Continued debate on 2000 Florida vote

[Sayhey]

This thread is for those who want to continue the debate over the outcome of the 2000 election in Florida. Here is the important findings of a media consortium about what would have happened under different scenarios if the US Supreme Court had not stopped the vote counting.

On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

Gore's four-county strategy

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.

The news media consortium then tested a number of other hypothetical scenarios.

Use of Palm Beach County standard

Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore.

Inclusion of overvotes

In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html)

Please feel free to also include discussions of the disqualification of thousands of voters, mostly in Florida's Black communities, if you want.

This thread is to prevent this historically important debate from taking over other threads.

[blackfox]

First off Sayhey, thanks for opening up a new thread...

That said, although I recognize the significance of the legal maneuverings around the 2000 Election, am I allowed to say that I just don't care anymore?

I am focused on November...if it is another close race, I will be looking up this thread though...

Sorry to contribute zip here...but I spent a good year arguing this back in 2001, and I am tired of it...

[Sayhey]

...That said, although I recognize the significance of the legal maneuverings around the 2000 Election, am I allowed to say that I just don't care anymore?

Absolutely. I'll argue this stuff until the "cows come home" because I think there are lessons to be learned and I'd like to stop it from happening again. I also think understanding our history is important in and of itself.

I am focused on November...if it is another close race, I will be looking up this thread though...

Sorry to contribute zip here...but I spent a good year arguing this back in 2001, and I am tired of it...

I agree with the focus, which is one reason I separated this out into a thread of its own.

[Backtothemac]

Here is my take. You don't change the rules after the game has started. Period. There was a count, and a statewide recount. Then Gore wanted to have recounts in specific counties that would benifit him. The Court said recount the entire state, but then tried to let each county decide the fate of hanging chads, etc. That was the problem. Disenfranchising voters.

You can't change the rules after the game is started.

Furthermore, you have a right to cast a ballot. It is your responsiblity to make certain that your ballot will be counted. To do that you have to correctly complete the ballot for it to become a vote. The people that did not do that, well, it is their fault. Not anyone elses. My wifes ballot did not count because she voted a party ticket, then voted for each office. Her intent was clear, but, it is not up to humans to subjectively and retroactively decide her intent. The system that is set in place before the election decides the intent by rules. And if they are not followed, the ballot does not get counted, thus, it is a ballot, not a vote.

[Sayhey]

The problem with your post, B2TM, is the procedure being followed in the recounts was exactly what had been done in contested elections in previous Florida elections. It is those who wanted to stop the counting, including with the use of imported political thugs trying to storm the counting rooms, that did not want to abide by the "rules."

[Chip NoVaMac]

Here is my take. You don't change the rules after the game has started. Period. There was a count, and a statewide recount. Then Gore wanted to have recounts in specific counties that would benifit him. The Court said recount the entire state, but then tried to let each county decide the fate of hanging chads, etc. That was the problem. Disenfranchising voters.

You can't change the rules after the game is started.

Furthermore, you have a right to cast a ballot. It is your responsiblity to make certain that your ballot will be counted. To do that you have to correctly complete the ballot for it to become a vote. The people that did not do that, well, it is their fault. Not anyone elses. My wifes ballot did not count because she voted a party ticket, then voted for each office. Her intent was clear, but, it is not up to humans to subjectively and retroactively decide her intent. The system that is set in place before the election decides the intent by rules. And if they are not followed, the ballot does not get counted, thus, it is a ballot, not a vote.

I am also concerned about the carving knife that was used around the country to decide who was eligible to vote. I am not talking about whether felons should be able to vote or not. That is a different thread.

I am talking about people that were cut from the voter rolls because they shared a common name. If we want election reform, one of the things that needs to be done is to send a Registered letter to those that are going to be removed from the roles. Simple enough to do. And the costs can be chalked up to ensuring a proper recording of votes.

[Frohickey]

Please feel free to also include discussions of the disqualification of thousands of voters, mostly in Florida's Black communities, if you want.


Okay, the removal of felons from the voter rolls.

Two facts:
Florida (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html) has 17million people.
Florida, racially, is composed of 78% whites(hispanics included), 14.6% blacks, and the rest are in the single digit percentage points.

Florida (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/total_Index/arrest71-95.asp)'s arrest trends from 1971-1995.
Beginning at 1971, the black arrest percentage is at 42%, to 1995 and 40%, with a minimum of 35% in 1979.

[Frohickey]

I am also concerned about the carving knife that was used around the country to decide who was eligible to vote. I am not talking about whether felons should be able to vote or not. That is a different thread.

I am talking about people that were cut from the voter rolls because they shared a common name. If we want election reform, one of the things that needs to be done is to send a Registered letter to those that are going to be removed from the roles. Simple enough to do. And the costs can be chalked up to ensuring a proper recording of votes.

