SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Zoltan! who wrote (129177)2/26/2001 8:46:48 AM
From: The Street  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Published Monday, February 26, 2001, in The Miami Herald

DADE UNDERVOTES SUPPORT BUSH WIN
Review of ballots by Herald suggests Gore recount effort would have failed
BY AMY DRISCOLL
adriscoll@herald.com

If Secretary of State Katherine Harris had let South Florida counties complete manual recounts before certifying the results of last November's election, George W. Bush likely would have won the presidency outright, without weeks of indecision and political warfare, a review of Miami-Dade County's ``undervote'' ballots shows.

Al Gore would have netted no more than 49 votes if a manual recount of Miami-Dade's ballots had been completed, according to the review, which was sponsored by The Herald and its parent company, Knight Ridder. That would have been 140 too few to overcome Bush's lead, even when joined with Gore gains in Volusia, Palm Beach and Broward counties -- the three other counties where Gore had requested manual recounts.

Of 10,644 ballots that the Miami-Dade elections office identified as undervotes -- ballots bearing no machine-readable vote for president -- the review found that 1,555 bore some kind of marking that might be interpreted as a vote for Gore. An additional 1,506 bore some kind of marking that might be interpreted as a vote for Bush. There were 106 markings for other candidates.

No markings for president were found on 4,892 ballots, and 2,058 ballots bore markings in spaces that had been assigned to no candidate. An additional 527 ballots were deemed to have markings for more than one presidential candidate.

A large number of ballots -- 1,912 -- contained clean punches. But 1,840 of those were in ballot positions that corresponded to no candidate, including 1,667 ballots where the voter cleanly punched the positions just below the numbers corresponding to Bush or Gore.

GOP REACTION

Republicans called the results of The Herald's review further proof that Bush was the legitimate winner all along.

``President Bush was lawfully elected on Election Day. He won after the first statewide machine recount,'' said Mark Wallace, a Miami lawyer for the Republican Party. ``He won after the manual recount, and he won at the conclusion of all the litigation.

``Now, after a ballot review using liberal standards unprecedented under the law, we find President Bush would still win. At some point, the Democratic National Committee needs to accept that, and that time is now.''

Democrats maintained that The Herald's ballot review reveals that neither side could have known how the recounts would turn out.

``This underscores how unpredictable the whole recount strategy was, on both sides,'' said Doug Hattaway, former Gore campaign spokesman. ``This shows Bush's tactics of delaying and blocking vote counts didn't really benefit him.''

DEMOCRATS' STRATEGY

But Hattaway acknowledged that the Democrats, too, may have been flawed in their approach. ``Our strategy of focusing on four counties might not have benefited Gore either,'' he said with a rueful laugh.

The review of the Miami-Dade ballots was undertaken as part of The Herald's statewide inspection of undervotes. The Herald began the inspection in December, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court halted a statewide recount of undervotes that had been ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.

The Herald and Knight Ridder retained a public accounting firm, BDO Seidman, LLP, to conduct the inspection. In the weeks since, BDO Seidman accountants have inspected undervotes in most Florida counties. Ballots in only two counties, Holmes in the Panhandle and Duval in north Florida, have not been reviewed. Both counties have delayed granting access to the ballots because of concerns that they might become evidence in lawsuits.

In Miami-Dade, the review took more than 80 hours spread over nearly three weeks. A BDO Seidman accountant sat in the Miami-Dade elections office in downtown Miami and recorded information about each undervote. The ballots were handled by elections officials, who held them out for inspection, then flipped them over so the reverse side could be seen.

SEPARATE REVIEW

A Herald reporter also reviewed each undervote ballot and made a separate and independent assessment of its characteristics. That review was used for a statistical check of accuracy, but was not considered in the tabulations BDO reported at the end of the review.

The inspection showed a range of problems with the ballots. Voters are supposed to indicate their preferences by using a pointed metal tool, called a stylus, to punch out perforated squares known as chads. A computer ballot counter later reads the card by passing light through the holes left by the punched-out chads.

But some voters in Miami-Dade didn't punch the chads. Instead, they marked their ballots with pen or pencil, either coloring in the chads or crossing them out. Some were torn. One voter wrote across the top of the ballot, in bright green block letters: Elian Gonzalez.

