RE: "And I think the Florida Supreme Court is giving these people their lead, because they are the least biased folks in this Circus."
Hi John,
Excellent post.
The SC ruling (about obeying 102.611) is reasonably clear-cut. In fact, two other Supreme Courts have ruled identically so. So, it had to be.
HOWEVER:
What didn't happen, is a manual recount of the entire State of Florida, not just in the area of 3 Dem counties.
So, why didn't their "answer" contain only the 3 Dem counties, but not the entire State? I believe this is because the Judges can only "answer" the "question" (that is asked of them) in the briefing (that is filed by the party that asked for the Appeal: when you file an Appeal you present a "question" for the Judges), which was: can SOS block a manual recount? The answer was: she cannot, (provided it doesn't risk the Dec 12th deadline*).
Nonetheless, the "answer" to their decision, potentially leaves one small problem that Gopher and I discussed earlier today. He and I are both interested in the selective nature of the recounting. It appears the Judges can only answer the question they are asked (can SOS block manual recounts*). The other Counties were not asked to be recounted, so they cannot answer to that. They can only answer what is asked in the briefing Appeal. So, someone should have asked them to do a statewide manual recount. My loyalty on this issue is first to accuracy, before any particular Party.
However, this (asking for a statewide recount) may not be a good strategy for Bush to pursue because his Rep counties used (overall) better polling equipment that (I'm told) was more reliable (and/or were done manually), so Bush would not be expected to gain in Rep counties as much as it did Gore in Dem counties - so a statewide recount may not be expected to help Bush, as it could Gore (when incl the 3 counties). Since Gore won in the exit polls (these are verbally asked polls, so are not negatively impacted by machine error), this data provides more some insight as to what the true results of a statewide manual recount are.
So, (from the standpoint of Rep Party) it's probably not worth the risk to lose in this way. The most strategic thing to do for Bush (assuming a statewide manual recount wouldn't give him enough ballots to win), would be to not request a statewide manual recount, in order to leave an element of doubt in the mind's of American voters, so the country feels like they owe something to the Reps.
However, I think Bush would be doing a diservice to this country, if he does not file a request for a statewide manual recount (or in the 3-most Rep counties, or whatever would make a recount for 3-Dem be balanced and fair, if it isn't already fair by way of Rep counties having better polling equip or manual). So, Bush may have a reasonable idea the statewide manual recount won't gain him many ballots.
I'd like the real winner to win, whomever he may be. Since Gore won the exit polls, I suspect Gore is the true winner, especially since 15,000 ballots in PBC could have been Gore's votes. In fact, I believe this could be the real reason why the Dems are fighting this hard (in addition to your earlier reasons you listed).
That was the essence of my post with Gopher, however, taking this to the next level:
a) Did the SC create an inequality situation (by allowing only 3 Dem counties to vote). This question was not asked by the Florida Supreme Court, but needs to be asked of the Florida Supreme Court, so they can investigate the underlying issues which would determine if it is so. My loyalty is first to accuracy and fairness over any Party affiliation.
An answer to the question about equality of votes, depends upon factors that need to be investigated, like the supposively better (thus, more accurate) polling equip in Rep counties vs. Dem counties, etc. If the equipment is equal or less accurate (i.e. is NOT the supposively better OCR equipment nor manually counted, but is machine-punch-counted), then the ruling dilutes the voters in Rep counties, and this would not be fair to Bush. This would be an "equal rights" issue, which is a very big issue.
However, if the equipment is indeed significantly better than Dem counties (i.e. manual or OCR-dot-scanners - vs. - punch-ballots), then the ruling does not dilute the voters. (I'm not an expert on polling equipment, so I don't know which way this goes. Pete, do you know? We need an expert opinion here.) There have been previous rulings where a similar situation like this has happened (recounting in selective counties) where the ruling was determined not to be unconstitutional, so the answer is in the details and only Pete on this Thread might be able to shed some light on the quality of the equipment used (or, if it was done manually, thus, more reliable) in the Rep counties.
b) If (by the above) it is determined the extra votes are diluting to Rep Counties (of an equal vote, thus an "equal rights" issue), then this violates the Constitutional right (not sure of the exact legal phrase). They have to respect BOTH the "will of the people" and "equal rights", and only a statewide manual recount could do that.
c) However, at this point in time, it could be unlikely Florida can complete a statewide manual recount to respect both laws, statutes, voter rights (WILL of the people and EQUALITY of rights) by Dec 12th. Thus, eventually the Courts could run out of time (there would be Appeals, investigation of equip, possibly a request to do statewide manual recounting, and all these things take time.) so, the Courts could eventually run out of time.
d) If the courts run out of time, then (I believe) the matter ends up in the FL legislatures' hands, who are majority Rep. I entrust Florida legislatures to respect the statutes and laws (both WILL and EQUALITY). However, they just may not have enough time to respect both the WILL and the EQUALITY, which a statewide manual recount would provide (note: If the polling equip in Rep counties was indeed significantly better by use of OCR or manually counted, this means WILL and EQUALITY are two conditions which are met), but if the equip is equal or significantly inferior (or not done manually), then the "EQUALITY of vote" condition would not be met, so (in that case) they'll just have to make their own decision.
And, I believe they (FL legislature) have the complete power to make any decision they want, even if it conflicts with the WILL of the people. However, they won't know the WILL of the people, because time will have runned out, so they'll make their best guess. Reps have the majority, so there is, of course, a chance they would be inclined to favor Bush.
e) However, when guessing what the WILL of the people is, some may decide not to violate statute 102.661 and risk having Florida completely tossed out for a "WILL" violation. OTOH, if the equip is equal or superior (or was not counted manually) or was not counted statewide statewide manually, then Florida risks being completely tossed out for an "EQUALITY of vote" violation.
The bottom line is: I believe Florida is at risk for being tossed out by the EC if these two items are violated: the WILL of the people and EQUALITY of each vote.
In 1968, Sr George Bush as a congress-person, voted to exclude North Carolina from the Electoral College and they voted to toss North Carolina out.
Does, "what comes around, goes around?"
Regards,
Amy J PS I don't have time to look/edit for any corrections, so just let me know if I'm not clear on something. |