Agreed. Notification of ineligibility to vote would have taken the winds out of the sails of this issue. Hope that the election boards learn from this lesson. But why are we not surprised that govt committees screw up such a simple thing?

[Backtothemac]

Okay, the removal of felons from the voter rolls.

Two facts:
Florida (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html) has 17million people.
Florida, racially, is composed of 78% whites(hispanics included), 14.6% blacks, and the rest are in the single digit percentage points.

Florida (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/total_Index/arrest71-95.asp)'s arrest trends from 1971-1995.
Beginning at 1971, the black arrest percentage is at 42%, to 1995 and 40%, with a minimum of 35% in 1979.

Now wait a sec, let me be clear on this. Are you saying that because more blacks are arrested, then what? The cops are racist?

[IJ Reilly]

The lesson I take away from the 2000 election is that our electoral system in the US is a complete shambles. For a country that advertises itself as the bulwarked of democracy to the world, this experience should have come as a major embarrassment, and resulted in an immediate call for top to bottom electoral reform, and actual action to do so. We're probably never going to hear a greater hue and cry over how an election than we did in 2000. Still it produced almost nothing in the way of reform. I despair at how so large a public outcry ended up moving our government hardly a millimeter in any useful direction.

[skunk]

I despair at how so large a public outcry ended up moving our government hardly a millimeter in any useful direction.
Just like with the anti-war rallies in the UK...

[Frohickey]

Now wait a sec, let me be clear on this. Are you saying that because more blacks are arrested, then what? The cops are racist?

I'm saying that an arrested person is more likely to be convicted of a crime than a person that is not arrested. So, if the arrest rates for blacks is disproportionate to their numbers, the likelihood for blacks being taken out of the voter rolls is proportionate to their arrest likelihood.

A person that plays a certain sport at a high level, is more likely to be drafted by a professional sport organization, than a person that is a mediocre player. If the 'draft' rate for persons is disproportionate to their numbers, the likelihood for 'persons drafted for professional sports' being injured/given multi-million salaries is proportionate to their 'draft' likehood.

[Frohickey]

The lesson I take away from the 2000 election is that our electoral system in the US is a complete shambles. For a country that advertises itself as the bulwarked of democracy to the world, this experience should have come as a major embarrassment, and resulted in an immediate call for top to bottom electoral reform, and actual action to do so. We're probably never going to hear a greater hue and cry over how an election than we did in 2000. Still it produced almost nothing in the way of reform. I despair at how so large a public outcry ended up moving our government hardly a millimeter in any useful direction.

You are right. We should be embarassed. People who can't even understand simple instructions and check the back of their ballots for hanging chads should not be voting.

Whats next? English lessons and audio tapes on how to safely operate a power saw? :eek: How about a 2 week course on how to safely drink hot coffee?

[IJ Reilly]

Just like with the anti-war rallies in the UK...

I suppose so, at least superficially. People will always have issues with their governments, which, in the final analysis, are resolved at the ballot box. So what if the ballot box itself is broken?

But that's not my main point. I see this not as a mere governmental policy matter, but as something which is located at the very bedrock of democracy. Does anyone seriously disagree with the proposition that the casting and counting of ballots should be fair, equitable and consistent? I hardly think so. But even when we come face-to-face with the realization that our electoral system is seriously crippled, no action is taken by our governmental representatives to repair it.

[Dale Sorel]

Oh my gosh, this thread is just too funny :p

I think it's time for all you Bush haters to leave the past behind. You're not getting Al "dancing man" Gore as your president anytime soon :rolleyes:

[blackfox]

Oh my gosh, this thread is just too funny :p

I think it's time for all you Bush haters to leave the past behind. You're not getting Al "dancing man" Gore as your president anytime soon :rolleyes:
Dale, you completely miss the point...this thread is not about Gore, it is about the problems that Election exposed w/ regards to our status as a representative Democracy. Of the right of people to have their vote count and be tabulated fairly. This has nothing to do with Partisan Politics.

I shall let someone else explain better, if they wish...but if you are going to post, please try to contribute to the discussion at hand, and actually read the posts written.

Thankyou.

[Backtothemac]

Hang on, the system worked exactly as it should have, and to set the record straight there had never been a hand, manual recount in the history of Florida, nor were there any laws on the books prior to the 2000 eclection dictating how to do it. You can't write the laws after the electioni occurs guys, you just can't. That isn't democratic in the least.

If the results would have been exactly the same, but with Gore winning, would you still feel the same way? Honestly? No, you would not.

I have a bit of personal bias on this because I have family that was working in Kathleen Harris's office at the time, my father was a Sheriff in Florida at the time, etc. So, I have a different view than everyone else. Yea, republicans were rude and tried to stop the count, etc. But the recount was, like it or not, illegal, and the FLA supreme court was legislating though the bench by allowing the rules to be made up after the election.

