"The 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court"

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

We're going to get into the tall grass here with this, but that seems to be where you're determined to take it.

This "every vote needs to be recounted" argument is specious. First, every vote WAS recounted, more than once, if memory serves. You are talking about a specific type of statewide recount with parameters that exceed any that anyone was reasonably talking about using. Second, such a statewide recount is not mandated (nor allowed, I believe) by Florida election law, which played into the SCOTUS decision. This is far from the "truest" reflection of voter intent. The Gore approach, and yours apparently, is to count as many times and in as many different ways as you can, with the hope that SOMEWHERE along the way enough votes get picked up. "Didn't get enough? Well count them again!"

Frequently lost in this discussion is the fact that there were actually two rulings that came out of the Court: one 7-2, and one 5-4. It was the 7-2 ruling that actually found the recount procedure to be unconstitutional--certainly within the Court's jurisdiction to decide. The second (and more controversial) decision, was to end ALL recounts, present and future.



Fine.



This is akin to saying that a game was won on a last minute shot, when in reality it was won by the sum of all points scored during the game. Just because the SCOTUS ruling resulted in a Bush presidency does not mean SCOTUS "determined the outcome," to use your phrase. In fact, the 4-county recount requested by Gore then underway would have STILL resulted in a Bush presidency.

The most correct way to say it is, "The Supreme Court accelerated Bush's assumption of the presidency after it was determined he won the election."

You are just back to making stuff up again. Counting every single vote again would give us the "truest" reflection of voter will. I am surprised you would dispute that. If you are of the opinion that a recount is more accurate than the first count (and I think that goes without saying), then a recount of every vote most certainly does give you a better view of what the voters wanted because it is more accurate (and the recounting standards are also uniform whereas they would not have been the first time around). Under every single recounting method that involved an entire state recount, Gore won.

I am not arguing that an entire state recount was the correct legal result, which is in part why I am not screaming on the street corner that "Gore won!" But it does seem pretty clear that he was the guy voters intended to elect in Florida. Florida had a crap system, confusing ballots and an overtly biased Secretary of State who did everything she could do to slant the results. In the end, Gore still could have won if he had successfully argued for the very method of recounting that Bush advocated. Oddly enough, neither the state nor the US Supreme Court adopted either approach advocated by Bush or Gore.

[JohnnyLingo]

If I'm Al Gore, I'm counting my lucky stars right now. After losing, he's become a billionaire, is a world-renowned Global Warming expert, respected by billions of people.

If he'd won, he would have had to deal with the terrorism thing, and everyone second-guessing everything he did, and the media attacking him constantly.

Way more stressful and less rewarding, IMO.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are just back to making stuff up again. Counting every single vote again would give us the "truest" reflection of voter will. I am surprised you would dispute that. If you are of the opinion that a recount is more accurate than the first count (and I think that goes without saying), then a recount of every vote most certainly does give you a better view of what the voters wanted because it is more accurate (and the recounting standards are also uniform whereas they would not have been the first time around). Under every single recounting method that involved an entire state recount, Gore won.

I am not arguing that an entire state recount was the correct legal result, which is in part why I am not screaming on the street corner that "Gore won!" But it does seem pretty clear that he was the guy voters intended to elect in Florida. Florida had a crap system, confusing ballots and an overtly biased Secretary of State who did everything she could do to slant the results. In the end, Gore still could have won if he had successfully argued for the very method of recounting that Bush advocated. Oddly enough, neither the state nor the US Supreme Court adopted either approach advocated by Bush or Gore.

Every single vote was counted, Cali. I'm curious, if Bush would've won in "all 4 scenarios" of a statewide recount, would you still be such an advocate.

Why do you think Gore didn't advocate that? Because he thought he would lose? Because of the massive headache it would've caused? You seem to ignore all the legal wrangling (dimpled chads, etc.) that went around the charade. Imagine Bush and Gore representatives and lawyers being dispatch to every precinct in the state. Imagine lawsuits filed over how to count this and that in every county. You talk like a recount would've just been a natural thing. "We'll be done by dinner, honey!"

This is to say nothing of the fact that it wasn't supported by law (a point you concede). Democrats have a habit of wanting to change the rules after the fact. See Bob Torricelli 2002. See Hillary Clinton 2008 re: Florida, Michigan.

