I am posting this news story that appeared in my local newspaper, so that the next time some Bush supporter asserts that every ballot has been "counted, recounted, and recounted again", a link to this story can be inserted into the reply.

Some Florida Counties Did Not Follow Nov. 8 Recount Directive

Bylined: Phil Long and Daniel de Vise, Knight-Ridder News Service.

When election night results left George W. Bush and Al Gore less than one-half of one percent apart in Florida, state officials ordered an automatic machine recount of all votes the next day.

At least five counties, and perhaps as many as 18, did not carry out the recount following the closest presidential race in the state's history -- and did not notify elections officials in Tallahassee of that fact.

Elections supervisors in Leon, Okaloosa, Alachua, Hernando and Walton counties said Thursday [Dec. 14] they followed what they thought to be the law in Florida, which they said just requires them to check data from scanning devices, software and and written ballot audits.

All five counties use optical scanners and paper forms, not the infamous paper-punch ballots that created so much confusion with hanging and dimpled chads. Electiosn supervisors in those counties said Thursday the optical system is so accurate that no machine recount is needed, unless reason exists to suspect the machine somehow failed to count any of the ballots properly. So they simply recertified their original count and sent the figures to Tallahassee.

But state elections Director Clay Roberts said Thursday the counties never informed him that they had not done the mandated recounts.

"My understanding has always been that the law requires them to run the ballots through the machine again," Roberts said. "I got certifications from the counties that they followed the law."

Asked about the possible effect of counties not recounting the ballots, Roberts said simply, "I don't know."

Leon County elections supervisor Ion Sancho and his counterpart in Okaloosa, Pat Hollarn, said Thursday the law is clearly permissive, calling only for a recount when other safeguards show problems. Neither of them recounted the ballots, nor did the supervisors in Alachua, Hernando and Walton counties. Sancho says he estimates as many as 17 or 18 counties may not have rescanned the ballots Nov. 8.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 16, 2000

Answers

Good...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), December 16, 2000.

Take a deep breath and say 'President Bush'. See how smoothly those words flow from your lips? Now say 'the voting is over'. There you go....feel better now?

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 16, 2000.

Look on the bright side. Now, when any mother fucking thing at all happens that is bad, we can rush to blame George Bush, just like all the cock-sucking Republicans did the past 8 years.

-- I (can@hardly.wait), December 16, 2000.

"the optical system is so accurate that no machine recount is needed, unless reason exists to suspect the machine somehow failed to count any of the ballots properly."

Really? From information contained in the Supreme Court decision, it is stated there is a .47 percent error rate with optical scanners-5 tenths of 1 percent. The margin of victory was 8 100ths of a percent. Again, margin of machine error is higher than margin of victory. SO ACCURATE? Or just accurate enough so these smug REPUBLICAN counties can make their own interptrations of Florida law, and then lie by omission to the state supervisor of elections. Beautiful. And you folks were trying to disparage Daley jr. Hah.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 16, 2000.

Syd:

This article doesn't say anyone lied. It says there is a disagreement as to what is required by the mandatory recount. And I've read elsewhere that simply reconfirming prior counts without repeating them does meet the Florida requirements if the law is strictly interpreted. At least, according to some lawyers.

In any case, you are correct that the error rate of optical ballots still exceeds the margin of victory. You are NOT correct in your belief that this error rate can be eliminated by changing the counting method. Indeed, we have some pretty good indication that the error rate might even be increased. Do you really believe that Democratic and Republican party workers interpreting optical ballots will come up with totals within 0.47% of one another?

Ultimately, your position relies on the assumption that (in the words of the Doonesbury comic) "it's indisputable that more people in Florida intended to vote for Gore than for Bush..." This is of course not indisputable by any means, this is a statement of FAITH. And by implication, any count NOT ratifying this faith must be faulty somehow.

In reality, we simply do not have the data to improve our accuracy. Instead, we have enough genuine ambiguity to select either candidate as the winner *with equal justification*! I'm willing to agree that this means we had either NO legitimate winner or TWO. I'm not willing to agree that we only had one, much less that we got the wrong one.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 16, 2000.

>> It says there is a disagreement as to what is required by the mandatory recount. <<

I beg to differ. The article says that five counties (and possibly up to 18 counties) did not recount their ballots. Perhaps they did not recount them because of a disagreement over the exact requirements of the law, but they did not recount the ballots. That is the main point of the article. Not "lying", and not "disagreement", but not recounting. Period.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 16, 2000.