[Backtothemac]

Dale, you completely miss the point...this thread is not about Gore, it is about the problems that Election exposed w/ regards to our status as a representative Democracy. Of the right of people to have their vote count and be tabulated fairly. This has nothing to do with Partisan Politics.

I shall let someone else explain better, if they wish...but if you are going to post, please try to contribute to the discussion at hand, and actually read the posts written.

Thankyou.

All, 100%, totally every single solitary VOTE was counted in Florida. As I have stated earlier, a ballot that is not correctly completed is not a vote. It is a discarded ballot according to the State Law. That is why it was illegal to try to overcome that.

[Frohickey]

I suppose so, at least superficially. People will always have issues with their governments, which, in the final analysis, are resolved at the ballot box. So what if the ballot box itself is broken?

But that's not my main point. I see this not as a mere governmental policy matter, but as something which is located at the very bedrock of democracy. Does anyone seriously disagree with the proposition that the casting and counting of ballots should be fair, equitable and consistent? I hardly think so. But even when we come face-to-face with the realization that our electoral system is seriously crippled, no action is taken by our governmental representatives to repair it.

Athens, TN (http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm)
I don't remember the name of the movie.

[blackfox]

All, 100%, totally every single solitary VOTE was counted in Florida. As I have stated earlier, a ballot that is not correctly completed is not a vote. It is a discarded ballot according to the State Law. That is why it was illegal to try to overcome that.
Well, it is still not about Gore...we (well, I am trying to stay out of it) are merely discussion the legality of the more technical aspects of the 2000 election...right?

[Backtothemac]

Right. I am not dingging Gore. I like Gore. This is how rediculous it is though. Look at the catagories from a chart from a site claiming that Gore won.

Valid votes found after certification
Correctly marked paper ballots

Full punches
Poorly marked paper ballot
3-corner chads
2-corner chads
1-corner chads
Dimples with sunlight
Dimples

Dimples with sunlight. Are you kidding? What was the voter intent? How do you know? There is no way to know. A ballot is not a fote. Only if it is correctly completed is it a vote. Now, how do you double this? Make every vote double recorded. Cast two ballots. That way if one doesn't get done correctly, the other will. Or record your vote in a record of inquiry that will only be opened in cases such as this.

The outcome was correct, legal, and it wasn't stolen. I would say the same exact thing if Gore had won. The system worked. It worked perfectly. Because it was the legal way.

[Frohickey]

Yea, republicans were rude and tried to stop the count, etc. But the recount was, like it or not, illegal, and the FLA supreme court was legislating though the bench by allowing the rules to be made up after the election.

There is no law against being rude. :eek:

As to legislating from the bench, remember the 2002 elections in New Jersey, when the Democrats and New Jersey Supreme Court allowed a change of candidate for US Senate after the legislated deadline for submission of the candidate had CLEARLY passed.

Supreme Court did not want to get into that, for fear of being seen as a repeat of Florida, but clearly, justice and the rule of law was not done in the Robert Torricelli/Frank Lautenberg swap.

Everytime you see things like this happening, you essentially tell the people that the rule of law is not important, and you end up encouraging lawlessness. The only thing preventing chaos and mayhem in this country is that the majority of the people have respect for the law. Losing respect for the law is a very bad thing. Very bad.

[Backtothemac]

There is no law against being rude. :eek:

As to legislating from the bench, remember the 2002 elections in New Jersey, when the Democrats and New Jersey Supreme Court allowed a change of candidate for US Senate after the legislated deadline for submission of the candidate had CLEARLY passed.

Supreme Court did not want to get into that, for fear of being seen as a repeat of Florida, but clearly, justice and the rule of law was not done in the Robert Torricelli/Frank Lautenberg swap.

Everytime you see things like this happening, you essentially tell the people that the rule of law is not important, and you end up encouraging lawlessness. The only thing preventing chaos and mayhem in this country is that the majority of the people have respect for the law. Losing respect for the law is a very bad thing. Very bad.

You are 100% correct. 100% correct.

[jefhatfield]

Right. I am not dingging Gore. I like Gore. This is how rediculous it is though. Look at the catagories from a chart from a site claiming that Gore won.

Valid votes found after certification
Correctly marked paper ballots

Full punches
Poorly marked paper ballot
3-corner chads
2-corner chads
1-corner chads
Dimples with sunlight
Dimples

Dimples with sunlight. Are you kidding? What was the voter intent? How do you know? There is no way to know. A ballot is not a fote. Only if it is correctly completed is it a vote. Now, how do you double this? Make every vote double recorded. Cast two ballots. That way if one doesn't get done correctly, the other will. Or record your vote in a record of inquiry that will only be opened in cases such as this.

