE4.html
...
The Texas power grab is part of a trend. Republicans, who now control all three branches of the federal government, are not just pushing through their political agenda. They are increasingly ignoring the rules of government to do it. While the Texas redistricting effort failed, Republicans succeeded in enacting an equally partisan redistricting plan in Colorado. And Republicans in the Senate — notably those involved in the highly charged issue of judicial confirmations — have been just as quick to throw out the rulebook.

These partisan attacks on the rules of government may be more harmful, and more destabilizing, than bad policies, like the $320 billion tax cut. Modern states, the German sociologist Max Weber wrote, derive their legitimacy from "rational authority," a system in which rules apply in equal and predictable ways, and even those who lead are reined in by limits on their power. When the rules of government are stripped away, people can begin to regard their government as illegitimate.

The Texas redistricting effort was part of a national Republican effort to shore up the party's 229-to-205 House majority going into the 2004 elections. The House majority leader, Tom DeLay, who traveled to Austin to supervise the effort personally, was blunt about his motives: "I'm the majority leader, and I want more seats." Texas Republicans seized control of the Legislature last year, and they thought they could add five or more Republican Congressional seats. When the Democrats took off for Oklahoma, the Department of Homeland Security helped hunt down a plane filled with escaping legislators. Sixteen members of Congress from Texas wrote to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking him whether there had been "attempts to divert federal law enforcement resources for private political gain."
...
And Mr. DeLay recently revealed how he felt about rules of general applicability. When he tried smoking a cigar in a restaurant on federal property, the manager told him it violated federal law. His response, according to The Washington Post, was, "I am the federal government."

__________________

Read the whole piece.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Baker
Do you really think Al Gore would just sit back quietly and let Bush steal the election he would be screaming for justice who wouldn’t sorry but I don’t see how the one key person here is remaining quite. I think it's possible that he didn't know at the timeabout the "felons" being removed from the list.

[corplinx]

This issue has alread been discussed to death. I see no evidence of the supreme court handing anyone an election. The supreme court stopped a selective recount with degraded voting standards. In other words, the states electoral votes _would_ have been stolen if they hadn't stepped in.

The only issue I see which still gives me pause is the "voter cleansing" issue. However, we can't go back and change this sad mistake. Gore _might_ have carried the state _if_ there were enough people on the banned list mistakenly who would have turned out to vote.

Proving that there are enough of those votes is a hard issue.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Nice claim. Is there any corroborating evidence of this?

If it did indeed happen as you describe, was what the Governor and Sec. of State supposed did illegal?

Was the inclusion of non-felons to that list purposeful, or was it accidental? Respectively, yes (see below plus post by Malachi151), if not it should be, and IMO on purpose.

In summary, a private database company was hired to produce a list of possible felons to be excluded from the voting roll. The technique used was to match voters by name, birth date, gender and race with the names of tens of millions of ex-felons in the United States. This protocol would catch innocent voters with the same or similar name as an actual felon, resulting in potential over-inclusion. The system to filter out mismatches was set to exclude as many voters as possible.

The database company recommended a cross-check, to eliminate incorrect entries (innocent people logged as felons). Despite having paid for a cross check, Jeb Bush and Kathleen Harris chose not to have it done. The result was many voters were excluded incorrectly, and the allegation is that the majority of these were Black and therefore likely Gore voters. IMO that conclusion is correct.

From the British Guardian newspaper: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4137694,00.html)

The US civil rights commission was yesterday investigating allegations by the BBC's Newsnight that thousands of mainly black voters in Florida were disenfranchised in the November election because of wholesale errors by a private data services company.

Information supplied by the company, Database Technologies (DBT), led to tens of thousands of Floridians being removed from the electoral roll on the grounds that they had felonies on their records.

However, a Guardian investigation in December confirmed by Newsnight found that the list was riddled with mistakes that led to thousands of voters - a disproportionate number of them black - being wrongly disenfranchised.

The scale of the errors, and their skewed effect on black, overwhelmingly Democratic voters, cost Al Gore thousands of votes in Florida in an election that George Bush won by just 537 votes. Moreover the Florida state government, where Mr Bush's brother Jeb is governor, did nothing to correct the errors, and may have encouraged them.

Under DBT's contract, seen by Newsnight, the company was obliged to check its data by "manual verification using telephone calls and statistical sampling". DBT was paid $4.3m for its purge of the voters' roll, but company officials confirmed that they did not call voters they had included on their list to check if they had identified the right person.And you can watch this BBC TV program (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/palast.ram) and see Greg Palast interviewing Florida's Director of Elections, Clayton Roberts. Palast starts to ask Roberts about the DBT contract (and the check that wasn’t done), at which point Roberts declares the interview over and calls the guards to have Palast removed. (It’s a 15 minute segment. The bit with Roberts running out is in the first two minutes.)

