If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens condemns the Bush v. Gore decision because dimpled chads and hanging chads are given equal rights under the equal protection clause, or something   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 105
    More: Interesting, equal protection, hanging chads, dimples, impartiality, Florida Secretary of State, Public Citizen, principles  
•       •       •

1169 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2013 at 7:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-17 07:39:30 PM
Shiat ruling...
 
2013-05-17 07:43:06 PM
cdn5.movieclips.com
 
2013-05-17 07:43:19 PM
He's had that position for a long time. His dissent in the case is one of the more "my colleagues are evil bastards destroying the rule of law"-y in court history.
 
2013-05-17 07:44:45 PM
Those people who made dimples didn't vote enthusiastically enough. If they can't bother to push a button hard enough they obviously aren't that invested in the outcome.
 
2013-05-17 07:51:38 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Those people who made dimples didn't vote enthusiastically enough. If they can't bother to push a button hard enough they obviously aren't that invested in the outcome.


To be fair, most of them had barely enough muscle strength to dimple the card.
\It's an old people joke.
\\About Florida.
\\\I'm edgy.
 
2013-05-17 07:54:07 PM
- Gore won the popular vote.
- More people in Florida walked into the voting booth intending to vote for Gore (but voting for Pat Buchanan instead)

BUT

- Florida was farking up the recounts, and the whole election process generally, and adults needed to step in
- Someone needed to be declared president-elect soon for the sake of a smooth transition of power
- If they'd given Gore free rein to have all the recounts he wanted (which he should have gotten in a perfect world with no deadlines), he'd have tied up the process for months
- In retrospect, the media recounts showed Gore probably never would've changed the outcome anyway

So, a correct ad hoc decision that was necessary to bandaid over a potentially fatal flaw in the constitutional election process.  And I say this as the libbiest lib to ever lib.

/(yay, 100th greenlight)
 
2013-05-17 08:06:41 PM

dookdookdook: - Gore won the popular vote.
- More people in Florida walked into the voting booth intending to vote for Gore (but voting for Pat Buchanan instead)

BUT

- Florida was farking up the recounts, and the whole election process generally, and adults needed to step in
- Someone needed to be declared president-elect soon for the sake of a smooth transition of power
- If they'd given Gore free rein to have all the recounts he wanted (which he should have gotten in a perfect world with no deadlines), he'd have tied up the process for months
- In retrospect, the media recounts showed Gore probably never would've changed the outcome anyway

So, a correct ad hoc decision that was necessary to bandaid over a potentially fatal flaw in the constitutional election process.  And I say this as the libbiest lib to ever lib.

/(yay, 100th greenlight)


This is pretty much my exact position, sans the libulardoism.

Congratulats on the greenlight and on spelling "free rein" correctly, which might be an ever rarer accomplishment.
 
2013-05-17 08:11:39 PM
Pretty sure it was Steven's dissent that pointed out that if SCOTUS held the diversity of Florida's regular voting systems to the same standard as the recounts, they should have thrown out the whole state election for a re-do.

High error rate votamatics punch cards in many urban areas verses high quality optical scans in many rural areas
 
2013-05-17 08:12:18 PM

dookdookdook: - Gore won the popular vote.
- More people in Florida walked into the voting booth intending to vote for Gore (but voting for Pat Buchanan instead)

BUT

- Florida was farking up the recounts, and the whole election process generally, and adults needed to step in
- Someone needed to be declared president-elect soon for the sake of a smooth transition of power
- If they'd given Gore free rein to have all the recounts he wanted (which he should have gotten in a perfect world with no deadlines), he'd have tied up the process for months
- In retrospect, the media recounts showed Gore probably never would've changed the outcome anyway

So, a correct ad hoc decision that was necessary to bandaid over a potentially fatal flaw in the constitutional election process.  And I say this as the libbiest lib to ever lib.