The outcome was correct, legal, and it wasn't stolen. I would say the same exact thing if Gore had won. The system worked. It worked perfectly. Because it was the legal way.

gore did what he could, but in a contested election the supreme court could step in and choose a ruling or a dissent...in this case, they stuck with the original count and unless we change our federal law, the supreme court has that much power

what if they resorted to a partisan body? or to a partisan congress? or the republican governor of florida? as i see it the most impartial body is the supreme court...remember many of the gop appointees have voted towards the more liberal side of things many times...too many for the gop to be comfortable with ;)

most of the time there is a clear winner in the electoral college so the supreme court does not have to step in but thank god we have a supreme court...if i were them, i would simply have recounted the entire state of florida and make everybody wait for a few more weeks...but there is no guarantee that would have changed the historical outcome

no matter what, florida was very,very close and with edwards on the dem's 2004 ticket, i think the democrats will get that state and perhaps another...any southern state going for kerry/edwards in 2004 could be the death knell for the gop in november 2004...all i can say is thank the stars that edwards is from the south, and not from the northeast

but then again a double "southerner" ticket won in '92 and '96...risky, but it worked and we california types gladly went for it ;)

[Neserk]

Now wait a sec, let me be clear on this. Are you saying that because more blacks are arrested, then what? The cops are racist?

It is well known that by percentage African-American males are more likely to be convicted of a crime than are white males. DOn't know stats for other races. It isn't that AA males commit more crimes (by percentage) but that racism still exists and justice isn't blind.

[Neserk]

The lesson I take away from the 2000 election is that our electoral system in the US is a complete shambles. .


What I get from it is what I"ve thought since I was about 13 and found out how we elected Presidents: it's not fair! :p My only comfort as a 13 year old was that it had either never happened or only happened once. Now that I've had to suffer the consequences as an adult I say: It's not fair! :p But I find no comfort.

[Sayhey]

...The outcome was correct, legal, and it wasn't stolen. I would say the same exact thing if Gore had won. The system worked. It worked perfectly. Because it was the legal way.

Of course the outcome was legal. In our system of government the ultimate determiner of what is legal is the US Supreme Court. Therefore because the Court ruled in favor of Bush and de facto selected him to be President it is legal. None of that makes it right.

When you complain about "legislating from the bench" from the Florida Court and complain about "changing the rules" you betray a contradiction in your argument. The fact is that it has always been up to the courts to determine questions about disputed elections and the Florida courts were following their own precedents in how to deal with such cases. You don't have to like the procedure of looking at chads and determining voter intent, but that was the precedent that had been set in Florida. Yes, the Court has a bias. In these kinds of cases that bias had been to ensure that every vote that could be counted was counted. That is a fundamental approach that I believe is right and should be supported. Bush v. Gore undermines that principle.

What is the most important lesson for us about the 2000 election is what IJ talked about when he wrote of the need for "immediate call for top to bottom electoral reform." What people should come away with is the fact that when someone can be elected with fewer votes than another candidate, no matter how you look at the Florida results, it is a contradiction in our system that is unsustainable. When voters can systematically be thrown off voter rolls without proof that they should not be included, without notice of their removal in time to appeal, etc. is an offense to the very democratic principles we are supposed to be about. And lastly on this aspect of the topic, let me say that voting should not be about one's facility with voting technology or knowing to check for hanging chads. What is important is that when one casts their ballot every effort is going to be made to ensure that that vote is accurately counted.

Also, to your point about the GOP thugs, you can't dismiss organized crowds trying to intimidate elected officials from counting votes as "being rude." If it happened in another country we would be denouncing it as a violation of the most basic guarantees of democracy. We should expect no less in our own nation.

[Frohickey]

It is well known that by percentage African-American males are more likely to be convicted of a crime than are white males. DOn't know stats for other races. It isn't that AA males commit more crimes (by percentage) but that racism still exists and justice isn't blind.

From 14.6% all the way to 40%???!!! Year after year, decade after decade? That must be some heavy-duty institutional racism! :eek:

Has anyone done a study on percentage of AA population and AA arrest rates throughout all 50 states? I bet if anyone does do that study, they would be called a racist, even if all the conclusion of the study is fully supported by data from all DeptOfJustice agencies throughout all 50 states.

I think that we need yet another metric. How many AA males are arrested by AA cops. I bet that would not change the 40% rate.

Now, how about how many white people are arrested for white collar crimes, I bet if that study came out, the spin would be that it shows that AA are being discriminated against because they are not in positions of power with which to abuse or commit fraud. Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton at? They should be organizing a protest march saying they need to find an african-american Enron executive to indict. (end_sarcasm)

In some case, I wish that Ward Connelly's idea of halting the use of racial categories in all governmental inquires/studies came to pass. In other cases, its good that we have the data with which to refute these complaints of racism.

