BS: Where's the unfair election?

Subject: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Old Guy
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:18 PM

What happened to the unfair election all the crybaby liberals were moaning about in advance?

Did those Republican Diebold machines suddenly turn Democratic?

What are you going to whine about now? You have to have something to whine about so get busy before you start looking satisfied.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:27 PM

Let me start. The fucking coffee where I work is the shits. Just thought I'd mention.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:31 PM

As I read the stuff it was largely worries that the new technology is open to fraud - regardless of who might be the beneficiary. Basically that should be recognised as more important than who actually wins in a particular election.

Even from a partisan point of view, there are people in all parties (and in all countries) who are quite ready and willing to steal elections if they can get away with it.

"Crybaby" - grow up Doug, that's baby talk. (Even aside from the fact that most of those "liberals" you keep going on about would be seen as conservatives in many countries, including the one I live in. Or at any rate, most of our conservatives would probably be criticised as liberals in your country.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:32 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: 282RA
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:35 PM

Not even a Diebold fraud could possibly stifle such an overwhelming outcry from the public. Maybe if it was more a half&half thing where a few votes could be weaseled here and there to determine an outcome. But you can't hide something like this. So voting machine fraud, even if it exists, is a non-issue. I know that must piss you off but the rest of us are enjoying it like a mutha.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Old Guy
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:41 PM

Well Well Well. I couldn't get a rise out of the Crybaby Liberals so here goes.

Sincere congratulations to the people that wanted the Dems to take over congress. The Republicans have been in control too long and they have gotten corrupted and lazy.

Here are a few of the things that I hope the Democrats can bring about:

Raise the minimum wage to $10 per hour for citizens and LEGAL immigrants.

Enforce Immigration laws, raise the quotas and speed up the legal immigration process.

Spend the money appropriated for the fence on legal immigration and enforcement.

Bust up Iraq in three parts instead of trying to get three ethnic groups that hate each other to "get along".

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: 282RA
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:46 PM

>>Enforce Immigration laws, raise the quotas and speed up the legal immigration process.

Spend the money appropriated for the fence on legal immigration and enforcement.

Bust up Iraq in three parts instead of trying to get three ethnic groups that hate each other to "get along".<<

The dems will likely not touch these issues. These are pub issues and they will likely leave it to the pubs to hammer something out. It keeps the fire under the pubs who cannot act like they don't care now and if it fails it leaves the dems in the clear since it was never their baby to begin with.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:48 PM

You left an important one out. Peg raises in the minimum wage to changes in congressional salaries.

Last night I was tallying votes at my local headquarters. A couple of the races went back and forth until the Democratic candidate finally pulled it out by 20 votes. They still have not counted the absentees.

We lost one county that had been previously Democratic. The demographics have changed there, though, to more military and law enforcement people.

On balance, I believe we had an honest election in NJ, much to my surprise. The digital machines gave us no problems, also much to my surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Old Guy
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:54 PM

So the Dems are wimping out already and leaving the heavy lifting to the Prerublicans?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 09:57 PM

Try playing this on you ukulele, Old Guy:

There may be a reason that we haven't heard much about voter fraud this time around. Move On and several other organizations have put a bounty on anyone caught trying to cobble the election.

HERE.

Damned good move, say I!!   

This, however, didn't stop the Republicans from "robo-calling" (automatic dialing with a taped messages) independent and undecided voters, and voters registered as Democrats, with a message urging them to vote for Democrat candidates in the middle of the night (like two or three o'clock in the morning) in an effort to make them so angry that they either wouldn't vote at all or would vote Republican. This was only one of a number of dirty tricks that have been reported.

I think there may be a lot of crybaby activity in the White House today.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 10:01 PM

"pub issues" - you mean the kind of stuff people talk about in boozers?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 10:03 PM

The thing is, no one can be certain that there was no concerted effort to defraud. It is possible that the sick-of-it and had-enough voters overwhelmed the machinery.

