Once and for all, Bush won in 2000 fair and square.

[Moonbeam]

After the election theft the entire state was recounted by a consortium of news papers. Counting all legal votes state wide Gore won.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
After the election theft the entire state was recounted by a consortium of news papers. Counting all legal votes state wide Gore won.

does that include the votes purchased for smokes?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
After the election theft the entire state was recounted by a consortium of news papers. Counting all legal votes state wide Gore won.

And the same legal votes gave the state to Bush. All depends on what one called a legal vote.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
After the election theft the entire state was recounted by a consortium of news papers. Counting all legal votes state wide Gore won.

And the same legal votes gave the state to Bush. All depends on what one called a legal vote.

Being that this happened in Florida, there was no way Jeb was going to let Gore win. Gore was doomed in that battle.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Being that this happened in Florida, there was no way Jeb was going to let Gore win. Gore was doomed in that battle.

Gore doomed himself. If he could not even carry his home state, what does that say about him.

The election was handed to him by Clinton and Gore threw it away.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Being that this happened in Florida, there was no way Jeb was going to let Gore win. Gore was doomed in that battle.

Gore doomed himself. IF ye could not even carry his home state, what does that say about him.

The election was handed to him by Clinton and Gore threw it away.

Well, if the Bush family didn't steal Florida, then Gore would've WON. What does that say about Dubya? He couldn't fairly win his brother's own state.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Being that this happened in Florida, there was no way Jeb was going to let Gore win. Gore was doomed in that battle.

Gore doomed himself. IF ye could not even carry his home state, what does that say about him.

The election was handed to him by Clinton and Gore threw it away.

Basically true. Gore just didn't have the charisma needed. I disagree about Clinton handing him the election. After 8 years of the Repug's "investigations" and then the Monica scandel Gore was betwen a rock and a hard place. Clinton left him in good enough shape to win, but it was Gore's election to win or lose, and he lost.

I voted third party that election because I considered Gore to be too much of a tree hugger.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Bush DIDN'T steal Florida - I'm sick of hearing that. Liberals keep on complaining and I keep feeling like saying "shut up, OK? Gore lost, Bush won, case closed, it is a done deal anyway!"

BTW....... Bush for 2004 - ditch that liberal "candidate" Kerry, if he wins this country is in BIG trouble........... Not that this weirdo has a big chance (he is SO dull and uninspiring!) but you never can tell

Yes I am a conservative republican (as if you couldn't figure that out already 😛)

 

[Darkhawk28]

Yawn

 

[Thump553]

5-4. The only votes that mattered four years ago.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you people from smaller states votes should be worth more than those from larger states? Have you ever considered the reason that Gore won the Popular Vote was because Republicans in states like Mass, NY and CA didn't bother to vote because it was a forgone conclusion that Gore was going to win the Elelctoral Votes from those states? Seeing that Gore only had less than 500,000 more votes than the Dub it's pretty easy to understand why the Electoral College prevented the Dub from garnering those 500,000 votes. I bet he could have got a good portion of those in CA if there was no Electoral College.

What I'm saying is that in order for a 50 state democracy to work, there has to be some sort of balance of power...

True, but you're not looking at this from a broad enough perspective. What if the federal system is the problem we need to solve instead of a requirement we have to work around with ugly kludges? Other than the US and systems created by the US like Germany, you'll find that most democracies aren't federal systems. The federal system was useful was incorporating new territories and people in a gradual manner, but that usefulness has expired.

Do you really think Kansas is going to be happy with absolutely no voting power whatsoever?

Kansas is an abstraction, not a person. It can't be happy or unhappy. Instead ask yourself how a person in California feels when they realize that in electing a US President they only count as much as about 27% of a person in Wyoming? Even slaves counted for a higher percentage of a person in their own state than that before the American Civil War.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
After the election theft the entire state was recounted by a consortium of news papers. Counting all legal votes state wide Gore won.

Why do you keep saying that? From the link above:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN."

