Who wone Florida?

[Grammatron]

This is of course about the obvious event and I am restarting it because of the discussion on another thread with Sundog.

I will open with the link from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

 

[Nasarius]

It's a statistical tie. There's no way of telling if more people actually voted for Bush or Gore, because the percent error of the voting methods used is vastly higher than the tiny percentage of votes that determined the election. Anyone who has some experience in writing up scientific experiments will tell you it's laughable to make any conclusion based on such data.

Any sane system would have at least allowed for a second vote.

 

[Grammatron]

It's a statistical tie. There's no way of telling if more people actually voted for Bush or Gore, because the percent error of the voting methods used is vastly higher than the tiny percentage of votes that determined the election. Anyone who has some experience in writing up scientific experiments will tell you it's laughable to make any conclusion based on such data.

Any sane system would have at least allowed for a second vote.

I'm not familiar with election law, is there anything in it about allowing second votes in Federal elections?

 

[Number Six]

In other words, the margin of error was larger than the margin of victory. So it is impossible to say who truly won.

But it may be possible to say who would have been declared the winner if all the rules/procedures had been followed. Note that the person declared victor in such a case wouldn't necessarily be the person who won because again, the margin of error was larger than the margin of victory.

 

[gnome]

I believe if all those that had been entitled to vote were allowed to vote, the result would have been comfortably for Gore, and well outside the margin of error.

For those that scoff at the issue of thousands of voters being incorrectly disenfranchised because they appeared on an inadequate voter block list... could you identify why you feel this doesn't settle the question? Some options you could argue here:

A) It didn't happen. Only an insignificant percent, if any, were incorrectly denied the right to vote.

B) It happened, but if those unlawfully disenfranchised were allowed to vote, the results would likely not have been significantly different.

C) It happened, but other irregularities prevented Bush voters from voting in comparable numbers.

D) It happened, but the election was handled legally and mistakes such as these are just tough luck for whoever they happen to go against.

E) Any other argument I hadn't thought of...

Just once, could someone that wants to dismiss this issue settle on one of these and explain why this concern is groundless?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Bush won. Everyone who thinks he didn't needs to get over it.

 

[Cain]

the margin of error was larger than the margin of victory. So it is impossible to say who truly won.

Skeptic John Allen Paulos was quick to make this observation. Of course, I think Al Gore still won around 500,000 more votes in the popular election.

The 2000 election is still another compelling reason to abolish the anachronistic, undemocratic Electoral College. This is symptomatic of a deeper problem.

A general rant on voting and federal institutions: The House of Representatives has only 16 or so competitive seats because of political gerrymandering. The Senate is extremely undemocratic in that 40% of its members are elected by around 10% of the population. This means that small states with only House representative get to cast three electoral votes. In simple words that every minimally educated voter knows but does not seem to fully grasp: we do not directly elect the president. Again: we do not directly elect the president. Pure insanity! Speaking of antiquated institutions and traditions, add to all that nonsense the fact that we don't even have weekend voting. We vote on Tuesdays because long ago it took pious Christian farmers a day to get to the polls.

To say nothing about the corrupting influence of monied interests or the bipartisan election regulations passed by the ruling duopoly to marginalize third parties.

Oh, but the moment a person uses a word like "abolish" with regard to the sacred Electoral College, then, well, we clearly have a lunatic Marxist on our hands.

Invariably hamhanded appeals to the unerring "Founders" are brought in to smother meaningful criticism.

And, unfortunately, there are people simple enough to believe that the Constitution contains not only timeless, universal moral principles, but their perfect, deriviative governing institutions as well. It's not at all document borne out of political compromise. In fact the so-called "Great Compromise" -- it never happened! Conspiracy theorists made it up. And though the Founders were slightly misguided when it came to counting Africans as 3/5 of a person -- that rule, too, was probably based on high-minded, philosophical principle. Hell, why are we even allowed to directly vote for our Senators? If the Founders weren't saluting Ronald Reagan right now, they'd be rolling over in their graves.

 

[corplinx]

I believe if all those that had been entitled to vote were allowed to vote, the result would have been comfortably for Gore, and well outside the margin of error.

I keep seeing this claim but I have yet to see proof that in more than a few reported cases, people on these lists incorrectly turned out to vote. Can you prove that a significant enough number of these people actually showed up to vote and were rejected?

Ball's in your court.