Instead, we have enough genuine ambiguity to select either candidate as the winner *with equal justification*!

I know one result of this mixed up, skewed election, we people who trusted the honesty of the system aren't going to sit back and let it happen again.

Not that I sat back, I worked for 4 years to get democrats into the senate, and Go Maria Cantwell!!, but others who did rest on their butts and expect others to do the work for them have been given a jolt they will not soon forget. Another thing I hope comes from from Bush and co. is the extremes allowed by the Liberals will be curtailed. I'm sick of the exploitation of our kids with the rank sexual entertainment and advertisements. When my 10 year old daughter starts dancing to a music video on Nickelodeon where little kids are gyrating their pelvises and grabbing their crotches, and she mimics them, then I am hope there is something the conservatives do to reverse this trend. And I am seriously considering dropping cable again for another 10 years, like I have done in the past when my other kids were that young.

But with their drugs for arms history I suppose it is too much to hope the repubs will do something to get the "new" drugs like ecstasy off the streets. But then the CIA did a good job of dismantling the Black Panthers with their flood of Heroin into L.A. Maybe they are behind the destruction of the children of working class families in middle America too. Never know, anyone who posses a threat to them.

I do agree that the military has been stripped down to the bare bones and bases closed that never should have been. Too bad we really don't have anyone to run for office that is in reality middle of the road, who doesn't go from one extreme to another when they get into office.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), December 16, 2000.

Cherri, hopefully in four years time Maria Cantwell will be the senior senator from the great state of Washington (if you get my drift).

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), December 16, 2000.

100,000 undervotes/overvote ballots sit. Ballots unreadable by the machines. Call me looney, but I would think even Flint would be able to decipher at least one of these the machine was unable to.

Now what was that about doing no better than a machine? Optical scanners you say? oh never mind.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 17, 2000.

Doc Droolie:

Yes, I guarantee I could decipher LOTS of them. The question is, would YOU be happy with MY results?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 2000.

Flint, you keep talking about "partisanship" in manually recounting ballots. I know I read that ballots that WERE manually recounted had three overseers per counter -- a Republican rep, a Democratic rep and one of the local election board members (I think). I further remember a couple of "cases" where the Republican rep was screaming about Bush votes being put in a Gore pile, which would seem to confirm that this was the scenario (both sides being represented).

So where's the "partisanship"?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 17, 2000.

Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

-- Justice Stevens (Supreme@Court.com), December 17, 2000.

Geesh keep fighting the truth Flint. Your "sheet" fell off awhile back with your "limp wristed JEW" remark. Here again we have you twisting the facts to fit your "analysis". Real monument to rational inquiry you be, not.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 17, 2000.

Patricia:

The arguments you cite are an illustration of the partisanship that exists. People of both parties found problems with what people of the opposite party were doing. And if they can engage in such arguments, how clear can the intent of the voter be anyway? I'll be glad to admit that procedures can be created to make vote-creating as balanced as possible, if we're willing to wait long enough. I simply don't accept that the voter's intent is knowable no matter WHO wins more arguments about what it might have been. I will admit that if my guy lost, I'd be delighted with a recount. But that still doesn't justify one.

Judge Stevens:

I notice you are careful to quote the last sentence of your paragraph, while being careful NOT to go back to the top and identify which judge is being referred to. Please don't quote out of context. Stevens is saying that the courts (ALL the courts) should have kept strictly out of this one. In a matter that affects all of us (like who our President is), nobody is disinterested. This is a strictly political, and NOT a judicial, issue. Stevens said so and I agree. The USSC was dragooned into this battle by the willingness of the FSC to pull pro-Gore "interpretations" out of thin air. For Stevens, the issue is which is worse -- getting involved where the USSC shouldn't, or letting the FSC get away with it when THEY shouldn't have touched it.

Doc Droolie:

I suggest you go back and read that "limp wristed Jew" comment again, this time paying attention to the syntax. I was extremely careful to say that this was intended as an example of *precisely* the sort of partisanship Levine was demonstrating himself. I was doubting that he'd be happy taking what he was dishing out.

Yeah, I recognize that syntax is beyond you. But try anyway. Get Patricia to help you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 2000.

