Who wone Florida?

[wjousts]

I do not see cost as a major issue, nor the possibility of a second nation-wide vote as a compelling factor. (Recounts, I would think, are confined only to where suspicious voting occured.) Who cares if it's expensive? It's difficult to imagine a process more important than free and fair elections.

I guess the point here would be that it's going to be cheaper to maintain the peoples faith in the electoral system than it would ever be to restore it. Another Florida fiasco this time around could case a serious loss of faith that will be extremely difficult to fix.

 

[Nova Land]

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."

You are making the same mistake on this subject which rikzilla did in the Stern Bush-Whacked thread 3 months ago. He also (incorrectly) believed the media recount had shown that Bush would have won the recount, in his case based on a PBS news story.

The reason for your (and rik's) error is simple. The media consortium began it's work in early 2001. The task they had undertaken took a long time to complete, and so their findings were released over the course of many months, beginning in May and continuing through until November. You (and rik) both linked to the earliest news reports of the findings. You should have followed the story through.

I pointed that out to rik in that previous thread, and gave a quick summary (using online sources) of what the later newspaper stories said. Since then I was able to go to a library and make copies of many of the relevant newspaper stories, which I will be glad to dig out and quote from later tonight. (My room is a total mess at the moment.)

The first stories (which came out the first week of May, 2001) concerned the undervotes -- ballots where the vote did not fully register, such as where the chad was hanging or dimpled. While many of these stories were headlined to the effect that Bush had won, the actual story was a bit different.

Essentially, the preliminary finding was that Bush would have won if the recount had been limited to only a few counties and Gore would have won if there had been a full statewide recount. (The consortium looked at a variety of counting standards, from very loose, where ballots were counted even if they were only dimpled, to very strict, where ballots were only counted if the chad was actually detached. Ironically, the looser standards favored Bush; it was by the stricter standards that Gore came out the winner.)

However, the story did not end there. By November the consortium had completed its recount, and what turned out to be especially important were the overvotes. These are ballots on which a voter has made more than one indication of their choice. While many overvotes are invalid (for instance, if one were to check off both Bush and Buchanan) this is not always the case.

A common error was to check off Gore or Bush (in the check-box section) and then to write in Gore or Bush (in the write-in section) By Florida law that is a perfectly valid vote.

There were many Gore voters and Bush voters who did just that (possibly because that is actually what the ballot instructions, read literally, said to do). The recount found that the number of additional votes Gore picked up when these votes were counted made consideration of the undervotes irrelevant. Regardless of whether the recount had been done in a few counties or statewide, regardless of the standard used for counting the undervotes, Gore won.

I am puzzled that both you and rik made the same mistake, reading only the first news report and failing to read (or to check for) later reports. That seems like one of the first things a skeptic should do regarding a matter they are interested in or concerned about.

But I am happy to again provide this correction, as there are apparently many others out there who share your misimpression of what the recount findings were. The way the story was spun, many people came away, as you two did, with the impression that Bush had won the recount. The media did a poor job of reporting this story, and people who didn't read carefully got fooled. It's a good reminder of the importance of reading the details, not just the headlines and summaries.

 

[Nova Land]

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.

This illustrates the value of looking things up rather than relying on memory.

There was indeed a media consortium that did a full after-the-fact recount. Their preliminary finding, in May 2001, was that under certain conditions (mainly, that the recount be limited to only 4 counties) Bush would have won and that under other conditions (mainly, that there be a full statewide recount) Gore would have won. The final tally (reported in November 2001) showed Gore would have won regardless of which standard was used to count undervotes.

Perhaps the story you remembeer reading is the PBS story you cited 3 months ago. I pointed out at the time that you were relying only on the first report of how the recount was going and apparently had missed the rest of the stories that followed. I am sorry to see that the inaccurate first report is still what sticks in your memory.

Oh, well. My memory isn't perfect, either. That's why libraries are so great.

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Who wone Florida?

You are making the same mistake on this subject which rikzilla did in the Stern Bush-Whacked thread 3 months ago. He also (incorrectly) believed the media recount had shown that Bush would have won the recount, in his case based on a PBS news story.