 

[demon]

Hey, they`re at it again. Iraqis, listen up...this is how you do elections to get who you want to win

Florida elections division chief quits amid controvery on voter rolls
By Bob Mahlburg
Tallahassee Bureau
Posted June 8 2004

TALLAHASSEE · The head of Florida's elections division resigned Monday amid reports he was feeling political heat over a push to purge thousands of suspected felons from the state's voter rolls.

Ed Kast, who has worked for the state elections division for more than a decade, said only that he was resigning to "pursue other opportunities."

But Kast has told a handful of associates that he was uncomfortable with growing pressure to trim felons from voter rolls in time for the fall election, friends say.

"I've known him for 20 years, and I believe he has acted because under the circumstances it's the only thing he could do," said Leon County Election Supervisor Ion Sancho, past president of the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections.

"Ed had made a number of comments that the nature and timing of this felons list was not something he was responsible for. I think he felt in good conscience he could no longer be involved in the operations."

Hours earlier, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson joined a lawsuit to force state election officials to reveal the names of 47,000 suspected felons who could be dropped from voting lists, saying he wanted to be sure mistakes in 2000 are not repeated.

"This year, Ohio and Florida are looked upon as the two states that could decide the presidential election and we just can't go through this again," the Florida Democrat said.

In the 2000 election, which President Bush won after taking Florida by 537 votes over Al Gore, there were accusations that thousands were wrongly disenfranchised when the state purged the voter roles of suspected felons.

Even a former state Republican Party executive called Kast's resignation "very strange."

"The timing is very suspicious," said Geoffrey Becker, now a GOP consultant. "I know there's a lot of concern about getting out the message that voting is OK this time."

Kast's sudden resignation was the No. 1 topic for county election supervisors from around the state who gathered Monday in Key West for a five-day meeting, a conference where Kast is scheduled to appear.

Kast, 53, told The Associated Press he wasn't resigning because of any problems at the agency.

He said he simply wanted to pursue other interests after working at the Department of State since 1994.

"I just thought that this was the time to do it," Kast said. "I'm not getting any younger."

Secretary of State Glenda Hood, who accepted Kast's resignation, did not return messages.

Hood named Dawn Roberts, the agency's attorney and a former legislative election specialist, to replace Kast.

Groups who have criticized the felon purge efforts seized on the announcement within minutes.

"It's a sign of serious disarray and instability," said Sharon Lettman, state director for People For the American Way Foundation.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/lo...8jun08,0,2424064.story?coll=sfla-news-florida

 

[gnome]

Bush won. Everyone who thinks he didn't needs to get over it.

Ok so your argument over why to dismiss the voter block list concerns is:

E) Get over it.

All right, noted.

 

[gnome]

I keep seeing this claim but I have yet to see proof that in more than a few reported cases, people on these lists incorrectly turned out to vote. Can you prove that a significant enough number of these people actually showed up to vote and were rejected?

Ball's in your court.

Prove? Probably not, if nobody kept records of whom was turned away, all there would be was anecdotal evidence.

Would you be able to draw a conclusion based on voter turnout rates among the primarily affected demographic?

 

[rikzilla]

So Demon,

Does this mean you are in favor of restoring full voting rights for convicted felons?

I read somewhere that 4 news organizations sponsored a full after-the-fact recount in Florida using as many different counting criteria as they could. In ALL recounts, pregnant chad, insane scribblings, and all....Bush won every count.

Gnome,

If this "disenfranchisement" of voters really happened I'd like details. If the purging of felons from the voter rolls is what you are talking about, then what's the problem? Felons by law don't have the same rights as other citizens. If your argument is that the felon purges were done incorrectly, then I'll have to settle for option "D".

As I remember, a great deal of absentee ballots were disallowed because of improper postmark. Since most of these were military voters I'd say that inadvertent disenfranchisement of a certain small percentage of voters goes on all the time. The only reason we see it loom so large in 2000 is because of the amazingly close race for the highest office in the land. (In retrospect even more important as the 2000-2004 Presidential term covered a pivotal period of world history.) I see no nefarious conspiracy.

-z

 

[gnome]

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

The state of Florida’s statutorily mandated purge list, compiled by a private firm, was provided to county supervisors of elections with names that were inexact matches. The data provided demonstrated that this list had at least a 14.1 percent error rate.

US Commission on Civil Rights, Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election

In May 2000, DBT discovered that approximately 8,000 names were erroneously placed on the exclusion list.

Ibid.

How many of those would have had to turn out to vote, in order to affect the outcome?

Compare that to known voter turnout rates and you have your answer.

