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

Skip to comments.

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
NY Times ^ | 11/12/01 | By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER

Posted on 11/11/2001 6:49:42 PM PST by PianoMan

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.

Thus the most thorough examination of Florida's uncounted ballots provides ammunition for both sides in what remains the most disputed and mystifying presidential election in modern times. It illuminates in detail the weaknesses of Florida's system that prevented many from voting as they intended to. But it also provides support for the result that county election officials and the courts ultimately arrived at — a Bush victory by the tiniest of margins.

The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537- vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.

For example, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that county election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes.

Florida officials had begun such a recount the next day, but the effort was halted that afternoon when the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that a statewide recount under varying standards threatened "irreparable harm" to Mr. Bush.

But the consortium's study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.

Even so, the media ballot review, carried out under rigorous rules far removed from the chaos and partisan heat of the post-election dispute, is unlikely to end the argument over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. The race was so close that it is possible to get different results simply by applying different hypothetical vote-counting methods to the thousands of uncounted ballots. And in every case, the ballot review produced a result that was even closer than the official count — a margin of perhaps four or five thousandths of one percent out of about six million ballots cast for president.

In the study, the consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected last November. Those included so-called undervotes, or ballots on which the machines could not discern a preference for president, and overvotes, or ballots on which voters marked more than one candidate.

The examination then sought to judge what might have been considered a legal vote under various conditions — from the strictest interpretation (a clearly punched hole) to the most liberal (a small indentation, or dimple, that indicated the voter was trying to punch a hole in the card). But even under the most inclusive standards, the review found that at most, 24,773 ballots could have been interpreted as legal votes.

The numbers reveal the flaws in Mr. Gore's post-election tactics and, in retrospect, why the Bush strategy of resisting county-by-county recounts was ultimately successful.

In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. An approach Mr. Gore and his lawyers rejected as impractical — a statewide recount — could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.

Another complicating factor in the effort to untangle the result is the oversees absentee ballots that arrived after Election Day. A New York Times investigation earlier this year showed that 680 of the late- arriving ballots did not meet Florida's standards yet were still counted. The vast majority of those flawed ballots were accepted in counties that favored Mr. Bush, after an aggressive effort by Bush strategists to pressure officials to accept them.

A statistical analysis conducted for The Times determined that if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore's favor in some of the situations studied in the statewide ballot review.

But Mr. Gore chose not to challenge these ballots because many were from members of the military overseas, and Mr. Gore did not want to be accused of seeking to invalidate votes of men and women in uniform.

Democrats invested heavily in get- out-the-vote programs across Florida, particularly among minorities, recent immigrants and retirees from the Northeast. But their efforts were foiled by confusing ballot designs in crucial counties that resulted in tens of thousands of Democratic voters spoiling their ballots. More than 150,000 of those spoiled ballots did not show evidence of voter intent even after independent observers closely examined them and the most inclusive definition of what constituted a valid vote was applied.

The majority of those ballots were spoiled because multiple choices were made for president, often, apparently, because voters were confused by the ballots. All were invalidated by county election officials and were excluded from the consortium count because there was no clear proof of voter intent, unless there were other clear signs of the voter's choice, like a matching name on the line for a write-in candidate.

In Duval County, for example, 20 percent of the ballots from African- American areas that went heavily for Mr. Gore were thrown out because voters followed instructions to mark a vote on every page of the ballot. In 62 precincts with black majorities in Duval County alone, nearly 3,000 people voted for Mr. Gore and a candidate whose name appeared on the second page of the ballot, thus spoiling their votes.

In Palm Beach County, 5,310 people, most of them probably confused by the infamous butterfly ballot, voted for Mr. Gore and Pat Buchanan. The confusion affected Bush voters as well, but only 2,600 voted for Mr. Bush and another candidate.

The media consortium included The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post and CNN. The group hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago in January to examine the ballots. The research group employed teams of three workers they called coders to examine each undervoted ballot and mark down what they saw in detail. Three coders provided a bulwark against inaccuracy or bias in the coding. For overvotes, one coder was used because there was seldom disagreement among examiners in a trial run using three coders.

The data produced by the ballot review allows scrutiny of the disputed Florida vote under a large number of situations and using a variety of different standards that might have applied in a hand recount, including the appearance of a dimple, a chad dangling by one or more corners and a cleanly punched card.

The difficulty of perceiving dimples or detached chads can be measured by the number of coders who saw them, but most of the ballot counts here are based on what a simple majority — two out of three coders — recorded.

The different standards mostly involved competing notions of what expresses voter intent on a punch card. The 29,974 ballots using optical scanning equipment were mostly interpreted using a single standard — any unambiguous mark, whether a circle or a scribble or an X, on or near the candidate name was considered evidence of voter intent.

If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive "dimpled chad" standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin.

But the dimple standard was also the subject of the most disagreement among coders, and Mr. Bush fought the use of this standard in recounts in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami- Dade Counties. Many dimples were so light that only one coder saw them, and hundreds that were seen by two were not seen by three. In fact, counting dimples that three people saw would have given Mr. Gore a net of just 318 additional votes and kept Mr. Bush in the lead by 219.

Using the most restrictive standard — the fully punched ballot card — 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.

All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush.

While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real- world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes.

The Florida Supreme Court urged a statewide recount and ordered the state's 67 counties to begin a manual re-examination of the undervotes in a ruling issued Dec. 8 that left Mr. Gore and his allies elated.

The Florida court's 4-to-3 ruling rejected Mr. Gore's plea for selective recounts in four Democratic counties, but also Mr. Bush's demand for no recounts at all. Justice Barbara Pariente, in her oral arguments, asked, "Why wouldn't it be proper for any court, if they were going to order any relief, to count the undervotes in all of the counties where, at the very least, punch-card systems were operating?"

The court ultimately adopted her view, although extending it to all counties, including those using ballots marked by pen and read by optical scanning. Many counties immediately began the effort, applying different standards and, in some cases, including overvotes.

The United States Supreme Court stepped in only hours after the counting began, issuing an injunction to halt the recounts. Three days later, the justices formally overturned the Florida court's ruling, sealing Mr. Bush's election.

But what if the recounts had gone forward, as Mr. Gore and his lawyers had demanded?

The consortium asked all 67 counties what standard they would have used and what ballots they would have manually recounted. Combining that information with the detailed ballot examination found that Mr. Bush would have won the election, by 493 votes if two of the three coders agreed on what was on the ballot; by 389 counting only those ballots on which all three agreed.

The Florida Legislature earlier this year banned punch-card ballots statewide, directing counties to find a more reliable method. Many counties will use paper ballots scanned by computers at voting places that can give voters a second chance if their choices fails to register. In counties that use that technology, just 1 in 200 ballots had uncountable presidential votes, compared with 1 in 25 in punch-card counties.

Others will invest in computerized touch-screen machines that work like automated teller machines.

Kirk Wolter, who supervised the ballot review for the National Opinion Research Center, said that the study not only provided a comprehensive review of uncounted ballots in Florida but would help point the way toward more accurate and reliable voting systems. All data from the consortium recount is available on the Web at www.norc.org.

Mr. Wolter, the research center's senior vice president for statistics and methodology, said, "I hope in turn this can lead to voting reform and better ways of doing this in future elections."



TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: 2000election; florida; floridarecount; floriduh; gorewar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
Even the Times is on board!
1 posted on 11/11/2001 6:49:42 PM PST by PianoMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
We knew this, what took them so long? LOL!
2 posted on 11/11/2001 6:51:55 PM PST by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Those Betties over at DUh.com are peeing their pants and popping the pamprin tonight. What a howl!
3 posted on 11/11/2001 6:52:25 PM PST by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Exercise in futility. Typical of democrats.
4 posted on 11/11/2001 6:53:29 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
bump
5 posted on 11/11/2001 6:54:26 PM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
This is great! Everyone's swinging to our side on this, even though they could have easily written a story saying Gore "could" have won.
6 posted on 11/11/2001 6:55:11 PM PST by July 4th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan; Big Giant Head
Be still my heart....the NY Times? Thanks for the heads up. Drudge, how could you?

The (unfinished) Ballad of Al Gore).

7 posted on 11/11/2001 6:55:46 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
I'm glad we didn't have a terrorist attack while this was being decided.
8 posted on 11/11/2001 6:56:14 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
"More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations." from the article

Will Democrats find a way to provide ballots with a huge, red arrow pointing to proper candidate, by the time 2002 elections roll around?

Amazing the NYT would publish this, but then some facts can't be hidden forever.

9 posted on 11/11/2001 6:56:30 PM PST by katze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
The left will still deny it..I say thank God! May we now end that election?
10 posted on 11/11/2001 6:57:07 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Right now, the Democratic Undergrounders (all 12 of them) are REALLY blasting their own liberal press.
11 posted on 11/11/2001 7:01:57 PM PST by hispanarepublicana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
The TIMES!!! Holy crap, dude. That's pretty much it, save for the thirty-odd communists populating democraticunderground.com, who are embroiled in a hilarious meltdown as the headlines emerge. Maybe they'll go trash a McDonalds in retaliation. Losers.
12 posted on 11/11/2001 7:04:14 PM PST by Objective Reality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
This is news???

Yawn...let's move on.

13 posted on 11/11/2001 7:06:05 PM PST by Agent Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did

The assumption can not be justified, the decision of each disputed ballot was subjective so the whole report is meaningless, as is any recounting that tries to turn an unclear ballot into an actual vote.

14 posted on 11/11/2001 7:09:20 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Agent Smith
I want to believe drudge did this in order to get the bed-wetters hopes up only to have them dashed in mere hours.
15 posted on 11/11/2001 7:09:33 PM PST by Texas Cornhusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Texas Cornhusker
Agreed. Nice touch by Drudge.

BTW, isn't bedwetter all one word?

16 posted on 11/11/2001 7:14:53 PM PST by Agent Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Texas Cornhusker; Agent Smith
I thought Drudge did this to hype his Sunday show. Isn't that the m.o.?
17 posted on 11/11/2001 7:15:55 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Somehow the Times manages to turn Gore's attempt to exclude ballots from overseas military into a magnanimous insistence on accepting votes that should have been excluded.

Besides the cases where military votes were successfully excluded by the Gorons, there are the ballots requested by military voters which never got to them. I also recall a story about some military unit in Florida suddenly being sent on maneuvers on election day (so they couldn't vote--but no advance warning so they wouldn't have cast absentee ballots).

18 posted on 11/11/2001 7:16:34 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
It's official ... but the Jeffery Toobin's of the world will STILL whine.
19 posted on 11/11/2001 7:25:44 PM PST by BunnySlippers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Hmmmm...I find it peculiar that they did not do any research on illegal vote fraud like the felon votes or all those military votes that were thrown out.
20 posted on 11/11/2001 7:27:07 PM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Man, I'd hate to see this done in every red state where idiots are allowed to vote. Can you imagine how many people punched Gore then wrote his name in, too? As for punching Gore......All in all, this is good news. Wonder what the spin will be...how can they condemn their own newspaper? Probably just ignore it.
21 posted on 11/11/2001 7:30:01 PM PST by Terry Mross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
But Mr. Gore chose not to challenge these ballots because many were from members of the military overseas, and Mr. Gore did not want to be accused of seeking to invalidate votes of men and women in uniform.

LOL!

Mr. Orwell, table for one!

22 posted on 11/11/2001 7:31:05 PM PST by Rome2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots...

Democratic theory:

When you can't win the argument ON THE LAW, bring in some statisticians and talk about hypothetical ways you could have counted the ballots.

