His appeal to the US Supreme Court, seeking to block the statewide "undercount" vote, will be seen as an attempt to block the will of the people. Up until now I felt that he had the right to block the recount in only heavy Democratic counties, but trying to block the entire state is something else.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 08, 2000

Answers

Fearless prediction:

The US Supreme Court will overturn the Florida State Supreme Court. It will be a split decision, but it will be overturned. Prediction made at 8:15pm, Friday, Dec. 8th, 2000.

-- Uncle Deedah (Unkeed@yahoo.com), December 08, 2000.

While Gore is making sure ALL the votes are counted, couldn't he see to it that all the absentee military votes are counted too?

-- helen (b@c.k), December 08, 2000.

Uncle Deedah:

This is a function of the media alone. After all, "undervotes" are ballots where NO candidate was selected. These are NOT votes for a candidate. Bush is attempting to prevent the counting of nonvotes as votes. They already, by definition, fail to meet the published test that "the intent of the voter must be clearly discernable."

Now it's a PR battle, between those claiming these are votes (Gore) and those trying to explain that they are not (Bush). I'll be really curious to see which position is adopted by the media. But I'm not holding my breath. When Gore can tell us with a straight face that "10,275 undervotes were never counted", and the media don't blink an eye, I think we have, like, a clue.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 08, 2000.

These are NOT votes for a candidate. Bush is attempting to prevent the counting of nonvotes as votes.

Flint,

I'm disappointed in you. It's well known that some votes a machine can't read often plainly show the voter's intent when examined manually. I know you know that.

Your argument during this election has been that a manual recount in heavily Democratic counties wasn't fair to Bush. Now that there's an attempt at a statewide recount, you're claiming the manual recount process is inherently flawed.

Should manual recounts be made illegal in Florida and Texas? They're a part of election law in both states currently.

-- (Recount@the.undervote), December 08, 2000.

Based on past performance, I suspect that the Bush team anticipated this latest ruling from the Florida Supreme Court. And Unk, I agree with your read on the PR swings but at this juncture I doubt that anyone in either camp cares. I thought it somewhat significant that Chief Justice Charles Wells not only dissented but chastised the four members for ignoring previously established order of law. In doing so, he has ‘set the table’ for the certain body slam forthcoming from the U.S. Supremes.

Have a nice weekend Mr. Gore but don’t sell off those pigs just yet.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 08, 2000.

It's Bush's turn to play defense

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004D6B

Link

-- The twists and turns of (the@2000.election), December 08, 2000.

Recount:

In a very long discussion with No Spam, I said two things: That a selective recount is biased, and that a manual recount of machine ballots is suspect. So here are some problems for you:

1) If machines make mistakes, why would they ONLY make mistakes on undervotes? Couldn't they mistake an overvote or a legitimate ballot? If we're going to look at any ballots trying to find machine mistakes, should we not look at ALL ballots? After all, we don't KNOW where any particular machine's mistakes may be concentrated.

2) There appears to be a great deal of ambiguity (and vigorous disagreement) as to the "intent of the voter" from one ballot to the next. In my discussion with No Spam, I gave multiple instances of such ambiguity and asked No Spam how he would decide. He was unable to do better than to claim he'd decide according to the dictates of a clear and properly written legal directive. But we DO NOT HAVE such directives! And the FSC did not provide us with any.

But the key point is, different canvassers genuinely disagree when trying to divine intent. Can we confidently say that in cases of disagreement, the voter's intent is not "clearly discernable"? But if so, what is to prevent either side "disagreeing" with EVERY ballot? What are the rules? We have not been told!

Do you see the problems here?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 08, 2000.

On the nose Barry. Well's dissent was as scathing as it will prove to be prophetic.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), December 08, 2000.

Gore will squeak in by a bristle...

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), December 08, 2000.

Flint, you're filling up the forum with useless claptrap. Again.

-- Please (cut@it.out), December 08, 2000.

Mr Gore, this should help you to divine the voter's intent--------

LINK

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 08, 2000.

What Gore needs now is for the recount to begin *immediately* and have it quickly "leaked" that he's surpassed the 154 vote lead Bush is supposed to have as of last tally. Once the news starts circulating that he won the national AND Florida popular vote, Bush's coffin is sealed. There's NO WAY Bush can come up with adequate P.R. to counter that Gore was right all along and was correct in fighting the good fight right down to the finish. Hell, if Gore's P.R. spins this right, his dark image of evil will be turned around he'll come out looking like the King of Commitment to Fairness and Duty. Whatta' Guy!

-- Watch (And@See.com), December 08, 2000.

"While Gore is making sure ALL the votes are counted, couldn't he see to it that all the absentee military votes are counted too? "

Selective memory here, the absentee ballots were counted, even without the postmark. GEEE pretty good that all of the Bush complaints were answered and they got their way, such as how republican under votes were not counted, or not counted in republican counties, but now that all of the concerns have been addressed and handed over to the Bush camp, there are still complains. It couldn't be that even the republicans know they lost and will do any thing to prevent the true votes from being counted. Even votes from illegally corrected forms are being counted, but a real count is considered wrong. They are not asking for dimples and pregnant chads to be counted, just the ones with two or three corners punched will be enough to bring Gore over the top. There goes any pretense of honesty and fairness on the part of the republicans.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), December 09, 2000.