I think that Asian Americans are being discriminated against. They don't have the same amount of representation in professional sports, or political office, or incarceration rates, or insert_your_category_here.

[Neserk]

From 14.6% all the way to 40%???!!! Year after year, decade after decade? That must be some heavy-duty institutional racism! :eek:


Pretty sad, huh?




I think that we need yet another metric. How many AA males are arrested by AA cops. I bet that would not change the 40% rate.


Ever hear of internalized homophobia? Well there is also internalized racism ;)

[Backtothemac]

It is well known that by percentage African-American males are more likely to be convicted of a crime than are white males. DOn't know stats for other races. It isn't that AA males commit more crimes (by percentage) but that racism still exists and justice isn't blind.
http://www.adc.state.az.us/DeathRow/DRowTZ.htm#TOWERY

There is a link to my brother, who is sitting on death row. Look at the other inmates on death row with him. How many are white? How many black?
I know that 89 of the 129 are white. Only 14 are black. That is not that different from population statistics.
I am not doubting racism, but if a people commit crimes, then should they not be locked up? Should race not matter if a crime is committed?


Sex Racial Breakdown
Male Female

128 1

89 Caucasian
15 Hispanic
14 Black
4 Native American
Other:
1 El Salvadoran
3 Mexican National
2 German National
1 Asian
129 Total

[Chip NoVaMac]

Agreed. Notification of ineligibility to vote would have taken the winds out of the sails of this issue. Hope that the election boards learn from this lesson. But why are we not surprised that govt committees screw up such a simple thing?

Because election boards are generally nominated by the "ruling power".

[Chip NoVaMac]

The lesson I take away from the 2000 election is that our electoral system in the US is a complete shambles. For a country that advertises itself as the bulwarked of democracy to the world, this experience should have come as a major embarrassment, and resulted in an immediate call for top to bottom electoral reform, and actual action to do so. We're probably never going to hear a greater hue and cry over how an election than we did in 2000. Still it produced almost nothing in the way of reform. I despair at how so large a public outcry ended up moving our government hardly a millimeter in any useful direction.

Amen, if we are going to to and invade countries and give them democracy, then we need to have the same standards here.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Oh my gosh, this thread is just too funny :p

I think it's time for all you Bush haters to leave the past behind. You're not getting Al "dancing man" Gore as your president anytime soon :rolleyes:

Maybe the people that think that Bush right or wrong should look at the true facts not just party rhetoric .

[Chip NoVaMac]

What is the most important lesson for us about the 2000 election is what IJ talked about when he wrote of the need for "immediate call for top to bottom electoral reform."

This is what disappointed me most about the American public. There should have been protests on the left and right. Instead we get "computerized" election processes that bring even more problems.

Bush could have gained my support and many others by calling for a serious change in the election process. But why should he have? Because he is able to pervert and prostitute the process to try and win at any cost.

[IJ Reilly]

Bush could have gained my support and many others by calling for a serious change in the election process.

A "uniter not a divider" might have done just that.

[Chip NoVaMac]

A "uniter not a divider" might have done just that.

Did I miss something there? I would have thought that a "compassionate" President would have done that.....

[IJ Reilly]

Did I miss something there? I would have thought that a "compassionate" President would have done that.....

Nope. That's a good call too.

[Dale Sorel]

Dale, you completely miss the point...this thread is not about Gore, it is about the problems that Election exposed w/ regards to our status as a representative Democracy.

Oops, my bad :o

After all the hate messages directed towards Dubya on this board, my initial take on this thread tended towards liberals wishing for an alternate reality. If instead you're looking critically at our representative democratic system, then all is as it should be.

Carry on :)

[Sayhey]

Oops, my bad :o

After all the hate messages directed towards Dubya on this board, my initial take on this thread tended towards liberals wishing for an alternate reality. If instead you're looking critically at our representative democratic system, then all is as it should be.

Carry on :)

Dale,

I like the occasional sarcastic comment as well as the next guy, but do you ever stop and contribute more to the discussion?

[Dale Sorel]

I like the occasional sarcastic comment as well as the next guy, but do you ever stop and contribute more to the discussion?

My post wasn't meant to be sarcastic. Can you explain why you took it as such?

[Sayhey]

My post wasn't meant to be sarcastic. Can you explain why you took it as such?

Because I read it. Any fair reading of your post would put it in that category. With phrases such as "liberals wishing for an alternate reality" and "Al 'dancing man' Gore" you excel in the drop by, acid tongue, and sarcastic comments. In most places it is also called trolling. I would ask you to contribute some substance if you want to participate in a serious discussion.

[zimv20]

BI would ask you to contribute some substance if you want to participate in a serious discussion.
as i've asked of him on many, many occasions.