 

[Snide]

Gnome,

If this "disenfranchisement" of voters really happened I'd like details. If the purging of felons from the voter rolls is what you are talking about, then what's the problem? Felons by law don't have the same rights as other citizens. If your argument is that the felon purges were done incorrectly, then I'll have to settle for option "D".

Correct me if I am wrong, but the problem was in regard to "suspected felons."

I go with option D, as did the candidate I voted for, Al Gore.

 

[fishbob]

From the article:

In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes.

I suggest that we throw out all Florida votes next time. Problem solved.

 

[gnome]

If this "disenfranchisement" of voters really happened I'd like details. If the purging of felons from the voter rolls is what you are talking about, then what's the problem? Felons by law don't have the same rights as other citizens. If your argument is that the felon purges were done incorrectly, then I'll have to settle for option "D".

As I remember, a great deal of absentee ballots were disallowed because of improper postmark. Since most of these were military voters I'd say that inadvertent disenfranchisement of a certain small percentage of voters goes on all the time. The only reason we see it loom so large in 2000 is because of the amazingly close race for the highest office in the land. (In retrospect even more important as the 2000-2004 Presidential term covered a pivotal period of world history.) I see no nefarious conspiracy.
-z

See above for information about the problem and some of the numbers involved. I don't believe the problem with absentee ballots reached the level of the voter purge problem, by the numbers. I welcome details on that matter.

And yes, my argument is not about people that truly were felons and under the law had no right to vote. My problem is with the 8,000 voters that had every right to vote, but were on the list anyway.

So your choice is "D" on that one...?

So far we have one vote for "Get over it", and two for "tough luck, it happens."

Just keeping track so far.

 

[rikzilla]

See above for information about the problem and some of the numbers involved. I don't believe the problem with absentee ballots reached the level of the voter purge problem, by the numbers. I welcome details on that matter.

And yes, my argument is not about people that truly were felons and under the law had no right to vote. My problem is with the 8,000 voters that had every right to vote, but were on the list anyway.

So your choice is "D" on that one...?

So far we have one vote for "Get over it", and two for "tough luck, it happens."

Just keeping track so far.

Just a question....but are you suggesting that the 8,000 "incorrect felons" were all Gore supporters?

I guess you are, just as my post seemed to suggest that the military absentee voters were Bush supporters.....but this is not necessarily so either, is it?

Funny, now I have this picture in my head of:
Felon = Gore supporter
Servicemember = Bush supporter

Personally I'd rather that citizens serving their country be allowed more political sway than parasitical felons...but that's just me.
-z

 

[gnome]

Just a question....but are you suggesting that the 8,000 "incorrect felons" were all Gore supporters?

All? No. But the vast majority of them were black, and the vast majority of blacks voted for Gore. Is it enough to make a federal case to reverse the election? No. But it is enough to draw a conclusion, I believe.

I guess you are, just as my post seemed to suggest that the military absentee voters were Bush supporters.....but this is not necessarily so either, is it?

Not necessarily, and not universally... but I would even stipulate that most of the absentee ballots would have been Bush votes. How many are we talking about?

Funny, now I have this picture in my head of:
Felon = Gore supporter
Servicemember = Bush supporter

Personally I'd rather that citizens serving their country be allowed more political sway than parasitical felons...but that's just me.

I really have to razz you on this one. Even after clarifying you lump the incorrectly purged voters as "Felons" when it was clearly stated that their name appeared on the list erroneously.



We were having a reasonable conversation until you pulled this... why was it necessary?

But back on track... I would really like to compare the size of the problem. The only reason I harp on the voter purge list is the magnitude. I am fully aware that nothing will be perfect.

 

[Upchurch]

It's been a while since I've heard election conspiracy theory, but if I remember correctly, the theory goes that the cases of people who were incorrectly designated as "felons" occurred in disproportionatly higher numbers in those Florida counties (and other states, I believe) that predominately favored the Democratic party.

I'm not claiming that its true, that's just my understanding of the theory.

 

[wjousts]

The 2000 election is still another compelling reason to abolish the anachronistic, undemocratic Electoral College. This is symptomatic of a deeper problem.

I agree with just about everything you say about the electoral college and the senate. I'd also add the the electoral college also puts all the focus on a handful of "battleground" states which puts the wishes of anybody in a solidly blue or red state on the back burner. It doesn't make sense for Bush or Kerry to try and reach out to Texas voters because that state (the second largest in the country) is going firmly for Bush. That means the issues of Texas voters are being completely ignored.
The trouble with the direct election is that if a direct election ended with a margin of a few hundred votes in would result in a NATIONWIDE recount. That would be a major headache.