Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!
From: Mark Cook (mcook_at_prodigy.net)
Date: 03/11/05
- Next message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Sneezing on Greenpeace"
- Maybe in reply to: Klaus Heitman: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Next in thread: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Reply: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:10:54 GMT
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:d0s6ml$mc6$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <EG%Xd.11615$gB6.10115@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
> >news:oVLXd.9584$RM2.5260@read1.cgocable.net...
> >>
> >> So Bush Did Steal the White House
> >
> >Complete and utter BS. This article is going to be so easy to defeat.
> >Further, IF we want to get into the discussion of the ramifications of
the
> >Electoral Count Act of 1887, the argument would be soundly defeated (any
> >recount after state certification is non-binding).
> >
> >> By Robert Parry
> >>
> >> November 22, 2001
> >>
> >> George W. Bush now appears to have claimed the most powerful office in
> the
> >> world by blocking a court-ordered recount of votes in Florida that
> likely
> >would
> >> have elected Al Gore to be president of the United States.
> >
> >This is wrong. Bush already had the electors he needed to win. A shame of
> a
> >recount was not going to change this fact. Just because the FSC decided
to
> >try to give the election to Gore, does not mean that Congress would go
> along
> >with them.
> >
> >> A document, revealed by Newsweek, indicates that the Florida recount
> that
> >> was
> >> stopped last year by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court would
> have
> >> taken
> >> into account so-called "overvotes" that heavily favored Gore.
> >> If those "overvotes" were counted, as now it appears they would have
> been,
> >> Gore
> >> would have carried Florida regardless of what standard of chad -
> dimpled,
> >> hanging, punched-through - was used in counting the so-called
> >"undervotes,"
> >> according to an examination of those ballots by a group of leading news
> >> organizations.
> >
> >It was GORE who claimed including those ballots was illegal, thus he did
> NOT
> >CONTEST those ballots. In other words, Gore did NOT ask for those
> overvoted
> >ballots to be included in the recount.
> >
> >JUSTICE STEVENS: Mr. Boies, can I ask you this question; does that mean
> >there 110,000 overvotes?
> >
> >MR. BOIES: That's right.
> >
> >JUSTICE STEVENS: And if that's the case, what is your response to the
> chief
> >justice of Florida's concern that the recount relates only to undervotes
> >and not overvotes?
> >
> >MR. BOIES: Well, first, nobody asked for a contest of the overvotes. And
> >the contest statute begins with a party saying that there is either a
> >rejection of legal votes or an acceptance of illegal votes --
> >
> >JUSTICE KENNEDY: But as a matter of remedy, it's ordered a statewide
> >recount in counties where the ballots were not contested, and that's
> where
> >I'm having some difficulty. And it goes back in part to your answer that
> >you gave to Justice Stevens -- Justice Scalia about Broward County, and
> in
> >part to the answer you're giving to Justice Stevens now.
> >
> >Why is it that you say on the one hand to Justice Scalia, "Oh, well
these
> >weren't part of the contest", but now all of a sudden we're talking
about
> >statewide that are not -- well, all of which are contested, but we're
not
> >talking about the overvote?
> >
> >http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/scotus/boies_12-11.html
> >
> >> In other words, Bush lost not only the national popular vote by more
> than
> >a
> >> half
> >> million ballots, but he would have lost the key state of Florida and
> thus
> >> the
> >> presidency, if Florida's authorities had been allowed to count the
votes
> >> that
> >> met the state's legal requirement of demonstrating the clear intent of
> the
> >> voter.
> >
> >FALSE. The examination by those news organizations did NOT include all of
> >the disputed ballots.
> >
> >The NORC claims that there where approx 180,000 disputed ballots.
> >
> >http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/press.asp
> >
> >The Orlando Sentinel backs up this claim, they found that there were as
> >many as 179,855 disputed ballots.
> >
> >http://www.co.leon.fl.us/elect/blankspoilFL.pdf
> >
> >The NORC says that they gained access to 175,010 of the 179,855 disputed
> >ballots, thus their recount did not include all of the disputed ballots.
> >
> >> The Newsweek disclosure - a memo that the presiding judge in the state
> >> recount
> >> sent to a county canvassing board - shows that the judge was
instructing
> >the
> >> county boards to collect "overvotes" that had been rejected for
> indicating
> >> two
> >> choices for president when, in reality, the voters had made clear their
> >one
> >> choice.
> >
> >WRONG AGAIN.
> >
> >Under Florida Code, the law requires that a uniform standard be in place
> >across the state.
> >
> >(c) Any manual recount must be completed in accord with standards for
> >counting chads that are uniform across the counties.The Legislature has
> >directed: "The Department of State shall adopt rules prescribing
> standards
> >for ballots used in electronic or electromechanical voting systems. Such
> >standards shall ensure that ballots are counted in a uniform and
> consistent
> >manner and shall include, without limitation, standards for the
> ..Scoring
> >of ballots. FLA STAT.§101.5609(8) (emphasis added). See also
> >FLA.STAT.§97.012 (the Secretary of State shall "Obtain and maintain
> >uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the
> >election laws).
> >
> >http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/floridahouse.pdf
> >
> >Further, Federal Code says that laws CANNOT be changed AFTER an election
> has
> >taken place. Dimple chads were not legal votes before this election, to
> >change to a counting standand that includes those type of ballots is
> >illegal.
> >
> >http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/5.html
>
> There was no change. FL law says the ballots must be counted to reflect
> the intent of the voter. It does not go into specifics.
The "1990 Standard" or the "1990 Guideline" precluded the counting of
dimpled chads. The fact is, the state of Florida had NEVER considered a
dimpled chad a legal vote before this election.
> >Clearly, the counties were violating both Florida and Federal Code by
> >changing the counting standards.
>
> Wrong.
Great agument, Lloyd. Care to explain to us why 3 U.S.C. section 5 does not
apply?
> >IF the recount have been allowed to be
> >completed, the results would have been thrown out because of the
> violations
> >to the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
>
> Wrong.
Another great agument. Care to explain to us how Gore would have gotten rid
of Bush's slate of electors and replaced them with a slate of his own from
this standardless, non-binding, partial recount of disputed ballots, i.e a
recount designed to steal an election???
> >> "If you would segregate 'overvotes' as you describe and indicate in
your
> >> final
> >> report how many where you determined the clear intent of the voter,"
> wrote
> >> Judge
> >> Terry Lewis, who had been named by the Florida Supreme Court to oversee
> >the
> >> statewide recount, "I will rule on the issue for all counties."
> >
> >Just exactly when was he going to rule on this???? Remember, the Florida
> >Supreme Court had set a deadline on 12/12/2000. Here are 3 days before
the
> >deadline, and Lewis had only addressed this question with 1 of Florida's
> 67
> >counties.
> >
> >From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris,
> 11/21/2000.
> >"Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate
> only
> >if the returns submitted the Department so late that their inclusion
will
> >compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two way:
> (1)
> >by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer from contesting the
> >certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168; or (2) by
> >precluding Florida voters from participating fully in the federal
> electoral
> >process." (reference to footnote 55)
> >
> >"Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C. § § 1-10 (1994)."
> >
> >The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code.
> >
> >http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf
> >
> >Also see their decision on 12/11/2000
> >
> >http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346-remand.pdf
> >
> >Further, Lewis ruling wasn't going to settle the issue, it was going to
> >cause more problems.
> >
> >"As implemented by Judge Terry Lewis, the Florida Supreme Court's
> decision
> >gave short shrift to Bush's basic right to judicial review of the
> thousands
> >of disputed ballot-interpretation decisions made by (among others)
openly
> >partisan Democratic officials. In a series of late-night rulings hours
> >after the Dec. 8 decision, Judge Lewis refused to suggest (or hear
> evidence
> >on) what chad-counting standard vote-counters should use; assigned
> hundreds
> >of untrained counters to plunge into this world of standardless
> >chad-interpretation, without even requiring that they be nonpartisan;
> >refused to require that a record be kept of chad-interpretation
> decisions,
> >thereby making appeals virtually impossible; ignored Bush's request for
a
> >recount of those hundreds of rejected overseas military ballots; and
> >shrugged off claims that some Gore votes would inevitably be counted
> >twice."
> >
> >"In short, Judge Lewis understood his marching orders: Damn due process.
> >Full speed ahead. So, it seems, did a majority of the U.S. Supreme
> Court."
> >
> >http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2000-12-28.htm
> >
> >> Lewis's memo to the chairman of the Charlotte County canvassing board
> was
> >> written on Dec. 9, 2000, just hours before Bush succeeded in getting
> five
> >> conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Florida
> >recount.
> >> Lewis has said in more recent interviews that he might well have
> expanded
> >> the
> >> recount to include those "overvotes." Indeed, it would be hard to
> imagine
> >> that
> >> he wouldn't count those legitimate votes once they were recovered by
the
> >> counties and were submitted to Lewis.
> >>
> >> The "overvotes" in which voters marked the name of their choice and
also
> >> wrote
> >> in his name would be even more clearly legal votes than the so-called
> >> "undervotes" which were kicked out for failing to register a choice
that
> >> could
> >> be read by voting machines.
> >>
> >> Misguided Articles
> >
> >This article certainly qualifies as one of those "misguided articles".
> >
> >> This new information indicating that the wrong presidential candidate
> >moved
> >> into
> >> the White House also makes a mockery of the Nov. 12 front-page stories
> of
> >> the
> >> New York Times, the Washington Post and other leading news outlets,
> which
> >> stated
> >> that Bush would have won regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling.
> >> Those stories were based on the hypothetical results if the
> state-ordered
> >> recount had looked only at "undervotes." The news organizations
> assumed,
> >> incorrectly it now appears, that the "overvotes" would have been
> excluded
> >> from
> >> such a tally, leaving Bush with a tiny lead.
> >
> >WRONG AGAIN. No proof that Gore would have won Florida.
> >
> >> In going with the "Bush Wins" headlines, the news organizations
> downplayed
> >> their
> >> more dramatic finding that Gore would have won if a full statewide
> recount
> >> had
> >> been conducted in accordance with state law. Using the
> >> clear-intent-of-the-voter
> >> standard, Gore beat Bush by margins ranging from 60 to 171 votes,
> >depending
> >> on
> >> what standard was used in judging the "undervotes."
> >>
> >> Beyond the big newspapers' false assumptions about the state recount,
> the
> >> news
> >> stories showed a pro-Bush bias in their choice of language and the
> overall
> >> slant
> >> of the articles.
> >>
> >> The New York Times, for instance, used the word "would" and even
> >declarative
> >> statements when referring to Bush prevailing in hypothetical partial
> >> recounts.
> >> By contrast, the word "might" was used when mentioning that Gore topped
> >Bush
> >> if
> >> all ballots were considered.
> >>
> >> "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots," the Times
> >wrote,
> >> "reveal that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States
> >Supreme
> >> Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the
> >Florida
> >> Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many
partisans
> >of
> >> former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United State Supreme
> Court
> >> did
> >> not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by
> >Mr.
> >> Gore."
> >
> >What comprehensive review?? The one that left out as many as 4,800
> disputed
> >ballots???
> >
> >> Two paragraphs later, the Times noted that the examination of all
> rejected
> >> ballots "found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a
> >full
> >> statewide recount. . The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have
eked
> >out
> >> a
> >> victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly
> >> advocated
> >> when he called on the state to 'count all the votes.'"
> >>
> >> Left out of that formulation, which suggests that Gore was a hypocrite,
> is
> >> the
> >> fact that Bush rejected Gore's early proposal for a full statewide
> >recount.
> >> Bush
> >> also waged a relentless campaign of obstruction that left no time for
> the
> >> state
> >> courts to address the equal-protection-under-the-law concerns raised by
> >the
> >> U.S.
> >> Supreme Court in its final ruling on Dec. 12, 2000.
> >
> >Florida code DID NOT REQUIRE Bush's permission. IF Gore wanted a full
> >recount, HE SHOULD HAVE FILED FOR ONE!!!!! Gore is a hypocrite. He didn't
> >care if all ballots were recounted, he FOUGHT ONLY for 4 DEMOCRAT
> COUNTIES.
> >He NEVER wanted a full recount.
> >
>
> True, and the media analysis shows that's what he should have done; he
> would have won.
A partial recount by the media does not prove your point.
The NORC claims that there where approx 180,000 disputed ballots.
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/press.asp
The Orlando Sentinel backs up this claim, they found that there were as
many as 179,855 disputed ballots.
http://www.co.leon.fl.us/elect/blankspoilFL.pdf
The NORC says that they gained access to 175,010 of the 179,855 disputed
ballots, thus their recount did not include all of the disputed ballots.
> >> Note also how the Times denigrates as misguided Gore "partisans" those
> >> American
> >> citizens who concluded, apparently correctly, that the U.S. Supreme
> Court
> >> awarded the election to Bush.
> >
> >Yet Gore DID NOT FILE for a full recount. Just exactly how did Bush
> >"obstruct" Gore???? Did Bush use mind control tactis on Gore?? "Don't
file
> >for a full recount, don't file for a full recount, don't file for a full
> >recount....."
> >
> >> The headlines, too, favored Bush. The Times' front-page headline on
Nov.
> >12
> >> read, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast
the
> >> Deciding Vote." The Washington Post's headline read, "Florida Recounts
> >Would
> >> Have Favored Bush."
> >>
> >> Spreading Confusion
> >>
> >> The pro-Bush themes in the headlines and stories were repeated over and
> >over
> >> by
> >> television and other newspapers, creating a widespread belief among
> casual
> >> news
> >> consumers that Bush had prevailed in the full statewide recount, rather
> >than
> >> only in truncated recounts based on dubious hypotheses.
> >>
> >> Now, Judge Lewis's memo undercuts both the tone and the content of
those
> >> news
> >> reports. It is certainly not clear anymore that the state-ordered
> recount
> >> would
> >> have favored Bush. It also appears likely that the interference by the
> >U.S.
> >> Supreme Court was decisive. Based on the new evidence, the major
> >newspapers
> >> look
> >> to be wrong on both these high-profile points.
> >>
> >> Beyond Gore's narrow victory from the recoverable ballots, the news
> >> organizations concluded - but played down - that Gore lost thousands of
> >> unrecoverable ballots because of flawed ballot designs in several
> >Democratic
> >> strongholds. Gore lost other votes because Gov. Jeb Bush's
> administration
> >> disqualified hundreds of predominantly black voters who were falsely
> >labeled
> >> felons.
> >
> >WRONG AGAIN.
> >
> >First, Jeb Bush does NOT have the authority to remove a voter from the
> >rolls. Under Florida Code, ONLY a county election supervisor has that
> power.
> >In Florida 2000, the MAJORITY of those supervisors were DEMOCRATS.
>
> The state hired a firm with Republican party connections to give counties
> lists of names of "felons" -- many were not felons.
And the checks and balances within the code should have caught the ones who
should not be removed. Out of 57,700 on the list, 108 were wrongfully
removed because they were misidentified.
But Florida also had another type of checks and balance, i.e. a provision
to allow those wrongfully removed to cast a ballots, thus just because they
were not on the voter rolls, does NOT mean they were denied the right to
vote.
".......If you have doubts as to whether or not the felony information is
accurate or are unable to verify the accuracy of the information, we
recommend that affected persons execute the affidavit prescribed in section
101.49, Florida statutes. In short, if there is reasonable doubt as to the
accuracy of the information, you should allow a person to vote."
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm
> >Fla. Stat. 98.0975 (4) (1999)
> >
> >(4) "Upon receiving the list from the division, the supervisor must
> >attempt to verify the information provided. If the supervisor does not
> >determine that the information provided by the division is
incorrect, the
> >supervisor must remove from the registration books by the next
subsequent
> >election the name of any person who is deceased, convicted of a felony,
> or
> >adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting."
>
> And so they were removed, as required by FL law, when the
Republican-chosen
> firm gave its list.
The election supervisors are NOT supposed to blindly remove these names,
they are to CHECK the list.
"It is your responsibility to attempt to verify the accuracy of the
information on the list, and remove, prior to the next election, any person
who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or mentally incapacitated with
respect to voting. If you have doubts as to whether or not the felony
information is accurate or are unable to verify the accuracy of the
information, we recommend that affected persons execute the affidavit
prescribed in section 101.49, Florida statutes. In short, if there is
reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the information, you should allow a
person to vote."
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm
Again, according to the Palm Beach Post, they could only find 108 out of
57,700 the list were wrongfully removed because they were misidentified as a
felon.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm
> >Second, the Palm Beach Post could only find 1,104 names that were
> wrongfully
> >removed.
>
> Out of the small sample they looked at.
The Palm Beach Post said they check all of them.
> >"At least 108 law-abiding people were purged from the voter rolls as
> >suspected criminals, only to be cleared after the election. DBT's
> computers
> >had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of cases they did
> >not share the same name, birthdate, gender or race. One Naples man was
> told
> >he couldn't vote because he was linked with a felon still serving time
in
> a
> >Moore Haven prison."
> >
> >"Florida officials cut from the rolls 996 people convicted of crimes in
> >other states, though they should have been allowed to vote. Before the
> >election, state officials said felons could vote only if they had
written
> >clemency orders, although most other states automatically restore voting
> >rights to felons when they complete their sentences. This policy
> conflicted
> >with a 1998 court ruling that said Florida had "no authority" to deny
> civil
> >rights to those who had them restored in other states. After the
> election,
> >the state changed its policy."
> >
> >Source: The Palm Beach Post, Felon Purge Sacrificed Innocent Voters,
> >5/27/2001
> >
> >See: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm
>
> Now address all the people removed just for having the same name as
felons.
I have, the Palm Beach Post could only find 108 that were wrongfully removed
because they were misidentified.
> >Third, That does NOT mean those people were not allowed to vote because
> >Florida Code allows these voters to sign an affidavit, and then cast a
> >ballot.
> >
> >"Then director of the Division of Elections, Ethel Baxter, issued the
> first
> >of a series of memos on August 11, 1998, regarding the list maintenance
> >activities performed by the supervisors of elections. At that time, Ms.
> >Baxter described the central voter file as the division's "first
> experience
> >with a statewide database" and said that it "cannot be a 100 percent
> >accurate list."
> >
> >and
> >
> >"It is your responsibility to attempt to verify the accuracy of the
> >information on the list, and remove, prior to the next election, any
> person
> >who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or mentally incapacitated with
> >respect to voting. If you have doubts as to whether or not the felony
> >information is accurate or are unable to verify the accuracy of the
> >information, we recommend that affected persons execute the affidavit
> >prescribed in section 101.49, Florida statutes. In short, if there is
> >reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the information, you should allow
> a
> >person to vote."
> >
> >http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm
> >
> >Fourth, The Palm Beach Post found 5,643 felons illegally cast ballots.
>
> No they did not.
I notice that you cannot defeat the link provided.
> > The
> >registrations came down 68% Democrat. Do the math and you will see that
> Gore
> >benefited from these illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes. This
> number
> >clearly defeats the claim of 1,104 by the Palm Beach Post.
> >
> >Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
> >5/28/2001
>
> Sorry, that's not so.
I have posted links that show otherwise.
> >This was the original link,
> >http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/today/news_1.html
> >
>
> And what does "gop" stand for? LOL!
"gopbi" stand for "GO Palm Beach Interactive".
The link takes you directly to the Palm Beach Post. Are you saying that the
Palm Beach Post is an arm of the Republican Party??? Do you care to prove
this???
> >Here is another.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Gore-2004-Community/message/11378?source=
> 1
> >
> >> The New York Times also reported that Bush achieved a net gain of about
> >290
> >> votes by getting illegally cast absentee votes counted in Republican
> >> counties
> >> while enforcing the rules strictly in Democratic counties. Though the
> new
> >> recount tallies did not include any adjustments for these
> irregularities,
> >> the
> >> news organizations estimated that Gore lost tens of thousands of votes
> >from
> >> these disparities, compared to Bush's official victory margin of 537
> >votes.
> >> For months, the leading news organizations have been bending over
> >backwards
> >> to
> >> protect Bush's fragile legitimacy, possibly out of concern for the
> >nation's
> >> image in a time of crisis. Yet, whatever the motivation for trying to
> make
> >> Bush
> >> look good, the evidence is now overwhelming that Bush strong-armed his
> >way,
> >> illegitimately, to the presidency.
> >
> >Here is the link to the NYT article:
> >http://www.carvercodfl.org/articles/NYTballot1.htm
>
> Sorry, that's not a NYT link.
This was a link to the NYT article, I am sure there are other links.
> >They have some of the same mistakes as the Democrats. They claim that
> >Florida Code says these ballots are invalid, yet they ignore the
> >controlling laws in this case.
>
> Or you do.
I have backed my with the appropriate court cases. I notice that you could
not provide a cite to defeat those cases.
> >"Many of the 680 flawed ballots in the analysis of the overseas
envelopes
> >had multiple defects, so the total number of flaws exceeds the number of
> >defective ballots. The following questionable ballots were found:"
> >
> >"344 ballots with no evidence they were cast on or before Election Day.
> >They had late, illegible or missing postmarks."
> >
> >Under both Florida Code and Federal law, ballots cannot be disqualified
> for
> >a lack of postmark. Since a postmark is NOT required, an illegible
> postmark
> >has no significance.
>
> No, but some proof of date is required.
What is your point here?? The Times did NOT say there were not signed and
dated. Florida Administrative Code 1S-2.013(7) only requires a ballot to
have a postmark OR to be signed and dated, NOT both.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/00-16423.pdf
> >From: Bush vs. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board
> >
> >"183 ballots with United States postmarks."
> >
> >To disqualify a ballot because it does not have a APO, FPO, or foreign
> >postmark is a violation of Federal Law. The Judge in the Hillsborough
> case
> >specifically addressed this issue, i.e. US postmark are acceptable.
> >
> >From: Bush vs. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board
> >
> >"96 ballots lacking the required signature or address of a witness."
> >
> >Under Florida Administrative Code, which is controlling, if a ballot has
> a
> >postmark, it is NOT required to be signed.
>
> Not true. You must always sign something when you vote.
Not under Florida Code. I suggest that you read the Florida Election Code,
specifically Fla. Adm. Code 1S-2.013(7).
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/00-16423.pdf
> >From: Robert Harris vs. State of Florida Election Canvassing Commission
> >
> >"169 ballots from voters who were not registered, who failed to sign the
> >envelope or who had not requested a ballot. A request is required by
> >federal law."
> >
> >They grouped 3 different things together. As I pointed out, a signature
> is
> >not required under Florida Code. Second, to disqualify ballots solely
> >because the state has no record of a ballot request is a violation of
the
> >law (just the opposite of what the NY Times said).
> >
> >From: Bush vs. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board and From: Robert
> Harris
> >vs. State of Florida Election Canvassing Commission
> >
> >"5 ballots received after the Nov. 17 deadline."
> >
> >If true, they shouldn't count.
> >
> >"19 voters cast two ballots, both of which counted."
> >
> >If true, 19 should not have counted.
> >
> >They should not have grouped all of the categories together. Of the 680
> >they claim, I can only find 24 that I would agree are invalid.
> >
> >Bush vs. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board:
> >http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/hills.pdf
> >
> >Medina vs. Florida Election Canvassing Commission:
> >http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/medinaorder.pdf
> >
> >(Robert) Harris vs. State of Florida Election Canvassing Commission:
> >http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/00-16423.pdf
> >
> >> In the days immediately after the election, Bush obstructed a
> >full-and-fair
> >> recount in Florida, even dispatching hooligans from outside the state
to
> >> intimidate vote counters. When Gore pressed for recounts in the courts,
> >Bush
> >> sent in lawyers to prevent the tallies. Then, after losing before the
> >> Florida
> >> Supreme Court and the federal appeals court, Bush ultimately got a
> >friendly
> >> hearing from five political allies on the U.S. Supreme Court.
> >
> >Utter BS
> >
> >> If Bush truly respected the precepts of democracy and what those
> >principles
> >> mean
> >> to the world, he could have joined Gore in demanding as full and fair a
> >> Florida
> >> recount as possible. He could have accepted the results, win or lose.
> >
> >The only person who went to court as argued for a full recount was BUSH
> >(through Katherine Harris)!!!! Her arguments were rejected by the
DEMOCRAT
> >MAJORITY of the Florida Supreme Court.
> >
> >From Gore vs. Harris, FSC, 12/8/2000....."Appellees contend that even if
> a
> >count of the undervotes in Miami-Dade were appropriate, section 102.168,
> >Florida Statute (2000), require a count of all votes in Miami-Dade
County
> >and the entire state as opposed to a selected number of votes
challenged.
> >However, the plain language of section 102.168 refutes Appellees'
> >argument."
> >
> >http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf
> >
> >The fact is Gore NEVER filed for a full recount. In fact, he argued that
> the
> >law DID NOT REQUIRE a recount of all ballots.
> >
> >Boies: It is, Your Honor, but here the court expressly based its
> conclusion
> >on three errors of law:
> >
> >"First, that you have to do a statewide recount, which we think there is
> no
> >support for it in this or any other state."
> >
> >"Second, that under one 168, it's an abuse of the discretion standard.
> >Again, we don't think there's any case that says, in terms of what a
> ballot
> >means, whether a ballot does or does not reflect the voter's intent,
that
> >is something that, in the judicial proceeding of a contest, discretion
> >resides in the canvassing board."
> >
> >"And third, that in order to even look at the ballots, which are already
> >admitted into evidence in the case, you have to show a reasonable
> >probability that you will change the election, before you even look at
> the
> >ballots. And again, we think that is inconsistent, first, with the
> standard
> >in 168, which says "or place in doubt," and is inconsistent with the way
> a
> >trial goes, which is that you look at the evidence before you reach that
> >conclusion."
> >
> >Boies is saying that all the voters need NOT BE HEARD. He says the is no
> >legal support for a statewide recount. Yet, this was a challenge to the
> >certification of a statewide vote.
> >
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/courttext120700.
> ht
> >m
> >
> >> Instead Bush opted for the opposite course, deciding that his getting
> the
> >> White
> >> House was more important than the voters having their judgment
accepted,
> >> both
> >> nationally and in Florida. By refusing to hold Bush accountable for his
> >key
> >> role
> >> in thwarting the voters' will, the major news organizations are not
> doing
> >> the
> >> cause of democracy any service.
> >
> >More BS
> >
> >> It turns out that the thousands of demonstrators who protested Bush's
> >> Inauguration were closer to the truth when they shouted at his
> motorcade,
> >> "Hail
> >> to the Thief!"
- Next message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Sneezing on Greenpeace"
- Maybe in reply to: Klaus Heitman: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Next in thread: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Reply: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
