Reply #7: Complicated issue, involving more than the hand counts [View All]

[jobycom]

There were two hand counts. One was done by a consortium of the media, I think headed by Knight-Ridder. It only counted the undervotes, IIRC, and it concluded Bush would have won.

The more comprehensive count was done by a group connected to the University of Chicago, who made no conclusions, but tallied all votes into various categories. Those already counted were categorized as counted. The rest of the votes were categorized in every possible way, such as "undervote, hanging chad, three corners detached," etc.

After this count, the media was able to use the database to determine what the outcome would be of various election scenarios. Using the counting method the Florida Supreme Court ordered, Bush would have won. In all other scenarios, Gore would have won, but it would have been close. In one scenario, no questionably ballots were allowed, and only ballots that had been marked clearly but not counted were included. Most of these were from people who had punched either Bush or Gore, then also wrote in their name. This is counted as an overvote by the machines, but according to Florida law it would have been counted as a vote for the candidate chosen. Using these ballots, Gore won.

But there is a bigger issue of vote suppression, as many votes in traditionally Democratic regions were supressed, especially amongst black voters. One poll had a police roadblock on one of the main routes to the poll. Other polls were understaffed, so that lines were prohibitively long. And of course, there was the felon purge list, which was clearly an attempt to knock more black voters of the voting roles by excluding everyone with the same name as felons from as far away as Texas.

Once the votes were cast, somehow or another tens of thousands of votes in traditionally black neighborhoods were uncountable. This is blamed, usually, on flawed machines which had supposedly confusing instructions. There are also allegations of ballot tampering, but aside from statistics, there is little evidence to prove this conclusively.

One point that is not in question, even by Republicans. More people went to the polls to vote for Gore than Bush in Florida, and more people left believing they had voted for Gore than for Bush. Somehow along the way, tens of thousands of those votes were negated, by overvoting or undervoting, and also by the voter being told they couldn't vote. According to Florida election law, it is the intention of the voter, not the obeyance of the technical rules of voting, that counts. So, Gore won Florida, and it was stolen from him. A full handcount of disputed votes would have shown this, and did show this, but the specific counting method the Florida Supreme Court had ordered may have gone for Bush.

It's a typical Democratic/Republican difference of opinion. Democrats look at every situation and decide what they should do to resolve it. Republicans look at every situation and wonder what they can get away with to make it benefit them.