Did Jeb Bush, Kathleen Harris and the Supreme Court just steal the 2000 sElection "a little"?

[reddread]

when they stopped recounting the votes, who was at fault?
What margin of theft would these actors find overwhelming?
How did jeb's pledge to deliver well in advance of voting become immaterial?
Did the ultimate release of the Media Consortium recount that showed Gore had the most votes
just fall on the wrong day? Justice delayed and all that?

or do we just need a plausible line to pass forward?
it cant happen here, again, right?

[Ms. Yertle]

1. I thought the consortium

found that Bush would have had more votes under a number of recount scenarios, including the one that Gore wanted. Seems like I just read that recently.

[trumad]

2. No---the consortium found that Gore had more votes.

The myth that Bush would have won had the recount proceeded dates back to a recount conducted by a consortium of newspapers that examined the ballots. The consortium found that “If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.” But the newspapers decided that this was not how the counties would have actually tabulated the votes. By the variable standards they would have used, the papers reported, Bush would have prevailed. Thus the national news reported a slew of headlines asserting that Bush would have prevailed.

The conclusion was erroneous. The newspapers assumed that the counties would only have looked at “undervotes” — ballots that did not register any votes for president — and ignored “overvotes” — ballots that registered more than one vote for president. An overvote would be a ballot in which the machine mistakenly picked up a second vote for president, or in which a voter both marked a box and wrote in the name of the same candidate. A hand recount in which an examiner is judging the “intent of the voter” would turn those ballots that were originally discarded into countable votes.

Counting overvotes in which the intent of the voter was clear would have resulted in Gore winning the recount. And subsequent reporting by the Orlando Sentinel and Michael Isikoff found that the recount, had it proceeded, almost certainly would have examined overvotes. (Most of the links have been lost over time, but you can find references here and here.)
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html

[Ms. Yertle]

3. I see

This is where I was getting my info. (Don't know how that site leans--maybe rw?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

FULL ANSWER
According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.
Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

[trumad]

4. You are correct...

I think what I wanted to say was the consortium concluded wrong.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. More votes were cast for Gore. Everything else written about the topic obfuscates that reality. n/t

[reddread]

34. by absolute necessity

and why "Democratic voters" would do this eludes me still.

[1939]

7. Overvotes have always been invalid ballots

When we did the "educational" elections when I was in the 8th and 12th grades (1952 and 1956) and we were learning how the system worked, we were always told that an overvote was to be invalidated and discarded.

One of the dirty tricks used when paper ballots were hand counted was for a partisan counter to wear a bandaid on his finger with a bit of pencil lead in it. When he counted an opposition ballot, he would mark an overvote so that the ballot would be discarded rather than counting for the opposition.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. The Voting Rights act of 1965, IIRC, covered voter intent.

Sure, voting for two candidates in the same election can make it impossible to discern voter intent. But voting punching a candidate AND writing in his name can cause a machine to call it an "over vote" when, in fact, voter intent is un mistakenly clear.

[Damansarajaya]

62. You are correct, sir. What is important is Florida law,

which sets as the final determiner "the intent of the voter."

If a human believes that the will of the voter can be determined, as in they voted for Gore and also wrote in the name "Al Gore" in the "write in candidate" space, that's a legal vote.

When the Consortium counted those votes, Gore won.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Are "recount scenarios" your area of interest or "who got more votes"?

If the latter, then Gore won.

Had the Supreme Court actually been interested in the idea of equal protection, they would have ordered a statewide recount, in which case we would be living in a much better world today.

[Ms. Yertle]

35. Technicality question:

Is the SC authorized to take into consideration issues that were not presented to it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. To be candid, I don't give a shit about technicality questions.

The bottom line is the relevant bit.

In this case, that bottom line is that Gore won.

[Ms. Yertle]

43. Well,

there is a process, and you can bet that a lot of people would give a shit about the process. And for good reason.

[reddread]

44. clearly you are not referring to due process.

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. "Process" = 1) we vote 2) those votes are counted 3) the winner takes office.

Those are all unambiguous, yet step #2 wasn't done, which yielded a failure in #3.

[Damansarajaya]

63. Lumberjack Jeff has it exactly right.

Consider this thought-experiment. If Bush had been behind by 317 votes in the official count and he had been demanding a recount (which of course he would have), would the Supreme Court have given it to him?

WITHOUT QUESTION they would have given Bush a recount.