/(yay, 100th greenlight)


And the thing is that the constitutionally mandated date to count the electoral votes in congress was fast approaching (five days away, the ruling was on a Wednesday and the official count was the next Monday). I also believe that the Florida constitution mandated that Harris certify no later than the Friday before that congressional count. There simply wasn't enough time for any more recounts.
 
2013-05-17 08:13:11 PM
This is the moment when a majority of liberals lost their minds.
 
2013-05-17 08:17:05 PM
As a learned person in many areas of science, math, technology, and culture, and as a person with a hardy vernacular I only have one question.  What in the hell is a 'chad'?  Is that the mark left on a ballot after a vote is cast as is somewhat implied by the article?  I have never heard this term before.
 
2013-05-17 08:22:43 PM

Radioactive Ass: And the thing is that the constitutionally mandated date to count the electoral votes in congress was fast approaching (five days away, the ruling was on a Wednesday and the official count was the next Monday).


Guess big Tony's "run out the clock" strategy worked out. Stop that recount!

"The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."

Because not counting all the votes seems much more legitimate or something.
 
2013-05-17 08:22:52 PM

dookdookdook: - Someone needed to be declared president-elect soon for the sake of a smooth transition of power


The reason we have several months between the election and the handover of power is so we can take the time to get it farking right. Imagine if that happened in, say, Russia. "Yeah, it would take a long time to count all these votes, so the winner is Putin. Sorry, but we have to have an answer quickly, and the election was looking kind of close. We just don't have the time for that."

There was still enough time to get it right, and the Supreme Court decision was an abomination in terms of its legal reasoning, and did incredible, and perhaps irreparable, damage to the Court's credibility as a fair and impartial arbiter of law, which is the only power it actually has as an institution. A member of the Court (Souter) damn near resigned in protest, only holding himself up because of the fact that he would be giving a seat to a man he detested largely because of that case. It's no coincidence that he left the Court very quickly after Obama took office- he still has not forgiven the Court.

Bush v. Gore was a very big deal, and not just something to shrug at. It was a national disgrace, politics aside. That's the sort of crap you see Soviet dictators pull.
 
2013-05-17 08:26:33 PM

badhatharry: This is the moment when a majority of liberals lost their minds.


At least it's a reason. Conservatives lose their minds frequently about nothing at all.
 
2013-05-17 08:28:40 PM

SN1987a goes boom: As a learned person in many areas of science, math, technology, and culture, and as a person with a hardy vernacular I only have one question.  What in the hell is a 'chad'?  Is that the mark left on a ballot after a vote is cast as is somewhat implied by the article?  I have never heard this term before.


The punch cards are pre-scored so a rectangle of card stock can be pushed out with a stylus.  That rectangle is the chad.  If it hangs by a thread of wood fiber, it is a hanging chad.   If it is still atached, but shows tool marks that a stulus was in contact, it is dimpled.  One kind of failure mode is that in the machine, chads from previous ballots can clog the machine and prevent a chad from being fully dislodged by a voters attempt to vote.
 
2013-05-17 08:56:08 PM

dookdookdook: - Gore won the popular vote.
- More people in Florida walked into the voting booth intending to vote for Gore (but voting for Pat Buchanan instead)

BUT

- Florida was farking up the recounts, and the whole election process generally, and adults needed to step in
- Someone needed to be declared president-elect soon for the sake of a smooth transition of power
- If they'd given Gore free rein to have all the recounts he wanted (which he should have gotten in a perfect world with no deadlines), he'd have tied up the process for months
- In retrospect, the media recounts showed Gore probably never would've changed the outcome anyway

So, a correct ad hoc decision that was necessary to bandaid over a potentially fatal flaw in the constitutional election process.  And I say this as the libbiest lib to ever lib.

/(yay, 100th greenlight)


You are right, but states are supposed to run their own elections and report the results to the federal government. The right thing to do was to leave it up to Florida to figure it out and whatever Florida decided was it.
 
2013-05-17 08:57:42 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Pretty sure it was Steven's dissent that pointed out that if SCOTUS held the diversity of Florida's regular voting systems to the same standard as the recounts, they should have thrown out the whole state election for a re-do.