Once trust is lost it is difficult to get it back.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Old Guy
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 10:17 PM

They might be cryin the blues in the White House but not at my house.

It feels like a breath of fresh air to me.

But now I want the Dems to fix everything like they said they would.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 10:18 PM

Me, too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 10:35 PM

Me three.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 10:35 PM

Want some cheese with that whine, Old Guy? Are you uncomfortable when the shoe is on the other foot? Did you decide that snatching defeat from the mouth of victory is the way to distract folks from your previous churlish behavior in political discussions? Does it upset you that on this wonderful day Democrats on the list had better things to do than argue with you?

Poor baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 10:41 PM

Old--


Well, let's see:

"Bust up Iraq"--a thoroughly stupid idea for several reasons:

1) It will happen without any assistance from us. It's not our place to try to micromanage anything that sensitive--and our attempt to do so will only confirm various factions' convictions that "the Crusaders" are continuing to exploit the situation.

2 As I've said more than once, "Kurdistan" is already de facto independent--and the Kurds never wanted to be part of "Iraq".

3) Without provision for oil revenue for the Sunnis--more than accrues to "their" part of Iraq--this is a wonderful recipe for full-blown civil war --- (you ain't seen nothin' yet).



Build the fence between Mexico and the US--stupid idea #2

How about saving that money ($700 million?) for something worthwhile--like virtually anything else?




$10 minimum wage--Please, Old, be sure to ask all your Republican Senators and Congressmen to do this---and report back to us what they told you---i.e. just what polite language they used to tell you to stuff it.

Good to see your incisive political analysis and strategy is as perceptive as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 10:43 PM

Starting this thread was, in and of itself, a whine. Who's the crybaby now?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Old Guy
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 10:43 PM

Hunh?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 10:51 PM

Old--


Yeah, "Hunh?"--that perfectly encapsulates your intellectual level. Well put.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: 282RA
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 12:25 AM

As I recall, Old Guy laughed at everybody in here some time ago about something like this happening. I recall him saying something like, "Show me first then you can laugh about it." So...

Ha-ha.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 12:27 AM

Just listen to the unamerican whine of these old guy cry babies.

I think the da ol guy needs a widdle urp towel.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 01:16 AM

I hope y'all saw, read and internalized this remark from Old Guy:

"Sincere congratulations to the people that wanted the Dems to take over congress. The Republicans have been in control too long and they have gotten corrupted and lazy."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: kendall
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 08:09 AM

700 million for a fence? Who's building it, Halliburton? Will it be as effective as the Berlin wall?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: kendall
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 08:18 AM

As far as the fair election goes, maybe all those poll watchers with video cameras scared the manipulators off.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 08:37 AM

First of all, I agree 100% with Ebbie... I said all along that the Dems would have to overwhelm the Repubs to overcome the vote counters and that is what has occured...

Secondly, Old Guy, why would the Dems, having been smart enough to beat yer guy, all of a sudden become so stupid that they would allow the minority party to set the legislative agenda??? I mean, lets get real here... The Repubs have controlled the converstaion for 12 years and now it's going to be a different conversation going on and one can bet that flag burnin', gay marriage, abortion, etc. aren't goin' to be center stage under the Dems...

But, Oldie, if you have some pet issue that you'd like the Congress to be addressin' feel free to write your Congressman or woman and voice yer opinions like progressives and Dems have done for the last 12 years... And, BTW, you *will* get a "thank you for yer concern" letter back but that's about it... Ask us how we know...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: GUEST,Mn Matriot
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 08:58 AM

Hey Bobert, looks like you are feeling quite cozy, back in the safely Democratic fold.

What happened to all that "Yeah, I'm a Green" stuff you were spouting when you first came to Mudcat?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 03:51 PM

So, do you think it is really possible that in two years time there might be in the USA a quite normal change of presidency like in other democratic (or republican, if you prefer) countries around the world and that the New World Order and the Neocons we have been warned about four the last 6 years here in many threads are just voted out of power by majority vote? And the comparisons of the USA to the Germany of the 1930s will we not hear them any longer?

