Will Florida be Rigged Again?

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-01-15 01:14am

It's been theorized that Jeb Bush practically gave the state of Florida to his brother for the 2000 election. Do you think there's going to be some screwy shit going on for a second election or will Jeb Bush not stick by his family?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-01-15 01:16am

I wouldn't bet the presidency on that state, that's all I'll say.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-15 01:23am

Actually, I would expect things in Florida to be cleaned up pretty well this time around.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-01-15 03:52am

It's been theorized that Jeb Bush practically gave the state of Florida to his brother for the 2000 election.

Yeah, damn that Jeb for designing the Butterfly Ballot!

Oh wait...

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-15 03:57am

I'm seeing exactly zero evidence that FLA will be rigged in the future, even if it was in the past. That in and of itself is questionable.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-01-15 03:58am

SPOOFE wrote:
It's been theorized that Jeb Bush practically gave the state of Florida to his brother for the 2000 election.
Yeah, damn that Jeb for designing the Butterfly Ballot!

Oh wait...

Oh yes, PLEASE ignore Jeb telling DBT that fucked up felon lists having a 40% error rate against blacks is A-OK.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-15 05:10am

Hamel wrote: Oh yes, PLEASE ignore Jeb telling DBT that fucked up felon lists having a 40% error rate against blacks is A-OK.

I'd say that's roughly ACCURATE. especially in large cities.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-15 05:18am

And before anyone starts to flame me, fuck you.

Here in my home state of Maryland, the black community leaders
are always constantly bitching over our voting eligibility system.

Why? Because the system does not take away your voting rights until
you have been convicted three consecutive times of a felony. That's
right, not just once, but THREE TIMES, and they have the gall to
claim that discriminates against blacks?

Fuck them, fuck them hard.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-01-15 09:29am

The only reason Florida was even an issue in 2000 was because whoever won it would decide who became president, and the margin of voctory there was so small. If one candidate had a comfortable majority of the electoral vote, or one had a clear majority of the popular votes in Florida, then it never would have been an issue. So no, I'm not expecting it again in 2004.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-01-15 09:31am

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:The only reason Florida was even an issue in 2000 was because whoever won it would decide who became president, and the margin of voctory there was so small. If one candidate had a comfortable majority of the electoral vote, or one had a clear majority of the popular votes in Florida, then it never would have been an issue. So no, I'm not expecting it again in 2004.

Really? Then who do you expect Florida to go for?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-15 10:02am

It's not the voters who have the fuck-up dilemma, it's the counters of the votes.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-01-15 10:08am

Will the voting system change or will it still be with the stupid punching cards and other shitty method?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-01-15 10:27am

Many florida counties have purchased electronic optical scan voting machines from Diebold Co. so I doubt there will be much error this time.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 10:36am

Florida will probably be watched like a hawk this year, so no.

*is glad Pennsylvania has had the voting machines that a retarded chimp couldn't mess up for as long as he can remember*

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 11:43am

Chardok wrote:Many florida counties have purchased electronic optical scan voting machines from Diebold Co. so I doubt there will be much error this time.

But, but a big corporation made them, they'll be bias for the Republicans.

Honestly, while the media might sniff around and the partisans on both sides might make snipes in Florida, unless its the deciding vote again it will be marginal.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-15 11:48am

Pinellas County, FL transitioned to an electronic voting machine as of the 2002 election.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-15 11:59am

not this again. two things:

1. The Miami Herald commissioned an independant study to determine the results of the election after the SCOTUS decision. They found that if SCOTUS had ruled in favor of Gore and allowed the vote counting to continue Bush's margin of victory would have actually increased.

2. Voting is as much a responsibility as it is a right. If you do not possess sufficient intellegence to allow you to understand something marginally confusing, like a butterfly ballot, then you shouldn't be voting in the first place.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-15 02:09pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:not this again. two things:

1. The Miami Herald commissioned an independant study to determine the results of the election after the SCOTUS decision. They found that if SCOTUS had ruled in favor of Gore and allowed the vote counting to continue Bush's margin of victory would have actually increased.

AP Tests showed that Bush's margin of victory would have decreased if they counted hanging chads but not dimpled chads, and increased if they had counted dimpled and hanging chads. They showed that Bush won the state regardless of which test was applied.

2. Voting is as much a responsibility as it is a right. If you do not possess sufficient intellegence to allow you to understand something marginally confusing, like a butterfly ballot, then you shouldn't be voting in the first place.