High error rate votamatics punch cards in many urban areas verses high quality optical scans in many rural areas


He did say that. And that undermines his argument. The simple fact is that is the reasoning the majority used as well: you cannot treat votes differently. When two hand recounters count one dimpled chad and ignore the other, that's also a violation of the 14th Amendment. Setting different standards for different ballots is one thing. Setting different standards for the same ballot is another. Is voting in the US perfect? Absolutely not. But changing the election laws and methods in the middle of counting (which is what the Florida courts were essentially doing) is not kosher. And seven seven justices agreed on that point.
 
2013-05-17 08:58:25 PM

badhatharry: This is the moment when a majority of liberals lost their minds.


How so?
 
2013-05-17 09:07:26 PM
100% of the hanging chads, dimpled chads, and other incompletely punched chads were attempted Gore votes. There is a reason for this. You get perfectly punched ballots when you are punching one ballot at a time.
 
2013-05-17 09:13:45 PM
Ah yes, Bush v Gore.
The ghost that will forever haunt us.

tfa is a legal discussion, but Bush v Gore will for most of us and for most of history be everything but a legal discussion.

See, in a parallel universe things do not suck.

D.C. get's the job done, politics doesn't make you want to kill yourself and hundreds of thousands of human beings are alive that wouldn't have been otherwise.

There is no 'War on Terror'.. there is simply international criminal justice. Perhaps there we have 2 tall towers still standing in NYC.. perhaps there the focus on our nation is one of bettering our technologies, infrastructures and social programs.

In the 'good' universe they don't have an ever growing dystopian police state, war without end and a replacement of the fifth state with a propaganda-laden fear factory.

There, endlessly and unproductively rehashing over the same ideological and society-forming battles already fought across the entirety of the 20th century is a ridiculous exercise saved for drunken VFW halls, grandpa's porch and way-off-track bible study meetings... not the sole motivator for one of our two political parties.

In that reality we have more amendments than the 2nd.

In the 'good' universe, they talk about "what if Bush had won?" in the same manner we might suppose "what if the US joined the other side in WWII" or "what if George Washington had remained on as a British Officer"

Do I actually believe any of this?
Could one election really matter that much?
Could one educated but boring and poorly-spoken man make that much of a difference?

Doesn't matter, this is the luxury of supposition. We have a hard time believing it could have possibly been any worse. And in light of the productivity of the Child President, Darth Vader and TurdBlossom we'll always wonder "what-if?".

Just imagine what could have been accomplished were those energies better focused. Just imagine what could have been avoided.

From that point alone I can confidently say that with all legal arguments aside, the ruling (based solely on outcome alone) will be remembered as one of the most disastrous SCOTUS actions of our time. And I find it fascinating all that we will impose on it without ever even discussing or considering the finer legal arguments behind either the standing ruling or defined dissent .

It will never be a legal discussion, it will be Chapter 1 to the "What if?" book of the 21st century.

Not because it was wrong or because things would have been any different otherwise. Because the ruling itself is merely a bookend to the volumes that will define our radically changed and politically polarized post-9/11 world.

Our democratic society requires a clean and definitive vote tally in order for us to perceive a peaceful transition of power.
Elections are how we put things to bed so that we can focus on the future.  It's how we shake hands and say "Good game".

And we feel we were robbed of that. It's akin to the scab ref deciding an entire NFL season.. on a global and so much more critical and world-shaping scale.

As a democratic society it will be a ghost that will ever haunt us. And just like things that go bump in the night, it will be our imaginations and our emotions that will define it... critical analysis be damned.
 
2013-05-17 09:15:15 PM

Noam Chimpsky: 100% of the hanging chads, dimpled chads, and other incompletely punched chads were attempted Gore votes. There is a reason for this. You get perfectly punched ballots when you are punching one ballot at a time.


So the difference is that fraudulent Democratic ballot stuffing is a last-minute ad-hoc thing whereas Republican vote fixing is planned well in advance with plenty of time for execution?
 
