Review: Not Enough Votes In Miami-Dade For Gore

A review of Miami-Dade County's uncounted votes in our last presidential election revealed that Al Gore would not have gained enough votes to beat President Bush in Florida.

The review, sponsored by the Miami Herald and its parent company Knight Ridder and USA Today, showed that out of 10,644 uncounted ballots in Miami-Dade County, Gore would have only gained 49 votes.

A recount of the same ballots conducted by the Palm Beach Post in January, found that Bush would have gained six more votes than Gore.

Not Enough Votes In Miami-Dade For Gore

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 26, 2001

Answers

This contradicts what the Washington Post reported about 10 days ago. Someone is wrong.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 26, 2001.

And what does this have to say about what the result would have been if ALL the undervotes/overvotes were counted-according to the decision of the Florida Supreme Court?

Nothing.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), February 26, 2001.

RECOUNT THIS LIBERALS!-Review: Not Enough Votes In Miami-Dade For Gore CAN YOU STOP THE DAMN WHINING NOW?????????

And what does this have to say about what the result would have been if ALL...

I guess that answers my question now doesn't it!

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 26, 2001.

This contradicts what the Washington Post reported about 10 days ago. Someone is wrong.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 26, 2001.

Ok...will a link to the USA Today quoting the Miami Herald do it for you?

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 26, 2001.

And what does this have to say about what the result would have been if ALL the undervotes/overvotes were counted-according to the decision of the Florida Supreme Court?

Nothing.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), February 26, 2001.

Oh you might wanna click on the above USA TODAY article FutureShock. There you will find the following statement...

BDO Seidman reported that 4,892 of 10,646 undervote ballots in Miami-Dade had no mark whatsoever. It found that 1,555 ballots had some indication the voter wanted Gore and 1,506 indicated Bush. The remainder were either marked, but not on a candidate's name, or were for other candidates.

Dimpled chads accounted for 1,202 of the 1,555 potential Gore votes and 1,092 of the 1,506 potential Bush votes.

If the most-lenient standard had been used to judge votes, and dimpled chads had been counted, Gore benefited slightly. When stricter standards applied, Bush won the county.

Ummmm...I think the undervotes HAVE been counted.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 26, 2001.

This is OLD NEWS. We already knew Miami Dade did not have enough for Gore. But the entire state had enough for Gore, and it will be shown after the recount is done that Gore won by thousands.

Had the Bush team allowed ALL THE VOTES in ALL THE COUNTIES to be counted (that's old-fashioned democracy), then Gore would have won. He's already well ahead in the media recounts.

So bite it, Ain't, and quit spewing your smear propaganda. We're all so sick of you. If you epitomize the GOP, God help us, because you are stupider than a door knob.

-- Ain't Gonna Ever be Smart (aint@stupid.com), February 26, 2001.

This is OLD NEWS.

Yeah...ONE DAY OLD! DUH!

But the entire state had enough for Gore.. Hey Einstein...GORE picked the FOUR counties in Florida that are infested HEAVILY by Deomcrat's to be recounted. He didn't pick the rest of the state because it is moderate to Republican controlled.

In terms YOU can understand: GORE LOST! HE HAS *ZERO* chance of winning the rest of the state in ANY recount!

DUH!!!!

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 26, 2001.

off

-- (clean@up.crew), February 26, 2001.

Ain't you sure are a fool, the way you believe everything you read in the papers.

Only an idiot like you would believe that they would actually tell the American people that Gore really won. This would cause protests and riots on a national scale, and probably spark a civil war.

-- (ain't @ is. a total idiot), February 26, 2001.

“Ain't you sure are a fool, the way you believe everything you read in the papers. “

As opposed to your secret sources of information? ROTFLMAO

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 26, 2001.

God help us, because you are stupider than a door knob.

-- Ain't Gonna Ever be Smart (aint@stupid.com), February 26, 2001.

Ummmmmm.....for someone throwing stones inside their glass house, there is NO such word as stupider. Could you have meant, more stupid? If so, why is it someone as smart as you didn't know this?

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 26, 2001.

God help us, because you are stupider than a door knob...

Oh and one more thing. At least I wasn't stupider or gullible enough to at any time vote for this scum bag NOR believe he was anything less than morally bankrupt over the past eight years!

It is dimwits like you that believed as Hillary "Rotten" Clinton once did that is was the "Vast right-wing conspiracy" setting her poor dumb as a fox husband up all along. If you noticed oh brainless one, she stopped saying that right after Billy boy set HER up on that TV interview during Monicagate. Shortly thereafter, Billy was wearing a VERY large 4x4 band aid on his cheek coinciding with a VERY subdued, Hillary.