The reason for your (and rik's) error is simple. The media consortium began it's work in early 2001. The task they had undertaken took a long time to complete, and so their findings were released over the course of many months, beginning in May and continuing through until November. You (and rik) both linked to the earliest news reports of the findings. You should have followed the story through.

I pointed that out to rik in that previous thread, and gave a quick summary (using online sources) of what the later newspaper stories said. Since then I was able to go to a library and make copies of many of the relevant newspaper stories, which I will be glad to dig out and quote from later tonight. (My room is a total mess at the moment.)

The first stories (which came out the first week of May, 2001) concerned the undervotes -- ballots where the vote did not fully register, such as where the chad was hanging or dimpled. While many of these stories were headlined to the effect that Bush had won, the actual story was a bit different.

Essentially, the preliminary finding was that Bush would have won if the recount had been limited to only a few counties and Gore would have won if there had been a full statewide recount. (The consortium looked at a variety of counting standards, from very loose, where ballots were counted even if they were only dimpled, to very strict, where ballots were only counted if the chad was actually detached. Ironically, the looser standards favored Bush; it was by the stricter standards that Gore came out the winner.)

However, the story did not end there. By November the consortium had completed its recount, and what turned out to be especially important were the overvotes. These are ballots on which a voter has made more than one indication of their choice. While many overvotes are invalid (for instance, if one were to check off both Bush and Buchanan) this is not always the case.

A common error was to check off Gore or Bush (in the check-box section) and then to write in Gore or Bush (in the write-in section) By Florida law that is a perfectly valid vote.

There were many Gore voters and Bush voters who did just that (possibly because that is actually what the ballot instructions, read literally, said to do). The recount found that the number of additional votes Gore picked up when these votes were counted made consideration of the undervotes irrelevant. Regardless of whether the recount had been done in a few counties or statewide, regardless of the standard used for counting the undervotes, Gore won.

I am puzzled that both you and rik made the same mistake, reading only the first news report and failing to read (or to check for) later reports. That seems like one of the first things a skeptic should do regarding a matter they are interested in or concerned about.

But I am happy to again provide this correction, as there are apparently many others out there who share your misimpression of what the recount findings were. The way the story was spun, many people came away, as you two did, with the impression that Bush had won the recount. The media did a poor job of reporting this story, and people who didn't read carefully got fooled. It's a good reminder of the importance of reading the details, not just the headlines and summaries.

Ok...how about this November article from LA times entitled "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds."
http://www.latimes.com/la-111201recount.story

True, there are plenty of "however" in the article and it the senior VP of NORC(who conducted the study) does say, "One could never know from this study alone who won the election." So in essence it keeps going back to what Nasarius said, "It's a statistical tie."

 

[aerocontrols]

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

How about an estimated 5000 illegal votes (the majority of which went to Gore) that were cast but should not have been counted?

If Bush and Gore both lose those votes, then Gore's count goes down by 2000... and Bush wins.

 

[Jocko]

How about an estimated 5000 illegal votes (the majority of which went to Gore) that were cast but should not have been counted?

If Bush and Gore both lose those votes, then Gore's count goes down by 2000... and Bush wins.

Almost 4 years later and still this "Bush stole the election" nonsense finds an audience in some true believers. Can anyone give me an idea of how long it took western civilization to accept that the earth really is round? I'd love to know how much longer this crap is going to continue.

 

[bignickel]

How about an estimated 5000 illegal votes (the majority of which went to Gore) that were cast but should not have been counted?
.

"A Miami Herald study, which extrapolated a 12-county sample review to the entire state..."


You're kidding, right?

 

[Jocko]

"A Miami Herald study, which extrapolated a 12-county sample review to the entire state..."


You're kidding, right?

Obviously you've never been to Florida.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Re: Re: Who wone Florida?

Essentially, the preliminary finding was that Bush would have won if the recount had been limited to only a few counties and Gore would have won if there had been a full statewide recount.

But of course, a statewide recount could only occur if one had been requested by Gore as part of the challenge process. He chose to challenge in only a few counties, thinking that he had a better tactical chance of picking up needed votes in those few counties.