2013-05-17 09:27:40 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Guess big Tony's "run out the clock" strategy worked out. Stop that recount!


Gore was the one who ran down the clock when he tried to get the laws (written long before the election) changed in his favor after the election was over. The first time this went to the USSC (from the FL SC) they sent it back saying essentially "You can't do that". Then the FL SC did it again. In that final USSC decision (there were 2 of them his time), one said "You did it again" (the 7-2 decision) and the other one (the 5-4 decision) said that there was no longer enough time to do a full hand recount and meet US constitutional requirements (electoral votes had to be counted in the House the following Monday as set forth in the constitution).
 
2013-05-17 09:27:52 PM

ImpendingCynic: Noam Chimpsky: 100% of the hanging chads, dimpled chads, and other incompletely punched chads were attempted Gore votes. There is a reason for this. You get perfectly punched ballots when you are punching one ballot at a time.

So the difference is that fraudulent Democratic ballot stuffing is a last-minute ad-hoc thing whereas Republican vote fixing is planned well in advance with plenty of time for execution?


I wish. If Republicans are "vote fixing", they are sucking at it.
 
2013-05-17 09:34:34 PM

Noam Chimpsky: 100% of the hanging chads, dimpled chads, and other incompletely punched chads were attempted Gore votes. There is a reason for this. You get perfectly punched ballots when you are punching one ballot at a time.


2/10, transparently obvious troll, but subject is touchy enough to likely get some bites regardless.
 
2013-05-17 09:42:48 PM

ArkAngel: But changing the election laws and methods in the middle of counting (which is what the Florida courts were essentially doing) is not kosher. And seven seven justices agreed on that point.


Well, except that Florida law actually gives authority to judges to deal with problems in elections. So its not a change.

Florida Statute 102.168Contest of election
 
2013-05-17 10:06:50 PM

badhatharry: This is the moment when a majority of liberals lost their minds.


Meh. I was pissed (or more disappointed) for a few weeks, and then I accepted it and moved on thinking, "we'll be fine. What's the worst that could happen?"
 
2013-05-17 10:12:12 PM

Vodka Zombie: badhatharry: This is the moment when a majority of liberals lost their minds.

Meh. I was pissed (or more disappointed) for a few weeks, and then I accepted it and moved on thinking, "we'll be fine. What's the worst that could happen?"


As the libbiest lib who ever libbed.... this. I remember thinking, "I would never vote for this Bush fellow, but he doesn't seem THAT bad as far as Republicans go." Little did I know....
 
2013-05-17 10:13:19 PM

erik-k: Noam Chimpsky: 100% of the hanging chads, dimpled chads, and other incompletely punched chads were attempted Gore votes. There is a reason for this. You get perfectly punched ballots when you are punching one ballot at a time.

2/10, transparently obvious troll, but subject is touchy enough to likely get some bites regardless.


Where is the fun in that?

From the deposition to the US Patent Office by John Ahmann, inventor of the Votomatic, given 1981

"The material typically used for punch board and punch card voting can and does contribute to potentially unreadable votes because of hanging chad or mispunched cards,"

"If chips are permitted to accumulate between the resilient strips, this can interfere with the punching operations,.... And occasionally, it has been observed that a partially punched chip has been left hanging onto a card, after the punch was withdrawn because the card supporting the surface of the punch board had become so clogged with chips as to prevent a clean punching operation. Incompletely punched cards can cause serious errors to occur to the data processing operation utilizing such cards."
 
2013-05-17 10:19:24 PM

Radioactive Ass: Vlad_the_Inaner: Guess big Tony's "run out the clock" strategy worked out. Stop that recount!

Gore was the one who ran down the clock when he tried to get the laws (written long before the election) changed in his favor after the election was over. The first time this went to the USSC (from the FL SC) they sent it back saying essentially "You can't do that". Then the FL SC did it again. In that final USSC decision (there were 2 of them his time), one said "You did it again" (the 7-2 decision) and the other one (the 5-4 decision) said that there was no longer enough time to do a full hand recount and meet US constitutional requirements (electoral votes had to be counted in the House the following Monday as set forth in the constitution).


