Why Are We A Democracy?

[Ray From Cleveland]

You go ahead and deny history. I was there. Ive posted from 4 sources. You post what katherin harris did...a staunch republican and globalist. GHWB was appointed by the supreme court. I know you know that. Ur jes' doin' yer job is all. You show me that ghwb was deemed the winner and appointed president by that out come. You cant. Because. It never happened.

ASK FACTCHECK


The Florida Recount of 2000

• By Brooks Jackson
• Posted on January 22, 2008

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

The Florida Recount of 2000

So you're right and eight news organizations are wrong. Now we've heard it all.

 

[Windship]

What are you arguing? All Im saying is....ghwb was appointed by the supreme court. Hewas NOT elected. Thats all.

What are you arguing, that if the SC is brought such a case, they should just allow the Fla courts to do as they like in violation of the Constitution? Do you even understand what the Supreme Court does?

Im telling you what happened.

 

[Windship]

You DO know that george bush 2 was appointed by the supreme court, dont you? Maybe your daddy should come back and continue your ridicules posts.

This a perfect example of what's wrong with people. Its not that people are stupid. Its just that they know so many things that are just wrong

This is one of the phenomena about politics that I find fascinating:the ability of thinking people to ignore the truth and facts and allow themselves to be ruled by emotion.

If you want to stop ignoring facts you just need to choose to.

Its absolutely astonishing that after 3 counts had bush winning. And even the media counts afterwards had bush winning and 16 years later you people are still trying to pretend bush didn't win. But Gore never once won Florida.

Bush did win because he was appointed by the supreme court.

 

[Avatar4321]

It is an analysis. It says so in the title and in the article. My posts, however, are NOT analysis.

I agree. Analysis requires facts to analyze. Your posts have none

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Im telling you what happened.

Yes you are, based on the stories you made up in your head. The Supreme Court decision was not partisan. It was voted on 7 to 2 in Bush's favor. That means even liberal judges found a problem with Florida courts.

 

[Windship]

You go ahead and deny history. I was there. Ive posted from 4 sources. You post what katherin harris did...a staunch republican and globalist. GHWB was appointed by the supreme court. I know you know that. Ur jes' doin' yer job is all. You show me that ghwb was deemed the winner and appointed president by that out come. You cant. Because. It never happened.

ASK FACTCHECK


The Florida Recount of 2000

• By Brooks Jackson
• Posted on January 22, 2008

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

The Florida Recount of 2000

So you're right and eight news organizations are wrong. Now we've heard it all.

Lol. Do you understand the word "probably"?

 

[Windship]

Im telling you what happened.

Yes you are, based on the stories you made up in your head. The Supreme Court decision was not partisan. It was voted on 7 to 2 in Bush's favor. That means even liberal judges found a problem with Florida courts.

OMG!! LMFAO!!! Its was a5-4 vote stupid.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol. Do you understand the word "probably"?

Do you understand the word Investigation? And mind you, this included even liberal news media. Everybody can't be wrong except you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

OMG!! LMFAO!!! Its was a5-4 vote stupid.

No stupid, there were two votes. One was 5 to 4 and the other 7 to 2.

 

[Windship]

Lol. Do you understand the word "probably"?

Do you understand the word Investigation? And mind you, this included even liberal news media. Everybody can't be wrong except you.

Probably would have won is not winning. Probably in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills first.

 

[Windship]

OMG!! LMFAO!!! Its was a5-4 vote stupid.

No stupid, there were two votes. One was 5 to 4 and the other 7 to 2.

Well then why didnt you post BOTH figures?

 

[Avatar4321]

You deny Democracy because it checks capitalism and government so they can not be corrupted by corporations. The Democracy we had DID this and you know it. Thats your agenda. Greed and lies. The Republic you insist on and I agree, we are both, does pretty much the same thing.

What on earth are you smoking

Lol. Another..."christian"

How is that relevant to your inability to put together rational thoughts or use proper grammar and prose?

You cant prove your own words so you get mad at me and attack my spelling....lmao. Ok.

So its unchristian to encourage better communication skills? Alot of nuns with rulers would be surprises

 

[Avatar4321]

You deny Democracy because it checks capitalism and government so they can not be corrupted by corporations. The Democracy we had DID this and you know it. Thats your agenda. Greed and lies. The Republic you insist on and I agree, we are both, does pretty much the same thing.