The truth is that we will never truly know who won, but the accusers love to come to their own conclusions using "what ifs" and hypothetical situations, making their own determinations on what was a "legal" vote, to make the claim that Gore actually had more votes. And in many instances, the margin of victory is within a couple of hundred votes. Any statistician will tell you that that's down in the noise level, which means you can't draw any definitive conclusion. So shut the hell up already with the accusations of "stealing," because nobody stole anything. The Supreme Court put a halt to the recount. What sway did then governor Bush have over the Supreme Court to make them come to that decision?

 

[DaedalCipher]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you people from smaller states votes should be worth more than those from larger states? Have you ever considered the reason that Gore won the Popular Vote was because Republicans in states like Mass, NY and CA didn't bother to vote because it was a forgone conclusion that Gore was going to win the Elelctoral Votes from those states? Seeing that Gore only had less than 500,000 more votes than the Dub it's pretty easy to understand why the Electoral College prevented the Dub from garnering those 500,000 votes. I bet he could have got a good portion of those in CA if there was no Electoral College.

What I'm saying is that in order for a 50 state democracy to work, there has to be some sort of balance of power... if all the power is contained in a few states you will inevitably find yourself in an unstable democracy... The electoral college provides for this. If you have a better system in mind... by all means I'd love to hear it.

As for the the reasons why Gore won the popular vote, and who didnt vote where... I don't see that I can really begin to address that since we don't know who these people are, or WHY they didnt vote. See my previous thread... everyone should vote... regardless of which way you think the state's electoral votes are going to go. Otherwise you are a non-statistic.

-Max

While I highly disagree that the electoral college is the way to go, I do agree that everyone has an obligation to vote. And to Red Dawn- you're forgetting that there are people who wouldv'e voted Gore but they lived in a republican state. Don't claim to know what would've happened- no one knows. But the only thing worse than a Know-it-all is a non-statistic who whines.

 

[DaedalCipher]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Yawn

You said it. And us Irish-Italians DO do it better!!😉

 

[cquark]

So shut the hell up already with the accusations of "stealing," because nobody stole anything.

While you're right that the difference between counted votes was in the noise, you're wrong about this. Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother, but he did that well before anyone voted by purging the voter rolls of around 90,000 mostly black Democratic voters.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: cquark

So shut the hell up already with the accusations of "stealing," because nobody stole anything.

While you're right that the difference between counted votes was in the noise, you're wrong about this. Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother, but he did that well before anyone voted by purging the voter rolls of around 90,000 mostly black Democratic voters.

It is also possible that the media tainted the election.

They were reporting the Gore won Fla even before the polls closed.
Therefore what incentive did the Dems have to go to the polls, they were told by the unbiased press that their guy already won.

 

[351Cleveland]

Very good point. If I am living in CA (which I am not), and its a foregone conclusion that my state is going Democrat, I dont put down my bag of Doritos or bottle of beer and haul my butt to the polls for nothing.

Straight popular vote could change that. It would also force candidates to campaign in more than 5 states (exagerration and bad spelling).

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: loki8481
but the population of Oklahoma is 3,450,654, compared with California's 33,871,648.

OK has 1 electoral vote for every 230,043 people, whereas California has 1 electoral vote for every 615,848 people

even though California has more electoral votes, the vote of an Oklahoman is worth a lot more. for them to be on equal footing, CA would have to be worth almost three times as many electoral votes as it is now.

Each state is allowed 2 electoral votes (Senators). If you look at the population vs 5 electorals (excluding the Senators), you get 690,130 for each electoral in Oklahoma and 639,088 in California.

So in the end, CA's electoral votes still are the voices of "fewer" people

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: loki8481
but the population of Oklahoma is 3,450,654, compared with California's 33,871,648.

OK has 1 electoral vote for every 230,043 people, whereas California has 1 electoral vote for every 615,848 people

even though California has more electoral votes, the vote of an Oklahoman is worth a lot more. for them to be on equal footing, CA would have to be worth almost three times as many electoral votes as it is now.

Each state is allowed 2 electoral votes (Senators). If you look at the population vs 5 electorals (excluding the Senators), you get 690,130 for each electoral in Oklahoma and 639,088 in California.

So in the end, CA's electoral votes still are the voices of "fewer" people

How many of the people in CA are registered and/or elgible to vote.
The Congressional representation is based on actual population.
The population of a state should not be used as the only comparison as to the value of the person's vote.