Wolfgang (sharing often a part of the worries but laughing about those who start believing their own propaganda)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Old Guy
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 10:58 PM

"Old Guy laughed at everybody in here some time ago about something like this happening"

Where?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Old Guy
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 11:22 PM

Bobert:

Did you say the election was going to be crooked or did you mereley allude to it being crooked without saying that you believe it will be crooked?

Was it or wasn't it? And did you believe it would be crooked?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 11:28 PM

From what I read now, no money was actually appropriated for the US-Mexico fence. It was only a desperate attempt by the Bushites to curry favor with the giant intellects who have deluded themselves into thinking a fence would do some good.

And even that gambit didn't work--the standard-bearers of such drivel got mostly wiped out in the US voting public's recent attack of good sense.

And the issue split the Republicans but good--which makes it a prime issue for 2008--if the Democrats are smart enough to realize they should push for a path to citizenship for all illegals--without their leaving the US. It's the rare conjunction of good policy and good politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: fumblefingers
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 12:53 AM

So what happened? I don't see any reports of voter fraud and mishaps with the electronic voting machines? No hanging chads. No black helicopters or suspicious looking green sedans frightening away voters…. Where was Karl Rove? How could all the jackbooted Republican operatives who stole the last two elections have let this happen? And why aren't they reporting on it? I smell a conspiracy.

I guess the only elections that are rigged are the ones the Democrats lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 01:15 AM

You got it. In a nutshell.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 08:26 AM

This is a bit like the stuff you get about how the worries about "the Millennium Bug" must necessarily have been nonsense because the worst predictions didn't happen. Ignoring the possibility that the precautions against them happening might have actually had some effect.
...................................

The memory of the 2000 election, and the way that the count in Florida was disrupted by a partisan mob intent on preventing a recount that threatened the result they wished to see, has inevitably left a very nasty taste in a lot of people's mouths.

If something similar happened in England or in Germany in a way that undermined people's trust in the electoral process I think it would leave people feeling similarly distrustful and suspicious for a longtime.

The worrying thing is the way that concerns about electoral procedures being open to possible fraud, and attacks on these concerns as well, seem to be expressed so often in purely partisan terms. Any society where most people do actually see partisan differences as the most important issue when it comes to these kind of issues is in serious trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 08:55 AM

We've got our own problems in the UK. Postal voting is wide open to abuse, and it is abused. It's suspected that that's one of the reasons the Dear Leader is so fond of it. And they want to extend it to internet voting....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 09:13 AM

McGrath has nailed it. Apparently some folks who were concerned about election problems actually DID something about it, just like back about 10 years ago thousands of programmers spent hundreds of thousands of hours (and millions of dollars) inspecting and reworking millions of lines of code so that the bad things wouldn't happen, only to be greeted with "Nu, so what was the big deal?" No doubt there were irregularities in this election; there always will be. But it's just as indubitable that the 2000 election (at least) was stolen. So some folks have decided that won't happen again. Doesn't mean it didn't happen then.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 09:35 AM

True enough about the potential abuses in the UK system as untried changes come in. But I don't think people here square up on party lines when it comes to whether they are for or against those kind of changes. (Or when it comes to thinking Tony Blair is a pillock either! - but that's a different matter.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 06:07 PM

The intended election theft (why was Karl rove so confident?) was thwarted by a massive turnout and a Dem landslide. It was just too close to quietly steal. But they tried...

18000 voters in Sarasota did show up and vote, but inexplicably did not cast a vote for Senator. Hmmmmmmm......