What on earth are you smoking

Lol. Another..."christian"

How is that relevant to your inability to put together rational thoughts or use proper grammar and prose?

You cant prove your own words so you get mad at me and attack my spelling....lmao. Ok.

So its unchristian to encourage better communication skills? Alot of nuns with rulers would be surprised

 

[Windship]

Photos: When every vote counted: Closest U.S. election
This goes against the belief that the U.S. Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush, or took it away from Gore.
The studies also show that Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, which are ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted at all. However, his legal team never pursued this action.
The studies also support the belief that more voters went to the polls in Florida on Election Day intending to vote for Gore than for Bush.
Even 15 years after the election, partisans on each side cherry-pick various scenarios that would have favored their candidate.
Here's a detailed look at what the studi

 

[Windship]

Here's a detailed look at what the studies found::
The first major review
The players: A group of newspapers including the USA Today, Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder newspapers conducted the first major review of the Florida ballots.
How it worked: The group hired the accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine more than 60,000 "undervotes" -- ballots that did not register a vote in the presidential race -- from all 67 Florida counties. These were ballots the Florida Supreme Court ordered to be hand counted with its December 8, 2000, decision.
The newspapers applied BDO Seidman's findings to four vote-counting standards. This was published in April 2001.
The results: The study shows that Bush likely would have won the statewide recount of undervotes even if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened to stop the counting. It also reveals that, ironically, the most lenient standard of vote counting —advocated by Gore — gives Bush his biggest lead. However, USA Today cautioned that, "The study has limitations. There is variability in what different observers see on ballots. Election officials, who sorted the undervotes for examination and then handled them for the accountants' inspection, often did not provide exactly the same number of undervotes recorded on election night."
The details, with USA Today's original explanations of the different standards in parentheses:

• Lenient Standard: Bush +1,665 ("This standard, which was advocated by Gore, would count any alteration in a chad -- the small perforated box that is punched to cast a vote -- as evidence of a voter's intent. The alteration can range from a mere dimple, or indentation, in a chad to its removal. Contrary to Gore's hopes, the USA TODAY study reveals that this standard favors Bush and gives the Republican his biggest margin: 1,665 votes.")
• Palm Beach Standard: Bush +884 ("Palm Beach County election officials considered dimples as votes only if dimples were found in other races on the same ballot. They reasoned that a voter would demonstrate similar voting patterns on the ballot. This standard -- attacked by Republicans as arbitrary -- also gives Bush a win, by 884 votes, according to the USA TODAY review.")
• Two corner standard: Bush +363 ("Most states with well-defined rules say that a chad with two or more corners removed is a legal vote. Under this standard, Bush wins by 363.")
• Strict standard: Gore +3 ("This "clean punch" standard would only count fully removed chads as legal votes. The USA TODAY study shows that Gore would have won Florida by 3 votes if this standard were applied to undervotes.")

A larger review gives mixed results
The players: Roughly a month later, a larger consortium that included the above outlets plus a group of five Florida newspapers released its review of more than 171,000 disputed ballots. In addition to the undervotes, this study reviewed more than 111,000 overvotes -- ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted.
This study showed that Democratic voters were far more likely to make the mistake of casting an overvote than Republican voters. Gore was marked on 84,197 of the overvote ballots, compared to 37,731 for Bush. USA Today's headline at the time read, "Florida voter errors cost Gore the election."
How it worked: The newspapers tallied up the overvotes, and then used BDO Seidman's undervote counting to test similar scenarios.
The results: This study shows a less decisive result than the count of only undervotes. However, there was no way to correct the overvote mistakes once they were cast, and Gore's team never asked for a hand recount of overvotes during the contentious recount battle in Florida.
Nevertheless, the study does support the theory -- expressed to CNN by both Gore's Florida senior adviser Nick Baldick, and the Republican senior adviser to Katherine Harris, John "Mac" Stipanovich -- that more voters went to the polls in Florida intending to vote for Al Gore than for George Bush.
Above all, USA Today highlighted that its review revealed, "The American system of elections routinely fails to count hundreds of thousands of ballots because of errors by voters, confusing ballot instructions, poorly designed ballots, flawed voting and counting machines and the failure of election workers to adequately help voters."
The details, again with USA Today's explanations cited in parentheses:

• Lenient standard: Gore +332 ("One uses the most permissive definition of a vote. It counts chads that are merely dimpled or bear slight impressions. Under the "dimple standard," Gore would have won by 332 votes.")
• Palm Beach standard: Gore +242 ("The other standard counts dimples as votes only if dimples are found in other races on the same ballot. This is known as the "Palm Beach Standard" because that is the rule that county's elections board adopted to determine voter intent in the early hand recounts of the Florida vote. The board's theory was that if dimples appeared in other races, that most likely meant that the voter just didn't press hard enough. Under this standard Gore would have won by 242 votes.")
• Two corner standard: Bush +407 ("The most widely used rule — that at least two corners of a chad must be detached to count as votes — is used in many states, including California, Oregon, Washington and Michigan. Recounting by that standard, Bush would have won by 407 votes, narrower than his 537-vote official margin.")
• Strict standard: Bush +152 ("By the strictest standard — one that requires a completely clean punch for the vote to count — Bush would have won by 152 votes. Some cleanly punched ballots were disqualified by counting-machines because of glitches, such as two ballots sticking together.")

The Florida Ballots Project
The players: A national media consortium -- composed of CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, and The Palm Beach Post -- paid for the National Opinion Research Center, or NORC, at the University of Chicago to review 175,010 disputed Florida ballots -- 61,190 undervotes and 113,820 overvotes.
How it worked: NORC, a highly respected data and research organization, conducted the counting of ballots. Their goal was not to determine a winner, but to "examine the ballots to assess the relative reliability of the three major types of ballot systems used in Florida." Carefully vetted coders reviewed the ballots, and NORC's raw data is still available to the public online.
The study, released in November 2001, took place over 10 months and cost nearly $1 million. The Washington Post explained, "153 field workers spent 6,500 hours describing every dimple, chad, erasure and relevant marking. Typists entered 17.5 million pieces of information into Chicago computers."
The different media organizations applied NORC's raw data to several distinct recount scenarios.
The results: The two major conclusions here are that Gore likely would have won a hand recount of the statewide overvotes and undervotes -- which he never requested -- while Bush likely would have won the hand recount of undervotes ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, although by a smaller margin than the certified 537 vote difference.
A sampling of headlines from the time include "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush, But Study Finds Gore Might Have Won Statewide Tally of all Uncounted Ballots," from The Washington Post, and "Study of Disputed Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote," from The New York Times.
However, as the Post concluded, "While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real-world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes."
The study was also released two months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, when the nation's focus moved away from the controversial 2000 election to the more pressing War on Terror.
The details:
Full statewide review

• Standard for acceptable marks set by each county in their recount: Gore wins by 171
• Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical scan ballots: Gore wins by 115
• Any dimple or optical mark: Gore wins by 107
• One corner of chad detached or any optical mark: Gore wins by 60

Review of limited sets of ballots

 

[Windship]

you dont read it though, do you?

 

[Windship]

Its a republican run state with a republican in question. Im not surprised. A democratic state would cheat too for a dem. Just the nature of the beast. Its not right no matter who does it.

 

[Windship]

When you let your boy get away with crimes or unethical behavior, the system begins to break down. The choices our forefathers made are not all the same as the choices we make today. Freedom and democracy are being hijacked by corporate forces. The ones that think they are part of the ruling elite are going to be very surprised when they are targeted by the wealthy ruling elite or the banks close and your money is gone. Dont even THINK of coming to our ranks. We will hang you for the traitor you are.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

you dont read it though, do you?

Yes I did, but the question is what does it prove? Gore asked for recounts in certain areas by certain standards, and he got them. And most of the methods used showed Bush (again) to be the winner.

So if you want to comb the internet trying to find different ways that Gore might have won, be my guest. But before you do, allow me to add a major component here: The media claimed Gore won hours before the polls even closed. That means there were probably a lot of Bush voters--who vote after work, that didn't bother to stop and vote because Gore had already been determined the winner.

But all that aside. The Florida courts violated GW's rights, and it's up to the Supreme Court to support his complaint. There is no possible way that the SC could have ruled that Florida courts are allowed to create laws on the bench. They are judges--not legislatures. Florida did not have any Al Gore laws that stated he didn't have to comply with Florida laws because he's Al Gore.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well then why didnt you post BOTH figures?

I did. You just didn't read them.