I don't really see the butterfly ballot as being confusing. The issue with it is that it violates FLA law regulating ballots.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-01-15 02:29pm

Master of Ossus wrote: 1. The Miami Herald commissioned an independant study to determine the results of the election after the SCOTUS decision. They found that if SCOTUS had ruled in favor of Gore and allowed the vote counting to continue Bush's margin of victory would have actually increased.

AP Tests showed that Bush's margin of victory would have decreased if they counted hanging chads but not dimpled chads, and increased if they had counted dimpled and hanging chads. They showed that Bush won the state regardless of which test was applied.

Bullshit. The Media Consortium statewide count of "undervotes" and "overvotes" proves Gore won under ANY standard. However, they decide to spin their own findings. They went on to claim that Bush won with undervotes, which came from a two corner detatched standard that was prohibited by legal precedent.

1.25 million votes were not counted. That was in direct violation of state law, which required a machine recount when the margin of victory was under .5%. 175,000 were never counted at all during the election because of rejection from voting machines, including the chad problems that were a result of clogged machines that weren't cleaned in two years, making it difficult to fully punch a hole, and votes that were rejected even when voters followed instructions fully (writing candidate name would often yield a rejection even though it was part of the instructions).

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-15 02:34pm

MKSheppard wrote:And before anyone starts to flame me, fuck you.

Here in my home state of Maryland, the black community leaders
are always constantly bitching over our voting eligibility system.

Why? Because the system does not take away your voting rights until
you have been convicted three consecutive times of a felony. That's
right, not just once, but THREE TIMES, and they have the gall to
claim that discriminates against blacks?

Fuck them, fuck them hard.

Shep when you're talking about disenfranchising 40% of a community for whatever reason that is extremely troubling. As a former prisoner yourself I would think you would have some symptahy for someone that fucks up and ends up incarncerated. (and no this is not some stupid ad Hominem I'm just curious why that is.)

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-15 04:07pm

JME2 wrote:It's been theorized that Jeb Bush practically gave the state of Florida to his brother for the 2000 election. Do you think there's going to be some screwy shit going on for a second election or will Jeb Bush not stick by his family?

Why don't you justify this claim?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-15 04:19pm

Hamel wrote:Bullshit. The Media Consortium statewide count of "undervotes" and "overvotes" proves Gore won under ANY standard. However, they decide to spin their own findings. They went on to claim that Bush won with undervotes, which came from a two corner detatched standard that was prohibited by legal precedent.

1.25 million votes were not counted. That was in direct violation of state law, which required a machine recount when the margin of victory was under .5%. 175,000 were never counted at all during the election because of rejection from voting machines, including the chad problems that were a result of clogged machines that weren't cleaned in two years, making it difficult to fully punch a hole, and votes that were rejected even when voters followed instructions fully (writing candidate name would often yield a rejection even though it was part of the instructions).

Ah, yes, you counter AP recounting with a LUDICROUSLY biased article that flat out MAKES UP information that is impossible to find. For example, notice how the people writing that article KNOW that people who went to the polls but could not vote due to a lack of translators were 90% for Gore, while admitting that they speculated on the percentages of numerous other types of votes (for which ballots actually DID exist). Meanwhile, the article used a dishonest method of tallying votes that allowed for different standards between the various papers (for example, it counts the Miami Herald's votes with hanging chads and dimpled chads, but not for the Sun's counts). This varying standard is invariably weighted towards the Gore camp, and actually changes the outcome of the recounts by more than 50,000 votes.

Claims that several military ballots were illegal are erroneous, and based on poor reporting that mistook one set of ballots for another that were illegal, and numerous other instances of misleading information are given, particularly galling is the accusation of a "media conspiracy"

(as if the papers would want to cover something like this up, even though it would allow their magazines to sell massively more copies), which includes the claim that there was a precedent from two courts stating that counties could not arbitrarily use the "two-corner chad" method of determination, ignoring the fact that those courts were not in FLA and that their judgements were not relevant to the FLA case because the standard had been established BEFORE the election.

This:

Despite having over a year to read Florida election law, not one member of the media consortium has noted that over 2000 fully legal votes that should have been included in every canvass of returns was never counted. Under Florida law, if you put a mark next to Gore's name, then wrote in Gore's name, it is a legal vote for Gore. This rule is specified twice in Florida law, and the statutes demand that ballots be counted in this fashion.

