Gore won Florida by 30,000 votes!

[kpete]

(I posted this before but Kos has some interesting observations today-Kpete)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/8/05317/12357

Gore won Florida by 30,000 votes!
by jem6x
Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:53:17 PM PDT
Lance Dehaven-Smith is a professor in the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University. He has long been deeply immersed in the politics of Florida, and has just published a book through University Press of Florida entitled "The Battle for Florida:An Annotated Compendium Of Materials From The 2000 Presidential Election." (Amazon link)

He has an interview on the book in Florida State's Research in Review Magazine that you really have got to read. It's all about the disaster of 2000, and the man is full of insights and wise words (and by the way, terrified that we are in the late stages of losing our democracy).

But the real zinger is his comment on overvotes.

There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called "spoiled ballots." About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a candidate's name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount...The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much attention.

Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there's not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they're unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida's eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore's name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush's name was marked on only 17,000.

One of the things I found that hadn't been reported anywhere is, if you look at where those votes occurred, they were in predominantly black precincts. And (when you look at) the history of black voting in Florida, these are people that have been disenfranchised, intimidated. In the history of the early 20th century, black votes would be thrown out on technicalities, like they would use an X instead of a check mark.
So you can understand why African Americans would be so careful, checking off Gore's name on the list of candidates and also writing Gore's name in the space for write-in votes. But because of the way the vote-counting machines work, this had the opposite effect: the machines threw out their ballots.

http://www.research.fsu.edu/researchr/winter2005/features/battlefield.html

[southernleftylady]

1. ok so what can be done now? nt

[FreedomAngel82]

51. According to the Constitution

if it's proven that a president got to his/her position to impeach them. They're there illegally. We now have proof that Bush stole it from Al Gore. And I'm sure there's proof of John Kerry too.

[petepillow]

61. not a goddamn thing. damage is done. all we can hope is that

legislation is possible to make sure it can't happen again.

sorry to be a pessimist but, anyone been around the last 5 years?

[Yupster]

64. We can hold neighborhood talks

on the correct way of voting. Maybe fewer people will vote twice next time.

[John Q. Citizen]

67. That's bogus when you look at the "will of the people." They did the

same thing to Donna Frye. In that case they wrote in her name but they also didin't fill in the corresponding "bubble." It's a loop-hole defense for hijacking the will of the electorate.

[robbedvoter]

2. That doesn't account for phony military ballots or other creative ways

of altering an outcome. Just spoiled ballots.

[still_one]

3. and all he had to do was demand a recount of EVERY VOTE

in Florida, and we would NOT be where we are today

The problem was his idiot advisors hand picked only selected districts

If they would have recounted the entire state, it would have NEVER went to the supreme court


In 2004 we were assured by the Kerry camp that they had everything under control with respect to the counting of the votes. They lied.

Until we start have compentent people working for us nothing will change. I hope we have learned from the past

[O.M.B.inOhio]

18. Right and right, but...

As I recall, Gore did not "lose" because he requested a recount of selected districts only; the Supreme Court ordered the recount halted while they decided... then later disallowed the recount because there would be no time to complete it.
But Kerry's betrayal hurts as much.

[Igel]

30. Close, IIRC.

SCOTUS said 'no' to the methods used: there was no standard for Florida, just lots of ad-hoc standards.

The recount could go forward if they worked out a suitable standard for the state. (Why this wasn't applicable during the initial count is a bit of a mystery to me--perhaps because the legislature okayed it?) The kicker was in saying that the Florida supreme court couldn't override the Florida legislature, which had, to use the press's language of the time, determined a 'safe harbor' date. The legislature is the body US Constitution authorized as the final arbiter of such things. Whether or not the recount could occur by that date was not the SCOTUS's concern. It obviously couldn't, because of all the wrangling over partial recounts and certification.

I think your conclusion is right, though: Had Gore asked for a comprehensive recount, it's unlikely *'s legal team would have pressed the case.

(Edited to remove a truly stupid mistake)

[FreedomAngel82]

53. No time?

That's bull. There's plenty of time. I don't recall reading in the Constitution that the election results had to be rushed.

[Silverhair]

74. Yes, there is a cutoff date.

I don't remember the date now, but there is a date for the electoral college to meet. Florida could have lost all of their electoral votes.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

77. FL could have lost EC votes... would have been fairest!

If the State of Florida couldn't get its act together and deliver credible results, the Electoral College should have kept their electors out. And the world would hate the US less, and hundrends of thousands would not have died, been maimed, and been terrorized in Iraq. The US budget would be healthier. And, with a president who reads his PDBs, New York would likely still have two more skyscrapers than it has now.

[FreedomAngel82]

52. There's still a court order from Kerry in August in Ohio

[Time for change]

56. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount of the whole state

But they that only involved undervotes, not overvotes. Counting the undervotes alone would make the race very very close, giving it to either candidate, depending on what standard was used. It was the overvotes where Gore had the big margin. But not one of his advisors thought of recommending to the Florida Supreme Court that they count those votes. If they had, the Florida Supreme Court certainly would have agreed. And then the USSC would have been on even shakier grounds trying to stop it, since the intention of the voter was so obvious on the overvotes. But those fucking bastards might have stopped it anyhow, because nothing was more important to them than installing Bush as president.

