Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let the Sunshine In [John Lott debunks DNC's Fla. election 2000 lies ~ again]
National Review ^ | Dec. 10, 2003 | John R. Lott Jr.

Posted on 12/10/2003 9:56:19 AM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl

 

Let the Sunshine In
The same old myths live on about Florida, Nov. 2000.

By John R. Lott Jr.

Headlines this weekend recited the old line "Dems accuse Bush of stealing the 2000 election." Former U.S. Representative Carrie Meek received a wildly enthusiastic response from delegates to the Florida Democratic convention with calls that "We should be ready for revenge!" Retired General Wesley Clark told delegates he fought for democracy and free elections in Vietnam and Europe only to see "the taking" of the presidency by Republicans in 2000. Senator John Edwards said, "We had more votes; we won!" Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said: "None of us are going to forget." More vaguely, Senator Joe Lieberman claimed that Bush "stretched the truth" to get his way in 2000. Of course, Terry McAuliffe was beating the same old drum. They should all get over it.

The stolen election supposedly incorporated many wrongs, but foremost was discrimination against Democratic African-American voters: Faulty voting machines were said to have thrown out their votes at higher rates. Also included are claims that the voters' intent wasn't properly divined, that Republicans on the Supreme Court felt compelled to covertly snatch the election, and that African-Americans were intimidated into not voting or were erroneously placed on the ineligible list at higher rates than other racial groups.

These charges have been rebutted before, but with so much misinformation and people's short memories simply accepting the charges, many risk believing that they are true. There has also been new research — of which most people may not be aware — which helps replace myth with reality.

1. THE MYTH OF THE FLAWED VOTING MACHINES & DEMOCRATIC DISENFRANCHISEMENT

Suppose spoiled or non-voted ballots really did indicate disenfranchisement, rather than voter preferences. Then, according to the precinct-level vote data compiled by USA Today and other newspapers, the group most victimized in the Florida voting was African-American Republicans, and by a dramatic margin, too.

Earlier this year I published an article in the Journal of Legal Studies analyzing the USA Today data, and it shows that African-American Republicans who voted were 54 to 66 times more likely than the average African American to cast a non-voted ballot (either by not marking that race or voting for too many candidates). To put it another way: For every two additional black Republicans in the average precinct, there was one additional non-voted ballot. By comparison, it took an additional 125 African Americans (of any party affiliation) in the average precinct to produce the same result.

Some readers may be surprised that black Republicans even exist in Florida, but, in fact, there are 22,270 such registered voters — or about one for every 20 registered black Democrats. This is a large number when you consider that the election in the state was decided by fewer than 1,000 votes. Since these Republicans were more than 50 times more likely to suffer non-voted ballots than other African Americans, the reasonable conclusion is that George W. Bush was penalized more by the losses of African-American votes than Al Gore.

Democrats have also claimed that low-income voters suffered non-voted ballots disproportionately. Yet, the data decisively reject this conclusion. For example, the poorest voters, those in households making less than $15,000 a year, had non-voted ballots at less than one-fifteenth the rate of voters in families making over $500,000.

It is difficult to believe that wealthy people were more confused by the ballot than poor people. Perhaps the rich or black Republicans simply did not like the choices for president and so did not vote on that part of the ballot. Perhaps there was tampering, but it is difficult to see how it could have been carried out and covered up. We may never know, but, clearly, the figures show that income and race were only one-third as important in explaining non-voted ballots as the methods and machines used in voting. For example, setting up the names in a straight line appears to produce many fewer problems than listing names on different pages or in separate columns.