All this is, of course, beside my original point, which is that the Supreme Court did not decide the election. Startlingly, even the New York Times conceded the point:

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore.

If even the Times can get it right, how come CBS news can't?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A9679C8B63

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Those were called "overvotes" and the NORC modeled different ways of counting/ignoring them too.

There was absolutely no clear way to say that Gore lost prior to the Supreme Court's involvement. I could just as easily say that the Supreme Court involvement was because Bush wouldn't take his loss like a man. Of course, neither my statement nor yours would be true.

No, it all started after Gore wouldn't accept that he lost. It's all on him.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Every single vote was counted, Cali. I'm curious, if Bush would've won in "all 4 scenarios" of a statewide recount, would you still be such an advocate.

Why do you think Gore didn't advocate that? Because he thought he would lose? Because of the massive headache it would've caused? You seem to ignore all the legal wrangling (dimpled chads, etc.) that went around the charade. Imagine Bush and Gore representatives and lawyers being dispatch to every precinct in the state. Imagine lawsuits filed over how to count this and that in every county. You talk like a recount would've just been a natural thing. "We'll be done by dinner, honey!"

This is to say nothing of the fact that it wasn't supported by law (a point you concede). Democrats have a habit of wanting to change the rules after the fact. See Bob Torricelli 2002. See Hillary Clinton 2008 re: Florida, Michigan.

All this is, of course, beside my original point, which is that the Supreme Court did not decide the election. Startlingly, even the New York Times conceded the point:

If even the Times can get it right, how come CBS news can't?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A9679C8B63

Why do you think Bush advocated the position he advocated (even though if he won the point, he would have lost the election)? Of course he and Gore pushed forward the idea that they thought would help them win, within the limits of the law. I am not arguing that the legal result should have been a recount of the entire state. I have said that multiple times now, so I can only assume that this latest attempt will also be an exercise in futility.

I am arguing that the best measure of the will of the people of Florida would have been a complete recount of all votes cast, and Gore wins in that scenario. It would still be the best measure of the will of Floridians even if Bush won under that scenario. I really don't know why you would even argue that point. Why are you arguing that point?

The law didn't support a statewide recount, so both Gore and Bush argued for a more limited version (i.e., the law produced a result that was less than perfect). Ironically, they both selected a choice that would have been a losing position if adopted. The courts ultimately decided on what the appropriate standard would be for the recount. That decision dictated who would win the presidency. In a very real sense, therefore, the courts decided the presidency. I also don't find this particularly debatable. And this isn't an issue of "changing the rules after the fact." Can you even point to a single statement of mine in this thread to support your accusation? I will happily wait for your evidence.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why do you think Bush advocated the position he advocated (even though if he won the point, he would have lost the election)? Of course he and Gore pushed forward the idea that they thought would help them win, within the limits of the law. I am not arguing that the legal result should have been a recount of the entire state. I have said that multiple times now, so I can only assume that this latest attempt will also be an exercise in futility.

I acknowledged that you said that, which apparently you didn't read.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am arguing that the best measure of the will of the people of Florida would have been a complete recount of all votes cast, and Gore wins in that scenario. It would still be the best measure of the will of Floridians even if Bush won under that scenario. I really don't know why you would even argue that point. Why are you arguing that point?

Because it's wrongheaded. It makes a great bumpersticker, yet is bad in practice, which is why the Florida law was written the way it was written. There's no reason to believe a recount of the entire state would produce any more accurate results than the first count. The debate revolved around how to count questionable votes, which (if memory serves) each county had different standards for. A statewide recount would've been a complete disaster.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The law didn't support a statewide recount, so both Gore and Bush argued for a more limited version (i.e., the law produced a result that was less than perfect). Ironically, they both selected a choice that would have been a losing position if adopted. The courts ultimately decided on what the appropriate standard would be for the recount. That decision dictated who would win the presidency. In a very real sense, therefore, the courts decided the presidency. I also don't find this particularly debatable. And this isn't an issue of "changing the rules after the fact." Can you even point to a single statement of mine in this thread to support your accusation? I will happily wait for your evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court was the one attempting to change the rules after the fact. All SCOTUS did was stop them.

The result of that decision allowed a decision to be finalized, but it is foolish to say it decided the outcome. That's a wholesale misrepresentation of what happened. The outcome had already been decided.