[soup]

65. Gore offered, Bush refused.

NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2000

George W. Bush tonight called for the Florida vote recounting to end and for the acceptance of the vote totals Friday, when overseas ballots are due.

He rejected Vice President Al Gore's two plans for settling the Florida vote recount. Earlier in the evening Gore promised:

- If Republicans allowed manual recounts to continue in Democrat-dominated Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties, he would accept the final tally of those results added to the certified results from 64 other counties and overseas absentee ballots, due by midnight Friday.

- Or, "I am also prepared, if Gov. Bush prefers, to include in this recount all the counties in the entire state of Florida,'' Gore said.

"I would also be willing to abide by that result and agree not to take any legal action to challenge that result.''
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/15/152106.shtml

--

Bush rejects Gore proposal for statewide manual recount

EUN-KYUNG KIM, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, November 15, 2000

(11-15) 20:09 PST AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush said Wednesday night he believes the disputed Florida vote will be settled at midnight Friday, when the remaining absentee votes from overseas are tallied.

In answer to a speech several hours earlier by presidential rival Al Gore, Bush sought to spell out an end game for an election that has run more than a week into overtime.

``The way to conclude this election in a fair and accurate and final way is for the state of Florida to count the remaining overseas ballots, add them to the certified vote, and announce the results as required by Florida law,'' Bush said. His scenario would ignore the hand counts under way.

Bush rejected Gore's proposal for a statewide manual recount in Florida, calling the procedure under way in Democratic-leaning countries ``neither fair or accurate. It would be arbitrary and chaotic.'' He said the hand counts should not be included in any final count.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2000/11/15/politics2227EST0864.DTL&type=election

note - Contrary to what * said, the manual recount wasn't going on in just Democratic-leaning counties. This quote is from VP Gore's offer cited below:
"That is why there have already been partial or complete hand counts not just in two Democratic counties in Florida, but in six Republican counties as well."

--

Text: Vice President Gore's Offer
Wednesday, November 15, 2000
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showflorida2000.php?fileid=gore11-15

Text: Bush Responds to Gore Offer
Wednesday, November 15, 2000
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showflorida2000.php?fileid=bush11-15

[robbedvoter]

69. Excellent point. Gore needed W's waiver for it - instead got lawsuits

If only kerry would have moved one little finger in November 2004...

[robbedvoter]

68. Wrong. Time was limited and obfuscation abounded. Remember Miami-Dade?

They had to finish by Cruella's deadline and they kept running the clock with lawsuit after lawsuit. Nice Monday morning quarterbacking there.

[Silverhair]

73. True. By asking, at first, for a recount of selected districts...

...it looked like he was trying to cherry-pick the recount. He should have asked for a state-wide from the start.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. So why didn't Gore fight for these votes?

This problem was apparent from the beginning. Yet the Repugs were allowed to dominate the debate and the direction of the recount. The Repugs came in armed and ready and the Dems didn't know what hit them it seemed. You would think they'd have better intel about what the opposition was up to? Because just like 9-11, the 2000 Election was a MIHOP event.

[scarface2004]

13. go back and look

gore did change and ask for a recount of the whole state...and zombie bush said no!!

[Mme. Defarge]

19. All the more reason

there should have been real plans in 2004 for anticipating and dealing with election fraud, instead of hollow promises. I think Gore can be forgiven here -- expecially since he at least fought for his election.

[IndyOp]

37. Don't just focus on Gore - ask why *all* Dems did not fight !?!?

Thousands of Dems from around the country - DC and elsewhere - should have flocked to Gore's side in a stand of firm resolve and support that democratic processes would play out...

Don't just focus on Gore or Kerry - develop and attitude that communicates that ALL Dems, everywhere, better be prepared to stand by their candidates in ALL future elections.

:kick:

[John Q. Citizen]

71. Good point. n/t

[shaniqua6392]

5. The number one thing I will look for in a candidate is.....

Do you have the balls to make certain EVERY vote is counted? The last two knuckleheads we ran had no balls. They caved to the pressure. They did not want it bad enough. This is going to happen in every election until someone fights it to the bitter end. We need Dems with courage.

[w13rd0]

6. Gore did NOT cave into pressure...

...he had no legal basis, as the "challenger" to the MSMs already published line of "Bush wins", to ask for a recount of the state, and he didn't cave in. He fought on into December. Hell, his damned running mate caved in long before he did (no shocker there). What was he supposed to do? Mount an armed insurrection?

[LisaL]

9. Exactly. Gore did fight. It didn't do him any good in the end, but

I think he did all he could to fight.

[rfkrfk]

10. if Gore would have asked for recounts in 67 of Florida's counties

that would effectively be a statewide recount,
as Florida has 67 counties

[Usrename]

55. Florida law requires a statewide recount

if the vote is close. The automatic recount was triggered for the whole state. All 67 counties. The SCOTUS put the kabosh on it. Said it was unconstitutional to count legally cast ballots. Don't know what big Al could really do about that.

[rfkrfk]

78. the first statewide recount 'happened', then there was 'at-Gore's ...

'at Gore's request', the 'three and a fraction' county re-re-count,
then,
Gore contested the election, ...
the final FL Supreme Court action ordered another count in
'63 and a fraction' counties, effectivly meaning
that there would have been 68 different ways to tally
the votes in Florida's 67 counties, Miami-Dade county voters
being the lucky ones to have votes tallied either
of two ways, by precinct.

