Because Bush doesn't sit passively by as the Democrats try to steal another election (they even brought a Daley in to do it!), he gets called a hypocrite.
The Gore camp want to whip up public outcry and legal mumbo-jumbo to drag the process out until they can create a result that they can accept. (A WIN!)
About 100 million vote were cast nationwide, but the spread between them is less than 200,000 votes. The states that Gore won were either big urban states (NY, CA, MI) or were razor-thin margains (a couple of thousand votes). I wonder how many foreign ballots are gonna come in that got mailed TODAY, if you follow my meaning.
Some articles on the issue:
Slight of Hand
The Perils of Hand Counting
Beware of Hanging Chads
Some snips from the last one: (I've replaced the names with parties for clarity)
The Democrats' agenda was, of course, to change the election result, and they went about it systematically. At their urging, the recounting began with Dem's strongest precincts, GOP's weakest. Their intention was to recount ballots in those areas until the election outcome was reversed, and then stop the recount. Similarly, today in Florida, the Gore people are demanding hand recounts in their favored counties, where they would be most likely to gain.
But the order in which the precincts are recounted isn't the only thing that matters: As I learned firsthand, the recounting process itself affords plenty of opportunity for tampering with ballots.
Their hired guns tried lots of tricks on Dem's behalf, but what I remember most was the hanging chads. A chad is the perforated square (or circle) on the ballot that a voter depresses with a pin to indicate his preferred candidate...This matters because voter machines usually are not able to tabulate cards with hanging chads.
It often comes down to interpreting the voter's intention. Does the chad hang "strongly" ? i.e, detached only a little ? meaning that it is a mistake that should not be counted? Or does it hang loosely ? i.e., mostly detached ? as an intended vote would be?
This is the key part
What my lawyers soon discovered was that the opposition would eyeball a disputed ballot before picking it up to officially inspect it. If the hanging chad indicated a vote for GOP, the lawyer for the other side picked up the ballot ever so carefully, so he could argue that the voter really never intended to vote for GOP. If the hanging chad was a Dem vote, the lawyer picked up the ballot quite vigorously, so that the chad soon was no longer hanging. "You see," their guy would declare, "that voter obviously intended to vote for Dem."
This is the core of the Bush opposition to hand-counting. The Dems have a long history of monkeying with the process to attain their goals.
The Gore camp want to whip up public outcry and legal mumbo-jumbo to drag the process out until they can create a result that they can accept. (A WIN!)
About 100 million vote were cast nationwide, but the spread between them is less than 200,000 votes. The states that Gore won were either big urban states (NY, CA, MI) or were razor-thin margains (a couple of thousand votes). I wonder how many foreign ballots are gonna come in that got mailed TODAY, if you follow my meaning.
Some articles on the issue:
Slight of Hand
The Perils of Hand Counting
Beware of Hanging Chads
Some snips from the last one: (I've replaced the names with parties for clarity)
The Democrats' agenda was, of course, to change the election result, and they went about it systematically. At their urging, the recounting began with Dem's strongest precincts, GOP's weakest. Their intention was to recount ballots in those areas until the election outcome was reversed, and then stop the recount. Similarly, today in Florida, the Gore people are demanding hand recounts in their favored counties, where they would be most likely to gain.
But the order in which the precincts are recounted isn't the only thing that matters: As I learned firsthand, the recounting process itself affords plenty of opportunity for tampering with ballots.
Their hired guns tried lots of tricks on Dem's behalf, but what I remember most was the hanging chads. A chad is the perforated square (or circle) on the ballot that a voter depresses with a pin to indicate his preferred candidate...This matters because voter machines usually are not able to tabulate cards with hanging chads.
It often comes down to interpreting the voter's intention. Does the chad hang "strongly" ? i.e, detached only a little ? meaning that it is a mistake that should not be counted? Or does it hang loosely ? i.e., mostly detached ? as an intended vote would be?
This is the key part
What my lawyers soon discovered was that the opposition would eyeball a disputed ballot before picking it up to officially inspect it. If the hanging chad indicated a vote for GOP, the lawyer for the other side picked up the ballot ever so carefully, so he could argue that the voter really never intended to vote for GOP. If the hanging chad was a Dem vote, the lawyer picked up the ballot quite vigorously, so that the chad soon was no longer hanging. "You see," their guy would declare, "that voter obviously intended to vote for Dem."
This is the core of the Bush opposition to hand-counting. The Dems have a long history of monkeying with the process to attain their goals.
Facebook
Twitter