[Dale Sorel]

Because I read it. Any fair reading of your post would put it in that category. With phrases such as "liberals wishing for an alternate reality" and "Al 'dancing man' Gore" you excel in the drop by, acid tongue, and sarcastic comments.

as i've asked of him on many, many occasions.

OK, now y'all are ganging up on me... how cordial of you :rolleyes:

Look, you can interchange the word "liberal" and "democrat" the same way you can with "conservative" and "republican." Get over it :rolleyes:

The alternate reality part comes from reading all the ball-bag posts about Dubya and wanting him gone.

And as far as the "dancing man" reference, if you saw Gore cutting a rug with Tipper at the 1992 inauguration party you'd know what I'm talking about.


In most places it is also called trolling. I would ask you to contribute some substance if you want to participate in a serious discussion.

Look, pal, it's the Internet... get used to it :rolleyes:

[Sayhey]

Look, pal, it's the Internet... get used to it :rolleyes:

Then get used to being called on your trolling ever time you do it in these forums.

[pseudobrit]

OK, now y'all are ganging up on me... how cordial of you :rolleyes:

Look, you can interchange the word "liberal" and "democrat" the same way you can with "conservative" and "republican." Get over it :rolleyes:

The alternate reality part comes from reading all the ball-bag posts about Dubya and wanting him gone.

And as far as the "dancing man" reference, if you saw Gore cutting a rug with Tipper at the 1992 inauguration party you'd know what I'm talking about.

Look, pal, it's the Internet... get used to it :rolleyes:

Sounds like somebody needs a hug.

[Neserk]

Group Hug!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D

[Frohickey]

Ever hear of internalized homophobia? Well there is also internalized racism ;)

Maybe so. But as far as I know, GREED does not have to be internalized, since its always there, waiting to rear is glorious beautiful visage.

Okay, so you are a CEO, or a business owner. I'd hire a [insert racist term here] etc, if that person does the best job and makes me the most money. :p

Kermit said it best, "Its not easy making green." :eek:

[Frohickey]

After all the hate messages directed towards Dubya on this board, my initial take on this thread tended towards liberals wishing for an alternate reality. If instead you're looking critically at our representative democratic system, then all is as it should be.

Oh, but you are wrong.

Liberals already have their alternate reality. Its just that we have not figured out how to open a rift in the space-time continuum in order to transport all the liberals to the universe where Spock has a beard, and Sulu has a scar. :eek: ;) :p

[Frohickey]

http://www.adc.state.az.us/DeathRow/DRowTZ.htm#TOWERY

There is a link to my brother, who is sitting on death row. Look at the other inmates on death row with him. How many are white? How many black?
I know that 89 of the 129 are white. Only 14 are black. That is not that different from population statistics.


Um... I hate to point this out but death row inmates have no expectation of regaining their voting rights. They are so far down the deep well that justice has put them into that voting rights are not even in their radar.

[Sayhey]

Oh, but you are wrong.

Liberals already have their alternate reality. Its just that we have not figured out how to open a rift in the space-time continuum in order to transport all the liberals to the universe where Spock has a beard, and Sulu has a scar. :eek: ;) :p

If I recall my Star Trek trivia (admittedly I'm weak on this, 0 conventions and no uniforms or Spock ears) that alternate reality had a strong libertarian flavor to it. Dog eat Dog, with secret technology used ruthlessly against any rival. Your kind of place, Frohickey! :p

[IJ Reilly]

Are derogatory racial slurs now in bounds on this board?

No, I don't want to debate whether these terms are slurs. I'm asking for a ruling from the moderators.

[pseudobrit]

Are derogatory racial slurs now in bounds on this board?

No, I don't want to debate whether these terms are slurs. I'm asking for a ruling from the moderators.

I've used one or two in context to sarcastically express my disgust with the racism inherent in another person's argument or a news item.

[skunk]

I've used one or two in context to sarcastically express my disgust with the racism inherent in another person's argument or a news item.
Let's just agree on this board to police ourselves in this respect. Frohickey needs to wash his mouth out. Nothing wrong with "gay/lesbian" and even "black/hispanic", but the rest is derogatory even in jest.

[Neserk]

*Hands over a bar of Lever 2000*

[Rower_CPU]

Frohickey is now on a one week "time out" - racial epithets will not be tolerated even when used in jest.

Do not use them.

[zimv20]

Frohickey is now on a one week "time out"
i like the idea of timed bannings. thanks for trying something new.

[Neserk]

Time outs in Kindergarten are 2 minutes. I guess time is relative :p

[mouchoir]

I'm saying that an arrested person is more likely to be convicted of a crime than a person that is not arrested. So, if the arrest rates for blacks is disproportionate to their numbers, the likelihood for blacks being taken out of the voter rolls is proportionate to their arrest likelihood.