[Usrename]

88. The statewide count would have been a hand count.

Several experts testified that a hand count is "the most accurate method possible" for counting ballots. There was never any testimony that tried to contradict this.

The stuff about different standards for counting ballots is a red herring. There is a single standard in Florida, a ballot is counted whenever the intent of the voter can be determined. Either side can contest a ballot, in which case the Florida Supreme Court Justices would make the decision to include/exclude each contested vote. This was not the first election that was ever held in this country. We know how to count votes. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to deceive you.

This was, however, the first time in our history that the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional to count legally cast ballots. There was no reason for them to do that except to confuse the public. Bush would have been elected even if Gore won the hand count. The Florida Legislature was going to send a second set of electors to the House, and the House would have accepted them.

[rfkrfk]

90. every county was on its own, to decide 'legal' vote

the '63 and a fraction' county election {canvassining} boards,
were on their own to determine rules for the new tally.

that is the center of Gore's dilemma,
as the FL. Supreme Court was limited to pasteing together
pieces of Florida statute law, to make a court order.

you may want to read the Dec. 8, 2000, court order
of the FL.Supremes, I'll provide a link,
if you are interested.

Ciao

[Usrename]

93. Another misunderstanding, I think.

There are many different types of ballots/voting machines in the state. At least one county in the pan-handle counts their votes by hand anyway, since they don't have any machines. This wasn't an issue, I don't think. Yes, a lot of noise and hoopla, but no legal issue here.

Either side can contest a ballot during a hand count. Then the Florida Supreme Court looks at those contested ballots - from the whole state. The same Justices using the same eyes and the same methods. I don't see why you think they use a different standard if its the same Justices. See my point?

You are correct in stating the argument that they used. That is exacly what they claimed. It was a lie is all that I am saying. There is one standard in Florida, and if the canvassing boards have questions, then the court decides. It is very simple really. Either party can object at the canvassing board if they think a ballot is/isn't being counted correctly, regardless of what standard they happen to decide on at that particular canvassing board. The whole argument is a lie.

[rfkrfk]

95. that is not what the Fl. S.C. ordered

here is a link to the Dec 8, 2000 , court order
of the Florida Supreme Court, look at top of page 2.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/fscgoreharrisop1208.pdf

the court tossed it back to the individual county
canvassing boards, with the meager instructions to
count the legal votes in the undervotes.

what do you mean by...
<Either side can contest a ballot during a hand count.>?

the canvssing boards look at the ballots, and vote, if their
is a dispute. That process is public.

Ciao

[Usrename]

96. The standard for a legal vote is identical throughout the state.

An explanation starts on page 23 of the decision.

Note 7 on page six of the decision explains what I am saying. At Bush's request, the contest statute was substituted for the certification statutes. This happened much earlier on, and was never (to my knowledge) argued against by Gore (some interveners may have argued against it, I don't recall, really). Under that code, the contested ballots were subject to review by the court.

I remeber watching the armored car taking the ballots up I-95 to Tallahassee.

Arguing that there were different ways to count votes is just not a legitimate argument. Nor is the other argument that SCOTUS used that certain counties votes would be watered down if the hand counts done in some counties were included, and others (that did not finish by the new drop-dead date) were not included. That circumstance had already happened. Volusia County did a hand count and the results were certified. The whole argument is a lie.

[rfkrfk]

98. how does one judge, look at hundreds of thousands of disputed

ballots?

please explain your comment on 'watered down votes', as three
counties, plus parts of M-D county, were already tallied with different rules,
allowing overvotes.

{you were right on seveal points, btw}

[Usrename]

99. How it would have been accomplished is a good question.

I really don't know how it would have gone forward in this case. But in past elections, only the disputed ballots were reviewed by the courts. In the local election for Sheriff here a couple years prvevious, deputies marked all of the absentee ballots with a vote for Bob Vogel and it decided the outcome. Those votes were allowed, but they were contested and reviewed by the court. Every one of them was looked at.

The "watered down vote" comment was referring to exactly the votes you are talking about. The reason I say that argument is a lie is because it ignores an important fact. The fact is, in Volusia county a hand count had already been completed and the new votes were already certified by Katherine Harris. She resisted this viciously, but knowing that the court would force her to do it, she did it. This included a count of the overvotes (nine, if memory serves). This had already been done, had taken place, before the case went to SCOTUS. That's all I'm saying. What they argue that they would like to prevent - by any means possible - had already occured.

" In addition, the recounts in these three counties were not limited to so-called undervotes but extended to all of the ballots. The distinction has real consequences. A manual recount of all ballots identifies not only those ballots which show no vote but also those which contain more than one, the so-called overvotes. Neither category will be counted by the machine. This is not a trivial concern. At oral argument, respondents estimated there are as many as 110,000 overvotes statewide. As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a machine because he failed to vote for a candidate in a way readable by a machine may still have his vote counted in a manual recount; on the other hand, the citizen who marks two candidates in a way discernable by the machine will not have the same opportunity to have his vote count, even if a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indicia of intent. Furthermore, the citizen who marks two candidates, only one of which is discernable by the machine, will have his vote counted even though it should have been read as an invalid ballot. The State Supreme Court’s inclusion of vote counts based on these variant standards exemplifies concerns with the remedial processes that were under way.