2. THE MYTH THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS WERE INCORRECTLY PLACED ON THE CONVICTED-FELONS LIST AT A HIGHER RATE THAN OTHER GROUPS

The evidence on convicted felons comes from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's Majority Report, which states: "The chance of being placed on this list [the exclusion list] in error is greater if the voter is African-American." The evidence they provide indicates that African-Americans had a greater share of successful appeals. However, since African-Americans also constituted an even greater share of the list to begin with, whites were actually the most likely to be erroneously on the list (a 9.9-percent error rate for whites versus only a 5.1-percent error rate for blacks). The rate for Hispanics (8.7 percent) is also higher than for blacks. The Commission's own table thus proves the opposite of what they claim. A greater percentage of whites and Hispanics who were placed on the disqualifying list were originally placed there in error.

In any case, this evidence has nothing to do with whether people were in the end improperly prevented from voting, and there are no data presented on that point. The Majority Report's evidence only examines those who successfully appealed and says nothing about how many of those who didn't appeal could have successfully done so.

3. THE MYTH THAT GORE WOULD HAVE WON IF RECOUNT HAD ONLY BEEN ALLOWED
There were two news consortiums conducting massive recounts of Florida's ballots. One group was headed by USA Today and the Miami Herald. The other one was headed by eight newsgroups including the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, and CNN. Surprisingly, the two groups came to very similar conclusions. To quote from the USA Today group's findings (May 11, 2001) on different recounts:

Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten the manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush.

Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards.

Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used.

Of course, Florida law provided no mechanism to ask for a statewide recount a la the last option, only county-by-county recounts. And of course neither Gore's campaign nor the Florida Supreme Court ever asked for such a recount.

4. DON'T FORGET THE EARLY MEDIA CALL

Florida polls were open until 8 P.M. on election night. The problem was that Florida's ten heavily Republican western-panhandle counties are on Central, not Eastern, time. When polls closed at 8 P.M. EST in most of the state, the western-panhandle polling places were still open for another hour. Yet, at 8 Eastern, all the networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and NBC) incorrectly announced many times over the next hour that the polls were closed in the entire state. CBS national news made 18 direct statements that the polls had closed.

Polling conducted after the election indicates that the media had an impact on voter behavior, and that the perception of Democratic wins discouraged Republican voters. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded Mr. Bush suffered a net loss of up to 8,000 votes in the panhandle after Florida was called early for Gore. Another survey of western-panhandle voters conducted by John McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican polling company, immediately after the election estimated that the early call cost Bush approximately 10,000 votes.

Using voting data for presidential elections from 1976 to 2000, my own own empirical estimates that attempted to control for a variety of factors affecting turnout imply that Bush received as many as 7,500 to 10,000 fewer votes than he would normally have expected. Little change appears to have occurred in the rate that non-Republicans voted.

Terry McAuliffe clearly stated his strategy "to use the anger and resentment that will come out of that 2000 election, put it in a positive way to energize the Democratic base." Democrats have used the notion that Bush is an illegitimate president to justify everything from their harsh campaign rhetoric to their filibusters against his judicial appointments.

More could be said about these myths, but most of them hardly merit discussion. Unfortunately, as Terry McAuliffe implies, these falsehoods will continue to be trumpeted frequently over the next year; thankfully, a few facts can help dispel them.

— John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His data on the Florida 2000 election may be found at www.johnrlott.com.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: floridarecount; johnlott; scoflaw; scoflaws
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

1 posted on 12/10/2003 9:56:20 AM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Hang on to for reference..
2 posted on 12/10/2003 10:01:21 AM PST by GrandEagle (I would like to say a hearty, heart felt THANKS to those who served in our nations armed forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JulieRNR21; MinuteGal; summer; Joe Brower; AAABEST; floriduh voter; windchime; NautiNurse; ...
If they insist on living in the past, we can throw them an anchor.

John Lott, Jr. with a helpful recap of the Dem-press fibs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A little of what Florida Freepers learned in 2000:

8 Clintons and other left-wing liars [what I KNOW about election 2000]

3 posted on 12/10/2003 10:02:13 AM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl ( "Our military is full of the finest people on the face of the earth." ~ Pres. Bush, Baghdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Polling conducted after the election indicates that the media had an impact on voter behavior, and that the perception of Democratic wins discouraged Republican voters. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded Mr. Bush suffered a net loss of up to 8,000 votes in the panhandle after Florida was called early for Gore. Another survey of western-panhandle voters conducted by John McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican polling company, immediately after the election estimated that the early call cost Bush approximately 10,000 votes.