If only 2/3 of the people being counted are elgible to vote, that increase the value of each vote.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: cquark

So shut the hell up already with the accusations of "stealing," because nobody stole anything.

While you're right that the difference between counted votes was in the noise, you're wrong about this. Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother, but he did that well before anyone voted by purging the voter rolls of around 90,000 mostly black Democratic voters.

well if true, then yeah that's pretty f'ed up.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: cquark

So shut the hell up already with the accusations of "stealing," because nobody stole anything.

While you're right that the difference between counted votes was in the noise, you're wrong about this. Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother, but he did that well before anyone voted by purging the voter rolls of around 90,000 mostly black Democratic voters.

well if true, then yeah that's pretty f'ed up.

It's true, and he was just prevented from doing that again this summer. In 2000, there were two major problems with the data:

1. Many conviction dates were in the future. I'm not sure how the state of FL knew someone was going to commit a felony in 2007.
2. Supposed felons were matched according to two items: a text match of the first few letters of last and first name and their race. A black John Smith on the list eliminates black voters Johnny Smith, John Smith Jr, John Jacob Smith, but no white voters.

It's detailed in the book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, from pre-election articles about the problem published by the BBC to post-election acknowledgements from major US news sources. It also details how the firm that created the list was chosen (the highest bidder by a factor of 1000 over the next bid), and how they were told to avoid using simple but obvious ID checks like SSNs.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=2
http://www.gregpalast.com/deta...fm?artid=122&row=1
http://www.salon.com/politics/.../lists/index_np.html?x
http://www.thenation.com/docpr...=20010205&s=palast
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/28/fla.vote/

Early articles thought the purge was of as few as 8000 voters (still enough to decide the election), but eventually the total was found to be over 90,000.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: cquark

While you're right that the difference between counted votes was in the noise, you're wrong about this. Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother, but he did that well before anyone voted by purging the voter rolls of around 90,000 mostly black Democratic voters.

Jeb Bush DID NOT steal the election for his brother - how in the world would he do that? Be reasonable (or is that too much for you?). And, BTW, how do you "know" that he "purged the voter rolls"??? I doubt that you know all that! Probably just what them liberals want everyone to think and you are falling for the bait. If anyone cheats and lies, look at the liberals - Clinton was a great example of that, and from the looks of it Kerry is too

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: cquark

While you're right that the difference between counted votes was in the noise, you're wrong about this. Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother, but he did that well before anyone voted by purging the voter rolls of around 90,000 mostly black Democratic voters.

Jeb Bush DID NOT steal the election for his brother - how in the world would he do that? Be reasonable (or is that too much for you?). And, BTW, how do you "know" that he "purged the voter rolls"??? I doubt that you know all that! Probably just what them liberals want everyone to think and you are falling for the bait. If anyone cheats and lies, look at the liberals - Clinton was a great example of that, and from the looks of it Kerry is too

You are pathetically uninformed.

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
After the election theft the entire state was recounted by a consortium of news papers. Counting all legal votes state wide Gore won.

Why do you keep saying that? From the link above:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN."

The truth is that we will never truly know who won, but the accusers love to come to their own conclusions using "what ifs" and hypothetical situations, making their own determinations on what was a "legal" vote, to make the claim that Gore actually had more votes. And in many instances, the margin of victory is within a couple of hundred votes. Any statistician will tell you that that's down in the noise level, which means you can't draw any definitive conclusion. So shut the hell up already with the accusations of "stealing," because nobody stole anything. The Supreme Court put a halt to the recount. What sway did then governor Bush have over the Supreme Court to make them come to that decision?

The so called statewide vote recount was not the total state, but the counties that Gore wanted recounted. The true total state wide recount is what Gore won. That's the truth they buried. In a vote count you need to win by one. Gore did.

And there was no Florida election. The Supreme Coup usurped the vote by stopping the count. You win elections by counting votes not stopping the count before the count is known.

 

[cquark]

Jeb Bush DID NOT steal the election for his brother - how in the world would he do that? Be reasonable (or is that too much for you?). And, BTW, how do you "know" that he "purged the voter rolls"??? I doubt that you know all that!

I know that Jeb's administration purged the Florida voter rolls because it was reported in most major newspapers and other media outlets. Read the post just above yours.