Katherine Harris had already done just that (after going a few rounds with Judge McDermot who ran the recount here). So this whole portion of the argument is bogus, IMHO.

[scarletlib]

15. I live here at ground zero for the election: palm beach county--

home of the infamous butterfly ballot.

I have followed this whole thing from the beginning. Honestly, I have to say that I don't think any of us at that time had any idea of the depths to which the republicans would go (and I will say now had planned in advance) to 'win' this election come hell or high water.

Nor do I think that Mr. Gore, who is an honest and decent man, or anyone on his team had any idea of what the bush bastards were planning to do.

I think, and remember I live here, that Gore put up a tough fight. From the beginning the entire power apparatus of the republican party, the goverment of the state of florida, and the media were all allied against him.

I believe when the supreme court handed down its infamous decision that he decided to end his efforts not for his own sake but for what he thought was the best thing for the country.

The repugs here in florida at that time and still today were in control of the legislature. Plans were underway by the leaders of the florida legislature to convene and give the electoral votes to bush if gore had won in a recount. the bastards were going to do it.

I have a copy of an article that came out in consortium news (i think) before the actual election. at the time the article was written the repugs felt that bush might win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. they had plans to not concede the election but to fight it by saying that the 'will of the people' should be what counted and not the electoral votes. undoubtedly the media would be on their side. if they had plans to take it to the supreme court in the hopes that the felonius five would overturn the election is not known.

Anyway, I think looking back at the last five years, that none of us actually realized the depths to which these bastards would go to steal this country.

[Mme. Defarge]

20. I completely concur!

[JanMichael]

27. You are correct about the switching of Florida electors.

They had planned that all along but the results were the opposite of their projections.

However that would have forced a bigger wider and ultimately unknown outcome different from what we have today.

And yes, I don't think we knew in 2000 how evil these bastards are, or what they were willing to do to "win".

[EFerrari]

33. Gore won Florida; Kerry won Ohio.

And THAT must be our mantra at the SOTU protest. The illegal pResident and his illegal war BOTH must go.

And he can take his corrupt and inept cronies with him.

[ailsagirl]

45. Excellent points, scarletlib

:)

[electropop]

60. Boxer & Conyers

have demonstrated they will do what it takes.

[robbedvoter]

83. Gore did, kerry didn't ("They'll call me sore loser - recall all layers!)

Which is why everyone knws 2000 was stolen but only selected few grasp 2004.

[rfkrfk]

7. if you punch 'write-in', it is extra work to tally that,

the county boards would have an interest in
'thinning out' the pile {of ballots with write-ins},
so I am not surprised that the law is that
any two punches in the same contest, becomes
a voided preference, fot that contest

[KoKo]

8. About Gore and why he only chose certain counties for recount::

Many of us who were around here after 2000 Debaucle (which was when DU was founded) remember many reports and discussions about the "bad advice" that Gore got from his Campaign ops and maybe from his lawyers about the counties he chose to recount. There was dissention in his campaign about whether to go for full recount. The person pushing for only certain counties apparently managed to prevail. I can't remember if it was Daly in Chicago or who it was but folks need to understand that Gore was under pressure because he had called Bush and unconceded which meant the whole Repug Machine went into full attack mode and the Repug troops were mobilized down to Florida to start "muddying the water" and begin the fake protests.

Remember Gore was under enormous pressure with the media after him wanting to know why he was refusing to concede and being an honest thoughtful man who believed Government still worked, I don't think he is to be blamed. Bad lawyers (maybe corrupt) who could have been working both sides. In hindsite we can see that Gore was surrounded by DINO's. Lieberman and Donna Brazile...others. I know many wonder why he didn't stand up for the voters who were disenfranchised and fight after Bush was appointed by the Supremes. But, I think he felt he couldn't do it alone. By that time the Bush Crime Family was already calling all the shots and their people were all in place in the House and Senate.

Gore is not to blame as much as that he was "trusting" as were most of us Democrats way back then.

I wish I could give you more info...but having been here so long the crime is so overwhelming that my hardrive just can't retrieve the particulars in who was the Key Gore adviser who made the HUGE MISTAKE in the recount advice.

[greenman3610]

11. this resonates

If you've ever been in the position of being "right" when
you're surrounded by sharks with a vested interest in
making you wrong - you have a small
clue as to what Gore was up against.

And, as a man who had ultimate faith in the
system, how could Gore have realized,--
most of us didn't-- just how terrible this
reign would be.

[flpoljunkie]

16. I do remember, however, that it was Daly who urged Gore to throw in towel-

rather than fight to get all the votes counted in Florida.

[KoKo]

28. Thanks...that's what I remember also. Hope someone else has a link. n.t

[mopinko]

35. bill or ritchie?

and it's daley. they are brothers, and it was bill that was a member of the clinton admin, not richard m who is my mayor, and a damn good one, thank you. i don't think you mean the daley "in chicago"

[flpoljunkie]

87. Bill Daley, former Commerce Secretary, and Gore campaign chairman.

[Usrename]

57. The recount was automatic and covered the whole state.

Florida law on an election that close. A hand count can be asked for by any party if the automatic recount is at variance with the first count. This is county by county, again Florida law. Only four counties met the legal definition for a hand count. The largest county (Orange, Orlando) never even did the automatic recount in the first place, to see if a hand count would be allowed. Gore always said "count every vote" and "determine the will of the people". I don't recall him, or any of his team ever saying anything different. He (and his team) tried to count every vote.

