Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Selectric II who wrote (117937)	12/19/2000 7:36:10 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

At least you pose some reasonable questions. Thank you. The recovery rate of 25% seems, quite frankly, much closer to reality than a recovery rate of 4%. Otherwise, you have to conclude that 5 times as many voters in these 3 counties opted not to vote for President than in the entire rest of the state, which makes no sense statistically -- not some huge pro-GOP coincidence. Across Florida, they vote in a hodgepodge of systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in sparsely populated, and largely Republican-leaning, counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in highly populated, and largely Democratic-leaning, counties record only 97-98% of the votes. Add to that the fact that the punch ballot machines in minority precincts are the oldest, and least maintained, and that the voters are less experienced in voting, and the reason for the statistical anomaly becomes crystal clear (and the reason why Bush did not WANT a statewide recount becomes even clearer). As for the standard adopted in Broward (and it was as much Judge Ray as Susan Gunzenberger), it was applied neutrally to democratic and republican voted ballots and Bush gained votes by it -- just fewer votes than Gore gained because democrats greatly outnumber republicans in Broward. I personally agree that a statewide manual recount of undervotes would have been appropriate (including re-opening the already counted undervotes in Palm, Broward and, partially, in Dade, to ensure that one standard -- clear intent of the voter -- was applied by a single judge applying the same standard to all undervotes). And while I agree that Florida's standard is non-specific and therefore leaves a lot to be desired (believe me, Gore would have much preferred the very liberal standard for recounting punch ballots under Texas law, by comparison), it is, nevertheless, the standard that existed and the one they had no choice but to apply out of deference to the very Federal Statute you make reference to -- which does not say what you think it says, IMHO, because it offers a safe harbor, not a mandate -- which is to say that it is all carrot and no stick -- but that's another issue. It is also the same standard now in effect in 33 states, who are now undoubtedly shocked to learn that their election laws are all unconstitutional. You will never convince me that manual recounts are unconstitutional, or that not looking at all at the undervotes leads to a more accurate result that looking at them and applying a uniform standard with some component of subjectivity. We will never know how many undervotes in Dade were hanging or swinging chads, or complete perforations, that all would agree should be counted, rather than the dimples you GOP guys think are so offensive to your sense of clear intent. And that is because your guy succeeded in suppressing those counts before they could be completed.