« COLEMAN FOR U.S. SENATE PRESS RELEASE: “COLEMAN CAMPAIGN INVITES FRANKEN CAMPAIGN TO AGREE ON PROPER STATEWIDE BALLOT SECURITY” | Home | WILL TEAM FRANKEN AGREE WITH STEARNS COUNTY’S ORDER FOR SECURING BALLOTS? »
WHY GUARDING THE BALLOTS IS SO IMPORTANT
By Michael B. Brodkorb | November 9, 2008
Secretary of State Mark Ritchie had a press conference last Friday to provide an update about the upcoming U.S Senate recount. A question was asked by a reporter from the Pioneer Press about ballot security and U.S. Senator Norm Coleman’s campaign’s efforts to guard the ballots.
Staff from Secretary of State Ritchie’s office rudely snickered when the reporter mentioned that volunteers organized by Coleman’s campaign were watching the ballots. It was very unprofessional of Ritchie’s “non-partisan” staff to openly mock the efforts to get volunteers to spend hours each day being “ballot guards.”
Why is guarding ballot from Tuesday’s election so important? Because even days after the election, officials are still “finding” ballots.
Tags: Norm Coleman, Uncategorized
Topics: Norm Coleman, Uncategorized | 66 Comments »
66 Responses to “WHY GUARDING THE BALLOTS IS SO IMPORTANT”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Michael… every word you spew on this site is unprofessional, so what’s your problem? Seriously.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Yo, Mike, me and some Acorns are having a ballot filling party tonight. You should stop by, we’ve got plenty of blanks for everyone.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Mark Ritchie laughed at republicans as my bank’s manager would probably laugh at me if I told him/her I was going to stand outside the vault and guard the money.
Arguing that all votes must be counted and the will of the voters accepted would be a productive use of time. Standing guard over something you legaly are not allowed near is not.
But it is, sadly, what we have come to expect from Norm.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Did you see that awful photo of Ritchie in Monday’s Star Tribune? He looks demonic.
Mark, have you procured The Recount Primer by Downs, Sautter and Young? You should have had it before the election. I think the only place you can buy it is directly from the author. http://www.sauttercommunications.com/SC-books-popup.html
November 10th, 2008 at 1:29 AM
I mean Mike!
November 10th, 2008 at 1:39 AM
A pop-up book on vote counting? Does it tell Mike how he can organize his “spontaneous” Brooks Brothers Riot?
November 10th, 2008 at 8:14 AM
OMG, You Mini-soda people kill me. Only in Mini-soda would a non-funny “satirist like Franken even have a CHANCE in hell. But in Mini-soda, they have to do a re count. Wasnt Jesse enough for you idiots?
Who is going to run next time around? Bozo the clown? Bet he would get voted in too!
IDIOTS!
November 10th, 2008 at 8:18 AM
GREAT! So when Franken becomes Senator, we can blame the Republicans who guarded the doors and will prove for us that the votes were never tampered with.
GREAT!!
And when the final canvassing comes in, today, and a possible Franken lead, Coleman will have to eat his words and step aside. Double GREAT! *grin*
November 10th, 2008 at 8:28 AM
The ballots are not being guarded in vaults…. they are showing up in people’s personal cars and appearing out of thin-air.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:35 AM
KIs, doncha hate it, when Democrats act like republiCons?
November 10th, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Tommy,
I have to admit that with your goofy style and silly made up words, I never know what the heck you are trying to say.
But if you are saying that the Democrats are stealing the election…..you are right and are just stating the obvious.
But it is the democrats who have the nation-wide, decades old tradition of stealing elections.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Coleman is getting the Dino Rossi treatment. There’ll be more ballots found in closets, trunks of cars, etc, until Franken “wins”.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:04 AM
The snicker was in response to the futility of safeguarding the integrity of this election.
Ritchie’s gerbils know that there is no way that Norm is going to survive the frontal assault that the party of scrubs is mounting to steal this election.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:06 AM
I am also in favor guarding the found votes.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:09 AM
We should be watching this election and recount. We should be noting where the opportunities for vote stealing can occur and attempting to fix those areas.
32 ballots in the trunk of a car for three days is not acceptable. They may have been legally cast and if so should be counted. However, the lack of controls on the ballots is astounding and needs to be investigated and corrected.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:12 AM
I want to know if and how many times Ritchie appeard at political/campaign rallies with Al Franken, and if Ritchie is a donor to the Franken campaign. If the answer to any is “yes”, Ritchie needs to step aside.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:18 AM
…and these 32 “trunk ballots” are just the ones we know about..
… just how many ballots were “found” in democrats trunks among the the Wellstone bumper stickers and stolen McCain signs…. we’ll never know.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Will the lame posts ever end MDE? Are you employed by the Coleman campaign now?
November 10th, 2008 at 9:36 AM
The margin is now 204! This is ridiculous! In an election this close, any “corrections” should logically go roughly half to one side and half to the other. Not here! The numbers keep improving for Franken. Can ANYONE, Republican OR Dem, think that this election is not being stolen RIGHT NOW!?!?
November 10th, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Is Al back home in New York yet? ….
…. or with this recount does he have to stay here with us rubes longer then he expected ?
November 10th, 2008 at 9:54 AM
RightlyProud-
This does have a bad smell to it! And I may add, a much worse smell than compared to when Flash, Leroy Jenkins or Tommy Johnson post their “thoughts” on here.
I’m curious to know which precincts or counties are reporting in with amended numbers. I would strongly suspect that most, if not all, were areas won by Carpetbagger Al and Barack Hussein Obama.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:01 AM
“Ballot guards” are nothing but theater. What a stupid distraction. And someone made the accurate point that doing this would just give the Democrats someone to blame when Franken is found to have actually lost.
I can hear them shrieking “the ballot guards tampered with the ballots.”
Norm Coleman should be thanking Dean Barkley for pealing off as many Franken votes as he did. Without Barkley, Colman would have conceded defeat on November 4th.
The DFL and the GOP and the respective Coleman and Franken camps ran ridiculously stupid, insulting campaigns. What a joke.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously defend that either of these idiots should represent Minnesota in the Senate.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:07 AM
MDE has spent the better part of a year “exposing” Al Franken’s incompetents as well as the irrational partisan hate that drives his ambition.
Minnesota shrugged.
That the Republicans who won did so on their credentials as conservatives tells me that “bi-partisanship” wasn’t even on the menu of what Minnesotans want in a legislator. It is a waste of time for any Republican or conservative candidate to bother running on such a foolhardy platform, which clearly is not valued by any segment of the electorate.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Here are three winning, guiding principles for conservatives to run on:
- Government is neither a charity nor a security blanket for mismanaged companies and the irresponsible actions of individuals. The force of government is the force of oppression. It cannot give you anything without taking something greater first.
- There is no “right†to have the services and goods you consume paid for by someone else, and there never has been. “Entitlement” programs must be reduced or eliminated.
- Environmental protection and conservation are important, but no economic or environmental policies should be predicated on a hoax.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:34 AM
WOW, Coleman;s lawyer must not have got the Memo about ignoring the rule of law and disrespecting the process:
http://www.twincities.com/ci_10936725
==
Coleman attorney Fritz Knaak said, based on a Saturday hearing, he was assured by the Minneapolis city attorney’s office that those ballots should be included in the count. Knaak said it is not the campaign’s intention to appeal the judge’s decision.
. . .
“We did what we had to do,†Knaak said Saturday. “There was a real concern that what was going on here was wrong and unfair.â€
Knaak said he feels assured that what was going on with the 32 ballots was neither wrong nor unfair.
==
November 10th, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Oh yeah. The margin is now down to 209!
Bush v. Gore! Give us some more.
Bush v. Gore! Give us some more.
Bush v. Gore! Give us some more.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Count goes from 221 . . . 204 . . . 209 . . What!?!? it went UP to 209. Where are those 5 NormanFraud Votes Don’t they now ALL votes are supposed to favor Franken The process is a hoax how dare they follow the rule of law and the standard canvass process.
Come on, Mike, where’s the outrage . . . *laughing*
Flash
November 10th, 2008 at 10:41 AM
“Bush v. Gore! Give us some more.”
Sure. The Republican won that contest legally and fairly. Or do you believe the myths and lies perpetrated by sore-losing Democrats the past eight years?
November 10th, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Kyle, yes Bush won, legally and failry.
BUT, if Florida would have had a Minnesota type law in place, Gore would have won, since a statewide recount would have been required and no Court intervention would have been allowed until after the recount was complete. Multiple independent studies of all possible ballot interpretations, show Gore would have won a state wide recount.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:27 AM
What are you talking about? The AP even showed that Bush won Florida with all votes counted. You must of got your info from the KOS.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Regardless of how this turns out. It has shown weaknesses in our voting system. Some have been obvious for a long time. ie no voter ID required.
Some unthinkable. ie riding around in a car three days after the elction.
We need clearer instructions on what a vote is. I think only filling in the circle should be considered. No other marks should count.
We need clear instructions on how ballots are handled. Security of ballots before, during and after the election. There also needs to be penalties for failing to follow proceedures.
Voter ID, proof of citizenship and an ability to follow simple directions should be the minimum requirements. ie fill in the circle next to your candidates name.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Flash,
What strikes me is that Al Gore initially fought so fiercely to prevent a state-wide recount. That, and to have the military votes thrown out.
I thought you guys wanted all the votes to count?
Beyond that, your assertion assumes that the most liberal and least acceptable definition was applied to determining voter intent.
No re-count of all the Florida ballots, using the accepted standards, gives Gore a win:
“USA TODAY, The Miami Herald, Knight Ridder newspapers, The Tampa Tribune and five other Florida newspapers spent the past five months examining all disputed ballots in Florida. The study attempted to discover who might have won if all the disputed votes in Florida had been reviewed by hand, and to learn what went wrong to cause so many voters’ ballots to be thrown out.
“…Among four possible standards for judging whether punch-card votes are valid, the study shows that Bush would have won under the two that are in widest use across the country:
* The most widely used rule — that at least two corners of a chad must be detached to count as votes — is used in many states, including California, Oregon, Washington and Michigan. Recounting by that standard, Bush would have won by 407 votes, narrower than his 537-vote official margin.
* By the strictest standard — one that requires a completely clean punch for the vote to count — Bush would have won by 152 votes. Some cleanly punched ballots were disqualified by counting-machines because of glitches, such as two ballots sticking together.”
I think it’s cute that you and others like you feel compelled to cling to the false notion that Gore won a complete recount, but he did not. Not by any acceptable or legal definition anyway.
Moving forward: Get over it. Gore lost, legally and fairly and by every meaningful standard.
Having lost, he’s gone on to a brilliant career peddling propaganda and lies based on junk-science, and has embarrassed himself five-fold.
On the flip side, if he had won, charges that 9/11 was the President’s fault would have been true, since the Clinton Gore administration oversaw the period when Al Queda was training in the U.S., and since Al Gore himself presided over investigations into airport security gaps and then did nothing about it.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Boy, the kooks sure have taken over the comment section of this site.
Oh- and Judy, go lay down by your water dish or no milk bone for you.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Moreover, Flash, you nincompoop:
The Supreme Court voted 8-1 that Gore’s selective recount, which the Florida Supreme Court (run by Democrats) sanctioned, was unconstitutional.
The split decision (5/4) was on whether or not a state-wide recount could be completed within the constitutional timeframe. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it could not be.
Here’s CNN’s recap of how that would have turned out:
“On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials’ determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.
Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.”
So cut the shit that the U.S. Supreme Court stole the election. As has been amply demonstrated, you are telling a bald-faced lie.
Continuing to tell this lie makes you a liar.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Nice try WC. I know your pain.
Coleman just picked up 1 vote and Franken just picked up 6. The margin is now 204!!
November 10th, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I’ll give this to judy. At least she’s not trying to lie about what her party of Scrubs is up to.
They’re stealing this election and judy’s as happy as a lowlife, scumbag Democrat can be!
November 10th, 2008 at 12:05 PM
So, can we get clarification from the Coleman people? As these recertifications on the county level take place, is it Coleman’s view that no new votes should be added or subtracted to the total he was at last Tuesday?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Kyle, Flash isn’t lying…he really is just that stupid.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Flash also bleated: “BUT, if Florida would have had a Minnesota type law in place…”
Flash, in addition to perpetuating a lie that Gore could have won Florida, also is ignorant of the fact that FLORIDA DID HAVE A LAW IN PLACE TO TRIGGER A RECOUNT.”
“On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush won with 48.8% of the vote, a margin of victory of 1,784 votes.[1] The margin of victory was less than 0.5% of the votes cast, so a statutorily-mandated[2] automatic machine recount occurred.
Bush won that recount too.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Oh Swiftee dear…why would you say that? I just want to make sure that each and every vote is properly counted. I am not interested in anything more or less than that. Don’t we all agree on the same thing sweetie? I assume that you want to make sure that every vote is properly counted. Right?
Bush v. Gore. This time, let’s really count all the votes.
Bush v. Gore. This time, let’s really count all the votes.
Bush v. Gore. This time, let’s really count all the votes.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Hey Judy,
All the votes in Florida were counted. Bush won. Get over it.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:18 PM
And yes, I’d like to see all the legal votes counted. They were the first time. Coleman won. He’s an idiot, but he won.
I don’t mind a re-count. I think it’s a good idea. But this ain’t Chicago circa 1960. I don’t want illegal votes added to the mix.
There’s a great enough chance Democrats are driving voter fraud in this state. Just because they failed the first time, doesn’t mean they should get to make another run at it.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:22 PM
I can’t flippin’ believe some of you guys! No big deal? Partisan politics?
We’re talking about the most important exercise of our democracy- the vote. Do you Franken supporters really, in all intellectual honesty, not have a problem with ballots mysteriously showing up out of nowhere, no mater who the votes are for? That is a point of view I can’t even start to wrap my head around.
Republicans should be worried and I would want my own watchers there too. What are the security procedures? What are the SOPs for ballot handling? Isn’t that what the Colman camp is trying to find out/secure? His people would be lazy incompetents if they did otherwise and I would say the same if everything was going the other way.
Having ballots showing up out of nowhere and you lefties crying “Nothing to see here!†is the LOWEST you can possibly go. THIS IS OUR VOTE! The most precious of our political functions we have and the very fabric of our democracy.
The very fact that anyone, ANYONE, can write this off as anything less then vitally important physically sickens me.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Kyle. Maybe you missed the part where I agree with you, I agree with you, and oh yeah, I agree with you.
Florda law was a recanvass of machine counts, not a Minnesota Style hand recount of ballots. That was the reference I was making.
However, the count that you refer was the count that was taking place in select counties. Yes, Oh the irony that a complete statewide hand recount of the ballots would have given the race to Gore. But tht isn’t what happened, so he lost, fair and square.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html
–
“â€(I)f Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.â€â€
“â€The study showed that if the two limited recounts had not been short-circuited — the first by Florida county and state election officials and the second by the U.S. Supreme Court — Bush would have held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard.â€â€
==
So, why you are calling my names, when I in fact agree with you, is quite humorous. Just like MikeDE and Sen Shamless’s staff relentless attack on the rule of law when it means they also are casting aspersion on their fellow Republican canvassers.
And Moonbat Swiftee Pffffffttttttt Bwahahahahahaha
November 10th, 2008 at 12:43 PM
“Florda law was a recanvass of machine counts, not a Minnesota Style hand recount of ballots. That was the reference I was making.”
Fair enough.
“Oh the irony that a complete statewide hand recount of the ballots would have given the race to Gore.”
BULLSHIT. The full-state-wide recount would have confirmed that Bush won. Either you’re willfully dishonest, or incapable of reading your own citations and the materials I provided.
““On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials’ determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.
Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.”
Gore LOST EVERY RECOUNT that applied a LEGAL and WIDELY ACCEPTABLE process. Gore could never have won the election, except via an illegal definition of voter intent.
You’re full of shit Flash, and you’re a liar.
Stop telling lies.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Sorry to intrude with reality, repugs:
Gore would have won a statewide recount (exactly what we have in Minnesota) under ANY STANDARD of ballot evaluation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
Bush only prevails under limited recounts – never under a full recount of the ballot.
I know that Republican discourse isn’t reality-based, so feel free to disregard.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Oh the horrors. Coleman just picked up 2 votes and the margin is now 206. I wonder where they found those 2 ballots? Larry Craig must have had them in his briefcase. Or, Ron Carey had them in the suit he was wearing last Tuesday. Oh I was wrong, Mikey had them in his video camera bag and they were discovered when he took his camera out to do another sting. Will Coleman be accepting these 2 newly discovered ballots?
Bush v. Gore. This time, let’s really count and then recout all the votes.
Bush v. Gore. This time, let’s really count and then recount all the votes.
Bush v. Gore. This time, let’s really count and then recount all the votes.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Gore lost…… then turned his attention to expanding his massive carbon footprint along with his massive waistline….
November 10th, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Citing Wikipedia?
That’s just plain funny.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Mr Kyle,
The recount referenced in your article refers to the select recount of the three counties that was already under way and the object of the Supreme court ruling. if you match what you said, to my article, it confirms the 493 number
Your quote:
“”the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.—"
My quote with link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html
“â€The study showed that if the two limited recounts had not been short-circuited — the first by Florida county and state election officials and the second by the U.S. Supreme Court — Bush would have held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard.â€â€
I do not dispute that and acknowledge that Bush won fair and square. However, you are confusing the ruling, and the subsequent count with a further recount by that media consortium that DID go ahead and count the entire state. In that case, Gore would have squeaked by.
“”An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.â€â€
Serves him right for not demanding a statewide recount of every vote. He got what he deserved.
Flash
November 10th, 2008 at 1:39 PM
“Gore would have won a statewide recount (exactly what we have in Minnesota) under ANY STANDARD of ballot evaluation.”
Huh. Tell that the the more authoritative authors of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
November 10th, 2008 at 1:44 PM
“The recount referenced in your article refers to the select recount of the three counties that was already under way and the object of the Supreme court ruling. if you match what you said, to my article, it confirms the 493 number”
No, the materials I cited referred to a full recount of all the ballots in Florida.
You are willfully dishonest or incapable of reading. Either way, you are a dick weed.
Every media recount of all the ballots in Florida that applied the objective, legal and widely accepted standard all confirmed that Bush won the election in Florida.
““â€An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.â€â€”
This sentence articulates that what you are referring to applied an illegal and unaccepted method. Gore loses EVERY legal and accepted recount of ALL the ballots in Florida.
You are a liar, Flash. A bald-faced liar.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:46 PM
From the CNN story
“A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president. ”
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
November 10th, 2008 at 2:04 PM
They don’t let the facts get in the way of a good delusion, MoN.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Well, Kyle, again, Its no big deal and not sure why you be be in such attack mode when, in fact, I pretty much agree with you. But I’ll press on since I think you have a level of intelligence to understand.
“”This sentence articulates that what you are referring to applied an illegal and unaccepted method. Gore loses EVERY legal and accepted recount of ALL the ballots in Florida.”"
I have already agree with your on this statment, why is that so hard for you to accept a reasonable moderate who can be objective. You folks are in such attack mode youo won;t take a deep breath and udnerstand simple explanations.
The study you reference shows, that if a statwide recount of every votes was done, Gore would have win be th narrowest of margins. That is fact. But that counts was not undertaken, requested, or, for that matter, even on the table. BUSH WON FAIR AND SQUARE!
Mr. MoN, your quote contineus to explain this wasn;t a statewide recount of every ballot, but a statwide recount of undervotes:
“ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied.”
Really, I thought that people might be interested in how multiple criteria showing varying results is a hindrance to the process. In MN we have set guidelines and specific statutes that address them.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:31 PM
“I have already agree with your on this statment…”
Then why do you follow up repeatedly with such ignorant and false statements that Gore would have won a recount of all the ballots in Florida. Your statement is wrong, decidedly so.
“The study you reference shows, that if a statewide recount of every votes was done, Gore would have win be the narrowest of margins.”
No. The study I reference DOES NOT show that. In fact, the study confirms that if a statewide recount of every legal vote was done, that BUSH won by the narrow margin.
No media study or any other applying the law ever concludes that Gore won that contest.
The only ways for Gore to have won, as confirmed by independent audits is for Gore to have cheated.
In reaching your erroneous conclusions about Gore, I have to ask why you insist on assuming that an unconstitutional and illegal count should be considered valid in any sphere?
My bet is not that you are ignorant. It is that you are dishonest.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:47 PM
“I have already agree with your on this statment, why is that so hard for you to accept a reasonable moderate who can be objective.”
“The study you reference shows, that if a statwide recount of every votes was done, Gore would have win be th narrowest of margins”
W.T.F.?
Flash, I think the strain of all the moonbat lies you’re having to come up with to try and cover for the cheating your party of Scrubs is up to has tipped you over the edge.
Listen, little guy. Go home and have your mom bring you a nice hot cup of Lemon-Lime Kool-Aid and tell you a couple of bat-time stories.
Or maybe she can score you a few stem cells from THE ONE to mush around on your plate and you can play moonbat god.
Pffft.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:50 PM
MDE, are you on the Coleman campaign payroll?
November 10th, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Then why do you follow up repeatedly with such ignorant and false statements that Gore would have won a recount of all the ballots in Florida. Your statement is wrong, decidedly so.
BECAUSE IT IS TRUE
“The study you reference shows, that if a statewide recount of every votes was done, Gore would have win be the narrowest of margins.â€
No. The study I reference DOES NOT show that.
In fact, the study confirms that if a statewide recount of every legal vote was done, that BUSH won by the narrow margin.
THIS IS FALSE. I SHOWED YOU MAY LINK
No media study or any other applying the law ever concludes that Gore won that contest.
TRUE
The only ways for Gore to have won, as confirmed by independent audits is for Gore to have cheated.
BLATANTLY FALSE
In reaching your erroneous conclusions about Gore, I have to ask why you insist on assuming that an unconstitutional and illegal count should be considered valid in any sphere?
IT IS A SCENARIO CONSISTENT WITH MINNESOTA LAW. I NEVER CLAIMED IT TO BE VALID, JUST IRONIC
My bet is not that you are ignorant. It is that you are dishonest.
MY BET IS YOU HAVE LOST ALL HOPE OF INDEPENDENT THOUGHT AND WOULD RATHER ARGUE THEN THINK FOR YOUR SELF. FACTS ARE FACTS, IGNORE THEM IF YOU WISH
Moonbat Swiftee:
PFFFTTTT MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
November 10th, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Facts? The official report of The Media Consortium Florida Ballot Project found that Gore would have won a statewide recount under any standard. If the Supreme Court wouldn’t have stopped a statewide recount, Gore would have won.
See page 8 of the report, authored for the consortium by David Keating of the Washington Post:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
And Kyle, the article you cite, not surprisingly, doesn’t support your position.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:03 PM
“”The official report of The Media Consortium Florida Ballot Project found that Gore would have won a statewide recount under any standard.”"
THIS IS TRUE
“If the Supreme Court wouldn’t have stopped a statewide recount, Gore would have won.”"
THIS IS UNTRUE. The Supreme court only ruled on stopping a hand recount of UNDERVOTES, and if it would have been allowed to carry through, Bush still wins.
Let’s be clear, under every single scenerio on the table, Bush wins.
Now, where those who are blinded to reality want to ignore, is that if, at the beginning, a full statwide hand recount of ALL votes would have been undertaken, ironically supported by Bush, but not by Gore, Gore would have won no matter what the criteria, but specifically with the current county by county criteria.
Here is the link to the official Study as reported by the NYTImes:
http://tinyurl.com/6ddtmw
–
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. For example, using the most permissive “dimpled chad” standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin.
But the dimple standard was also the subject of the most disagreement among coders, and Mr. Bush fought the use of this standard in recounts in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami- Dade Counties. Many dimples were so light that only one coder saw them, and hundreds that were seen by two were not seen by three. In fact, counting dimples that three people saw would have given Mr. Gore a net of just 318 additional votes and kept Mr. Bush in the lead by 219.
Using the most restrictive standard � the fully punched ballot card � 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.
All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.
While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real- world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes.
The Florida Supreme Court urged a statewide recount and ordered the state’s 67 counties to begin a manual re-examination of the undervotes in a ruling issued Dec. 8 that left Mr. Gore and his allies elated.
The Florida court’s 4-to-3 ruling rejected Mr. Gore’s plea for selective recounts in four Democratic counties, but also Mr. Bush’s demand for no recounts at all. Justice Barbara Pariente, in her oral remarks, asked, “Why wouldn’t it be proper for any court, if they were going to order any relief, to count the undervotes in all of the counties where, at the very least, punch-card systems were operating?”
The court ultimately adopted her view, although extending it to all counties, including those using ballots marked by pen and read by optical scanning. Many counties immediately began the effort, applying different standards and, in some cases, including overvotes.
The United States Supreme Court stepped in only hours after the counting began, issuing an injunction to halt. Three days later, the justices overturned the Florida court’s ruling, sealing Mr. Bush’s election.
But what if the recounts had gone forward, as Mr. Gore and his lawyers had demanded?
The consortium asked all 67 counties what standard they would have used and what ballots they would have manually recounted. Combining that information with the detailed ballot examination found that Mr. Bush would have won the election, by 493 votes if two of the three coders agreed on what was on the ballot; by 389 counting only those ballots on which all three agreed.
–
November 10th, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Page 8:
Candidate Outcomes Based on Potential Recounts in Florida Presidential Election 2000
Review of All Ballots Statewide (Never Undertaken)
Review Method Winner Margin of Victory
Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore 171 votes
Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore 115 votes
Any dimples or optical mark Gore 107 votes
One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore 60 votes
Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (Initiated But Never Completed)
Review Method Winner Margin of Victory Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Volusia counties
Bush 225 votes
Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide
Bush 430 votes
Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes
Bush 493 votes ** This is the Number Kyle cites)
Certified Result (Official Final Count)
Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush 537 (this is the result I accept and live with)
Carry on, the facts have been present, you can all squabble over what they mean!
November 10th, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Hey HW: Bullshit. The table on page 8 also assumes an unconstitutional methodology of counting undervotes and undervotes.
Particularly in the case of “over-votes” intent cannot be determined. The rest of that argument is reading the tea leaves.
Why do you insist on assuming that an unconstitutional and illegal count should be considered valid in any sphere?
My articles absolutely support my conclusion.
Gore only wins when you deviate from the law, cheat and violate the Constitution.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Thanks for confirming my bet that you are simply dishonest, Flash.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Kylie,
Keep throwing those big $ words around like you know what you’re talking about. The wiki page you gave doesn’t talk about potential recount results, thanks anyway.
“Cheat the constitution”? I guest that’s why the SCOTUS said – hey, this opinion isn’t precedent. They were so proud of themselves.
Tea leaves? Why don’t you read Minnesota recount law. Reasonable and just.
Pants.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Man – who let Judy off her leash, now go lay down by your water dish!