Bush accused him of cherry-picking in court. The Florida Supreme court said that to be fair, the whole state would be recounted. Bush used this remedy, from a case he won, to get the whole thing in front of the SCOTUS. It is truely bizarre. But Gore took Bush's side in the Florida courts, again saying all the votes should be counted. It took a win in court for Bush to make that a legal option. Otherwise only 4 counties could have been asked for by Gore (I live in one of them, Volusia, the only one to do a hand count on time). Since we fininshed on time and were certified, the whole argument of equal rights that the SCOTUS used is pure crap. Total crap. And a lie.

[scarletlib]

12. Excellent Read

Please kick and recommend for greatest.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. .

:-(

[KingFlorez]

17. Even without this

Gore still won and Bush used illegal ballots to get in. If Democrats win Congress, there should be an investigation.

[texpatriot2004]

21. "I will not rule out any future interest" Al Gore nm

[freedomfries]

23. what can be done now southernleftylady????

1) write your Rep to co-sponsor and push for HR550 in House
2) no e-voting and e-counting without open source code and paper ballots and ballot audits
3) paper ballots
4) hand counts
5) ban the machines until we get the above

[usregimechange]

22. I want due compensation. Gore for 6!

[freedomfries]

24. kick for excellent post!

The Research in Review interview linked at the bottom of the post is a MUST READ.
Thanks kpete!

[TheBaldyMan]

25. shouldn't this be on LBN?

:sarcasm:

[JanMichael]

26. Mr. Dehaven-Smith is a very, VERY, straight shooter.

This is not a bs report or book as the man has a long history of indepth research and analysis.

Oh and yes I have met him, he worked with my father several years ago, so I might be a tad biased myself.

However Lance's record stands.

This is more good ammo to bash the Bushbots with.

[stlsaxman]

29. Can the SCOTUS be sued for redress of grievance re Bush V. Gore?

If Bush V. Gore were rescinded wouldn't a Gore Admin have to be put in place?

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[Senator]

34. You're not the only dreamer

But since this "dreamer" lawsuit was refused, I doubt that the remaining felonious four (or three) would allow any real court of law to question their edict.

But they can certainly be impeached and removed, or impeached and found guilty in retirement or even posthumously (for Bully Bill).

This was the plan when democrats.com and others responded to the polls that showed a majority of the nation did not think the outcome was fair and square. The truth had spread and the political capital was in place.

Sadly, the DC press conference to launch the impeachment effort was scheduled for Sept. 11th, 2001.

But this justice is only delayed, not yet denied. We must not quit until all the crimes of the past few years are resolved with public accusation, trial, and punishment.

Impeaching the bushkid is just the beginning.

----
www.january6th.org

[Usrename]

58. I followed the whole thing very closely.

Even read the Bush v Gore opinion and they are liars, liars, liars. They just made up facts that would make what they did less obvious. They made up facts out of thin air. They should be impeached. And your buddy Bill should be exhumed, given a blindfold, and a wall (dug up and shot).

[Silverhair]

75. And what court would you take it to? Get real. NT

[Lefty48197]

31. Here's some examples of ballots rejected by the Republicans

The ballots were rejected because they were "over votes". Nevermind that Florida law required that the intent of the voter be taken into account. Nevermind that is is absolutely fucking obvious who these people meant to vote for, the Republicans said they didn't want to count these votes. They said trying to interpret the voters intent was impossible. "It will open the entire process to fraud..." they said. I copied these ballots from "Jews for Buchannan" by John Nichols, an excellent analysis of the election theft of 2000.







There's no doubt about it. The Republicans who worked to block the legitimate recount of the Florida Presidential election in 2000 are guilty of treason, and should be hanged.

[goclark]

32. Would this be like a tin hat

theory? :sarcasm:

All of these examples need to get to the MSM, the visuals are the key to informing America.

The Republicans were brilliant at providing smoke and mirrors.

They were amazing at making us afraid to speak up because we didn't want to be called tin hats or crazy.

[FlaGranny]

40. Here is Palm Beach County's sample ballot

<img src="" width="470" height="356">

The three black dots on the image are where the holes appeared on the actual ballot. Note that the order on the ballot, according to law, was Bush, Gore, and then Buchanan, but you will notice that the punch for Buchanan was actually second. When the actual ballot was placed for punching, it was on an angle and the second punch hole was nearly perfectly opposite from Gore's name. Therefore, many people made the error of punching the second hole, when they should have punched the third hole.

I personally almost got this wrong. I had inserted the punch tool into the second hole when I realized things didn't look quite right. I caught myself just in time. I told my husband on the way out, my exact words: "The shit is going to hit the fan - those ballots were bad."

[Lefty48197]

92. That's where the author got his title, "Jews for Buchanan"

With Pat's unapologetic anti-semitism, it's natural that he wouldn't get any votes from precincts heavily populated by Jews, but that's exactly what he did. All because people were punching the wrong "chad".

[Senator]

36. This was "known" days after the election...

...when the Miami Herald did a simple extrapolation of the mysteriously uncounted ballots by precinct.