ROFLMAO!

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 26, 2001.

Shortly thereafter, Billy was wearing a VERY large 4x4 band aid on his cheek coinciding with a VERY subdued, Hillary.

Connect the dots or have someone do it for you.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 26, 2001.

We're all so sick of you.

You should be sick of the Democrats. Bill & Hillary specificly.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 26, 2001.

Gore is currently ahead in Florida by 1554 votes (where intent is perfectly clear) and thousands more where intent is reasonably clear. His lead will grow. This is "old news" in the sense that we already knew Miami Dade would not push Gore to the top, that the state totals would.

Hope that clears it up. You may go back to your foul cave, Ain't, where you stew about the Clintons and leap out now and then in histrionic uppercase.

-- Just for the record (gore@racks.it.up), February 26, 2001.

Hmmmmm...maybe MSNBC< /A> can help you.

Democrats said the review shows neither side could have known how the recounts would turn out. “This underscores how unpredictable the whole recount strategy was, on both sides,” said Doug Hattaway, former Gore campaign spokesman.

Gore falls short in ballot review

Sounds VERY much like a concession to me.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 26, 2001.

Hey Ain't, just curious, do you actually hold a job? If so, how come they let you act like a hysterical maniac all day long, every day??

Since you are a full time "major-league asshole" on this forum, inquiring minds want to know... do you actually do anything else with your life?

-- (ain't.sure.is@dipshit.loser), February 26, 2001.

<"img src="http://www.democrats.com/images/ACF59F.jpg">

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 27, 2001.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 27, 2001.

slaps forehead Note to self: Stupider AINT a word :-)

LMAO.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), February 28, 2001.

So Gore Really Won?

April 6, 2001

One day after the Miami Herald published a story that prompted national headlines about George W. Bush being the real winner in Florida, the newspaper effectively recanted.

In a new story in Thursday's editions, the Herald acknowledged what we also pointed out: that a careful examination of the Herald's own data would have led to a conclusion that Al Gore was the choice of Florida voters under a reasonable standard judging the "clear intent of the voters."

The Herald's data revealed that by looking at the so-called "undervotes" in all 67 counties and counting various markings for president, Gore would have won Florida and thus the presidency.

The Herald's second-day story said Gore would have achieved net gains of 1,475 votes in Palm Beach County and 1,081 votes in Broward County if the various marks for president recorded on the ballots were counted.

"Broward and Palm Beach canvassing boards … could have credited hundreds more ballots to the Democrat if they had counted every dimple, pinprick and hanging chad as a vote," the Herald reported.

Even with a more conservative standard, Gore could have erased Bush's certified statewide victory of 537 votes, meaning that Gore could be president today if a full, statewide recount had been permitted.

Yet, Wednesday's misleading "Bush Won" story -- pushed by the Herald and its recount partner USA Today -- was widely embraced by the national press corps and applauded by Bush partisans in the White House. The new Herald story, entitled "Recounts Could Have Given Gore the Edge," received only a fraction of the national attention.

Strange Logic

The earlier story reached its "Bush Won" conclusion by subtracting Gore's gains in Palm Beach, Broward, Volusia and part of Miami-Dade County. That subtraction was based on the questionable logic that those votes would not have been included in the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on Dec. 8, even if the recount had not been stopped by five Republican justices of the U.S. Supreme Court a day later.

[For more details about the Herald's odd rationale, see "W's Latest Unjust Reward."]  

After helping to establish the bogus conventional wisdom of Bush as the legitimate winner, the Herald reversed itself with the second-day story that reached what seems to be a contradictory conclusion.

"Had the Broward and Palm Beach canvassing boards used the loosest standard in judging ballots … Gore almost certainly would have won," the Herald reported. "He might have gained 2,022 votes in the two counties. …

"And that tally may be conservative because it excludes the cleanly punched ballots in Broward, 252 Bush votes and 786 Gore votes. Broward election officials say they cannot be certain that cleanly punched ballots weren't also read during the machine count."

The newspaper then quoted Rep. Peter Deutsch, D-Fla., who followed the Broward recount as saying that these marks on the ballots represented the clear intent of voters.

"The reality is that the canvassing board did not use a liberal standard and did not use the correct standard," Deutsch said. "Had they used the correct standard, Al Gore would be president."

