Couragous lady. I hope she doesn't LIVE in SF.

Fun reading. "The Constitution! Who knew?"

dan

Finally, a good and accurate article. I especially love this paragraph:

It's so typical of the left. Take something as unambiguous as voting -- where you check one box, and that's it -- and turn it into something open to interpretation. You'd think that voters would bristle at this -- as it makes their vote subject to someone else's approval -- but Palm Beach County loved the idea.

That about says it all. Many people looking at this issue don't use common sense. You know, what is so difficult about checking a box?

The Democrats need their myths for the next election cycle. Fortunately, the re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-count wasn't it.

Here's a quote I got from the Orlando Sentinel's article on the count:

"We should have dug deeper," said Doug Head, Orange County Democratic chairman"

Yes, that's the message we should take away from this ridiculous exercise! [/sarcasm]

You'd also think that people would be a bit more careful exercising the franchise that hundreds of thousands of people gave their lives to ensure and protect, but that's not the case either. Most voters seem to think that if it's not made as simple as pressing the button on your remote control, it's too burdensome.

Besides, as Bill Sammon chronicles in "At Any Cost," Republicans got the shaft as well. After the networks erroneously handed Gore victory in Florida, many Central Time zone Bush fans left long waiting lines at the polls in disgust. Conservative estimates place their number at 10,000.

That study was more or less confirmed by democrat Bob Beckels. His study estimated the number as 8000. While less than the conservative estimate of 10000, the numbers are within 20% of each other, good correlation for a political study. With those votes counted, the race would not have been within democrat theft range.

Bump for a great post. The author is right on the money!

Couragous lady. I hope she doesn't LIVE in SF.

I am glad she does.

Superb. That's the bottom line:

Unless you changed the election law that was in place prior to the votes being cast, BUSH won. Gore does not win unless you change the election law that was in place prior to the votes being cast.

The media can run all the fantasy scenarios that they want if that will make them happy. But, BUSH got elected fair and square.

Let's just say that their incompetent voting is the universe's riposte to all those jokes about Bush being stupid.

Yes, let's.

Although it was slimey for the networks to call a State when all polls had not closed because of a time zone change, I personally dont consider this an issue. Im not sure how anyone could come to the conlcusion that "x" amount of people were going to vote, but changed their minds due to the early "call". IMHO, if you dont vote, then you dont vote. I honestly doubt the early call was intentional to stop Bush voters. There is really no way the "media" knew of the fraud plan that would be used. Maybe Im wrong about that. I believe that it was simply too close(because of fraudulent votes) and they made the wrong call. Maybe "the meida" knew something was up, maybe not.

Although it was slimey for the networks to call a State when all polls had not closed because of a time zone change, I personally dont consider this an issue. Im not sure how anyone could come to the conlcusion that "x" amount of people were going to vote, but changed their minds due to the early "call". IMHO, if you dont vote, then you dont vote. I honestly doubt the early call was intentional to stop Bush voters. There is really no way the "media" knew of the fraud plan that would be used. Maybe Im wrong about that. I believe that it was simply too close(because of fraudulent votes) and they made the wrong call. Maybe "the meida" knew something was up, maybe not.

I must respective disagree with you. Here is some of my rationale.

1. It is an issue. A state should not be called until all polls of that state have closed. It was well known that Florida is split into two time zones and for the VNS to even allow for calling of that state (much less call a state) before the CST portion of Florida closed its polls is irresponsible and inexcusable.

2. Normally, I agree regarding "if you don't vote, you don't vote". However, the bogus call DID have an effect on the totals. Since conservative and liberal estimates more or less agreed regarding the effect, it is reasonable to believe those analyses.

3. Whether the media was in on the "fix", I will give them the benefit of the doubt. However, was the VNS in FLA corrupted by the DNC? I believe that is a possibility, especially in light of everything else that happened.

4. Ever stand in a line that is moving slowly. Once word leaked that it was pointless to remain in line, only the most committed voter would bother to wait 30-45 minutes just to cast a "meaningless" vote.