At that point any real American candidate with a shred of morality or decency would have honored the will of the people of Florida and the nation at that point.

The fascist election thieves instead displayed, and continue to display, contempt for this single moral principle on which our once-great nation was founded: that gov't power can only be derived from the consent of the governed.

We have existed in a technical state of fascism ever since, after the contract known as the US Constitution was put into breach on January 6th, 2001 when congress failed to do their duty and disallow the unlawful Florida electors.

This is also when the (formerly) American People became "fair game" for terrorist attack, since US public opinion (the sole force for good on the planet for the past century) had been taken out of the loop.

If you doubt this, consider that the last legitimately elected POTUS, Bill Clinton, was able to keep us safe with cooperation from world community, like when Jordanian intel tipped us off to the plan of using airliners as missiles to crash over the Pacific. Do you think anyone was so anxious to help the fascist bushkid regime?

-----
www.january6th.org

[kpete]

38. update from Kos

Up to 30,000 more people tried to vote for Gore in FL. (UPDATED)
by jem6x
Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:53:17 PM PDT
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/8/05317/12357

[Fovea]

39. In a nation not governed by the rule of law

the answer would be to retroactively pursue revenge on all those associated with the fraudulent election.

SO THE CRITICAL QUESTION is-- Are we still a nation governed by the rule of law?

[freedomfries]

41. deHaven-Smith: "an unflinching search for truth"

This is from the end of the FSU Research in Review interview:
RinR: Finally, I’d like to go back to the “big picture” theme of your book. You call for an unflinching search for truth in the tradition of the Ancient Greeks who questioned everything. But Socrates, the top truth-searcher of the day, was put to death for constantly prodding citizens to examine whether their convictions were grounded in a firm foundation of facts—suggesting he was “too democratic” to live in a Republic. Two thousand and some years later, what makes you think a majority of Americans—or anybody else, for that matter—want to stare their democratic shortcomings in the face?

LdHS: I’m not sure that they do.

After Socrates was executed, Plato, his student, went out to the countryside to buy a piece of land. He bought it from the family of a war hero named Academus. … And the academy today is called that by virtue of this decision.

The reason Plato went out of town is, he realized the town people didn’t want to hear that their beliefs about the gods were myths, that their institutions were founded somewhat arbitrarily, that they didn’t know what they were talking about when they said they wanted justice.

You’d like to hope that in the 21st century people would be mature enough, but I don’t know. This is a turning point potentially for us. If we don’t recognize the disorder, I don’t think we have many years left of democracy in the United States.

I’m not entirely convinced that it’s not too late, even as we speak.
http://www.research.fsu.edu/researchr/winter2005/features/battlefield.html
The Preface to The Battle of Florida:
http://www.upf.com/mkt/samples/deHaven2.pdf

[jazzjunkysue]

42. I've never doubted that they rigged Florida and ohio in 00 and 04

It was obvious. No one's ever been able to tell me why B*** go on the air at 11pm on election night. Ohio was going blue, and he went on air, and said something strange and meaningless. Then, the next tally was for him.

No one has investigated that. I never hear it mentioned. But I saw it with my own eyes and will never forget it. I will always believe it was a signal to hit the switch on the computers that tally the vote, to skew it red.

Until someone finds out otherwise, that's my theory, and I'm sticking with it.

[RagingInMiami]

43. So much evidence, so much proof

Never any action, never any turmoil.

Same as the 2004 election. Same as the WMDs. Same as the case to go to war.

Smoking gun here. Smoking gun there. Smoking guns everywhere.

And where has all the left us?

In the same boat as before. On the outside looking in.

[cosmicdot]

44. and, now, Bu$hCo has filled @25.5% of the Federal Judiciary

just to get perspective/impact of how these stolen elections are tainting our system, lives, and future

Federal Judiciary (total all courts) 878
Smirk has appt'd. 224 25.5% ... and still going


some by outrageous, unheard of up/down votes ... (they needed to steal that Senate majority, too)



I suspect the appts. fit a youngish Federalist Society mold for longevity sake


(Ray-gun and Poppy are responsible for 14.2% and 11.6% of current total)



http://www.afj.org/judicial/judicial_selection_resources/selection_database/byCourtAndAppPres.asp

I hope they all have to resign.

[JanMichael]

46. Well they were appointed by an illegitimate pResident.

So they should resign if not just be kicked out on their corrupt fuckin' asses.

[leyton]

47. Read the interview more carefully.

what it actually says is that Gore won that set of ballots (numbering 63,000) which was just from those eight largest counties. It does not mention the overvotes from the rest of the state, which would be about another 60,000 and presumably from the rural areas that are predominantly Republican. I'm just saying.

[Dr Ron]

48. That wasn't even the best part of the article

I hope people have folloed the link to read more. I found this much more interestng:

RinR: One of the reasons, you argue, that the most popular candidate ended up losing the election is because so many Americans favored partisan rhetoric over an unbiased search for truth during the recounts in 2000. How do you explain this?

LdHS: As far as I can tell, it’s the way societies work. One of the things we’ve learned with public opinion research, the most fundamental finding of public opinion research of the past 50 years is that the masses follow the elites.
Most people don’t have time to learn about all these things, and they look to a particular person that they trust. It may not be the president, it may be Jesse Jackson, you know, it could be Rush Limbaugh, it could be somebody who’s not in government, but they look at that person and defer to that person. It’s a normal thing. I don’t see that changing. It really is a matter of elites being willing to be committed to democracy and the rule of law and the rule of reason.