So on its face, the SCOTUS decision was a pure Con job in which they told American democracy to drop dead.

http://www.salon.com/2000/12/15/bush_89/

[randome]

5. Yes. It was a perfect storm on three fronts.

1. Gore ran a lackluster campaign.
2. Ralph Nader siphoned votes away.
3. A compliant Supreme court.

I don't understand the need to pin everything on a single point of reference.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[KittyWampus]

8. #4. Bill Clinton, as head of the Democratic Party, allowed infrastructure to rot

There was no Democratic apparatus in place to deal with the onslaught in Florida.

If you want to win a state, you have to have lieutenants in place and ready to go.

Same as in Ohio.

[Damansarajaya]

64. Helping Democrats has never been a Clinton thing

as far as I can tell.

He sure didn't help us when he couldn't stop himself from fooling around with Lewinsky at the same time Ken Starr is breathing down his neck looking for any dirt he can.

[reddread]

9. no malice aforethought? nothing was planned? a perfect accident?

dont leave out the Brooks Brothers mob rule. That was surely a complete twist of fate.

[onehandle]

12. 'The need' is to deflect guilt from Nader.

And to blame Democrats, namely Clinton and Gore.

[reddread]

13. I dont see them mentioned in the OP

never even occurred to me.

[joeybee12]

23. I don't blame Clinton or Gore, but I do blame a lot of Dems...

Who were not at all willing to fight when it was clear the fix was in.

[stevenleser]

60. Fight how? Republicans had the two ultimate trump cards. The Florida state legislature AND

they knew that if the dispute continued it would throw the election into the House of Representatives and the House delegations favored Republicans meaning an installation of Bush anyway. The election being thrown into the House is the ultimate Constitutional remedy for a disputed Presidential election.

The Florida State legislature quietly voted towards the end of the recount to give Florida's electoral votes to Bush regardless of the recount. And it would have been legal for them to do so:

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

[Rex]

52. randome...

[Jim Lane]

58. More than three, actually.

One should include Harris's illegal voter purge and the butterfly ballot.

I'm not sure Gore's campaign belongs on the list. He didn't deliver the fiery left-wing speeches that would have thrilled many DUers, but a national campaign involves numerous competing considerations. For example, DUers are quick to criticize his selection of Lieberman, but Lieberman was popular in Florida. A ticket of Gore plus some Northern liberal (e.g., Kerry) might have lost Florida legitimately. (Of course, with Kerry he might have won New Hampshire and thus become President.)

I don't understand the need to pin everything on a single point of reference.

On THAT point I completely agree with you.

[stevenleser]

59. And the Florida state legislature which quietly voted to give Florida's Electoral College votes to

Bush regardless of the recount. And it was despicable but Constitutional for them to do so.

[BlueJazz]

6. I think it has happened and will happen over and over. Even some Floridians on this forum highly...

Last edited Sun May 10, 2015, 09:33 AM - Edit history (1)

...suspect the Scott/Sink race for Governor was rigged. When you're in a business where you meet a lot of people and most of those people despise someone and even the people THEY know feel the same way, you become extremely suspicious when the hated person wins.

Also, people like to see the good in other people (I certainly do) but when you're talking about people like Kathleen Harris, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Damon Sikes, you're talking about individuals that are partially selfish, inconsiderate, underhanded plus will do anything to win.

One of my biggest pet peeves about my fellow Americans is the fact that they won't realize how many sociopaths are in Government.
They either don't know or will not accept it.

Edit spelling

[catnhatnh]

10. Let us not forget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

[PCIntern]

11. But…but…but it all worked out!!!

It gave us that Universally Acclaimed President, George W. Bush, who will forever be remembered as one of the Greats!!!!

just in case...

[harrose]

14. The Repukes have stolen every election they won since WWII.

You want to spot an election that the Repukes stole? It's very easy -- look for two things:

1. There was an opponent (if they ran unopposed, as can happen in local races, they probably didn't steal it)
2. They won.

If both of those conditions are present, the odds are very high that they stole the election.

[Ms. Yertle]

36. Reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaallly????

Please explain how 1972 was a steal? Or 1984? Both were much more than landslides--they were annihilations? Embarassing deafeats.

[reddread]

40. we all know it was because of extremist leftist candidates

and leftist extremist voters who stayed home.

[Ms. Yertle]

45. Mondale was an extemist leftis? n/t

[reddread]

46. did you divorce my Turtle?

[reddread]

47. compared to Bush/Reagan?

who isnt?
third wayers aside.

