-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Gore wins Florida by 23000 votes
- Thread starter Moonbeam
- Start date
Yep Here's the link Miami Hearld (a paper that endorsed Bush) says that Gore would have won Florida by 23000 votes if all votes were counted as intended.
You may ask how would they know. Well its simple, when the machines reject votes as informal, county scrutineers check them, & they useally have scrutineers from both the Republicans, democrats, & the press hanging over their shoulders & they are all counting away on their Palm PCs on what's the most likely intent of each informal vote. That's why both parties know exactly what counties to request re-counts at, or to block re-counts at.
Of course the press doesnt have hundreds, if not thousands of volunteer scrutineers working for them, so their representitives only do a bit of random scrutineering & then extropolated what they find across the whole vote, well it works something like that.
You may ask how would they know. Well its simple, when the machines reject votes as informal, county scrutineers check them, & they useally have scrutineers from both the Republicans, democrats, & the press hanging over their shoulders & they are all counting away on their Palm PCs on what's the most likely intent of each informal vote. That's why both parties know exactly what counties to request re-counts at, or to block re-counts at.
Of course the press doesnt have hundreds, if not thousands of volunteer scrutineers working for them, so their representitives only do a bit of random scrutineering & then extropolated what they find across the whole vote, well it works something like that.
Double Trouble
Elite Member
Yeah, sure. That's about as believable as saying "Bush won by at least a million votes".....if only we had counted every second Gore vote for Bush. Once you start counting dimples, scratches, marks, dents, tears, fadings, foldings and the like for your guy, of course you can come up with any count you want.
Yes, that possibility is there, I read the article and did some more searching, seems the same three people have consistantly written articles supporting the V.P. since well before the election and admitt to being in support of the Gore/Leiberman ticket. There are countless numbers of these surveys out there if you look, and they run about 50/50......just as the vote did.
***Well its simple, when the machines reject votes as informal, county scrutineers check them, & they useally have scrutineers from both the Republicans, democrats, & the press hanging over their shoulders & they are all counting away on their Palm PCs on what's the most likely intent of each informal vote.***
Bullsh!t...
1: ballots are examined when ordered by a court or Board...
2: no ballots were examined, they are locked up...
3: no real analysis has taken place
conclusion
The goron hangers-on can't resist the chance to lie, when truth would serve a better purpose.
PS: Dimples are dead in Florida.
One unexpected side effect of Boise's deception to the FL S C is that By adoption of The Illinois S C ruling without qualification... No dimples are allowed in Florida Ballot counts...
The Fl S C ruling is now controlling... It will take a new LAW from the legislature.. or a new different ruling from the Fl S C to change this
THIS SAME RULING MAKES THE BROWARD HAND COUNT RESULTS ILLEGAL
Thank you Mr Boise
Bullsh!t...
1: ballots are examined when ordered by a court or Board...
2: no ballots were examined, they are locked up...
3: no real analysis has taken place
conclusion
The goron hangers-on can't resist the chance to lie, when truth would serve a better purpose.
PS: Dimples are dead in Florida.
One unexpected side effect of Boise's deception to the FL S C is that By adoption of The Illinois S C ruling without qualification... No dimples are allowed in Florida Ballot counts...
The Fl S C ruling is now controlling... It will take a new LAW from the legislature.. or a new different ruling from the Fl S C to change this
THIS SAME RULING MAKES THE BROWARD HAND COUNT RESULTS ILLEGAL
Thank you Mr Boise
>>An excellent article that lays out a sound foundation for this conclusion.<<
The article explains the foundation for this conclusion
within the first few paragraphs...
The foundation, i.e. the basic assumption, is
that EVERY SINGLE voter who produced those undecipherable
ballots INTENDED to vote for a presidential candidate
(whether on not they actually did so), every voter
UNDERSTOOD the voting instructions, NOT ONE VOTER
made a mistake in marking the ballot, and, finally,
you can devine how these undecipherable ballots
should be counted simply by filling them out the way
these voters' neighbors voted.
If you think this foundation is "sound",
you might want to read up on how people
actually vote in the real world.
The article explains the foundation for this conclusion
within the first few paragraphs...
The foundation, i.e. the basic assumption, is
that EVERY SINGLE voter who produced those undecipherable
ballots INTENDED to vote for a presidential candidate
(whether on not they actually did so), every voter
UNDERSTOOD the voting instructions, NOT ONE VOTER
made a mistake in marking the ballot, and, finally,
you can devine how these undecipherable ballots
should be counted simply by filling them out the way
these voters' neighbors voted.
If you think this foundation is "sound",
you might want to read up on how people
actually vote in the real world.
Well this happens every election, anyway.
low income earners, people of minorities & what not are more likely to accidently make informal votes & on the whole they are more likely to have intended to vote for democrats too.
"The foundation, i.e. the basic assumption, is
that EVERY SINGLE voter who produced those undecipherable
ballots INTENDED to vote for a presidential candidate
(whether on not they actually did so), every voter
UNDERSTOOD the voting instructions, NOT ONE VOTER
made a mistake in marking the ballot, and, finally,
you can devine how these undecipherable ballots
should be counted simply by filling them out the way
these voters' neighbors voted."