Except that the USCC had no authority to tell Florida how to count their votes. That is entirely a State issue.
 
2013-05-17 10:36:57 PM
Wow, what a timely link.   Dr you have any interviews from the Taft Administration you'd like to talk about?
 
2013-05-17 10:43:37 PM

MurphyMurphy: The ghost that will forever haunt us.


Well put.
 
2013-05-17 10:47:51 PM

JohnnyBravo: Dr you have any interviews from the Taft Administration you'd like to talk about?


I bet Taft never had the body count that Bush/Cheney have.
 
2013-05-17 10:55:37 PM

revrendjim: You are right, but states are supposed to run their own elections and report the results to the federal government. The right thing to do was to leave it up to Florida to figure it out and whatever Florida decided was it.


Well, let's put it this way: The recounts were mostly completed in spring or summer of 2001, and at that point were still inconclusive (the majority of the recounts still have Bush as the winner, but not an overwhelming majority).

The president takes office in January.  Had we let Florida work it out, we'd have either had to just straight-up disenfranchise FL for a year by declaring a winner without them, or gone without a president (and all the executive appointments necessary to run the country) for upwards of a quarter of a year.

So, short answer, no.  You're wrong.  Albeit, they did amend their election procedures after the fact to prevent this in the future, but we could not realistically apply those remedies in situ.
 
2013-05-17 10:55:57 PM

Radioactive Ass: Vlad_the_Inaner: Guess big Tony's "run out the clock" strategy worked out. Stop that recount!

Gore was the one who ran down the clock when he tried to get the laws (written long before the election) changed in his favor after the election was over. The first time this went to the USSC (from the FL SC) they sent it back saying essentially "You can't do that". Then the FL SC did it again. In that final USSC decision (there were 2 of them his time), one said "You did it again" (the 7-2 decision) and the other one (the 5-4 decision) said that there was no longer enough time to do a full hand recount and meet US constitutional requirements (electoral votes had to be counted in the House the following Monday as set forth in the constitution).


You do know, you'd do better by citing SCOTUS,  instead of the United States Sentencing Commision, USSC.

And Florida Statute 102.168, giving Florida's judicial system the right to deal with contested elections was in existence long before Gore v Harris or Bush v Gore were ever filed..

And your descriptions of the stages are not in line with reality.  The SCOTUS return of the decisin basically said 'make the process comply with both state and federal laws of fairness.  IOW, just the limited recounts were unfair.  So as the do-over, the FLSC said recount the whole state, to be fair.  That's not doing the same thing twice.  And that's when Big Tony put the hammer down.

So basically SCOTUS said 'change how you do it' in thier first ruling, then whined that it was done differently in the final decision (and boohoo, there's no time left).

Or as FLSC put it in their final opinion on Bush v Gore

"The Supreme Court ultimately mandated that any manual
recount be concluded by December 12, 2000, as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. See
id., slip op. at 12. In light of the time of the release of the Supreme Court opinion,
these tasks and this deadline could not possibly be met. Moreover, upon
reflection, we conclude that the development of a specific, uniform standard
necessary to ensure equal application and to secure the fundamental right to vote
throughout the State of Florida should be left to the body we believe best equipped
to study and address it, the Legislature.

Accordingly, pursuant to the direction of the United States Supreme Court,
we hold appellants can be afforded no relief."

Or paraphrased: SCOTUS killed any chances for us to follow the process described in Florida law by running out the clock, so the only thing that can be done is for the legislature to close the loophole SCOTUS exploited for the future.
 
2013-05-17 11:01:45 PM

Kurmudgeon: I bet Taft never had the body count that Bush/Cheney have.


I'll bet Lincoln and FDR have that beat.
 