See, no shouting, no name-calling, no flaming. Just some rationale explanation.

Don't forget the fact that Katherine Harris warned the media outlets ahead of time not to call the state early.

I didn't forget that. I didn't use all of my topic points. Wanted to save some of my arguments for later posts if needed.

He brings up a good point regarding voting or not-voting, but argument needed to include cause and effects (the so-called dynamic theory).

I hope you dont get me wrong on this - I am one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, exposer of 2000 election lies on FR(not bragging). I just disagree with one simple issue(and its not that I disagree really), that being the "early call". Personally, Im not sure how someone standing in line would know about the call. I just dont lump this in with the discussion about "spiking" ballots, lies about police roadblocks, lies about "confusing" ballots and general vote fraud that occurred. When pointing out all of the corruption and Democratic B.S., I just don't think its proper to lump in "people deciding not to vote" with real fraud and lies.

Personally, I think all the lies and propaganda needs to be shot down thoroughly. Come 2002 and 2004, this "stealing of an election" will be used as a battle cry. The left will be out trying every single dirty trick they can. And I dont just mean those in charge of elections, its the every-day-dolt that I am afraid of. The people that the Democratic party pander to are generally mindless robots who follow orders and make knee-jerk reactions. Many of these people will STILL believe the election was "stolen" and think absolutely nothing of voting as many times as they can, altering ballots if they can or maybe even doing things to "republican voters". We can not underestimate the mindless-left.

However, the bogus call DID have an effect on the totals.

Re My #17.

I do agree that it probably did effect the totals. Obviously, if people who were going to vote for Bush didn't because they thought he already lost, then it did hurt Bush's totals. What I wonder about is how both studies reached their conclusions. Exactly how does one measure this? I think this also assumes that lines were long near the time polls closed, and that many/most people had not already voted earlier. This may be true, and maybe the studies addressed that.

Its been so long I cant remember everything, but I think that, even if Bush would have received 8000-10,000 more votes, the margin would still have been so close that the Goron could have asked for "re-counts" in specific counties like he did. At that point, they may have just needed to scam more votes through, "divining the intent". I bet the margin did not matter that much, as long as it was close. Like other posters have pointed out, when you know how many more votes you need, it aint that hard to "make more votes" or disqualify votes by placing stacks of already punched ballots in the machine(place in machine, punch Gore, effects only already punched Bush ballots). I think the Gorons actually thought that the courts would let them get away with this "re-count". They went through eight years of arguing semantics in the law, they thought they could argue about definitions in election law. They were right until the wildcard was played, which was the SCOTUS.

Im not sure how someone standing in line would know about the call.

There are many ways that a person standing in line could find out about an election call. In today's information age, nothing is secret for long. I have a couple of obvious ones.
1. Hearing it on a radio that I sometimes carry.
2. From all the "electioneers" that hang around polling places. Almost everytime I vote, I see some on both sides present.
3. Cell/wireless phone alert, possibly from spouse.
Once one person in line knows, everybody in line knows.

No offense taken here. I think the early call was part of the problem in FL, and any quality comprehensive review of the election should acknowledge this. Add between 8000-10000 vote net to the Bush column (depending on who's study is believed), and maybe the Gore team wouldn't have bothered with the recount fiasco in the first place.

What I wonder about is how both studies reached their conclusions. Exactly how does one measure this? I think this also assumes that lines were long near the time polls closed, and that many/most people had not already voted earlier. This may be true, and maybe the studies addressed that.

Not sure either. Probably a combination of overall voting data, historical analysis of voting density over time of day, and visual observation. I Ddd find it interesting that both sides came to similar conclusions. That is very rare in politics; therefore, even though the method is not known (at least to me), I think it is reasonable to assume that the analyses are reasonable.

I think this argument came in response to the "minority voter disenfranchisement" that evolved from Jesse Jackson and others. Obviously, the panhandle situation has much more credibility than the "roadblocks".