Other voters punched chads that didn't correspond to a candidate. On the Miami-Dade ballot, 736 voters made marks at hole No. 5, one below Bush's No. 4, and 1,017 voters made marks at hole No. 7, one below Gore's No. 6.

And still others, 2,457 altogether, marked their ballots with only an indentation or ``dimple'' in the presidential column.

BDO, under its agreement with The Herald, made no effort to determine whether a mark on a ballot was a legally valid vote. Instead, its accountants noted what kind of mark was present and its location, then totaled the marks of various kinds and reported them to The Herald.

It is unknown whether those marks would have been counted as votes by the Miami-Dade canvassing board, which reviewed only about a quarter of the undervotes before halting its hand count of all ballots Nov. 22.

But the Herald review clearly shows that the Gore strategy of selective recounts was unlikely to have ended in victory. In addition, the state Supreme Court order Dec. 8 to count the undervotes statewide -- and the weeks of political acrimony that preceded it -- might have been avoided if the initial recounts had gone forward without opposition.

That's because the revised totals from the four counties likely would not have overcome the 930-vote lead Bush had amassed after a state-mandated machine recount Nov. 8 and the tabulation of overseas absentee ballots Nov. 17.

Inclusion of the revised totals would have stripped the Gore campaign of most of its grounds for the lawsuit that ended in a late-night decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 12. Gore's campaign had argued that ``legal votes'' from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties had been excluded from the state certified vote totals.

Gore's tactic of requesting recounts in just four counties was a gamble from the start. ``The rule of thumb is, when you're behind, you ask for a statewide hand count,'' said Democratic lawyer Chris Sautter, who advised the Gore camp to do just that.

``My advice was pretty much rejected out of hand,'' said Sautter, co-author of a 1994 book called The Recount Primer. ``The feeling was that [a statewide hand count] was not something that was manageable.''

But the tactic did scare Republicans, who fought it in the courtroom and on television. On Nov. 13, U.S. District Judge Don Middlebrooks rejected a GOP effort to stop the recounts.

DECISIVE MOVE

The critical decision to reject late-arriving vote recounts was made two days later by Secretary of State Harris, co-chair of the Bush campaign in Florida.

Harris announced that she would not accept any results that came in after the Nov. 14 deadline set by state law for counties to report vote totals, even though Leon County Circuit Judge Terry Lewis had ruled earlier that she had the discretion to do so.

Only Volusia County had completed its recount by Harris' deadline, resulting in 98 net votes for Gore. Recounts in the other counties were proceeding slowly or had not yet started. Harris told them they didn't have an acceptable reason for being late. When she announced the totals, Bush led by 300 votes.

On Nov. 17, several thousand overseas ballots were counted, widening Bush's lead to 930.

And Bush would have stayed in the lead, the review of Miami-Dade ballots suggests, had Harris simply revised her initial certification when recounts came in from the three other counties.

SAME OUTCOME

Those results would have given Gore a total of 790 net votes -- 567 from Broward, 174 from Palm Beach and 49 from Miami-Dade. Bush would have been the victor by 140 votes.

Instead, Palm Beach and Broward counties appealed first to Judge Lewis and then, ultimately, to the Florida Supreme Court, which extended the deadline to Nov. 26.

Even then, Harris refused to accept Palm Beach's results, which were two hours late, and would not accept the results of a partial vote tally from Miami-Dade, which had halted its recount Nov. 22 after reviewing 139 of the county's 790 precincts, including absentee precincts.

The rejection became central to Gore's contest of the election, which ultimately ended with the Florida Supreme Court ordering a statewide recount of the undervote.

It was that statewide recount that was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court.



To: Zoltan! who wrote (129177)2/26/2001 9:15:04 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 769667
 
Of course. It was always likely that under fair standards, and without tampering, Bush would win a manual recount, and quite possible even with liberal rules of interpretation. However, there was no reason to delay, nor was there confidence in the fairness of the process.



To: Zoltan! who wrote (129177)3/1/2001 9:26:05 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Here is an article from consortiumnews.com

February 27, 2001
Press Blows Florida -- Again

Americans who watched the news media rush to judgment on Election Night -- first awarding Florida to Al Gore and then giving it to George W. Bush and then settling on "too close to call" -- might have thought the national press corps had learned its lesson.