2013-05-17 11:05:09 PM
Thanks for the TF, Thunderboy

/assuming this is the thread that inspired you
 
2013-05-17 11:15:02 PM

JohnnyBravo: Kurmudgeon: I bet Taft never had the body count that Bush/Cheney have.

I'll bet Lincoln and FDR have that beat.


But Lincoln hardly had a choice in the matter. Whether or not FDR did is up to discussion (he wanted in on the war and tried to find a way to get in, but by the time we joined the nation was clamoring for war anyhow).
 
2013-05-17 11:15:30 PM

dookdookdook: If they'd given Gore free rein to have all the recounts he wanted (which he should have gotten in a perfect world with no deadlines), he'd have tied up the process for months
- In retrospect, the media recounts showed Gore probably never would've changed the outcome anyway


Gore wanted recounts only in select districts. When the GOP said that if there were going to be recounts the entire state should be recounted, Gore said no way, if the GOP wanted a universal recount they should have asked for that earlier, we have to do the selective recount because I asked for it within the allowed time frame and they didn't, neener neener neener.

Then there was the Florida Supreme Court, which chided Harris for "hypertechnical reliance" on what the law actually says, which most of the rest of us know as "following the law".

As you noted, adult supervision was required.
 
2013-05-17 11:15:54 PM
Well yeah. America got taken for a ride for 8 years, whether some people are ready to admit it or not.
 
2013-05-17 11:20:26 PM

Radioactive Ass: Gore was the one who ran down the clock when he tried to get the laws (written long before the election) changed in his favor after the election was over.


It's puzzling to me how so many people don't (A) understand this is precisely what Gore tried to do, and that (B) understand what a horrible precedent it would have set if allowed.
 
2013-05-17 11:24:46 PM

revrendjim: Except that the USCC had no authority to tell Florida how to count their votes. That is entirely a State issue.


They can however require them to follow their own laws, Which is what they did. Twice. The real problem was that similar types of ballots were being counted differently in different locations according to their own criteria which is where the 7-2 decision came in. Lets not forget why there is a Florida tag, it came about specifically because of the election in 2000. They screwed up that whole thing really, really good. If Gore hadn't asked for changes in how he could call for a hand recount (it breaks down to having a significant difference in the original machine count and the 2nd mandated machine recount if there is less than a significant amount of difference) That significant threshold was never met as Bush won the machine recount both times.

Then Gore got the FL SC to agree to a select few counties being recounted by hand. This is where the 14th amendment got brought into the equation, some votes in other counties were machine counted while others were being hand counted (and only in counties that were historically heavily Democratic to start with).

While FL state laws had some provisions for this the requirements to trigger it were clearly laid out and this particular election didn't trigger those requirements. Gore asked for, and got, them triggered anyway (this is where the FL SC changed the election laws after the election. A really big no-no pretty much everywhere in the world if you want to say that you had free and fair elections).
 
2013-05-17 11:34:16 PM

New Farkin User Name: But Lincoln hardly had a choice in the matter. Whether or not FDR did is up to discussion (he wanted in on the war and tried to find a way to get in, but by the time we joined the nation was clamoring for war anyhow).


Thank you for your opinion.
 
2013-05-17 11:35:00 PM

jjorsett: Gore wanted recounts only in select districts. When the GOP said that if there were going to be recounts the entire state should be recounted, Gore said no way, if the GOP wanted a universal recount they should have asked for that earlier, we have to do the selective recount because I asked for it within the allowed time frame and they didn't, neener neener neener.


Interesting theory.  Now explain what part of Florida law prevented the Bush campaign from requesting a matching number of recounts in counties of their choosing, or the rest of the state.  The window was nt closed until certification, which Harris hadn't done when the Bush whining about recounts began

That's the balance inherent in Florida law as written then.

/Actually the Bush whining began at statutory automatic recount.  But surprisingly they eventually gave up on that.
//regardless, the automatic recount was not done following the law.  My county, Brevard, has paper ballots.  But GOP Election Supervisor decided to just resubmit the last count, pretending FL106..33(b),  intended for pull-lever type voting machines, instead of the paper ballot method specified by FL106.33(a), retabulation.
///on the statewide recount, he just stalled until Big Tony fixed it.  So Brevard had zero recounts.
 
