Newspaper Recount Didn't Count All Votes: Washington Post Misreported Its Own Study

Human Events ^ | The Week of November 19, 2001 | Timothy P. Carney

[GOPJ]

Thank you...

[GOPJ]

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

"What a surprise, the Washington Post not reporting the truth...obviously related to the NY Times."

[bigjoesaddle]

Here's an old post on how Dems steel elections.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a0fa45726e0.htm

[alnick]

Okay, let's see if I've got this straight. The only way that Gore supporters can claim a win for Gore is:

• If 1,456 missing (!) ballots are ignored;
• Military ballots are never counted;
• A different standard is used for each county;
• Illegal overvotes are counted;
• Seers are used to devine the intent of voters;
• If they extrapolate a guess as to what the ignored 1,456 missing ballots might have shown;
• Falling chads are not taken into consideration.

  The articles states, "Asked directly if the newspapers kept track of how many chads flew off the ballots during their recount, Keating said, "No. That was not something that there was any effort to try to—because if there’s a chad falling, lying on the floor, you don’t know if it came out of the presidential race, or another race, I mean you can’t, you don’t know.

  Precisely, you can't know.

[rwfromkansas]

bump for later reading

[alnick]

Someone please explain to me how come no one in the press talks about the fact that the only way Gore wins is if all undervotes and overvotes (i.e. all ILLEGAL votes) are tallied as votes for Gore.

Incredibly, CNN did just that. They said, "In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes. ...However, the double votes on both butterfly and caterpillar ballots were clearly invalid under any interpretation of the law."

[KLT]

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

Please, don't faint...I don't have any smelling salts, but I have CHEESE! OMG, Did I say cheese?

[cibco]

"I'm shocked I tell you, shocked."

When HELL freezes over... these people will still be counting... ;0)

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[Rubber Duckie]

The tossed military ballots simply would not support the media's foregone conclusion, so this issue was ignored.

About 40% of the military ballots were disqualified on technicalities. The 60% which were counted produced an additional 630 vote margin for Bush. Assuming the same ratio on the additional 40%, there were a net 420 additional Bush votes-- more than enough to overcome any hypothetical exercises in mental flatulence which never were.

[Don Corleone]

G W B is the pres. Nothing to see here. Move on!

[ladyinred]

You got it, this is voter fraud, classic case! The media does not want to say this, or we might find out how Hillary became Senator of New York!
I am convinced this is how most democrats get into office, through fraud in democratic controlled districts.

[BrucefromMtVernon]

How can any AMerican take The Washington Post seriously? It's nothing more than a piece of used toilet paper!

[GOPJ]

Good point:

"The media does not want to say this, or we might find out how Hillary became Senator of New York! I am convinced this is how most democrats get into office, through fraud in democratic controlled districts."