You might have thought that major news organizations would at least wait for the final tallies in the unofficial recounts now underway before calling a winner.

If you had that expectation, you'd be disappointed again.

The latest bizarre example of the news media's compulsive rush to judgment has come in the handling of a Miami Herald/USA Today report about an unofficial tally of Miami-Dade "undervotes," ballots that were rejected by counting machines as registering no choice for president.

The latest facts were these: After examining Miami-Dade's 10,646 undervotes -- out of about 60,000 statewide -- this unofficial tally found Gore closing to within about 140 votes of Bush. In other words with nearly 50,000 undervotes still to be examined, only about 140 votes separated the two candidates.

Those who have been following the work of other Florida news organizations in other counties also would know that hundreds of uncounted votes clearly intended for Gore or Bush had been discovered over the past two months, both in "undervotes" and in "overvotes" in which voters had marked their ballot for a candidate and then written in the candidate's name.

From these other unofficial tallies, Gore had made surprising net gains in some counties that had favored Bush overall. By some counts, Gore even had pulled ahead of Bush, though clearly the outcome of these unofficial tallies remained in doubt.

Once all the counting was over, it seemed plausible that either Bush might hold on to a narrow lead or that Gore might inch ahead.

Either result, of course, would not change the fact that Bush had been awarded Florida’s 25 electoral votes and had become the first national popular-vote loser in more than a century to claim the White House.

Nor would the unofficial tallies change the reality that Gore almost certainly was the choice of a plurality of Floridians -- if not for the confusing ballot in Palm Beach County, which apparently caused thousands of elderly Jews to vote for Pat Buchanan, and the state's alleged purging of thousands of African-Americans from the rolls on the grounds that their names were similar to those of convicted felons.

The unofficial newspaper tallies were intended only as an historical marker. So why the rush? Wouldn’t it make sense to wait until the statewide tallies were complete so as not to sow any more confusion and distrust? At minimum, wouldn’t it be reasonable to make clear how limited any new partial tally was?

Not in the Cards

That apparently is not how the American news media works anymore. The big-name news organizations seemed to have learned nothing from Election Night.

Rather than cautious, balanced stories about the limits of the new Miami-Dade tabulation, the news media rushed to declare Bush the legitimate winner in Florida and thus of the presidency.

“If a manual recount of presidential ballots had gone forward in Miami-Dade County, George W. Bush likely would have won the presidency outright,” wrote the Miami Herald. [Feb. 26, 2001]

“Review Finds Bush Won Despite Miami Recount,” declared a headline in The Washington Post.

“A review of Florida ballots suggested Gore wouldn’t have gained enough in a recount to win the presidency, the Miami Herald said,’’ summarized the Wall Street Journal.

By Monday evening on television, the limited findings of the Miami Herald had been transformed into the final word that Bush really did win the election. Without doubt, millions of Americans who still have faith in the national news media will go away with that impression.

Yet, besides exaggerating the conclusions, the articles were misleading in another way. They suggested that the only recounts that mattered were the ones in South Florida where the Gore campaign first raised questions about the results. The hook for the Miami Herald story really was that if Bush and his campaign had not frustrated those early recounts, they still would have been slightly ahead.

But the decisive recount issue was not the count in South Florida. It was Bush's success in having his five conservative allies on the U.S. Supreme Court overturn a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that had mandated a statewide recount of the so-called undervotes.

That recount of 69 Florida counties was underway on Dec. 9 when the five conservative justices in Washington took the unprecedented step of halting the counting of votes in a U.S. presidential election. Then, on Dec. 12, they prevented a resumption of the recount, effectively handing the presidency to Bush.

If there were to be any meaningful measure about whether history was altered by that decision, it should have been made against the statewide recount, not simply the recount in South Florida.

Even more to the point is the question of what was the will of the Florida voters. Even casting aside the irregularities, did ballots registering clear intent of voters favor Gore or Bush?

These key issues were ignored by virtually all the news reports on Monday. The story was quite simple: Bush wins, this time for real.

As on Election Night – though without the excuse of the deadline pressure – the national press corps had demonstrated once more how much of a threat it has become to the goal of an informed electorate.

Back to Front