RinR: And this can be a problem because?

LdHS: Unfortunately, the history of democracy is that leadership philosophy is eroded as the competition between elites becomes more intense. That’s what happened with Athenian democracy; that’s what happened in the Roman Republic. So you look at our system today; you see our elites doing it, and you know we’re in big trouble. It’s in my lifetime that this has happened, that elites have begun to put winning ahead everything else, ahead of truth and country.
When Watergate was prosecuted, there were Republicans in Congress that were after Nixon. They thought what he was doing was unconscionable, and today that’s not the case. Today, Democrats stick with Democrats, and Republicans stick with Republicans. They don’t care what their party leaders have done. Just in my lifetime, I’ve seen this civic culture go from something that’s respectful of democracy to something that is manipulative of it. The problem is if you let this go uncorrected, the Democrats are going to do something worse later, and then the Republicans. It’s just an arms race almost, and it will just tend to degenerate.

[B Calm]

49. You do know that the RAPISTS want us to get over it...

[Perky]

50. If the punch card said Gore and the writing said Gore

or vice-versa, the ballot is spoiled. It can't be cast. for either or both.

The voter should have had the common sense to ask for a new ballot.


I suspect that the overvotes were in PalmBeach County with the butterfly Ballot. Where the PunchCard was Buchanan and the writing said Gore.

[JanMichael]

59. Oh man. Look Florida law is pretty specific abou t INTENT of the voter.

Regardless if he or she meets your definition of "common sense".

Ie. Two Gores don't make a wrong.

That was not done, that is one of the points of this book.

[ISUGRADIA]

79. State law in MN is similar to Florida's when it comes to intent

It's nit picking to take away a person's vote when the intent is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR even though he overvoted. In MN if a person voted this way in a recount the intent is what counts and so the vote does.

It's ridiculous to deny the presidency to the obvious winner on a technicality. Now our country's fucked because of it.

[Time for change]

54. So he won the over-votes by almost 30 thousand

And I'll bet that 30,000 margin didn't even count the more than 50 thousand voters, mostly black, who were illegally purged, right?

Or the cheating with the absentee ballots.

Or the confusion over the butterfly ballots.

Probably when you add up all those sources it comes to more like 70 thousand, I'll bet.

Well, it's great that this book is coming out.

[Clarkie1]

62. Let this be a lesson....

In order to defeat them it's not enough just to get the most votes.

We have to win by a magnitude of OVERWHELMING proportions....not 30,000 votes in a key state.

Also, WE NEED TO FIGHT TO HAVE EVERY VOTE COUNTED IN FUTURE ELECTIONS AND PAPER TRAILS!

But, since nothing is for certain, we still must win OVERWHELMINGLY. It's like war, we have to overwhelm them. Get out the vote, organize (I think Dean is doing a great job), and run candidates who will appeal not just to the left, but also to independents. That's how we will win.

[Patsy Stone]

63. K&R for my poor sad Florida...

Gore won, Kerry won. I want my country back.

[nicknameless]

66. Palast: "One Million Black Votes Didn't Count in the 2000 Pres. Election"

Nationwide disenfranchisement.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=342&row=1

One million black votes didn't count in the 2000 presidential election
It's not too hard to get your vote lost -- if some politicians want it to be lost

Sunday, June 20, 2004
by Greg Palast

In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted. "Spoiled votes" is the technical term. The pile of ballots left to rot has a distinctly dark hue: About 1 million of them -- half of the rejected ballots -- were cast by African Americans although black voters make up only 12 percent of the electorate.

<snip>

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission looked into the smelly pile of spoiled ballots and concluded that, of the 179,855 ballots invalidated by Florida officials, 53 percent were cast by black voters. In Florida, a black citizen was 10 times as likely to have a vote rejected as a white voter.

But let's not get smug about Florida's Jim Crow spoilage rate. Civil Rights Commissioner Christopher Edley, recently appointed dean of Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley, took the Florida study nationwide. His team discovered the uncomfortable fact that Florida is typical of the nation.

<snip>

Herein lies the problem. An apartheid vote-counting system is far from politically neutral. Given that more than 90 percent of the black electorate votes Democratic, had all the "spoiled" votes been tallied, Gore would have taken Florida in a walk, not to mention fattening his popular vote total nationwide. It's not surprising that the First Brother's team, informed of impending rejection of black ballots, looked away and whistled.

<snip>

... or worse.

More at link.