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/15965769.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 06:24 PM

Here's a link to that story

Very interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 10 Nov 06 - 06:42 PM

7500 lawyers on call to go directly to poll locations at a phone calls notice by Howard Deans commitee also put out many matches before they became fires was another orginized way that kept fraud, misuse & abuse down to a bare minimum, too.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: fumblefingers
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 01:13 AM

The 2000 election wasn't stolen, but the Democrats did their best to make it happen. The first thing they did was to hire a public relations company in Texas two days before the election. Jesse Jackson was on the spot the day after the election claiming blacks had been disenfranchised. That lie has been proven conclusively to be so. The Democrats disqualified military absentee ballots on a technicality, effectively disenfranchising the military. Gore wanted to "Count every vote" but only in three democrat controlled counties around Miami. The Democrats flew in a planeload of "volunteer vote counters" to get their experienced fingers on those chad ballots. The Forida Supreme Court, made up of almost all Democrats began revising election laws after the fact. It was their making law instead of interpreting it that put the matter in the hands of the US Supreme Court that put an end to their illegal activities. Every media group in the country recounted the votes, under the "Freedom of Information Act" and Bush still beat Gore. That didn't stop the Democrats from using the episode by ignoring the truth and chanting "stolen election" from then until now. The Democrat party has been Clintonized since then.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 02:31 PM

fumblefingers, where in hell do you find your revisionist recent history tidbits? In Cracker Jack boxes? Are you one of those hard-headed republicans who figure that if they state the lie often enough that people might begin to regard it as the truth?

Gore won. They should have recounted all of Florida, but Gore won.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: pdq
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 05:42 PM

Here is a 'blast from the past'. A Gore supporter and election worker says:


Subject: RE: BS: Fixing the voting machine problem in USA
From: The Pooka - PM
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 02:39 AM

Credential: I worked as a state Elections Officer (CT) for almost 30 years, before retiring recently.

1. LadyJean: absolutely right on, in every respect; & hurrah for you & all those like you, in all the states, who do the vital frontline gruntwork of democracy for little or no pay, no recognition for fine service, and public scorn when things go wrong through no fault of yours. / Especially good point about sillyarse write-ins. Oh, they're all very hilarious for those who only read the funny news stories about them with no notion of how much time & money it costs to compile them. In CT years ago I wrote, & by Golly we enacted, a law requiring Registration of write-in candidates. Very late pre-election filing deadline; only one signature required: the candidate' own. No Register, No Count. Damn good law. Yes, it's utterly constitutional. And no, Mickey Mouse has not yet Registered, to this very day. :)

2. McGrath: though I say he's wrong to *celebrate* it, DougR is correct about Florida: Bush did win it. Several exhaustive news media & other reviews of the ballots have confirmed this, by all plausible counting standards. The only way to find otherwise is to simply attribute the Palm Beach County "butterfly ballot" votes unambiguously marked for Pat Buchanan, to Al Gore instead. This is Jame's Carville's basis for saying, "Al Gore won the Intended Vote in Florida." Yes, that doubtless was most of those voters' intent. But you just can't DO that: take a plain clear ballot unspoiled & say, "Well, this voter didn't mean that. He couldn't have. He's probably Jewish. Therefore, he meant THIS." And no, the Butterfly Ballot was not a Bush conspiracy. (a) The Republicans aren't that smart; and (b) in any case the BB was designed by a pro-Gore Democrat county election official (and a very good one, too).

3. Alice: voter-roll purges occur, as they must, in all states & they always & everywhere disproportionately impact minorities & poor --- largely because the Minorities & the Poor relocate more often than do the Majorities & the Rich, and re-register or report address changes less often & less timely. And there is a differential in the rate of disfranchising felony convictions, too. & Yes, any & all such purges do incorporate an error-rate, too. That does not make them prima facia racist conspiracies by the Bushes. Also there are corrective procedures, right at the polls on election day, for such errors. // But, yeah --- to get the correction & to vote, you do have to go through the procedure. It isn't right or fair when the airline loses your luggage, either, & you have to fill out forms etc. -- but, it happens. Because the air travel system, like any other human system including our sacred elections, is forever imperfect. Sorry, but there it is.

