Skip to comments.Everything the New York Times Thinks About the Florida Recount Is Wrong!
Posted on 11/13/2001 5:18:39 PM PST by Sir Gawain
Everything the New York Times Thinks About the Florida Recount Is Wrong!
It turns out theÂ U.S. Supreme Court really did cast the deciding vote ...
By MickeyÂ Kaus
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 1:18 AM PT
Just when you thought the Florida recount story was settling down into a familiar bitter partisan dispute, the Orlando Sentinel has changed the story line again. The Sentinel, remember, was the paper that first uncoveredÂ the hidden cache Â of valid, uncounted "overvotes"âseemingly double-voted ballots that, as the massive media recount of Florida has now confirmed, were the key to a potential Gore victory, if only he had known it.
Gore instead focused on "undervotes," ballots that initially registered no vote at all. It has been widely assumed that the real-life, statewide recount of Florida votes that was ordered by the Florida Supreme Court a year agoâand then abruptly stopped by the U.S. Supreme Courtâwas also limited to undervotes. Certainly the Florida court's opinion focuses on undervotes.
But the Sentinel had the wit to call up Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, who was actually supervising the real-life recount on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped it. Lewis told the Sentinel that "he would not have ignored the overvote ballots."
Though he stopped short of saying he definitely would have expanded the recount to include overvotes, Lewis emphasized 'I'd be open to that.'
"If that had happened," the Sentinel notes, "it would have amounted to a statewide hand recount. And it could have given the election to Gore," since salvaging the valid overvotes turns out to have been "Gore's only path to victory." Lewis had apparently planned a hearing for later that Saturday, at which the overvote issue was going to be discussed.
Why is this significant? Because the comforting, widely publicized, Bush-ratifying spin given to the recent media recount by the New York Times(and the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post) has been thatâas the Times' lede confidently put itâ"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." [Emphasis added.] (The Times' front-page headline was "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.")
We now know, thanks to the Sentinel, that this Times take (and the somewhat more hedged ledes in the Journal and Post) is thoroughly bogusâunfounded and inaccurate. If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won. Certainly the Times doesn't know otherwise.
That Judge Lewis would probably have counted the overvotes at the perverse (in hindsight) urging of the Bush camp (which either wanted to delay the proceedings or erroneously thought the overvotes would boost Bush's total) doesn't alter this conclusion.
It looks as if the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who stopped the Florida count cast the deciding vote after all. â¦
P.S.: Does this mean Gore's undervote-obsessed recount strategy wasn't foolish, as previously charged Â in this space? NotÂ necessarily.Â By the time the issue of the overvotes was raised before Judge Lewis, on Dec. 9, it was almost too late to count them before Dec. 12, the date accepted (foolishly!) by Gore's lawyers as the deadline for selecting Florida's electors. Any recount, even if it put Gore ahead, would have been chaotic and disputed, as this Sentinel companion story Â suggests. Had Gore instead asked for a full statewide recount immediately after the Nov. 7 election, as some of his aides urged, there would have been plenty of time to count both undervotes and overvotes before Dec. 12.
P.P.S.: If any paper gets a Pulitzer out of this Florida mess, shouldn't it be the Sentinel?
1. If you are too stupid, clumsy,
or sloppy to prepare and submit
an unspoiled vote, your opinion
as to the outcome is unwanted,
2. Most people mispronounce
Pulitzer. It is not Pyew-litser.
It is Pull-itser.
"If that had happened... it could have given the election to Gore." If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won.
THAT's the best they can do? Maybe, coulda, shoulda, if only........
Bottom line, the "syndicate" of news agencies have wasted close to a million dollars - for nothing.
Simple. Anyone knows that any ballot marked twice is obviously a vote for Gore. Comm'on man, THINK!
I did not know that. I'm glad I learned something reading this thread since I certainly didn't reading the article.
The Charlotte Observer, several years ago, won a Pulitzer Prize. Can't even remember what is was for, but I'm sure it was anti-capitalist in tone. What I do remember was a restaurant, which specialized in chicken, opening across the street from the paper after the award was announced. The restaurant's name: Pullet Surprise.
Simple, in demo language, you count both votes for Gore!
Got that right!
Franco is still Dead
Bush is still President.
There is no jurisdiction ANYWHERE IN THE NATION where a so-called "overvote" is counted as a legal vote. These are ballots on which the voter makes two or more (some have all twelve presidential candidates marked) when the instructions for that office say == on the ballot and on the wall of the polling place, "VOTE FOR ONE."
All of us who graduated third grade know exactly why these are not legitimate votes. In third grade we took our first standardized tests, using answer sheets where little ovals had to be blackened in so they could be "read by a computer." Every one of use who made it through the third grade were instructed to make "one answer mark per question." And, we were told that "two marks counted as a wrong answer, even if one of the two marked was the correct answer."
I repeat one more time, an overvote is ALWAYS an illegal vote, because it violates the instructions in a way that every competent nine-year-old in the nation well understands. That is why not even the left=leaning, Democratic Flroida Supreme Court itself ever considered for a nanosecond requiring a recount of "overvotes," because under Florida law -- and the law of every other jurisdiction -- these are illegal votes by definition. No ifs. ands. or buts about it.
There is good evidence to suggest that Lott and Glassman are correct, that some of the "overvotes" were created by black Democratic election officials, in order to invalidate the few (but significant in an election this close) black Republican votes for Bush.
But that doesn't have to be taken into consideration. Without "overvotes," meaning facially illegal votes, Gore lost. So says every research story on the subject including amazingly, CNN an the New York Times. The article posted at the top therefore is a waste of ink and electrons. It can be summarized thusly -- if illegal votes had been somehow counted, Gore would have won.
To the editors and writers of such nonsense, I say, "And your point is...?
Remember the Pickwick (?) restaurant in Atlanta whose proprietor went
on to become one of the weirdest governors Georgia ever had, Lester
Maddox? Rather than a painting of hisself hanging under the Rotunda,
he ordered a lifesize color enlargement from the photo lab I worked at.
It hung in the state capitol until he left office, then was hidden away
So, what you're saying is that, if Gore wants to, he can rightly refer to himself as "The Felon's President"? ;-)
DUH - he did get a statewide recount - it just wasn't manual.