2013-05-17 11:39:47 PM

Radioactive Ass: While FL state laws had some provisions for this the requirements to trigger it were clearly laid out and this particular election didn't trigger those requirements. Gore asked for, and got, them triggered anyway


You mean this?

102.166  Protest of election returns; procedure.--
(1)  Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest.

Gee, he must have strained hard  to pass over such a high standard!
 
2013-05-17 11:41:50 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Now explain what part of Florida law prevented the Bush campaign from requesting a matching number of recounts in counties of their choosing, or the rest of the state.


That's how a banana republic conducts an election.
 
2013-05-17 11:49:51 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: And Florida Statute 102.168, giving Florida's judicial system the right to deal with contested elections was in existence long before Gore v Harris or Bush v Gore were ever filed..


Contesting an outcome in court is nothing new but that statute has to show that evidence of malfeasance first. There was no evidence of such presented. A close election is not malfeasance. The laws covering a recount are pretty clear in when and how a hand recount may be requested. A statewide hand recount required significant differences between two statewide mechanical recounts. Bush won both of those recounts. For a selective county to be recounted by hand the same criteria had to be applied. None of the counties Gore had asked to have a hand recount found any errors in the count and recount results. He was asking for the FL SC to skip over the fact that no errors were found in those counties and to do a hand recount anyway, and the FL SC complied.

(Insert guys with magnifying glasses and squinting at pieces of paper with dimples and hanging chads here)
 
2013-05-17 11:55:08 PM

GoldSpider: Vlad_the_Inaner: Now explain what part of Florida law prevented the Bush campaign from requesting a matching number of recounts in counties of their choosing, or the rest of the state.

That's how a banana republic conducts an election.


Not when they own the county's supreme court they don't.

btw, the usual way for banana republics is for El Supremo to be the sole candidate.

/or be President for Life
 
2013-05-18 12:02:56 AM

Radioactive Ass: Bush won both of those recounts


Already covered the standard for challenge by citing FL102.166(1).  If you know a different standard, cite the law.

And I also witnessed that Brevard County conducted zero recounts, either under the automaticly triggered one, nor the court ordered one.  Nor was Brevard alone.  So under what standard did Bush 'win' a legal recount?  All that happened was a procedural run-out-the-clock while Bush was 537  votes ahead
 
2013-05-18 12:03:22 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Gee, he must have strained hard to pass over such a high standard!


You forgot to include:

Vlad_the_Inaner: 102.166 Protest of election returns; procedure.--
(1) Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest.

Gee, he must have strained hard to pass over such a high standard!


I was talking about the contesting of results (which is not what your reference is discussing) 102.168:

(3)  The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:

(a)  Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

(b)  Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.

(c)  Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

(d)  Proof that any elector, election official, or canvassing board member was given or offered a bribe or reward in money, property, or any other thing of value for the purpose of procuring the successful candidate's nomination or election or determining the result on any question submitted by referendum.

(e)  Any other cause or allegation which, if sustained, would show that a person other than the successful candidate was the person duly nominated or elected to the office in question or that the outcome of the election on a question submitted by referendum was contrary to the result declared by the canvassing board or election board.

 Gore met none of those criteria. C is the closest one to what Gore was saying at the time and the mechanical counts refuted his assertions.
 
2013-05-18 12:10:32 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Radioactive Ass: Bush won both of those recounts

Already covered the standard for challenge by citing FL102.166(1).  If you know a different standard, cite the law.

And I also witnessed that Brevard County conducted zero recounts, either under the automaticly triggered one, nor the court ordered one.  Nor was Brevard alone.  So under what standard did Bush 'win' a legal recount?  All that happened was a procedural run-out-the-clock while Bush was 537  votes ahead


To be fair, recounting would mean counting again. No one in Brevard county can count no matter how many tries you give them
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report