(4) Re the Voter-Verifiable Paper Trail for the Touchscreen-type computer voting systems: Yes, given the vulnerability of the software & source codes etc., it's a very wise provision --- PROVIDED you are welling (a) to pay for it (Not Cheap, Kids), and (b) in very-close-vote situations, like Florida, to PATIENTLY WAIT A LONG LONG TIME, without bitching & moaning & making stupid jokes about the bureaucrats, for the labor-intensive by-hand Recount results. Which is, of course, the main POINT of a paper-ballot backup system.

There. (Hey, ain'tcha glad I'm Baaaaack? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 05:53 PM

The point really wasn't who actually got the most votes. It was that one side set out to stop the votes being checked properly because it was worried that, with a full count, it might turn out they hadn't won - and they succeeded in doing so.

Winning was seen as more important than carrying out the democratic process. And it is clear that that is still the way it is seen by an awful lot of people - and that is pretty appalling.

What makes it worse is, this didn't happen in some new inexperienced country which is learning how to do it and screwing up from time to time - it happened in the oldest and most experienced democracy, which also happens to be overwhelmingly the most powerful state on the planet. The one that should be setting an example to everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 06:20 PM

Hey, ain'tcha glad I'm Baaaaack?

No. It was crap then, and its crap now.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 06:23 PM

As Greg says, it was wrong when it was first posted, and it's wrong now.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Old Guy
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 06:38 PM

"Yeah, "Hunh?"--that perfectly encapsulates your intellectual level. Well put."

If nasty quips, personal put downs and no facts to present is your idea of intellect, I am absolutely devoid of intellect and you Sir, are over endowed.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 06:47 PM

I am absolutely devoid of intellect

Congratulations are due to Fat Old Woody! That's perhaps the first and only truthful statement about himself- or anything else, for that matter- he's ever made on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Old Guy
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 06:55 PM

"Build the fence between Mexico and the US--stupid idea #2"

If you could cast your nastyness aside briefly you would see that I have always been against the fence.

I said "Spend the money appropriated for the fence on legal immigration and enforcement." Previously I have said the fence is unamerican.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 07:47 PM

A fence really sounded like a lame idea. If they had any style the proposal would have been to dig a canal along the border.

Not that it would have worked, any more than a fence would have - but it would have sounded a lot better, and if they ever got round to doing it, I imagine it'd be quite handy being able to go by boat from one ocean to the other without leaving the country.

Then they could go on to dig a canal along the Canadian border as well, and the USA would be the biggest island state in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 07:49 PM

Fill the canal with fish. It would be a great tourist attraction. China has The Great Wall. The US/Canada could have The Great Canal (filled with fish).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: pdq
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 08:25 PM

05/15/2001 - Updated 05:18 PM ET         


Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

By Dennis Cauchon


George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

The Florida Supreme Court ordered Dec. 8 that each of these ballots, which registered no presidential vote when run through counting machines, be examined by hand to determine whether a voter's intent could be discerned. On Dec. 9, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the hand count before it was completed. That gave Bush Florida's 25 electoral votes, one more than he needed to win the presidency.

USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties. The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots.

The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.

The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory. The vote totals vary depending on the standard used:

*        Lenient standard. 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. Palm Beach County election officials considered dimples as votes only if dimples also 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. 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. 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.


Because of the possibility of mistakes in the study, a three-vote margin is too small to conclude that Gore might have prevailed in an official count using this standard. But the overall results show that both campaigns had a misperception of what the ballots would show. The prevailing view of both was that minority or less-educated Democratic voters were more likely to undervote because of confusion.

Gore's main strategy throughout the post-election dispute was to secure a recount of any kind in the hope of reversing the certified result. Bush's strategy was to stop the recount while he was ahead. But his views on how recounts should be done, in the counties where they were underway, would have been potentially disastrous for him if used statewide.

Bush and Gore were informed Tuesday of the new study's results. Both declined comment. But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "The President believes, just as the American people do, that this election was settled months ago. The voters spoke, and George W. Bush won."

The newspapers' study took three months to complete and cost more than $500,000. It involved 27 accountants who examined and categorized ballots as they were held up by county election officials.