A person that plays a certain sport at a high level, is more likely to be drafted by a professional sport organization, than a person that is a mediocre player. If the 'draft' rate for persons is disproportionate to their numbers, the likelihood for 'persons drafted for professional sports' being injured/given multi-million salaries is proportionate to their 'draft' likehood.

Are you saying that the black people of Florida who were denied their right to vote was because of their likelihood to cause a crime, even if they didn't have a criminal record?

[Dale Sorel]

Then get used to being called on your trolling ever time you do it in these forums.

I'll do it if you will :p

[2jaded2care]

Even though Georgia has moved to electronic voting machines, I have to agree with IJ here to some extent. The problem with paper ballots is they're fragile, so every run through the counting machine runs the risk of changing the totals. That said, there's no "magic ballot" solution here. As others have mentioned, with electronic voting machines there's the chance of hacking (and distrust of the machine manufacturers). Even with additional printed paper receipts (not provided in my state), these could (and would) be misplaced and/or forged.

However, I don't agree that we need the UN to monitor our election, as some have suggested (though the embarrassing threat of it should be enough to get some fixes going here). I don't see how the Feds are going to be able to stay out of this forever, there needs to be some uniformity in voting mechanisms. Hopefully it won't end up in another cowardly federal "unfunded mandate"... If the Fed gov't wants something, it should have to pay for it... and explain it to the taxpayers.

[CandelLife]

OK, being from Florida I can honestly say this and not be accused of slandering Floridians....let's end all the nonsense about how the vote gets tallied because lines are not matched up correctly or holes are not punched securely...or any of that hog wash.

I saw a joke picture once and it stuck with me about our last Presidential election here....it's how to be sure to vote for the correct person:

You take this square box, with shaped holes cut out of it and use it to vote....where's that picture????? :confused:

http://www.justlaugh.com/downloads/images/albums/misc_cartoons/florida_vote_machine.jpg

OK, that should solve all confusion there....now who gets to vote? Let's see....getting serious here now...

I can see not letting criminals that are incarcerated vote since I believe they are even told they have lost all normal rights?? Am I wrong there? But as for everyone else...Let's not get rediculous, all votes should count, all votes should make it in from sea faring vessells...etc But I do think they should have a deadline, or else that would run into further problems.

That's my two cents anyway...
For what it's worth...

[skunk]

Actually, that's not a bad idea! :D
It might just work...

[Neserk]

Actually, that's not a bad idea! :D
It might just work...


It is pure genius, if you ask me! A KIndergartener could do it :D

You have excuse my kindergarten comments. I'm up to my elbows in them these days!

[CandelLife]

I'm all for implementing it this coming election! :D Do we have to vote on using it? :eek:

[zimv20]

link (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/9165517.htm)


Posted on Thu, Jul. 15, 2004

Civil rights panel says disenfranchisement of voters was deliberate

BY ERIKA BOLSTAD

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said Thursday it will ask the Department of Justice to investigate whether Florida's use of a flawed database to remove felons from the voter rolls was a deliberate attempt to block some voters from casting ballots.

Commissioners, who heard Thursday from the architects of the database as well as its critics, want to know whether the overwhelmingly Democratic and blacks voters on the list were targeted for removal.

"If it was intentional, it may well have been a criminal violation of the Civil Rights Act,'' said Commissioner Christopher Edley Jr. ``It's not just about a sloppy database, it's not just about bureaucracy strapped for resources. It's about the deprivation of a fundamental civil right.''

The state scrapped the felon list Saturday after media reports uncovered a flaw in a database that failed to capture most felons who classified themselves as Hispanic. State election officials were already under fire for the list by civil rights groups after The Herald reported that it included people - many of them black Democrats - who have had their right to vote restored.

Florida is one of six states that ban felons from voting even after they've served their time, unless the ex-convicts regain voting rights.

The Commission on Civil Rights, which met Thursday in Washington, called on election experts to discuss Florida's felon list and electronic-voting problems.

``Why is this happening in the state of Florida?'' asked U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, who stopped in at the commission's hearing. ``The stakes are high, because of Florida's 27 electoral votes that very well may determine the outcome of a national presidential election, again.''

Gov. Jeb Bush has repeatedly denied any partisan motive in how the list was developed. Bush spokeswoman Jill Bratina said Thursday that the governor was concerned about the felon list's failure to include Hispanic felons and has asked Secretary of State Glenda Hood to do an audit. Hispanics in Florida tend to lean Republican.

``Our No. 1 goal is to have integrity in our elections, to have a smooth and fair election process,'' Bratina said. ``There are people out there who have an agenda, and that agenda includes eroding confidence in Florida's elections.''

The rights commission has a contentious history with Florida leaders, especially former Secretary of State Katherine Harris. After the 2000 presidential election, commissioners released a draft assessment of the election in Florida that called Harris and Bush ``grossly derelict in fulfilling their responsibilities.''