The NAACP filed a class action suit (http://www.naacp.org/news/archives/2000/florida_lawsuit.shtml)

The judgment last year confirmed the problem (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/3594763.htm) although too late for the 2000 election:

MIAMI - A database that led to the wrongful removal of names from voter rolls in the 2000 election will be reprocessed to look for names that should be restored, under an agreement in a federal voting rights lawsuit.

The agreement reached Tuesday could restore hundreds of names to Florida's voter rolls, and it would be the first time since the disputed 2000 election that the central voter files would be corrected for errors, attorneys said.

(Snip)

About 58,000 names were sent to all 67 county elections supervisors, who were responsible for deciding whether to purge the names from the voter rolls.
Under Tuesday's agreement, ChoicePoint will recheck voter lists using stricter identification criteria those applied before the election, requiring a match of first and last name, Social Security number, race, gender and date of birth.

The US Civil Rights Commission has this to say: (http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm)

Florida’s overzealous efforts to purge voters from the rolls, conducted under the guise of an anti-fraud campaign, resulted in the inexcusable and patently unjust removal of disproportionate numbers of African American voters from Florida’s voter registration rolls for the November 2000 election.

(Snip)

African American voters were placed on purge lists more often and more erroneously than Hispanic or white voters. For instance, in the state’s largest county, Miami-Dade, more than 65 percent of the names on the purge list were African Americans, who represented only 20.4 percent of the population. Hispanics were 57.4 percent of the population, but only 16.6 percent of the purge list; whites were 77.6 percent of the population but 17.6 percent of those purged.Full report: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm

For me, there are two really worrying things here, namely:

1. This has not really been covered in the US media. Why not?

2. I hear the Republicans, flushed with their success in Florida, are rolling out the method in other states. The 2004 elections are not that far away. (I don’t have a reference for that handy. I can look for it if you like, I know I read it somewhere.)

[RichardR]

Originally posted by corplinx
The only issue I see which still gives me pause is the "voter cleansing" issue. However, we can't go back and change this sad mistake. Agreed.

For me, the important issue is - will it happen again, and in additional states? Considering what a non-issue it seems to be for the fearless US press (Greg Palast had to go to England to find any news agency that would report his story), I fear the answer might be a yes.

[Malachi151]

To quote my other post again (since it got left behing at the end of page 1)


Legitimate voters removed from voter registration lists

...

The issue is this, the decision to use private company DBT was in the control of Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. It was recognized prior to the 2000 presidential election that there were serious flaws in the system that resulted in a large number of minorities and lower income people being wrongly purged from voter lists. The decision was made to continue with the program despite evidence that the program was wildly unreliable and disproportionately wrongly identified people likely to vote Democrat as people to be purged from voter lists.

I am confident that had the analysis of the data revealed that over 50% of the people set to be purged from voter lists were wealthy white corporate citizens that the program would have either been suspended or altered. It was allowed to go forward under the claim that its objectives, keeping a handful of convicted felons from voting, were more important then the protections of the rights of thousands of innocent people.

In the end thousands of people were denied the right to vote that should never have been denied that right, over 50% of them black in a state where only 11% of the population is black and 93% of blacks voted for Gore.

Florida's Secretary of State was heavily biased

Absentee ballot favoritism shown by Supervisor of Elections

Jeb Bush's staff became vote counters

Miami-Dade vote recount demonstration was staged

Supreme Court Justices were biased

[Baker]

Originally posted by RichardR
I think it's possible that he didn't know at the timeabout the "felons" being removed from the list.

This is from the link you gave it would give him enough time to be informed of it.


Beginning in November, this extraordinary news ran, as it should, on Page 1 of the country's leading paper. Unfortunately, it was in the wrong country: Britain. In the United States, it ran on page zero — that is, the story was not covered on the news pages. The theft of the presidential race in Florida also was given big television network coverage. But again, it was on the wrong continent: on BBC television, London.

Was this some off-the-wall story that the Brits misreported? A lawyer for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission called it the first hard evidence of a systematic attempt to disenfranchise black voters; the commission held dramatic hearings on the evidence. While the story was absent from America's news pages (except, I grant, a story in the Orlando Sentinel and another on C-Span), columnists for The New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post cited the story after seeing a U.S. version on the Internet magazine Salon.com. As the reporter on the story for Britain's Guardian newspaper (and its Sunday edition, The Observer) and for BBC television, I was interviewed on several American radio programs, generally "alternative" stations on the left side of the dial.