Deep inside the Wednesday "Bush Won" story, the Herald reported that Gore would have carried Florida by 299 votes even with a more conservative standard – counting undervotes that had been partially punched through and ballots that had indentations in more than one race, indicating a voter trying to cast a vote on a malfunctioning voting machine.

As we pointed out, that information about Gore's apparent victory was buried in the 44th paragraph of the Herald's initial story.

Missing Votes

In a related Florida-election development on Thursday, The New York Times reported that hundreds of undervote ballots in Florida apparently disappeared before the unofficial newspaper recounts could be conducted, adding more confusion to the outcome.

"In Orange County, for example, officials reported in November that they had found 966 ballots with no discernible vote for president," the Times said. "But when the newspapers went back to recount those undervotes, the county could only produce 639 such ballots. In Miami-Dade County, the discrepancy was 106 ballots; in Pasco 64." [NYT, April 5, 2001]

The Times is part of a different group of newspapers conducting their own recount in Florida, a tally that is expected to be finished in about a month.

Unlike the Miami Herald/USA Today tally, the other newspapers are counting both undervotes – those lacking a machine-read vote for president – and overvotes – where voters may have punched a ballot and then written in the name of the candidate of their choice.

Still, the Miami Herald's first misleading story reaffirming Bush's victory is the one that has gotten virtually all the media play and become the news media's conventional wisdom. The newspaper's reversal a day later has been almost totally ignored.

Nevertheless, in contradiction of that conventional wisdom, the evidence continues to build that Gore was not only the favorite of Florida's voters – if there had not been irregularities with the "butterfly ballot" and the purging of voters incorrectly identified as felons – but it appears that Gore also would have been elected president if a fair statewide recount had been permitted.

Thanks to the determined efforts of George W. Bush and his lawyers, that opportunity was never permitted. 

Back to Front

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 19, 2001.

This is the part where Ain't or some other Republican flunky is supposed to pipe up with...

The election's over, Bush WON. Get over it already!

LOL

-- (so@very.predictable), April 20, 2001.

The Consortium News article Cherri cuts and pastes is dated Friday, April 6. Thus, the Miami Herald article of Thursday, April 5, "Recounts could have given Gore the edge," quoted in pertinent part below, should be the one referred to in this passage: "In a new story in Thursday's editions, the Herald acknowledged what we also pointed out: that a careful examination of the Herald's own data would have led to a conclusion that Al Gore was the choice of Florida voters under a reasonable standard judging the 'clear intent of the voters.'" The Herald article states: "Broward and Palm Beach canvassing boards. . . could have credited hundreds more ballots to the Democrat if they had counted every dimple, pinprick and hanging chad as a vote. . . ." This is hardly "a reasonable standard judging the 'clear intent of the voters.'" And the data did not derive from the Herald's own recount, as Cherri's referenced article states, nor did it cover the entire state of Florida, but only Broward and Palm Beach counties. If Cherri's article does not refer to this Herald article, then perhaps she could give us a link to the correct one. In addition, on April 4, the Herald had this story about the fiteen--FIFTEEN--other recounts that have been performed and which reached similar conclusions. Wednesday, April 4, 2001

Fifteen inquiries were conducted

Numbers vary to some degree, but the conclusions are similar

BY DANIEL de VISE

ddevise@herald.com

Newspapers other than The Herald have completed 15 separate ballot reviews covering 33 Florida counties since Election Day. And while the numbers vary, the conclusions are generally the same.

Most of the reviews were in counties where examination of rejected ballots shows former Vice President Al Gore picking up votes. The Herald-sponsored review generally agreed, though The Herald's inspection of ballots from all 67 counties allows broader conclusions on who might have won a recount.

An example: The Palm Beach Post reported that Gore could have gained another 784 net votes if all the marks next to his name had been counted as votes. The Herald review placed that number at 1,081, counting every dimple.

The Post also concluded that the so-called ``butterfly ballot'' had cost Gore about 6,600 votes when voters punched both Gore and one other candidate, either Pat Buchanan or David McReynolds. A Herald examination of electronic records of the overvoted ballots reached a similar conclusion about Gore-Buchanan punches in January.

The newspapers examined ballots in individual counties or in small groups of counties, generally relying on reporters to examine the ballots and typically counting every marking they found -- including dimples -- toward their final vote totals.

The Herald, in contrast, retained an accounting firm to do its comprehensive ballot inspection, visited every county in the state and analyzed results according to several different standards for defining a vote.

Some of the newspaper reviews have sparked torrents of irate e-mails and telephone calls from readers, accusing the reviewers of abusing statistics and wielding liberal bias. Other readers are just as passionate in applauding the efforts.