And cost Bush one to three MILLION votes in the rest of the country.

4 posted on 12/10/2003 10:04:53 AM PST by Timesink (I'm not a big fan of electronic stuff, you know? Beeps ... beeps freak me out. They're bad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
The Number One reason why Gore is not running this year is he knows he'll get a royal shellacking, especially in Florida. By not running he gets to hang on to the myths.
5 posted on 12/10/2003 10:08:10 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
bump
6 posted on 12/10/2003 10:11:51 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
---and increases my contempt for people who don't vote because of what they hear from the media on early election results--
7 posted on 12/10/2003 10:16:48 AM PST by rellimpank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
What is the supposed mechanism by which a ballot becomes "dimpled" ? Realistically that is. We're talking a piece of paper here, after all. Is it really that tough to punch a hole?

Or is it a matter of taking a stack of ballots and ramming a long piece of metal through them, oh, say, a coat hanger?

The first mistake as I see it in any case, an invalid ballot gets thrown out, period. If a voter makes a mistake by voting for two candidates, or whatnot - them's the breaks, simply because elections are not an infinite open-ended process. There is a starting point, and an end point. Fair is fair and "I want to vote again because my guy lost" doesn't seem to pass the smell test.

Democrats should be ashamed, but that's not how they work, and the rest of us better wake up to that fact and quick.
8 posted on 12/10/2003 10:17:52 AM PST by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Of course, Florida law provided no mechanism to ask for a statewide recount a la the last option, only county-by-county recounts. And of course neither Gore's campaign nor the Florida Supreme Court ever asked for such a recount.

Someone suggested that Gore's first reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in December 2000 should have been to file civil charges against David Boies for providing incompetent legal counsel, and then seek to have his license to practice law rescinded. The Gore case was effectively a lost cause once they decided to order recounts with different counting standards only in certain counties -- this was such a blatant violation of U.S. election law that the U.S. Supreme Court had no choice but to determine that it was not a valid recount process.

9 posted on 12/10/2003 10:21:43 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Bump!
10 posted on 12/10/2003 10:27:07 AM PST by WorkingClassFilth (DEFUND NPR & PBS - THE AMERICAN PRAVDA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Bookmark bump. Thanks for this; I suspect it'll come in handy in the next year!
11 posted on 12/10/2003 10:29:47 AM PST by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Bumped for reference.
12 posted on 12/10/2003 10:35:02 AM PST by Bubba_Leroy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Excellent post - will keep - thanks!
13 posted on 12/10/2003 10:40:02 AM PST by talleyman (God bless FR & Merry Christmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Reference BUMP
14 posted on 12/10/2003 10:41:32 AM PST by spodefly (This is my tagline. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
If the Dems decide to fight the '04 election over "The Florida Fiasco" they may well end up with copious amounts of egg on their faces when the dust settles and the votes are counted. This could be a political miscalculation of epic proportions but they're so big on themselves they can't see the hole they're about to fall into.

Consider...

Floridians will be treated to endless stories in the press about the "stolen" 2000 election. Implicit in this argument are two things: Floridians are too stupid to fill out a ballot correctly and/or they're a bunch of racists who deny Blacks their constitutional right to cast a ballot. How do they think that will play with Floridians? Of course the Dems will think they're telling the people that they were disenfranchised but the message they will get is that the state and its citizens are being held up to ridicule before the entire country. For months on end. Not a wise idea, IMHO. Couple that with the presence of a popular governor and some swing in the Jewish vote which appears inevitable and the Bush margin of victory in Florida could be quite high. Meanwhile, the rest of the nation sees the spectacle of the Dems fighting the election over a non-existant issue from the last one instead of looking forward. Bad move (well, from my perspective a great one if it helps Bush get reelected).