(more)

[SPG]

Watch this BBC video from 2001 about the election and the purged voter rolls. If you can still say that everything was okay and perfectly legal after that, then you are in some serious denial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/palast.ram

(real player, btw)

[Neserk]

Zim, I think your article deserves a new thread!

[SPG]

here's more:

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4103063-102271,00.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&s=palast

[skunk]

How is it that the US population has been so acquiescent with their votes being manipulated like this? :confused:

[Backtothemac]

How is it that the US population has been so acquiescent with their votes being manipulated like this? :confused:

Because it did not happen. There is zero. None. Zip. Nadda evidence that ANYONE was disenfranchised by being removed from voter lists. Now, could a couple of people out of over 20 million get mixed up? Yes, but guess what. IF there was a mistake in the purge (which happens every four years btw) they could have filed a petition to file an absentee vote. No big deal.

[SPG]

Because it did not happen. There is zero. None. Zip. Nadda evidence that ANYONE was disenfranchised by being removed from voter lists. Now, could a couple of people out of over 20 million get mixed up? Yes, but guess what. IF there was a mistake in the purge (which happens every four years btw) they could have filed a petition to file an absentee vote. No big deal.

Sticking fingers in ears..."loooollooooooloooo!!!! Neeeneeer neeeneeer! I don't hear you! I don't hear you!"
There were a LOT of people who showed up and were told that they were inelligible to vote...thousands. They were on the list of felons even though they had committed no crime ever, and they just happen to live in the poorer, more democrat leaning counties.
File a petition to get an absentee ballot? On election day? Yeah. That works. These people weren't notified in advance and they had no reason whatsoever to suspect that they wouldn't be able to vote before showing up at the polls. Did you know that one of the counties that didn't use the list figured it was bogus because their county supervisor of elections was listed? (and no he had never been arrested)
Why do you think the NAACP sued the state of Florida and won?
Have you seen the new felon purge list? The one that's supposed to be all fixed? The one that Jeb fought tooth and nail to prevent anyone from seeing? CNN sued to see it and won, and guess what they found out? Thousands more people on the list shouldn't have been on it. What else? How about there were almost no hispanics on that list? That's funny, aren't most of the hispanics in Florida of Cuban descent? Don't the Cubans usually vote republican? What a lucky coincidence that none of them had ever been arrested.
This whole thing stinks and you know it. Watch the video I linked to above and tell me it doesn't seem even the slightest bit fishy.

[skunk]

Because it did not happen. There is zero. None. Zip. Nadda evidence that ANYONE was disenfranchised by being removed from voter lists. Now, could a couple of people out of over 20 million get mixed up? Yes, but guess what. IF there was a mistake in the purge (which happens every four years btw) they could have filed a petition to file an absentee vote. No big deal.
I think you just answered my question...

Jeez. :eek:

[GeeYouEye]

Did you know that one of the counties that didn't use the list figured it was bogus because their county supervisor of elections was listed? (and no he had never been arrested)

And therein lies the problem, the real problem: the purge list was bad and everyone knew it. The part that wasn't on the BBC thing was that all the election officials were told, by the Secretary of State's office, not to use the purge list. A second list was sent out, but many counties which had not received the first list, assumed the new list was the bad one, and so threw it out, allowing people who shouldn't have been allowed, to vote.

Regardless, the past is the past, and the only thing that matters currently is what's going to happen on November 3rd (? is that right? I'm tired...), 2004.

[takao]

No big deal.

the election _chaos_ in the US in 200 was "no big deal" ? some of the things that happend would have been fitting for an election in some banana republic and not the the USA....if such things would happen in an other country and a candidate is elected who isn't very US friednly then the USA would be the first promoting "fair elections"

[SPG]

And therein lies the problem, the real problem: the purge list was bad and everyone knew it. The part that wasn't on the BBC thing was that all the election officials were told, by the Secretary of State's office, not to use the purge list. A second list was sent out, but many counties which had not received the first list, assumed the new list was the bad one, and so threw it out, allowing people who shouldn't have been allowed, to vote.

Regardless, the past is the past, and the only thing that matters currently is what's going to happen on November 3rd (? is that right? I'm tired...), 2004.

Who knew that the list was bad? The people who were on it and had their constitutional right to vote illegally stripped?
Where did you hear about this second list in 2000? Who used it? Who generated it? What about the 4 million dollars paid to do something that used to cost $50,000 and was accurate? What about the follow up and confirmation that was paid for and never done by Choicepoint?
How many people voted who weren't supposed to? Somewhere between 2 and 5? How does that compare to illegally disenfranchising tens of thousands?
The past is more than just things that happened, it's the indicator of what's going to happen.