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.

Even so, the outcome shows a consistent and decisive pattern: the more lenient the standard, the better Bush does. Because Gore fought for the lenient standard, it may be more difficult now for Democrats to argue that the election was lost in the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court rather than the voting booths of Florida.

The study helps answer the question: What would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand count of undervotes?

However, it does not answer all the questions surrounding another set of Florida ballots: the 110,000 "overvotes," which machines recorded as having more than one presidential vote. These ballots were rejected by the machines and were considered invalid. Some Democrats say if all of Florida's overvote ballots were examined by hand to learn voters' intent, their candidate would have prevailed.

USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Gannett and Knight Ridder newspapers also are examining Florida's overvotes for a study to be published later this spring. Overvotes contain some valid votes, mostly instances when a voter marked the oval next to a candidate's name and then wrote in the name of the same candidate.

No candidate requested a hand count of overvotes, and no court — federal or state — ordered one. The U.S. Supreme Court cited the state court's failure to include the overvotes in its recount order as an example of arbitrariness.

Immediately after Gore conceded the election to Bush, The Miami Herald began to evaluate what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the recount of undervotes.

Florida is one of the few states that permit members of the public to examine ballots after they've been cast. The Miami Herald and the BDO Seidman accounting firm began examining ballots on Dec. 18. USA TODAY joined the project in January. The last undervote ballot was examined March 13.

Florida law requires that political parties be notified of ballot inspections. The Republican and Democratic parties took different approaches to the three months of ballot inspections.

The Democrats took a hands-off approach. They rarely showed up at election offices during the evaluation. "We want to see what you find. It's not our role to be at the table with you," Tony Welch, spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party, said during the newspapers' study. "If we're spinning and the Republicans are spinning, people won't believe the result."

He said at the time that the party expected the outcome would show that Gore received more votes than Bush.

By contrast, the Republicans attended every ballot inspection. They devoted hundreds of days of staff and volunteer time. The party delayed cutting its post-election staff of field directors from 12 to 6 so it could staff the ballot inspections. Some Republicans took meticulous notes on the contents of the ballots. Others just watched. The Republican Party of Florida published a daily internal memo called "Reality Check," which critiqued the media efforts to examine ballots.

In an interview before the results were released, Mark Wallace, a Republican lawyer assigned to critique the media inspections, said, "The media appear ready to offer unprecedented liberal standards for judging what is a vote. The appropriate legal standard is what was in place on Election Day: cleanly punched cards only."

Before this election, almost nothing was known by the public and by political parties about what types of marks appear on undervotes and overvotes, which make up about 2% of ballots cast nationally. The newspapers' study shows how both parties predicted incorrectly which of these ballots would help them.

Democrats and Republicans noted that voter errors on punch-card voting machines were most frequent in low-income and predominantly minority precincts. Because these voters tend to vote Democratic, the disputed votes were assumed to be a rich trove of support for Gore.

Likewise, both parties noted that the 41 Florida counties that used optical-scan ballots, a system similar to standardized school tests, tended to vote Republican.

Bush supporters attacked Gore for asking for hand counts in three Democratic-leaning counties. If any hand count occurred, it should include the Republican-leaning optical-scan counties, too, the Bush supporters said.

The USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows that the Democratic and Republican assumptions were largely wrong. The undervote ballots actually break down into two distinct categories:

*        Undervotes in punch-card counties. In the 22 punch-card counties in which BDO Seidman examined undervotes, 56% of the 35,761 ballots had some kind of mark on them.

The study found that punch-card undervotes correlated less to race or party affiliation than to machine maintenance and election management. Counties that maintain machines poorly — not cleaning out chads frequently, for example — have plentiful undervotes. The study shows that when undervotes are hand counted, they produce new votes for the candidates in proportions similar to the county's official vote.