[robbedvoter]

70. And 6 million were "spoiled" nationwide - UCLA study

[nicknameless]

76. I couldn't find the UCLA Study. Here's info from a MIT & CalTech Study:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/16/voting.problems

MIT and Cal Tech's study: "Voting, What it is and What Could Be"

Central Findings:

• Between 4 million and 6 million votes for the presidency were discarded following the last Election Day, Nov. 7, 2000

• 1.5 million to 2 million of those were discarded because of faulty, aged equipment or poorly designed ballots

• 1.5 million to 3 million votes were lost because of registration foul-ups

• 500,000 to 1.2 million were lost because of confusion at polling places on Election Day

• An unknown amount were discarded because of problems with absentee voting

• Florida was just one of many states with problems – others included Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, South Carolina and Wyoming

• More votes were lost or spoiled in New York City and Chicago than in Florida

Suggested Remedies:
• Retirement of punch-card machines and pull-lever voting machines

• Installation and use of optical scanning machines

• Equip polling places with laptop computers programmed to cross-reference voter registrations

• Replace absentee ballots with in-person voting before Election Day

• Provide provisional ballots when registration cannot be verified at the polling place

Estimated cost of changes: $400 million per year leading up to 2004 presidential election

Plus suggestions for making things worse?
Yeah, vote-stealing machines, provisional ballots (never counted) and the elimination of absentee voting. That's the answer. :eyes:

[robbedvoter]

81. Thanks! I stand corrected!

[AuntiBush]

72. And this is just in Florida!

Imagine pockets around the country that haven't even been checked.

Where is the outrage? <--- Sick of asking.

[eridani]

80. This isn't new

I have some old links documenting the big lead of Gore in "overvotes." However, it didn't get widely reported as you might expect. It's really great that there is a whole new book of solid research on this.

[dogday]

82. This might not be new news but it is proof

that the CTs knew what they were talking about. This shows that Bush is an illegal president....

[LynneSin]

84. And don't forget about those 50,000 Jews that voted for Pat Buchanon

:eyes:

[PATRICK]

85. Not to keep counting the uncounted but

I am trying to think of a single instance where Bush lost decisive votes in similar fashion. The Panhandle wimp out when Gore was "mistakenly" declared winner? Oh, they cursed the exit polls and the network early predictions up and down as if that was the only thing happening that night. That theoretical number hardly matches to the intimidation of black voters, not to mention the infamous felon's list purge, which was admitted and the plea deal itself abused or ignored. There was nothing in the recount, after the questionable late military ballots(dumped by the sackload on planes rushed to Florida after the election) and all the small court cases lost. Any one of which factors would have won Gore the state.

Optical scan and tabulation machines. Gore could have won the recount and not even known his true margin. The clear will of the people had no standing in law or honor nor was it allowed into the media presentation except as a feeble whisper. Gore won that by a clear enough margin so that the chipping away by the Bush people(made incredibly to look completely like Gore was the challenger trying to spoil Bush's 'victory') was not enough. Either the House or the SCOTUS had to score Bush on technical points, themselves fraught with partisan fraud.

Sigh. So we add yet another bunch of uncounted votes to the stack. The Bush people don't even have to bother trying, so irrelevant is democracy anyway in their system. What we would truly shocked at is to find any area where Bush suffered from those kind of things, the technology, the suppression, the fraud,
whatever.

[Wilms]

86. .

[mattclearing]

89. John Nichols would have told you this four years ago.

Read Jews for Buchanan. Great book.

[Cell Whitman]

91. This is still the most telling reason Bush is president.

The media acting like children.

This is old but should be brought back for another turn... more here including Sammon's LIES put out in Moon's propaganda rag but this below is the one which always amazes...

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5920188?rnd=1088755502349&has-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024&

The fact that Gore never said he invented the Internet didn't stop the press from telling, and retelling, a story that fit into its prepackaged narrative: Gore is a liar. But it was the journalists, trying hard to paint a damning portrait of Gore, who played it loose with the facts and perpetrated what added up to a complete fabrication.

Here's what happened. In 1999, candidate Gore was taping an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer in which he said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." He was no doubt referring to his landmark "information superhighway" speeches, as well as his well-known support of high-tech research that stretched back into the 1980s. (For the record, Vinton Cerf, often called "the father of the Internet," not to mention futurist Newt Gingrich, have both publicly vouched for Gore's role in helping to shepherd the Internet to life.)

So who coined the phrase "invented the Internet" and attached it to Gore? His Republican opponents, who faxed out a press release suggesting Gore had claimed to have done exactly that.

It's no surprise that GOP operatives would willfully misinterpret a statement from a Democratic presidential candidate. What's amazing is that the press went along with it so uncritically. Was it accurate? The press didn't care, as virtually every major media outlet in the country followed the Republican lead and reported over and over again Gore's claim to have invented the Internet.

Concerned about losing the election on traditional campaign issues such as taxes, Medicare and crime, topics that, according to polls, favored Democrats, the GOP worked to turn the election into a character contest. To do that, Republicans had to link Gore with President Bill Clinton by dismantling the vice president's long-standing image as an earnest Boy Scout and replacing it with that of a phony liar. The New York Times cheered the Republicans' Internet move as "clever" and "ingenious."

As would become its custom, the Gore camp responded timidly and slowly. Seeing the Internet story was taking on a life of its own, some aides suggested the vice president pop the balloon by quickly addressing it. Gore, though, waited more than a week before publicly cracking a joke about how the night before the CNN interview, he'd been up late "inventing the camcorder." By then, the story had legs. And by trying to finesse the issue with humor and adopting the fictitious premise that he "invented" something extraordinary, Gore simply gave the damaging story credence.

"The Republicans did a very good job pushing that stuff, and the press reveled in it," says Tony Coelho, who served as Gore's campaign chairman until June 2000, when he stepped down for health reasons. "They wanted to bring down 'Prince Albert.' "

[JanMichael]

94. k

Just in case somebody missed this...

[Selatius]

97. I'm bookmarking this for eternity... n/t