Dems just think they're so much smarter than everyone else that they are blind to the fact that many folks strongly resent "big city outsiders" coming in and telling them how to think, especially when the implied message is that the people don't know how to think for themselves.

McAwful has made it clear the election will be fought over Florida. Given his track record, perhaps we should encourage him, no?

15 posted on 12/10/2003 10:46:55 AM PST by mitchbert (Facts are Stubborn Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
If I'm not mistaken, the following represents a "coded message" from John Lott regarding the political-crime-that-date-not-speak-it's-name, otherwise known as DEMOCRAT VOTE FRAUD perpetrated by election officials in dem districts.

..African-American Republicans who voted were 54 to 66 times more likely than the average African American to cast a non-voted ballot (either by not marking that race or voting for too many candidates). [WL-law note: This could be accomplished by destroying their ballot and substituting it with a non-voted ballot (case A) or punching an additional chad out, disqualifying via multiple votes (case B)] To put it another way: For every two additional black Republicans in the average precinct, there was one additional non-voted ballot. By comparison, it took an additional 125 African Americans (of any party affiliation) in the average precinct to produce the same result.[WL-law note: Meaning one in every three African-American votes were tampered with -- and I suspect there are deeper patterns, i.e., concentration within districts, that point even more conclusively to fraud]

Some readers may be surprised that black Republicans even exist in Florida, but, in fact, there are 22,270 such registered voters — or about one for every 20 registered black Democrats. This is a large number when you consider that the election in the state was decided by fewer than 1,000 votes. Since these Republicans were more than 50 times more likely to suffer non-voted ballots than other African Americans, the reasonable conclusion is that George W. Bush was penalized more by the losses of African-American votes than Al Gore.

Democrats have also claimed that low-income voters suffered non-voted ballots disproportionately. Yet, the data decisively reject this conclusion. For example, the poorest voters, those in households making less than $15,000 a year, had non-voted ballots at less than one-fifteenth the rate of voters in families making over $500,000. [Similarly, were these non-voters concentrated in certain districts? I think John Lott may know but is being discreet in his accusations...]

It is difficult to believe that wealthy people were more confused by the ballot than poor people.[WL-law note: Not likely] Perhaps the rich or black Republicans simply did not like the choices for president and so did not vote on that part of the ballot. .[WL-law note: Not likely]Perhaps there was tampering, .[WL-law note: BINGO !!] but it is difficult to see how it could have been carried out and covered up. We may never know, but, clearly, the figures show that income and race were only one-third as important in explaining non-voted ballots as the methods and machines used in voting.

I have always thought that massive fraud was carried out on election day. I think it was well-planned, on a national scale, by Donna Brazile and others. Remember that all national polls conducted days before the election had Bush comfortably in front. Remember that Gore went on a 24-hour marathon campaigning swing, in my view to create "plausible cover" for the vote swing to follow.

16 posted on 12/10/2003 10:47:21 AM PST by WL-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Don't forget the 10,000 military votes that were voided by the Dimocrats.

Don't forget the 400 people being bused from New Jersey to Florida to vote by the Dimocrats.

Don't forget the Dimocrat woman that registered her dog to vote.

Don't forget the Florida Dimocrat Politician caught with voting machines in his car.

Don't forget the man that was working in one of the recounts that was observed eating chads from the ballots.

17 posted on 12/10/2003 10:54:55 AM PST by Destructor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Great post!
18 posted on 12/10/2003 10:58:49 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Thanks I just heard the stupidity out of someone's mouth yesterday. I just sent him the item.
19 posted on 12/10/2003 11:05:01 AM PST by bmwcyle (Hillary's election to President will start a civil war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
"We had more votes; we won!" Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said"

Huh? I must have missed that part.

20 posted on 12/10/2003 11:11:11 AM PST by sweetliberty (Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson