Posted on 11/12/2001 9:03:21 AM PST by stayout
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
After hearing that the outcome of the media consortium's recount of the 2000 Florida vote was coming out last night, I was expecting a fiercely pro-Gore spin by all our favorite liberal newspapers. I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the generally neutral to pro-President Bush slant of the headlines (which is the only part most people would read anyway). Here is the results of my impromptu survey: 1. "Slim win-lose scenarios in Fla. vote review" Source: Boston Globe2. "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds" Source: L.A. Times3. "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds ...
(Excerpt) Read more at Various ...
So I can only assume from this, that their cry of outrage is really, "count all the non-votes and overvotes that are ordinarily excluded; and if the holes are punched for both Bush and Gore, then it is obvious that it was a stupid voter and we know that stupid voters vote overwhelmingly for Gore, so those votes obviously can't be counted for Bush. The fix was in and we were cheated out of the votes we bought and stole."
A danmed important distinction!!
Doesn't matter. What matters are three factors:
1 - Under an earlier Florida Supreme Court decision, it is the responsibility of the voter to properly fill out his or her ballot, and
2 - Under Florida law, a full recount for a county can only proceed if, upon request for a recount, a sampling determines that there was a machine or tabulation error. Of the four counties where Gore requested a recount, only Volusia County fit that criteria, and they had their recount done within the legally-mandated time frame. There is no provision in Florida law for a statewide recount, and no provision to correct voter error, so
3 - Under United States law, guidelines and laws for elections cannot be altered after the election - something the Florida Supreme Court was clearly trying to do, as witnessed by the dissent by Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Wells in the second decision by that court:
I want to make it clear at the outset of my separate opinion that I do not question the good faith or honorable intentions of my colleagues in the majority. However, I could not more strongly disagree with their decision to reverse the trial court and prolong this judicial process. I also believe that the majority's decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution. My succinct conclusion is that the majority's decision to return this case to the circuit court for a count of the under-votes from either Miami-Dade County or all counties has no foundation in the law of Florida as it existed on November 7, 2000, or at any time until the issuance of this opinion. The majority returns the case to the circuit court for this partial recount of under-votes on the basis of unknown or, at best, ambiguous standards with authority to obtain help from others, the credentials, qualifications, and objectivity of whom are totally unknown. That is but a first glance at the imponderable problems the majority creates.
Importantly to me, I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. I have to conclude that there is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial damage to our country, our state, and to this Court as an institution. On the basis of my analysis of Florida law as it existed on November 7, 2000, I conclude that the trial court's decision can and should be affirmed.
So all this blather is completely irrelevant. Bush won - deal with it.
- NY Post
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.