Interviewers invariably asked the same two questions, "Why was this story uncovered by a British reporter?" And, "Why was it published in and broadcast from Europe?"
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/whistleblower/palast.shtml

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx
This issue has alread been discussed to death. I see no evidence of the supreme court handing anyone an election. The supreme court stopped a selective recount with degraded voting standards. In other words, the states electoral votes _would_ have been stolen if they hadn't stepped in.

The only issue I see which still gives me pause is the "voter cleansing" issue. However, we can't go back and change this sad mistake. Gore _might_ have carried the state _if_ there were enough people on the banned list mistakenly who would have turned out to vote.

Proving that there are enough of those votes is a hard issue.
But didn't you refuse my offer to read a book on the subject?
Any book. Pick one. It might actually have some information in it.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Baker
This is from the link you gave it would give him enough time to be informed of it. Then I couldn't say why he didn't raise the issue. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, though.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


All politics is local. That is where our political system gains its roots and every politician knows it. If you wouldn't vote a guy in as mayor of your town he certainly wouldn't get your vote for president.

If you have a presidential candidate who can't even win his own home state, it is clear the country would find that suspect. Don't you? What was the political climate in Gore's home state at the time of the presidential election that caused the citizens there to vote for GW?

Again, I would hope that people vote for reasons other than home address. Let's say that the presidential candidate from your state was a democrat (and therefore GASP! a leftist!) would you vote for him? Or would you vote for whoever had a platform that closely matched your political views?

You think the electoral college system is 'stupid' because another leftist did not get elected president.

The electoral college is quite ingenious, actually. It allows nominated representatives of each state to gather a pause and decide if the candidate who won the popular vote in those states is worthy of becoming president. I think the system is perfect because it will prevent a Stalin or a Hitler from seizing power.

There have been few cases where the electoral college has gone the other way--ignoring the popular vote. The votes of "the people" do count--if they didn't the electoral college would ignore the popular vote and put some dangerous leftist in. In the last election that did not not happen, to the celebration of all freedom loving people around the world.

I'm not going to comment extensively on the electoral college, but they could just as easily put some radical rightist in as a dangerous leftist. Also, I don't think that "all freedom loving people around the world" celebrated the installation of GW.

Without the electoral college checks and balances on the presidential election, all a presidential candidate would have to do to steal the election was promise to hand over the US Treasury to the groups that vote them in. The US wouldn't survive 5 years if that happened. That is the importance of the electoral college vote. It prevents the United States from being overrun by Communist nation-destroyers.

I'll say this for you, Jedi - you are quite the wordsmith when you get going. Of course, I don't think that the USA is in any danger of being overrun by communist nation-destroyers even without the electoral college, but it is fun sometimes to read your rhetoric.

What did Lenin and Stalin use to gain power? Bread, land and peace. That was their motto. They told their people "take whatever land you want" and they liquidated private property. They gained power by legalizing idle squatters.

The electoral college prevents that. You have heard the famous phrase written by the founding fathers--"We the People, In order to form a more perfect union".....what that means is that we, as "the people" work towards those things that are "more perfect". No one promised us it would be perfect. We try to make them "more perfect" and that is a continuous goal.

Socialism, communism and other perverse leftist traits are not what America is. A "popular" vote is not legitimate if it hands over power to a Stalin or a Hitler. No, that is not responsible.

Plenty of things are "popular". Pedophiles that rape children think that raping kids is popular. Serial rapists that rape women think that is 'popular'. Murderers who kill people for sport think that is "popular".

That doesn't make any of that right.

To me, popularity is "fashion", a temporary mindset. A human flaw. Popularity can be antiproductive in the security of the nation-state system. Movie stars are popular, but I can't think of one off the top of my head that I would want to see as President of the United States.

A crack-head rapper is pretty 'popular' with the people the crack-head rapper sells music to, but I don't think the crack-head rapper should be president.

I really don't know what to say to this. The electoral college saves your country from pedophiles, crackhead rappers, movie stars, serial rapists, murderers, and of course, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. Incredible. And I thought it was just an electoral system.

BTW, ever hear of Ronald Reagan? Movie Star who became president? Or was he okay because he wasn't a leftist?

Taking it a step further, I would like to see all voting solidified by people that own property. Non-property owners have no real stake in the health of the country, no attachment, and they can be manipulated more easily than people that do have a stake in the health of the country. I think when you allow non-property owners to vote in nation-changing elections, it slowly forces the country into the grip of socialist terror. That is the direction the US is currently heading. It becomes a race to the bottom where non-property owners vote simply to seize the wealth of property owners.

Thoughts?

