Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why don't you illuminate me. Why would the GOP challenge results which showed they won?

If you're really interested, here are links (it's a 2-parter and fairly lengthy) to a recent Vanity Fair article on the Bush v. Gore Florida debacle (you may remember bilmore mentioning the article in the context of the SC clerks who may have violated their CAs).

http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/VFPart1.pdf (part 1)

http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/VFPart2.pdf (part 2)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
To stop the recounts.

And who instituted the recounts? Remember before you answer that the original question was who is responsble for the banana republic.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As was required by Florida law. There was no provision for a general recount.

That is correct. This is discussed in the VF article. I highly recommend this article for an excellent recap of the 2000 election. It seems some memories have faded, or perhaps events unfolded so quickly it was difficult to get a handle on what was going on at the time.

(spree to Not Me: Vanity Fair is a for-profit enterprise)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And who instituted the recounts? Remember before you answer that the original question was who is responsble for the banana republic.

Recounts were provided for by law.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And who instituted the recounts? Remember before you answer that the original question was who is responsble for the banana republic.

The recounts were done in accordance with Florida election law and in the face of massive irregularities. For example, one county showed Gore with a negative 16,000 (I believe that's the number) votes. The Rs were desperate to stop the recounts because all indications were that a full and accurate recount would give the victory to Gore. Nothing banana republic about the results of an election reflecting the intent of the voters and the will of the people.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
The Rs were desperate to stop the recounts because all indications were that a full and accurate recount would give the victory to Gore.

As proven by several independent surveys after the fact, these indications were incorrect.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
As proven by several independent surveys after the fact, these indications were incorrect.

Interesting, but hardly exculpatory. What's your point?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
As proven by several independent surveys after the fact, these indications were incorrect.

Not if you count "overvotes." Read the Vanity Fair article.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Not if you count "overvotes."

Is this DNC-speak for "dead people"?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
As proven by several independent surveys after the fact, these indications were incorrect.

It's not quite that simple. It depends on what's being recounted and which recount standards are applied.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That is correct. This is discussed in the VF article. I highly recommend this article for an excellent recap of the 2000 election. It seems some memories have faded, or perhaps events unfolded so quickly it was difficult to get a handle on what was going on at the time.

(spree to Not Me: Vanity Fair is a for-profit enterprise)

I recommend Posner's book on the subject. A little more substantial than VF, but I think you're up to the task.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Is this DNC-speak for "dead people"?

Read the Vanity Fair article if you want to understand, which I doubt. It refers to ballots (initially) not counted because multiple people were selected for President, e.g. because someone punched the chad for George Bush and then wrote in "George Bush" on the write-in line.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Interesting, but hardly exculpatory. What's your point?

The point is that the DEMs instituted a process based on faulty assumptions. Instead of living with the results of a close election, like say 1960, they were so desperate to hold on to power that they jeapardized the very system. Unfortunately, they seem poised to do it again. Aside from my post this morning, I understand that the complaints in several states have already been written and the legal teams already assembled. Unless Bush has some comfort in a win (assuming, that is, that he in fact wins), it is going to be another ugly December.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I recommend Posner's book on the subject. A little more substantial than VF, but I think you're up to the task.

Oh well, shit, if Richard "baby broker" Posner said it . . .

What did Posner say? You obviously haven't read too much on this topic if you thought the Dems filed the first suit.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The point is that the DEMs instituted a process based on faulty assumptions.

Which are?

Instead of living with the results of a close election, like say 1960, they were so desperate to hold on to power that they jeapardized the very system. Unfortunately, they seem poised to do it again. Aside from my post this morning, I understand that the complaints in several states have already been written and the legal teams already assembled. Unless Bush has some comfort in a win (assuming, that is, that he in fact wins), it is going to be another ugly December.

Peculiarities of Fla election law aside, in your mind is there a point at which the conduct of a hypothetical election would be so tainted so as to justify a recount or court action? Or is it just that the loser has to swallow it if it goes wrong, for the good of the system?

My understanding is that both sides have retained the legal teams. I look forward to reposting your words after Kerry's victory.

edited to fix atrocious grammar