We live in a Kakistocracy

[Annie]

Harris served as Secretary of State of Florida, gaining national attention for her role in validating Florida's votes in the 2000 U.S. presidential election.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katheri...y_of_the_State

I'm well aware of who Harris is.

 

[Annie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris#Secretary_of_the_State

the entire link is about Harris.

how in the world could yolu miss that?

not the one you posted though earlier:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml

Florida scraps felon vote list

The list of 47,000 people is too flawed to be used to strike felons from voting rolls. County election supervisors express relief.

By MATTHEW WAITE
Published July 11, 2004

Nine days after making the names of more than 47,000 potential felon voters public, state officials have scrapped the entire list, saying it was too flawed to be trusted.

County supervisors of elections were told Saturday not to use the list of people the state believed had committed felonies and illegally registered to vote.

Florida is one of seven states that bars felons from voting unless their civil rights have been restored.

 

[Annie]

It was a republican Congress....what else can I say?



Article 2 clearly shows that it is up to the States on federal elections, NOT the Feds...

And as a Florida resident at the time, Florida Law and its supreme court if in dispute, GOVERNED this florida election, NOT the Supreme Court...

This was a States issue and the US Supreme Court had no right to call this election off....period.

Care

Thank you, good job of locating the Constitution. The time frame, that of choosing the electors, was the problem. Why end it? The counting was not stopping, just going on and on:

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

 

[Annie]

What the heck are you babbling about? The recount was STOPPED in the 3 counties that Gore asked for... gees louise, where the heck did YOU GET that the manual recounts for the 3 counties gore chose to dispute according to florida law, were completed and given to Bush?

These recounts were NEVER COMPLETED????????????????????????????

The Supreme Court STOPPED the recount.

In Miami dade the recount stopped because the Republican PAID OPERATIVES flown in from other states caused a riot and intimidated those counting the votes and the recount was called off?

Please, know some facts about this....do SOME READING on this....

Care

I have done reading, much. Take a look at the end of Bush v. Gore:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.

Given the Court's assessment that the recount process underway was probably being conducted in an unconstitutional manner, the Court stayed the order directing the recount so it could hear this case and render an expedited decision. The contest provision, as it was mandated by the State Supreme Court, is not well calculated to sustain the confidence that all citizens must have in the outcome of elections. The State has not shown that its procedures include the necessary safeguards. The problem, for instance, of the estimated 110,000 overvotes has not been addressed, although Chief Justice Wells called attention to the concern in his dissenting opinion. See ____ So. 2d, at ____, n. 26 (slip op., at 45, n. 26).

Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. §101.015 (2000).

The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000).

* * *

None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate in this case forthwith.

It is so ordered.

 

[Gunny]

further evidence you didnt read the posting.

It was a statistical breakdown of the different mechanisms used to vote.

If you wish to debate with me, then I expect better thought on your part than THIS response. Obviously I DID read what was posted and responded with a question concerning the statsitical breakdown of the different mechanisms used to vote.

Contrary to your assertion, YOUR irrelevant, accusatory and deflective response is evidence that you either do not understand simple English, or you're deflecting because your own damned posts don't support your initial allegation.

 

[Annie]

If you wish to debate with me, then I expect better thought on your part than THIS response. Obviously I DID read what was posted and responded with a question concerning the statsitical breakdown of the different mechanisms used to vote.

Contrary to your assertion, YOUR irrelevant, accusatory and deflective response is evidence that you either do not understand simple English, or you're deflecting because your own damned posts don't support your initial allegation.

Face it Gunny, the best stuff came when Care4 came to his/her rescue. In any case, it seems like a finished thread.

 

[Gunny]

Face it Gunny, the best stuff came when Care4 came to his/her rescue. In any case, it seems like a finished thread.

I haven't read any of the stuff following his post yet.

 

[Gunny]

I see that the specter of illiteracy is rearing it's ugly head again?

See, this is the way it works. You posted on and on, then responded by asking for 'proof.' It was given, by more than one. Now you are trying to change topics, then tables. Not happening.

Answer first, then we can move along, it's really quite simple.

THIS appears to be a BIG part of the problem. TM is all over the place, introducing topic after topic irrelevant to the original discussion and hopping in and out of them so much and so fast he loses even himself.

 

[Gunny]

If the election had NOT disenfranchised thousand of voters with a fake felons list which was designed to knock off black voters ,if the butterfly ballot had been designed correctly(it would only take one of these things corrected) Gore would have won the election.

Now what standerd do you wat to stand by?

True democracy without foul play

or

An election were LEGAL voters were kept from voting with intent?

An assertion you have YET to prove.

 

[Gunny]

The Florida Supreme Court did order a recount for the entire state.

The usa supreme court illegally stopped that recount according to our Constitution and most all legal scholars and Constitutionalists out there.

As the quote above says, Gore would have won this recount according to those same people that are being used to say that Bush won the recount or elcetion in the 3 chosen Gore counties....