JK

Well, off the top of my head the idea of restricting the vote to property owners seems to go against the whole "All men are created equal" sentiment in the constitution. Also, I don't see any race to the bottom. If anything, it appears the current administration's policies pander to the wealthy, the source of their campaign dollars.

[Malachi151]

From Baker's link

One problem: I had not quite completed my own investigation on this matter. Therefore CBS would have to do some actual work, reviewing documents and law, and obtaining statements. The next day I received a call from the producer, who said, "I'm sorry, but your story didn't hold up." Well, how did the multibillion-dollar CBS network determine this? Why, "we called Jeb Bush's office." Oh. And that was it.

I wasn't surprised by this type of "investigation." It is, in fact, standard operating procedure for the little lambs of American journalism. One good, slick explanation from a politician or corporate chieftain and it's case closed, investigation over. The story ran anyway: on BBC-TV. Let's understand the pressures on the CBS producer that led her to kill the story on the basis of a denial by the target of the allegations. (Though let's not confuse understanding with forgiveness.)

I thought that was amusing :p

[chulbert]

Has the issue of Buchanan votes in Palm Beach County been addressed? As I understand it, given a regression analysis of his performance in the rest of the state, the number of votes he received in PBC is statistically extraordinary.

As John Allen Paulos put it, "It is so far away from the general drift of the data that it?s somewhat analogous to finding a 700-pound person who is 5 feet 6 inches tall in a group of 67 people."

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by chulbert
Has the issue of Buchanan votes in Palm Beach County been addressed? As I understand it, given a regression analysis of his performance in the rest of the state, the number of votes he received in PBC is statistically extraordinary.

As John Allen Paulos put it, "It is so far away from the general drift of the data that it?s somewhat analogous to finding a 700-pound person who is 5 feet 6 inches tall in a group of 67 people."

It is also evident that the ballot confusion in Palm Beach County cost Gore thousands of votes, which would have been enough to win the election regardless of any type of counting measures. That ballot incident seems to be an innocent mistake, and I'm sure that it was. It should be noted though that it cost Gore somewhere between 3,000 and 33,000 votes, while Bush was ruled to win the Florida election by little more then 500 votes. Theresa LePore, the designer of the ballot in Palm Beach that caused so much trouble, was registered as a Republican until 1996, when she changed her registration to Democrat, and then she changed to Independent in the year 2000.

I covered this and all the other relevent issue on page one of this thread.

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I covered this and all the other relevent issue on page one of this thread.

You did? How does the elimination of a set of voters lead to an abnormally high number of votes for Buchanan?

[Mike B.]

You know Richard Nixon used the excuse that it was good for the country in 1960 when he could have disputed the highly questionable returns for JFK in Cook County, Illinois or in Texas.

[Gregor]

How dare you use the name of St. JFK in vain.

You know it's only republicans that try and increase their voting strength! It's all those bad, evil, naughty republicans. The Dems are the defenders of truth, justice, and the American way, and I'll accept any half-baked argument to support my belief.

It's funny how people can be skeptical of so many things they disagree with, but be credulous in other situations.

[subgenius]

Its a matter of degree.

[repairman]

Originally posted by chulbert


You did? How does the elimination of a set of voters lead to an abnormally high number of votes for Buchanan?


It was the butterfly ballots in WPB that siphoned off Gore votes to Buchanan votes. The spaces for voting were vertical and the names were on either side. If voters were not carefull it would be easy to vote for the wrong canidate.

[Gregor]

Except of course the ballot form was approved by a bi-partisan group.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Gregor
Except of course the ballot form was approved by a bi-partisan group.

Wonderful... In theory, we have a bunch of empricists here at this forum (and others, yeah)...so let's find out. Get a population the same as the contraversial Florida districts, get 2 sets of ballots printed, one with the Gore spot screwed up (as approved by the bi-partisan group) and the other with the Bush spot screwed up (a control group, the one thing lacking from every argument about this election). Many have said that "If you can't read a ballot, I don't want you voting for president! (If you need a citation for this, you haven't been paying attention--the most recent one I have seen on this forum credits George Carlin)...OK, but we don't know how many idiot voters we have on the republican side, because their ballot was not screwed up. If you honestly believe that the difference was that Dems can't read a ballot, you'll have nothing against this test.

I know it will never happen. I know that this is a hypothetical argument. I also know that the "stupid voter" argument is a load of compost. The "it was approved by a bi-partisan group" argument is the same. I agree, it was approved. I agree, it is too late for arguing about it, the damage is done. Will you agree the ballot was faulty, or at the very least, potentially faulty?

[Dancing David]

I think that it was approved by the democratic board of ekections...