President Bush, October 2002
- Thread starter Care4all
- Start date
I know what I read a few years back and I know what you are reading now on the net about it, and they are NOT, one and the same Damo....so, let me see if I can do some sleuthing and find the article I read about it and see who actually is rewriting history here....?
They weren't. However if you use this type of psychic determination they should be... If somebody dimpled for one then realized they were on the wrong area then voted for another it would be an overvote... Because from what you all state dimples can only be caused by somebody attempting to vote but they can't because the thing was full!Care4all said:
Anyway, what I am stating is that BOTH dimples and overvotes are psychic determination of voting by guessing and assumption. You assume that there is no other reason a Dimple can be cast other than the bin being full, you assume that overvotes were for the candidate that you want... Both are psychic determination and would not be admissable as a real determination of voting.
I read the overvote studies, the number of overvotes that were "counted" for Gore were votes cast for two candidates, some of which were for both Bush and Gore... It is simply guessing to determine that votes were for Gore and that only Rs can stack ballots, especially in heavily Democrat counties where most of the poll workers were Democrats...
Overvotes weren't simply the ones that were punched for gore, and someone also wrote gore in the write-in spot.
Examples of overvotes, where the intent of the voter is clear:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/111201/Lostvotes/Without_overvotes_Gor.shtml
St. Petersburg Times
"Gore could have picked up 2,182 votes last November on overvotes where voter intent is clear, and Bush would have gained 1,309 votes, the media companies' analysis shows."
Examples of overvotes, where the intent of the voter is clear:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/111201/Lostvotes/Without_overvotes_Gor.shtml
St. Petersburg Times
"Gore could have picked up 2,182 votes last November on overvotes where voter intent is clear, and Bush would have gained 1,309 votes, the media companies' analysis shows."
Go back and read the post where I put the numbers in the brackets next to the votes. I only posted a few of those... The number of overcast ballots that were "counted" for Gore in the study that I read were ballots cast with two candidates punched. Counting those for Gore is psychic determination.Care4all said:
I read the overvote studies, the number of overvotes that were "counted" for Gore were votes cast for two candidates, some of which were for both Bush and Gore...
Look at the graphic examples I provided.
Overvotes were rejected because of extra markings.
For example, where somebody accidently marked the spot for bush, then realized their mistake and crossed it out in pen, and then marked the spot for Gore and circled it for emphasis.
The voter intent is clear, even though technically, the "voted" for both candidates.
The legal standard in flordia is "clear intent" of the voter -- not whether they made a techinical mistake.
Look at the graphic examples I provided.
Overvotes were rejected because of extra markings.
For example, where somebody accidently marked the spot for bush, then realized their mistake and crossed it out in pen, and then marked the spot for Gore and circled it for emphasis.
The voter intent is clear, even though technically, the "voted" for both candidates.
The legal standard in flordia is "clear intent" of the voter -- not whether they made a techinical mistake.
Florida has a new, broader definition of a "clear indication of a voter's choice," to be applied the next time a manual recount takes place.
Right: they refined the law. They didn't change it.
clear intent of the voter was always the standard - as it is in most other states.
Florida just updated it, to make it broader and more specific. the old law was too ambigious.
Right: they refined the law. They didn't change it.
clear intent of the voter was always the standard - as it is in most other states.
Florida just updated it, to make it broader and more specific. the old law was too ambigious.
Which was problematic. Hence they redefined things to make it very clear next time. Like I stated. I think he would have won if he had simply requested a statewide handcount rather than just those counties... There would have been less wiggle room for somebody if that was what he requested.Cypress said:
I do believe that vote-stacking can take place at the hands of Ds as well as of Rs and that the most likely culprits in heavily Democrat counties are not Rs as they would be mistrusted and watched....
Damocles said:
Right. Gore followed a flawed strategy in simply demanding a limited recount of undervotes.
When the state supreme court mandated a statewide recount, it is entirely within the realm of possiblity that a legal challenge would have ultimately inclued the overvotes.
In the final analysis, its not up to Gore or Bush to decide who gets to win the election, or set the standards. Its the american people's voice that should be respected - more people voted for Gore, if you include all legally cast votes (which wasn't done).
It wasn't just that. Had he requested it that way it would have been Bush looking all impudent and whiney if he had not wanted that recount to take place. Instead it had the appearance of weighting it in his direction and made him appear less then honest in his approach. Perception means things in politics. Had he lost regardless after a statewide recount he likely would have had overwhelming support in 2004 to run again...Cypress said:
So, even if Bush managed to pull it out (I think likely in a statewide as many of the heavily R places would probably have mucked around as I believe the heavily D places would, and probably did, for Gore...), likely we would be saying "President Gore" about now...
maineman
Banned
and tying it back to the beginning of the thread...is there any doubt that, under a Gore administration, America's response to 9/11 - assuming the AQ plot would have even succeeded - would have been infinitely more appropriate and would not have led us to the brink of the abyss the way the end of times neocon fundie assholes in the bush administration have?
klaatu
Fusionist
Care4all said:
Im not arguing for lies or manipulation.. Im just telling you that there is a difference.. this is why the President has gotten away with it.. because they used manipulation tactics ....
ANd yes the TRUTH ALWAYS... but if you believe we have been given the truth ALWAYS up until Bush.. then you are being very partisan and naive ....
and oh claravoyant one ... I did read the entire speech ....