Is an outright lie. One of my friends working for the SF Examiner was tasked with reading FLA election law, and brought this clause to everyone's attention in their offices. While I can't vouch for the accuracy of the St. Petersburg Times' report, it strikes me as being astonishing that this article would claim that no one has noted this.

Also note that no mention is made of the fact that poor ballot design literally disenfranchised tens of thousands of Florida voters, and that the overwhelming majority of these voters intended to vote for Al Gore.

This is yet another outright lie by the article. In case they missed it, there was MASSIVE controversy about this within the media coverage of the event. The article also accuses the Sun of attempting to give Bush "legitimacy that he does not deserve" by stating that NO STUDY CAN BE DONE WHICH ACCURATELY DETERMINES A WINNER IN FLA! It erroneously accuses that editorial of a pro-Bush bias, despite the rather incriminating title: ELECTION 2000: WE WAS ROBBED, and shockingly accuses the entire media industry of launching a massive coverup! I'm frankly not sure how seriously I can take an article that accuses the entire media of DOWNplaying a political controversy, and these accusations are both shcoking and totally without basis in fact or reality.

Moreover, its claim that "by any consistent standard" Al Gore would have won is erroneous, and its claim that the Herald attempted to spin-doctor its results to show George Bush the winner is a lie. The "unrealistic scenarios under which Bush would win the presidency" that it accuses the Herald of making up were in fact unrealistic. The Herald used AL GORE'S RECOUNT STANDARD when it made its study that showed Bush would have won Florida, and it also revealed that Bush would have won by over 1000 votes. You can say that this is dishonest, since Gore's standard was unrealistic, but frankly it's what Gore wanted to have happen. The double-standard employed by the article in attempting to claim with one hand that Gore should have won, and with the other dismissing Al Gore's recount standard, is ludicrous and represents a bias that has gone out of control. Let's look at some of the OTHER "unrealistic scenarios" that the article you presented accuses the Herald of using by quoting the Herald itself:

Under the Florida Supreme Court order, which exempted counties where manual counts had already taken place, Bush would have added 1,128 votes to his official 537-vote lead - if every dimple, pinprick or hanging chad on a punch-card ballot is considered a valid vote. That would have yielded a final margin of 1,665 votes.

His final lead would have fallen to 884 if dimples were counted as presidential votes only on ballots that had dimples in other races.

His lead would have dwindled to 363 if votes were counted only when a punch-card chad was detached by at least two corners, perhaps the most common standard applied nationally.

Ironically, the ONLY scenario in which Gore would have won the FLA election and therefore the presidency (according to the Herald), would have been if BUSH's desired recount had taken place, and then Gore would have won Florida by three votes. It should also be noted that of the 20+ states that have a specific standard in the case of a manual recount, only Indiana demands Bush's standard.

I, thus, have NO idea where this article generates its erroneous information that claims Gore would have won by several thousand votes. I find many of its claims to be HIGHLY contentious at best, and some of them to be outright lies.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-01-15 04:19pm

Yes, the democrats will again attempt to rig FL in an effort to get their man into the white house. The fact that they failed the first time won't stop them from trying again.

But have no fear, the Republicans will win... Why you ask? Because good is dumb.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-15 04:31pm

Stravo wrote: Shep when you're talking about disenfranchising 40% of a community for whatever reason that is extremely troubling. As a former prisoner yourself I would think you would have some symptahy for someone that fucks up and ends up incarncerated.

A felony conviction is not the life ender the black community says it is - it
can be wiped from your record...providing you keep your nose clean, which
seems to be pretty damn hard for a lot of blacks to do.

And yes, that stuff about the Black community "leaders" bitching about
how the Maryland "three strikes" rule disenfranchises black voters are
FUCKING IDIOTS. In Virginia, it's one fucking strike IIRC, and you cannot
vote again. Here, we give you three fucking tries to get your act together,
and the black community is saying that's disenfranchisement? Fuck them!

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-01-15 04:43pm

I was about to go off when I first saw this topic, but good fucking god you liberals have to begin to face facts instead of just ignoring them. Bush WON the presidency. He has a good chance of doing it a second time. So far both sides efforts to cheat at the polls have pretty much canacelled out so wtf? He won florida, get over it.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Will Florida be Rigged Again?

Will Florida be Rigged Again?

Re: Will Florida be Rigged Again?