Well surely if there's only one half pushed out shad on a ballot, then its quite obvious the the bloke intend voting for the candidates whos name is next to that 'pregnant' chad. It gets a bit difficult though if 2 seperate holes have been punched out🙂.
low income earners, people of minorities & what not are more likely to accidently make informal votes & on the whole they are more likely to have intended to vote for democrats too.
"The foundation, i.e. the basic assumption, is
that EVERY SINGLE voter who produced those undecipherable
ballots INTENDED to vote for a presidential candidate
(whether on not they actually did so), every voter
UNDERSTOOD the voting instructions, NOT ONE VOTER
made a mistake in marking the ballot, and, finally,
you can devine how these undecipherable ballots
should be counted simply by filling them out the way
these voters' neighbors voted."
Well surely if there's only one half pushed out shad on a ballot, then its quite obvious the the bloke intend voting for the candidates whos name is next to that 'pregnant' chad. It gets a bit difficult though if 2 seperate holes have been punched out🙂.
nickdakick
Platinum Member
<< It's a hypothetical result derived from something that clearly doesn't exist in Florida or anywhere else in the nation >>
They say it all by themselves, so why bother ?
LOL... "It gets a bit difficult though if 2 seperate holes have been punched out." Yeah, you could say that. Maybe the voter was voting for a mythical mixed-party candidate made of a combination of the two. Or you could just assume (as they seem to be doing anyway), that stupid voters (ones that punch more than one hole) are heavily democratic, and we should count all double punches as Gore votes.
Poor people, they thought they had to vote once for Gore and once of Leiberman.
Sore/Loserman.
I'll be taking bets now on what Gore will do when he finally concedes:
TV Weatherman
Used Car salesman
Buddhist Monk
Upper Management in a Tobacco Company
Lobbyist for Big Oil (He owns 500,000 oil co. shares in a blind trust)
Sore/Loserman.
I'll be taking bets now on what Gore will do when he finally concedes:
TV Weatherman
Used Car salesman
Buddhist Monk
Upper Management in a Tobacco Company
Lobbyist for Big Oil (He owns 500,000 oil co. shares in a blind trust)
The voices in my head say that I won by 24,000 votes in Florida...
😉
Seriously, though - I do wonder if more people intended/tried to vote for Gore in Florida than did for Bush... Hmmmmm.
Not that it matters, the votes are counted, recounted, filed, repealed, mandated, court-ordered, debated, sued, stapled, and finally buried in peat moss for 3 months before being recycled as fire-lighters.
And Bush won.
The End.
😉
Seriously, though - I do wonder if more people intended/tried to vote for Gore in Florida than did for Bush... Hmmmmm.
Not that it matters, the votes are counted, recounted, filed, repealed, mandated, court-ordered, debated, sued, stapled, and finally buried in peat moss for 3 months before being recycled as fire-lighters.
And Bush won.
The End.
Double Trouble
Elite Member
... yet another attempt by Gorons to try to legitimize his behaviour. And of course, this is done under the guise of 'legitimate journalism'. Obviously the author is a moron......
This is starting to form an interesting pattern:
This is starting to form an interesting pattern:
- -- 75% of felons that voted (illegaly) in the election voted for Gore.
- -- people that were too stupid to punch the right hole voted predominantly for Gore
- -- People that are too feeble to properly punch a hole through the ballot voted predominantly for Gore
Thank christ we don't have these problems in Australia.
Here in Australia we even have preferential voting where one has a choice of just ticking the box next to one's candidate or numbering all the boxes in order of preference.
& even with the added complication of the preferential votes every single vote is counted by hand, with each counter having a labour & conservative scrutineer hanging over his/her shoulders. Yet will still get the results virtually always the same night. Its thus bloody ridiculous if an Florida county can't hand count its votes in a week. Haven't they ever heard of temp staff?, If they reckon that it take 12 days or whatever to count all the votes, then all they need to do is double their staff numbers with temps & hire a basketball stadium to house them in. IF they were willing to hire thousands of temps they could do the count in a day or 2. Mind you the political parties would hate it, because they would have to find thoudsands of volunteer scrutineers too, but that's their problem.
Here in Oz every Australian city has thousands of tempstaff counting votes by hands in indoor stadiums & convention centres across the country, every election night.
Sure its more expensive than machine counting but its a lot more reliable - no 'Blue screens of death'
Really its pretty silly having all these different voting systems depending on what county or state one is in, in a bloody federal poll. Surelly there's no reason why the same ballot with the same 9 names couldn't be used nationwide. They should make it a simple 'X marks the spot' vote with one column of names & a columne of boxes next to the names on the right (with just one box next to each name). The sooner they dump all these different lever, optical, touchscreen & punchcard systems, etc, the better. I even read in the paper about some counties in the southwest where all votes had to be done by registed mail (there were no booths), its bloody ridiculous having such a multitude of systems for a federal poll (unless they actually want to on purposely confuse the semi-illiterate, the elderlly & those who only speak English as a 2nd language, etc).