[harrose]

61. If the Repukes Didn't Steal Those Elections...

... then that means that millions upon millions of Americans suddenly decided to vote for vile evil or become raving lunatics (as you have to be to vote for a Rethug). I refused to believe that the majority of Americans suddenly went mad or evil. Obviously the Rethug machine went into overdrive to steal those elections.

[edhopper]

15. Florida in 2000

Ohio in 2004

Bush stole both elections.

Rove thought Romney would steal it in 2012, but was surprised they didn't pull it off.

[reddread]

17. Romney would not benefit Jeb

when I snaked past the call screener on Larry King Live the night before the Republican convention in 1992, and became the first and as it turned out, the only critical caller, there was one statement they (GW and Jeb) made that sticks out-
something to the effect of (..people keep saying, but...)"George Bush is not the pope of politics"

Now, these two cocaine cowboys were as lucid and clear spoken as you will ever hear, no matter what was in their blood.
And, anyone looking for a drop of truth was in the wrong place.
GW has an arrogant self stroking pattern of telling horrible jokes in terrible taste, but the pattern indicates the truth of his beliefs and the untouchable status he retained. While the slightest phony scandal may derail a Democratic candidate, the endless supply of incriminating facts meant nothing to his victory train.

I had never heard the expression or suggestion that GHWB was "the pope of politics" despite an around the clock obsession with C-SPAN and CNN back then.
The only rational conclusion is that GHWB's power, at least within their party and among sympathetic ears, approached that sort of
level.
I would never expect any candidacy that could obstruct the next Bush occupant to have a snowball's chance.
Could Rove be clueless?

[Lochloosa]

16. Reading the comments, everyone seems to forget the real reason the shrub "won" Florida.

Jeb and Katheryn Harris scrubbed 57000 names from the voting rolls just months before the election. 90% were minority voters, voters that traditionally vote democratic. It was found after the election that most of those names removed were in error.

Here is a good story about the "scrubbing".

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-great-florida-ex-con-gamernhow-the-felon-voter-purge-was-itself-felonious/

It would not have been close enough for a recount if tees names had not been removed.

[hifiguy]

18. Read the essay on Florida 2000

in Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Flat-out thievery is a generous way to describe what happened.

[reddread]

19. despite all the facts, and those outdated investigative journalists

people are still willing to buy and sell "Nader did it"
IF Nader did it, why?
WHO put him up to it?
That seems to be the subtext and implication of the most vigorous assertions.
They want it both ways, maybe three ways with a farm animal?
Nader did it!
Nader did it for the Republicans!
Nader's fault!

is anyone really that weak in their logic?
or just THAT dishonest in their rhetoric?
pretty clear cut call.

[edhopper]

20. The logic is that a good portion of the Nader voters

would have voted for Gore, and that would have swung it his way.
It was not Nader's intentions, but that was the result.

Similar to how LePage got elected twice in Maine.

[reddread]

21. that isnt logic, that is a baseless assertion

.

backed up by nothing.
on the other hand, NOTHING would stop crooked tabulators from fouling more ballots.
which is why the assumption that "they only stole it a little" is beyond foolish or naive.
its bullshit, meant to fertilize future excused thefts.

[edhopper]

22. I was addressing your question of

who Nader was schilling for, as if his intention was to throw it to Bush.

That is baseless.

I don't know who says they only stole a little, they steal as much as they have to.

[reddread]

25. exactly

and that is my only serious point.
I think those looking to pin blame on Nader, for whatever reason, purposely come up short on following their logic.
In my opinion, Nader voters did not want to support NAFTA supporters, and would have found another protest candidate before having their vote stolen by fiat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Becuase it is an easy excuse and a lazy excuse

and it allows them to blame the hated left.

They will never blame the dems who voted for bush, since those are conservadems, for example.

[Rex]

53. Exactly and thankfully we don't forget who voted for our enemies.

I will never forgive the Dems in Florida that tipped the scale toward Bush. They just could not stand the fact that Gore was a liberal. So much so that they are the prime reason for 8 years of misery.

IMO.

[graegoyle]

24. My recollection of one aspect:

The US Supreme Court stepped in when it was out of their jurisdiction, usurping Florida's normal process before it got to Florida's State Supreme Court. They decided that to proceed with the recount would injure one participant--Bush--ignoring that NOT continuing would injure one party--Gore.

Also, the USSC opinion stated that their decision could not be used as precedent, when the main purpose of the decisions by the USSC is to be used as precedent.

[reddread]

26. per curiam

and if we believe that, we will believe that Clarence Thomas never discussed Roe v Wade.

[Aerows]

29. I lived in Florida during that election.

We all ended up wearing stickers that read "I voted - I think."