23 posted on 11/11/2001 7:32:29 PM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Regarding the claim that Gore wins by 42 or 117 if all rejected ballots were hand counted, the under and over votes, I have a query. Did the consortium factor in the rejected military absentee ballots?

Apologies if this point was already raised.

24 posted on 11/11/2001 7:32:57 PM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
"The media consortium included The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post and CNN."

I wonder how much the consortium shelled out for this waste of time and money crap. They were so anxious to discredit President Bush, so anxious to validate Gore and look what they got....no bang for their buck...Bush won.

And the other winner is.....THE NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER!!!

25 posted on 11/11/2001 7:35:12 PM PST by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Amazing. They spend several thousand words commenting on this, yet they can only mention "the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote" and not the 7-2 vote. Even when they fall on the fence, they still lean way to the left.
26 posted on 11/11/2001 7:35:31 PM PST by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan

27 posted on 11/11/2001 7:36:23 PM PST by ChadGore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
So, may I correctly infer that GWB is still President?
Good.
Let's move on.... without the damn whining!
28 posted on 11/11/2001 7:37:11 PM PST by TheGrimReaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Haven't there been, like, at least THREE other "final" recounts already? I'm not being sarcastic- I remember around March where there was one of these "Bush would have one", and then there was another one in the late Spring, then there was one from the Miami Herald. So, what gives here?

And when we the next "final" recount be?

29 posted on 11/11/2001 7:38:43 PM PST by sarcastro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheGrimReaper
Let's move on . . .

Yes, let's move on...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

30 posted on 11/11/2001 7:38:51 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

I guess we will have to go over the facts again.

Anybody that accidently spoiled their ballot could get a new one by simply asking so if they spoiled their ballot or soiled their pants, either way the crap's all on them.

31 posted on 11/11/2001 7:39:51 PM PST by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan

I would have replied to this thread sooner, but I fell out of my chair when I read the first sentence.


32 posted on 11/11/2001 7:45:37 PM PST by Nick Danger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
The democrats were bent on stealing the election and would have succeeded given time. There is no way the voting machine can create a dimpled chad. There was some chicanery going on down there.
33 posted on 11/11/2001 7:47:30 PM PST by aquawrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
But Mr. Gore chose not to challenge these ballots because many were from members of the military overseas, and Mr. Gore did not want to be accused of seeking to invalidate votes of men and women in uniform.

Not exactly true. They fought hard to invalidate those votes and some were invalidated.

In addition the Federal Law stated that all military ballots were valid as long as they were signed, FL law stated they had to be signed and postmarked.

Please God let this election go away.

34 posted on 11/11/2001 7:51:36 PM PST by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
This from the NY TIMES!?!?!?!?! Did someone check to see if they are playing hockey in Hell?
35 posted on 11/11/2001 7:54:05 PM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.

JUSTICES DID NOT CAST THE DECIDING VOTE.

The NEW YORK TIMES said this!!

WAAAAA-HOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Do the HAPPY DANCE!


36 posted on 11/11/2001 8:05:08 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Good grief -- even though our President won in the contested areas -- for the 6th, 7th, 8th time... -- these idiots continue on down the road to fantasy land stating that Gore could have "eked" out a victory if a statewide recount had been conducted with the same parameters...blah, blah, blah.

Heck -- they didn't even use the same parameters throughout the recount on a county to county basis. I suppose that anyone could possibly "eke" out a victory that way. I'll bet the buffoons who accidently stuffed about 5000-6000 ballots for Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore are still kicking themselves. What was it -- I guess they punched the wrong hole. Too funny.

37 posted on 11/11/2001 8:08:52 PM PST by alethia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
If you recall BEFORE election night Drudge bragged how he would release VNS Poll data BEFORE the networks did.
Sure enough, before the 2nd time zone in FL closed he "announced" Gore won.
Then Fox, according to O'Reilly, was the 1st network to "announce" Gore won before the FL polls had closed.
On election night I was at a friends house while she was on the State of FL election return site,
it showed Bush ahead while Fox and everyone else said Gore won.
I wonder how many Bush votes were lost by the 2nd time zone due to Drudge, Fox etc.
38 posted on 11/11/2001 8:09:01 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Objective Reality
DUh threads:

BWAAAA? CNN announced Bush won!