There were over 60,000 PEOPLE eliminated from voting THAT WERE NOT FELONS I think I have read, but their names were close to the names on this extensive list of felon names and "near miss" felon names.

katherine harris paid a company from texas $4 million dollars to come up with this extensive felon list....when it had only cost the state $200,000 to pay for this "felon" list from a different information gathering company the previous election....that should bring some inquisitiveness to the average joe, don't you think?

I have read that the list was over 120,000 names long and that even the supervisor of elections (R) in one district was bannished from voting because her name was on the list....that is when she threw this felon list out for her district and complained to Katherine harris about it....nothing was done...even when the company supplying this extensive list with many, many names that were not those of convicted felons on it TOLD Katherine Harris that there were many FALSE positives of felons that were still on the list....K Harris still used this mostly fake list.

Many legal voters were disenfranchised, there is no question on this from all the studies and reports that I have read on it.

One could assume if they were felons, as Gunny has said, that they would probably be voting more Democratic than for Republicans, HOWEVER, these were regular citizens that had the same name as a felon, even if the middle initial differed, or people that had names that were similar to a felon's name that were prevented from voting and we can't necessarily presume that they would have voted more for Gore over Bush imo....

though I would Imagine if Florida's felon's list is similar to their prison population as far as race is concerned, there were probably many more black Americans disproportionately disenfranchised because their names were familiar or similar to their felon list.

Care

A few questionable votes aside, there is no evidence to support attempted foul play on anyone's part but Gore's. Most of the votes that you claim were eliminated were eliminated legally as part of the process due to administrative error on the part of the voter, and that they would have been Gore's votes is pure conjecture. The process being broken is neither candidate's fault.

If the system is broken down, that issue needs to be addressed separately. Addressing it during an election and attempting to pick and choose votes that count in one's favor is NOT addressing the issue of the voting process, it's trying to steal an election.

Since the election concerned the Presidency of the United States in a National election, the SCOTUS had EVERY right to be the final judicial authority. The issue at stake was not an issue confined solely to FL.

 

[Annie]

I haven't read any of the stuff following his post yet.

Well shoot then, you owe me double rep.

 

[Gunny]

What a bunch of tripe.

Not tripe at all.

 

[mattskramer]

If the election had NOT disenfranchised thousand of voters with a fake felons list which was designed to knock off black voters ,if the butterfly ballot had been designed correctly(it would only take one of these things corrected) Gore would have won the election.

I don’t know of a “fake felons list”. Was this a list claiming that the people listed on it were felons (and therefore not allowed to vote) when, in actuality, the people on the list were not felons (and therefore should have been allowed to vote)?

Do you have a web site that provides information about such a list?

I found noting wrong with the design of the butterfly ballot. It was not designed incorrectly. If voters had simply read and followed the directions carefully, their intentions would have been clearly reflected once they had voted.

Finally, your claim that Gore would have won if people on the felons list had been allowed to vote or if the butterfly ballot would have been designed differently seems like speculation to me. Do you know how many people voted for other people when they intended to vote for Gore? Do you know how many people, erroneously listed as felons, would have voted for Gore? Do you have a web site that shows statically that Gore would have won?

 

[Gunny]

I don’t know of a “fake felons list”. Was this a list claiming that the people listed on it were felons (and therefore not allowed to vote) when, in actuality, the people on the list were not felons (and therefore should have been allowed to vote)?

Do you have a web site that provides information about such a list?

I found noting wrong with the design of the butterfly ballot. It was not designed incorrectly. If voters had simply read and followed the directions carefully, their intentions would have been clearly reflected once they had voted.

Finally, your claim that Gore would have won if people on the felons list had been allowed to vote or if the butterfly ballot would have been designed differently seems like speculation to me. Do you know how many people voted for other people when they intended to vote for Gore? Do you know how many people, erroneously listed as felons, would have voted for Gore? Do you have a web site that shows statically that Gore would have won?

Stop the world. Matts and I agree on something.

 

[mattskramer]

I don’t know of a “fake felons list”. Was this a list claiming that the people listed on it were felons (and therefore not allowed to vote) when, in actuality, the people on the list were not felons (and therefore should have been allowed to vote)?

Do you have a web site that provides information about such a list?

Okay. I found the answer to my own question.

Early in the year, the company, ChoicePoint, gave Florida officials a list with the names of 8,000 ex-felons to "scrub" from their list of voters. But it turns out none on the list were guilty of felonies, only misdemeanors. The company acknowledged the error, and blamed it on the original source of the list -- the state of Texas.

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

I concede that TM has a point only as far as the list is concerned. Non-felons may have been erroneously listed as felons and not been allowed to vote. It still remains to be seen if their votes would have made a significant difference in the election.

It does not bother me that people voted for Buchanan when they intended to vote for Bush. Perhaps the Butterfly ballot voters will be more careful next time.