Also no way should they have local, state or federal politicians, involved in the decision making process - look at the way the local Democratic officals in Palm Beach OKed a hand count, which was cancelled by a Republican SoS who was Bush's co-campaign manager. They both should have stepped aside because of perceived conflict of interest.
Even better the US should have the same system as we have in Oz, where a Federal Election Commission (that politicians have no say in) control all federal elections & run them & the buck stops at a panel of judges. Each state also has a State Electoral Commission for administring the State & local elections. No politicians are involved anywhere, the only way anyone can get a re-count or stop a re-count is to apply to the court. Unless of course the electoral Commission decides on a recount for some reason
Here in Australia we even have preferential voting where one has a choice of just ticking the box next to one's candidate or numbering all the boxes in order of preference.
& even with the added complication of the preferential votes every single vote is counted by hand, with each counter having a labour & conservative scrutineer hanging over his/her shoulders. Yet will still get the results virtually always the same night. Its thus bloody ridiculous if an Florida county can't hand count its votes in a week. Haven't they ever heard of temp staff?, If they reckon that it take 12 days or whatever to count all the votes, then all they need to do is double their staff numbers with temps & hire a basketball stadium to house them in. IF they were willing to hire thousands of temps they could do the count in a day or 2. Mind you the political parties would hate it, because they would have to find thoudsands of volunteer scrutineers too, but that's their problem.
Here in Oz every Australian city has thousands of tempstaff counting votes by hands in indoor stadiums & convention centres across the country, every election night.
Sure its more expensive than machine counting but its a lot more reliable - no 'Blue screens of death'
Really its pretty silly having all these different voting systems depending on what county or state one is in, in a bloody federal poll. Surelly there's no reason why the same ballot with the same 9 names couldn't be used nationwide. They should make it a simple 'X marks the spot' vote with one column of names & a columne of boxes next to the names on the right (with just one box next to each name). The sooner they dump all these different lever, optical, touchscreen & punchcard systems, etc, the better. I even read in the paper about some counties in the southwest where all votes had to be done by registed mail (there were no booths), its bloody ridiculous having such a multitude of systems for a federal poll (unless they actually want to on purposely confuse the semi-illiterate, the elderlly & those who only speak English as a 2nd language, etc).
Also no way should they have local, state or federal politicians, involved in the decision making process - look at the way the local Democratic officals in Palm Beach OKed a hand count, which was cancelled by a Republican SoS who was Bush's co-campaign manager. They both should have stepped aside because of perceived conflict of interest.
Even better the US should have the same system as we have in Oz, where a Federal Election Commission (that politicians have no say in) control all federal elections & run them & the buck stops at a panel of judges. Each state also has a State Electoral Commission for administring the State & local elections. No politicians are involved anywhere, the only way anyone can get a re-count or stop a re-count is to apply to the court. Unless of course the electoral Commission decides on a recount for some reason
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
This is actually pretty interesting reading. The article itself is relatively even-handed toward this theory. Obviously statistics can be manipulated to mean any number of things, but frankly the fact that the exit polls showed a Gore victory tends to buttress the idea that he would have won the vote in Florida, absent a variety of problems with tallying the vote.
It seems likely we will never know who actually won this election, as the disparity between candidates is so far from statistical significance. I do not envy the candidate that ends up "winning".
It seems likely we will never know who actually won this election, as the disparity between candidates is so far from statistical significance. I do not envy the candidate that ends up "winning".
<< Obviously the author is a moron...... >>
Did you ever think the article might have SOME possible truth to it? Or do you just call people names that you don't agree with? (Name calling seems to be an all too popular thing happening in these election threads.)
<< It seems likely we will never know who actually won this election, as the disparity between candidates is so far from statistical significance. I do not envy the candidate that ends up "winning". >>
Well said, Tee.
DaBoneHead
Senior member
Does it seem to you that certain people, predominantly to the right of the political spectrum, resort to name-calling and insults every chance they get?
Why is that?
Everything that happens is presented as a conspiracy of the left. As an attempt to "steal" an election.
Let the election ride. Who ever wins... Wins!
Gore, as much as we all dislike him, won the popular vote in the election. Now he is doing everything he can to win the electoral vote. I can't fault him for that. Personally, I'm a bit pissed that in a democracy, the person with the most votes doesn't get elected... it does undermine my faith in the system.
Oh, and one more thing. New Mexico is pondering a change to electoral system to award partial electoral votes to candidates. Therefore, for example, if NM has 5 electoral votes, 3 could go to one candidate and 2 to another. This should resolve the controversy when one candidate wins the popular vote, yet loses the election. If that policy gets more popular (more states adopt it), it will shed even a darker shadow on the legitimacy of the Bush election.
Moreover, as a personal observation. I note that there are many republican party supporters who have endorsed Bush here. These people have been very vocal and very confrontational on the issue of party, and since no one wants to feel they have backed a candidate who lost, these people are of course the ones to use name-calling in an attempt to distract everyone from the real truth of this election, which is:
George W Bush lost the Popular vote, but will likely *steal* the election due to the Electoral College, a situation which hasn't occurred since 1888.
That is the only real truth.
Now, will all the Republican Party lapdogs just get over it!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