Outrage! ALL major media outlets spin Bush win

Gore say [sic] Presidential Election of 2000 is Over

CNN.com HEADLINE: Bush Still Wins

39 posted on 11/11/2001 8:09:04 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Matt Drudge is full of Crap !
40 posted on 11/11/2001 8:11:35 PM PST by KQQL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense
"This from the NY TIMES!?!?!?!?! Did someone check to see if they are playing hockey in Hell?"

2nd Period Score
Sept 11 terrorists 3
NY Times 1
41 posted on 11/11/2001 8:11:40 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
I thought they should have had a mandatory recount of New York, especially since Hillery used the WH database to win, and voter fraud.
42 posted on 11/11/2001 8:16:12 PM PST by Soul Citizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
But the DNC will never be on board! They are all idiots and cannot change. To see the NY Times on board is amazing at best.
43 posted on 11/11/2001 8:16:54 PM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
You do wonder if the Times would have treated this "news" in this way had Bush not reached almost unassailable heights with his Lincoln-esque performance during a national crisis.

Somehow I think they felt that reason was the better path to take in this case solely because they would be fighting something bigger than they are if they didn't -- remember this is the newspaper that, over the years, was able to speak in flowery, effusive praise of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

44 posted on 11/11/2001 8:16:55 PM PST by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
But they still have to stick in that full recount what-if.

It is pure speculation, we never will really know what could have been nor need we. It is best to go by the Constitution as we did, that's why we have it.

Nor will the New York Times and the rest of the total central control oriented mainstream press ever deal with the reality of the corruption of the voting in minority precincts, which would be necessary to have an accurate full recount anywhere.

45 posted on 11/11/2001 8:17:52 PM PST by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
The broadcast lies of the Florida winner prior to the polls closing on the panhandle was the biggest case of election rigging ever, and all the networks were guilty due to VNS!

VNS small elite group who made the decision, totally biased.
46 posted on 11/11/2001 8:20:40 PM PST by Soul Citizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate.

I figure Gore did not want to count the over votes becasue he knew they were fruadulent and did not want that to come out. Image getting your hands on the ballets for a few seconds and quickly adding an extra hole for Gore with a stiff wire. If the vote is for Gore, no effect, if the vote is not for gore, you get an overvote. One would guess that because the votes were so close to 50/50 the overvotes should also be close to 50/50. Bush got 29,000 so Gore should also have got around 29000. However he got 40000 more than that. That is in all likelyhood the amount of ballots Gore's fellow RATS cheated with.

47 posted on 11/11/2001 8:24:50 PM PST by Nateman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Machine error was not the issue with the under/over votes. But, like an imperfectly punched chad which cannot be corrected by nimble fingered liar liberal "re-counters" who have made no threshold showing of machine error under Florida law to provide for a recount if a tabulation error is demonstrated, the under/over vote is VOTER ERROR. Some completely stupid moron liberal demonrat voter (most likely) voted too many times or not enough. Read the rules: these don't count. VOTER ERROR is NOT a vote, unless you are a liar liberal socialist bent on stealing an election in any way possible. The yappin virtueless defenders of the indefensible are the true lying traitors. (Whew!). Doink.
48 posted on 11/11/2001 8:28:18 PM PST by Liberals are Evil Socialists!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big ern
Please God let this election go away.

AMEN!!!

49 posted on 11/11/2001 8:28:53 PM PST by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Nah. On Hannity's radio show, election day, Sean asked him to call it. Drudge said, "Bush in a squeaker." He then said Bush supporters had to get out to the polls in the afternoon and evenings to make it happen.

He was right.

50 posted on 11/11/2001 8:31:20 PM PST by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 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