He was wrong.

But that does not change the fact that no statewide recount could have occurred under the election laws in place unless Gore had requested it.

N/A

And this is my last post on this 4 year old topic.

 

[Skeptic]

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. 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!

America is a union of many states. The point of giving the smaller states more power in elections is to make sure that they will not be swamped by the larger states. Same thing with Congress: the Senate gives every state two votes, while the House is elected by population.

If the president was directly elected, then the smaller states would become insignificant, to the detriment of the union. As it is, the president and the challanger cannot afford to simply ignore the smaller states and concentrate on New York, California, and Texas... thank God.

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

Trust me on this one: thank your lucky stars every day that third parties ARE marginalized. History shows very well that once you have many parties, splintering and factioning often makes government impossible.

It is no coincidence that the most stable and prosperous democracies in the world have (in effect) two-party systems.

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.

In fact, it was. It was a rule whose purpose, contrary to appearances, was to limit the power of the slave state who had a large black population. In effect it said, "you don't want to let blacks have rights? Fine... but in that case, you can't cheat and claim them as citizens for the purposes of deciding how many representatives you have in Congress."

It had nothing to do with evaluating what someone is "worth". The slave-holding states would have loved to have every black person count as much as a white person (or as 20 white people, for that matter) for the purposes of the number of representatives they get in the house; that would have greatly increased their power. That hardly means they thought black people were equal to whites.

Hell, why are we even allowed to directly vote for our Senators?

Because the constitution was amended to allow that.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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

E) Get over it.

All right, noted.

OK, I pick A, B, C & D. But Bush is still president. Get over it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Almost 4 years later and still this "Bush stole the election" nonsense finds an audience in some true believers. Can anyone give me an idea of how long it took western civilization to accept that the earth really is round? I'd love to know how much longer this crap is going to continue.

First we have to figure out what happened in 1960. There are rumors that Daley stole Illinois for Kennedy. I think we need to retroactively hand the victory to Nixon and relive the last 44 years.

 

[Nasarius]

OK, I pick A, B, C & D. But Bush is still president. Get over it.

"Get over" what, exactly? If you don't think this an issue worth discussing, you have no obligation to read this thread.

 

[Jocko]

First we have to figure out what happened in 1960. There are rumors that Daley stole Illinois for Kennedy. I think we need to retroactively hand the victory to Nixon and relive the last 44 years.

Rumors nothing, it's a known fact in Chicago (where I was raised and lived until very recently).

We got over it. In fact, we got over it in about 20 minutes.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Rumors nothing, it's a known fact in Chicago (where I was raised and lived until very recently).

We got over it. In fact, we got over it in about 20 minutes.

I wish other could be as quick.

 

[Tricky]

Almost 4 years later and still this "Bush stole the election" nonsense finds an audience in some true believers. Can anyone give me an idea of how long it took western civilization to accept that the earth really is round? I'd love to know how much longer this crap is going to continue.

It's not nonsense. There is evidence for it. There is evidence against it. Who actually had more legal votes is questionable. The real truth is that the vote was within the margin of error. The Supreme Court took unprecedented legal action to declare Bush the winner. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. Bush is our legal president. Though I don't like Bush, I am not whining. Neither is Al Gore.

Still, we should try to take steps to prevent such "questionable" things from happening again, wouldn't you say?

 

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Jocko
Obviously you've never been to Florida.

Aw, I can't fool you.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2765&perpage=40&pagenumber=15

 

[gnome]

OK, I pick A, B, C & D. But Bush is still president. Get over it.

Even better.

A. It didn't happen... and
B. It happened...

Good one.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Even better.

A. It didn't happen... and
B. It happened...

Good one.

Pretty much.

 

[gnome]

How about an estimated 5000 illegal votes (the majority of which went to Gore) that were cast but should not have been counted?

If Bush and Gore both lose those votes, then Gore's count goes down by 2000... and Bush wins.

If this is accurate, I agree it is of a magnitude to cancel the errors in the other direction. But I would be much happier if the 4 million we spent coming up with the list had yielded a reliable list.