They really should have read "I didn't vote because mine was cast aside."

I absolutely *FUME* when someone suggests that election wasn't hijacked. You had Jeb Bush as the Governor and Harris (Republican to her toes) counting the votes, ruling and everyone was under their thumbs.

If you think that election was fair and square, you weren't living in the state that tipped over to George Bush. There were plenty of livid, angry voters that saw their own votes go up in smoke.

I don't give a glad shit if Satan wins the nomination for the Democratic Party. I'll see another Bush in office when you need snowshoes in Hell.

[MADem]

30. No--they stole it "A LOT."

Our votes--from Maine to Hawaii-- didn't count.

The Supreme Court picked their winner.

[BreakfastClub]

31. I thought everyone knew they stole it? It was beyond obvious and it wasn't " a little." nt

[MisterP]

37. USNWR ran a story (early Sept. 2001) that, yes, it was stolen like it was some banana republic

it's the fine art of the fait accompli: deny, deny, deny, then fess up once it's enetirely too late

[reddread]

38. Pretty sure Jimmy Carter rated our elections unacceptable

what seems to be the biggest mark at this late date is how some people want to overlook the
actual culprits.
not the path towards preventing more of the same.

[MisterP]

39. NADER DID 9-11! AND MADE ME STUB MY TOE!

[reddread]

42. 3,000 plus people died from a horrible tragedy/betrayal

countless Iraqis followed.

more than a few afghanis, pakistanis and others in many lands suffered.

its hilarious..

[MisterP]

57. in 2002 they blamed Nader for 9-11 (since Gore wouldn't have sat on his ass, which is itself correct

in 2004 they blamed Nader for the IWR; in 2006 they blamed Nader for Lebanon; and on it goes

[Baitball Blogger]

48. I think that 9/11 interferred with an honest recount effort.

When we were attacked on U.S. soil it changed everything. We needed a leader whose legitimacy was unquestioned, and so the recount was half-hearted. My take. I'm referring to the recount that the media consortium sponsored.

[reddread]

49. I dont see how

it occurred the day they released the results.
Oh my, perhaps that was the day they were supposed to release the results?
somebody got clarity and perfect recall?

funny how much disappears from the precious reserves of the internets, but per wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

The Florida Supreme Court had ordered "counting of the legal votes contained within the undervotes in all counties where the undervote has not been subjected to a manual tabulation." The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court and stopped their recount via an unsigned "per curiam" opinion in Bush v. Gore, with three Justices (Rehnquist joined by Scalia and Thomas) concurring in a separate opinion. Four Justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) each wrote their own opinion with various combinations of the other three joining.

The media recount study found that under the system of limited recounts in selected counties as was requested by the Gore campaign, the only way that Gore would have won was by using counting methods that were never requested by any party, including "overvotes" — ballots containing more than one vote for an office. While some of these ballots recorded votes for two separate candidates, a significant number (20 percent in Lake County, for example) were cases of a voter voting for a candidate and then also writing in that same candidate's name on the write-in line.

The New York Times did its own analysis of how mistaken overvotes might have been caused by confusing ballot designs. It found that the butterfly ballot in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County may have cost Gore a net 6286 votes, and the two page ballot in 57% Bush Duval County may have cost him a net 1999 votes, each of which would have made the difference by itself.[7] The rest of the media consortium did not consider these because there could be no clear determination of a voter's intent. Separate analyses suggest that confusion over the butterfly ballots may have cost a Gore victory by perhaps a few thousand votes.[8][9]

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. The reporting of the results was definitely corrupted in that way.

The finding that more Floridans voted for Gore was obfuscated by a bunch of procedural gibberish to enable them to write headlines legitimizing the theft.

[Baitball Blogger]

54. We have been living in a sham system ever since.

No wonder the whack jobs think they can get away with isolated incidents. No one in our fine institutions ever gets held accountable for anything in this country. It's just one orchestrated public scare after the other to keep us in line.

[karynnj]

55. Ignore the whole Palm beach voting mess -- the "felons" list which included completely

innocent African Americans - who were then excluded from the vote was their work too. Even when one county noted a problem - when a county worker spotted her husband's name, did not lead to dropping or cleaning the list. In Florida, that meant a large number of blacks were denied the right to vote.

[reddread]

56. the fact that they still work to decrease voting rolls

is one of the few signs I see of the value of registering and voting.
It matters enough that they have to suppress.
But they want to suppress it so much, what limits apply?
fortunately, this is a top priority for our side.
he dripped sarcastically.