For example, in Duval County, where Jacksonville is the county seat, Bush defeated Gore 58%-41%. Among the undervotes, Bush defeated Gore 60%-32% under the lenient standard and by similarly comfortable numbers under all standards. Bush picked up a net of 930 votes, including 602 dimples.

Likewise, in Miami-Dade, where Gore hoped to score big gains, he received 51% of the marked undervotes, about the same as the 52% that he got in the official count.

*        Undervotes in optical-scan counties. In the 37 optical-scan counties in which BDO Seidman examined undervotes, one third of 5,623 ballots had discernible votes.

The most common was when a voter made an X or check mark, rather than filling in the oval properly. Other common errors included circling the candidate's name or using a personal pencil or pen that couldn't be read by the machine. Black ink that contains even a trace of red will not register on many vote-counting machines, even when the mark appears pure black to the human eye.

The study shows that these errors were disproportionately common among Democratic voters. For example, in Orange County, home of Orlando, Gore edged Bush 50%-48% in the election. But Gore won the undervotes by 64%-33%, giving him a net gain of 137 votes. That accounted for half of the 261 votes Gore gained in optical-scan counties, which Bush won overall by 53%-44%.

The study found that optical-scan counties are the only places where Gore actually picked up more votes than Bush: 1,036 to 775 for Bush.

In the punch-card counties, where Gore had placed his hopes, his chances of winning a hand count were washed away. On dimples alone, Bush gained 1,188 votes. When all the possibilities are combined — dimples, hanging chads, clean punches — Bush outdid Gore by 8,302 to 6,559.

USA TODAY's analysis is based on accepting Bush's official 537-vote margin. This figure includes hand counts completed in Broward and Volusia counties before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened.

The newspaper also accepted hand counts completed in Palm Beach, Manatee, Escambia, Hamilton and Madison counties, plus 139 precincts in Miami-Dade.

These hand counts, which were never certified, reduced Bush's lead to 188 — the starting point for USA TODAY's analysis.

The newspaper excluded these counties from its analysis. However, BDO Seidman collected data in these counties, and they are available on USATODAY.com.

In the end, Florida's presidential election remains remarkably close by any standard: 2,912,790 to 2,912,253 in the official count.

In an election this close, the winner often depends on the rules and how they are enforced.

Contributing: Gannett News Service database editor Robert Benincasa

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 08:39 PM

This time its crap piled higher & deeper. Volume don't make it any more true.

Also, PeeDee, please re-read McGrath's of Harlow 05:53 PM post, below.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: GUEST,The Banjoest
Date: 11 Nov 06 - 09:13 PM

You may not know but all of us Native Americans just discussed this squabbling and we have decided to revoke your visas and work permits. Catch the next boat back to where ever you came from.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: GUEST,Old Fat Woody
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 12:51 AM

"No. It was crap then, and its crap now."

Greg Jong-ill really knows his shit and that's all he knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 10:32 AM

He's still in power why don't you get rid of him, I mean you lot ahd a change of doing that beforem and yet you still let Bush in why?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: skarpi
Date: 12 Nov 06 - 10:44 AM

Hello all, now all you have to do is to get rid of him Mr Bush
the most hated man inthe world I think , and all of his folks that work
with him at the white house , he have turned the most of the common people against the coverment of USA and yesterday when the US said no in the UN about Isreal .................... sorry you just dont kill
children and their mothers. I hope that new president and new people
is gonna see what he have done and the new people turn to a better
ways in the coming future.

GET MR BUSH OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE ASAP.

I dont hate him , I do think that what he is doing is wrong
and he has lost the battle so give new people change .

this is only my thinking .......





all the best Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the unfair election?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 06 - 09:16 AM

Scarpi mentions the US Veto at the weekend of that resolution condemning the shelling of civilians in Gaza, as well as the launching of missiles against Israel, on the grounds that it wasn't "even handed". Yes, that was pretty nauseating, as was the fact the the British abstained on it.

But I think it'd be pretty optimistic to think that the Democrats are going to be significantly less one-sided when it comes to anything to do with Israel and Palestine.