A common criticism: The newspapers are too generous in counting dimples as legitimate votes. On overvotes, critics say, the reviewers strain credibility when they draw conclusions about which punch was a voter's intended choice.

``This leads a lot of readers to a place that I do not think is based in science or fact. It is based in conjecture,'' said U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Palm Beach Gardens. Several newspapers counted both undervotes and overvotes in their analyses. The Herald's review focused first on undervotes, the ballots that would have been recounted if the U.S. Supreme Court had not halted the election protest. A subsequent tally of overvotes, conducted in partnership with USA Today, is expected soon.

THE TRENDS

Most of the reviews gave precise numbers of new votes for Gore and Bush from among the discarded ballots. But while the reviews agreed on the trends, most gave different numbers.

A sampling of the findings:

Among 13 ballot reviews in individual counties by various newspapers since Election Day, nine found net gains for Gore, four for Bush. The Herald review reached the same conclusion in all of those counties but one, Miami-Dade. There, The Palm Beach Post reported a gain of six votes for Bush, while The Herald found a 49-vote gain for Gore.

In Alachua County, The Gainesville Sun found a net gain of 12 votes for Gore. The Herald found a net gain of 10 votes for Gore.

In Lee County, the Bonita Daily News found a 138-vote gain for Bush. The Herald found 96.

An analysis by the Orlando Sentinel of every discarded ballot, undervotes and overvotes, in the 15 Florida counties with the highest error rates, published Jan. 28, found a net gain of 366 Gore votes. The counties: Bradford, Charlotte, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Hamilton, Hendry, Jackson, Lafayette, Lake, Levy, Liberty, Okeechobee, Suwannee and Taylor.

A Washington Post review of computer records for all 2.7 million votes in eight large counties, published Jan. 27, found Gore selected three times as often as Bush on rejected overvotes.

Newspapers aren't the only entities that have reviewed ballots. Two other organizations, the Republican Party and the conservative think-tank Judicial Watch, have conducted their own ballot inspections in dozens of counties.

The Republicans have found many fewer valid votes than their journalist counterparts. Citing what they called the U.S. Supreme Court standard, the Republicans recorded a vote only when it appeared the voter had followed the instructions in the ballot book -- a clean punch or a filled-in oval.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court majority that overturned the Florida Supreme Court's order established no such standard. That standard was voiced in a three-judge minority opinion that argued that voters should be required to follow written instructions.

A March 23 report by the Republican Party of Florida found a net gain of 361 votes for Bush based on results from 18 counties, according to the party's vote-counting standard. In those same counties, using the clean-vote or filled-in-bubble standard, The Herald found a net yield of 522 votes for Gore.

The discrepancy is mostly due to conflicting results in Broward, where The Herald found a net gain of 534 votes for Gore among cleanly punched ballots, while the Republicans found a 235-vote gain for Bush.

In the 17 other counties visited by the Republicans -- Collier, Duval, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Marion, Miami-Dade, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco and Suwannee -- they and The Herald reached similar conclusions, if only clean punches are counted.

The Republican Party of Florida declined to share detailed information that might have explained the Broward discrepancy. The party's ballot inspections were generally carried out by volunteers.

CONSERVATIVE GROUP

Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group, hired an accounting firm to inspect 47,724 ballots in eight counties: Broward, Collier, Hillsborough, Indian River, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Pinellas and Sarasota.

The group found a net gain of 116 votes for Bush in six of those counties, when counting every marking as a vote. The total excludes Palm Beach and Broward, where recounts already were done. Judicial Watch also concluded that the Palm Beach recount awarded Gore 62 undeserved votes.

The Herald's ballot inspectors found a net gain of 289 votes for Bush in the same six counties tallied by Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch concluded that a statewide recount of undervotes would not have changed the outcome of the election.

While most newspapers used reporters to inspect ballots, the organizers of the two statewide ballot reviews chose to have trained number-crunchers do most of the work.

The Herald had a reporter and an accountant view each ballot independently. The newspaper used data from the accounting firm, BDO Seidman, LLP, for its official results and used the work of its own reporters for statistical checks.

The multi-newspaper consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago to do its ballot review.

Bill Rose, the deputy managing editor of The Palm Beach Post, said that newspaper wanted reporters to review the ballots. ``We felt that reporters would find things that non-reporters wouldn't find, that they would see things and ask questions that other people might not,'' he said.

-- Let's try to (get@the.facts), April 20, 2001.