I found noting wrong with the design of the butterfly ballot. It was not designed incorrectly. If voters had simply read and followed the directions carefully, their intentions would have been clearly reflected once they had voted.

Finally, your claim that Gore would have won if people on the felons list had been allowed to vote or if the butterfly ballot would have been designed differently seems like speculation to me. Do you know how many people voted for other people when they intended to vote for Gore? Do you know how many people, erroneously listed as felons, would have voted for Gore? Do you have a web site that shows statically that Gore would have won?

 

[Gunny]

Okay. I found the answer to my own question.

Early in the year, the company, ChoicePoint, gave Florida officials a list with the names of 8,000 ex-felons to "scrub" from their list of voters. But it turns out none on the list were guilty of felonies, only misdemeanors. The company acknowledged the error, and blamed it on the original source of the list -- the state of Texas.

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

I concede that TM has a point only as far as the list is concerned. Non-felons may have been erroneously listed as felons and not been allowed to vote. It still remains to be seen if their votes would have made a significant difference in the election.

It does not bother me that people voted for Buchanan when they intended to vote for Bush. Perhaps the Butterfly ballot voters will be more careful next time.

I found noting wrong with the design of the butterfly ballot. It was not designed incorrectly. If voters had simply read and followed the directions carefully, their intentions would have been clearly reflected once they had voted.

Finally, your claim that Gore would have won if people on the felons list had been allowed to vote or if the butterfly ballot would have been designed differently seems like speculation to me. Do you know how many people voted for other people when they intended to vote for Gore? Do you know how many people, erroneously listed as felons, would have voted for Gore? Do you have a web site that shows statically that Gore would have won?

I don't think anyone has argued that the list did not turn out to exist after the fact. However, there is no evidence to support it as anything more than a procedural/admin error, as opposed to the nefarious plot to disenfranchise voters it's being portrayed as.

I conceded way back on page 1 or 2 that procedural/admin error exists and that no voting system is foolproof. Fix it for the next election is all I can say.

 

[Care4all]

I don’t know of a “fake felons list”. Was this a list claiming that the people listed on it were felons (and therefore not allowed to vote) when, in actuality, the people on the list were not felons (and therefore should have been allowed to vote)?

Do you have a web site that provides information about such a list?

I found noting wrong with the design of the butterfly ballot. It was not designed incorrectly. If voters had simply read and followed the directions carefully, their intentions would have been clearly reflected once they had voted.

Finally, your claim that Gore would have won if people on the felons list had been allowed to vote or if the butterfly ballot would have been designed differently seems like speculation to me. Do you know how many people voted for other people when they intended to vote for Gore? Do you know how many people, erroneously listed as felons, would have voted for Gore? Do you have a web site that shows statically that Gore would have won?

Pat Buhcannon himself estimates that around 8000 of his votes were specifically votes for Gore/ Lieberman...

And Matt, are you implying that because YOU did not have trouble reading the butterfly ballot (which is illegal in most states for a presidential election)
that the ten thousand people in west palm beach that claimed they did have a problem with it are just mentally retarded or LYING?

I disagree with you, the butterfly ballot was most certain NOT CLEAR ENOUGH for tens of thousands of citizens...they were disenfranchised of their vote for Gore due to this ballot layout.... and even if they were retarded, , they are still citizens and should have been given the same opportunity to vote as the other counties that had a single ballot for all presidential candidates instead of one that was split up on two pages....and many of the ones that were confused in the ballot box that checked the spot for pat buhcannon sp? by mistake, wrote Gore's name in the write name of presidential choice box, but those ballots were thrown out all together as a double vote, one for pat and one for gore.... an over vote....

And even though the elections coordinator for Palm Beach County picked this idiotic ballot to use, the Secretary of state, in charge of elections should have denied this ballot when it was sent in to her for approval....but she did not.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm

heres the inquirery into the felons list

 

[Annie]

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm

heres the inquirery into the felons list

Looks very interesting, can you sum it all up, goes on forever?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm


"DBT Online advised the Division of Elections of the likelihood that a significant number of false positives existed and made recommendations to reduce those numbers, according to Mr. Bruder.[62] He further asserted that DBT Online specifically suggested to state officials that narrow criteria be used in creating the lists, which would lower the false-positive rate, and therefore, minimize errors in the number of names matched.[63] Mr. Bruder testified that the company recommended, for example, that it develop criteria requiring an exact match on the first and middle names. Thus, a Floridian named Deborah Ann would not match with the name Ann Deborah.[64] But the Division of Elections favored more inclusive criteria and chose to “make it go both ways,” as Mr. Bruder recalls it.[65] In addition, he pointed out that state officials set parameters that required a 90 percent match in the last name, rather than an exact match.[66] Mr. Bruder insisted that “the state dictated to us that they wanted to go broader, and we did it in the fashion that they requested.”[67]"