This isn't a layman's guide, this is a loser's lament, and it's hard not to laugh at the extreme spin being applied at every opportunity. Any argument that stems from the fundamental assumption that Gore won Florida despite EVERY count we had, is simply sour grapes. This verbal bile is at the same level as, for instance, wondering if this Mark Levine is one of those limp-wristed Jews who couldn't punch a chad out of a ballot competently. It sure *sounds* like he's looking for someone to blame here.

Ahh what did I miss? That unless one goose-steps behind the PalmReader Meme like Flint they are spewing sour grapes. How do YOU know Mark Levine is Jewish Flint? Faith? educated guess? cause he gots one of them names?

Your choice of words, order and reference used paint the picture of a meme, a racist one at that.

But we agree, I never have understood sin-taxes.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 17, 2000.

Doc Droolie:

I *don't* know if Levine is Jewish. I don't know if he has a limp wrist. I don't know if he lives in Miami. What I'm saying is, if HE can speculate in such a way as to leave a distinct but false impression, why can't I? I said his editorial was *on the same level* as calling him a limp wristed Jew. That is, underhanded, speculative, dishonest and destructive.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 2000.

and does nothing to explain why THAT exact reference was used. But thanks for trying.

Currently watching a day-by-day blow of this whole election saga on MSNBC. Helps fill-in many of the areas I had been weak on. I can tell absolutely a great injustice was done here.

USSC had "great opening questions",,,"they were well prepared". Well no duh they were. America was taken on ride, taken for fools. Our tenets were shit-on and people were cheering?

Like I said a week ago, America is done.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 17, 2000.

Doc Droolie:

So where will you be running to? I'm curious. Mexico?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 2000.

Funny Doc, I am not a big brain intellectual, but Flint's "limp wristed Jew" statement was pretty clear to me.

This verbal bile is at the same level as, for instance, wondering if this Mark Levine is one of those limp-wristed Jews who couldn't punch a chad out of a ballot competently.

Read for comprehension, or points will be deducted.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 17, 2000.

Deduct all you want, am I supposed to give a crap? Why was the reference used? Gee cause Flint is a shelter ignorant bozo who has lived his life amongst equally dimbulbs in the South?

Get some culture.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 17, 2000.

LOL! I need more Petri dishes, I'm all out of culture, what with me living in the south and all.

Ahh what did I miss? That unless one goose-steps behind the PalmReader Meme like Flint they are spewing sour grapes.

And conversely, unless one sees those sour grapes as rightful indignation to a stolen election, one must by association goose step behind the palm reader meme, eh?

I can only conclude that you're as "guilty" of meme-speak as Flint, the chief difference being that you trust the accuracy of palm readers, while Flint (and I) do not.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 17, 2000.

Unk:

I think Doc is a bit jealous because he can't rub two coherent thoughts together, and his sentences don't parse according to any known grammar. But as comic relief, he can't be beat (at least now that Our Pal Ray is gone).

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 2000.

I think it time I leave you losers to yourself, have a nice Holiday.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 17, 2000.

Oh c'mon now Doc, don't get mad. Hell, I didn't even call you any names! Have a good one too, you rascal.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 17, 2000.

You're right Unk, sorry bout that. Chalk my outburst to being under the influence of capnfun's excellent wine gift from the visit :) Argentina I salute you! and cap, most delicious that Balbi 1999 red. Thanks from Droolie and the Meathead, Merry Christmas.

What I am sick of is Flint. Guy would argue the color of the daytime sky, just because. Anyhow enough of wasting time with that joker. Holidays, time to stop the bickering.

As promised a shopping goodie. Are you like me and have lists-books- scraps of paper lying all over your desk with urls, passwords, general web junk? Me too, I have a full address book of passwords- usernames all the baggage a websurfer gathers navigating the internet.

So how does one end the madness, get better organized? A start is a neat little app called Obongo...Obongo. Just started using it and looks like a weiner to me.

While I am at it...another really good browser add-on is a thingee called the UCMore toolbar...UCMore toolbar. Been using for months now and a must add-on.

As to Victoria and her secrets, well unfortunately I am unable to share anything further(wink). Butt I hear nice things.

Anyhow Happy Holidays to all!

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), December 18, 2000.

>> What I am sick of is Flint. <<

He has worn out his welcome with many of us. I have no doubt he attributes this fact to our inability to cope with his evident superiority.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 18, 2000.

Brian:

You may rise now. In recognition of the holiday season, I will pretend you deserve to share this same forum with me, almost as an equal.

You too, Doc.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 18, 2000.