|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
You have a link to her only looking for a recount in counties she expected to be heavily favored in?
|
Well, I've been out of town. I'll try to make it up to you.
As everyone knows by now, the links indicate that the Democratic Party is attempting to cherry-pick. Here's one of many:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...egoire03m.html
Quote:
Gregoire wants full recount — or none
By David Postman
Seattle Times chief political reporter
OLYMPIA — Democrat Christine Gregoire says she will concede the governor's race to Dino Rossi today unless her party raises enough money for a statewide recount.
"I'm done with the shock of Nov. 2 and I have moved on, and I am ready to do what the law provides" and have a final statewide manual recount, Gregoire said yesterday.
But the party says it'll do what it wants.
Democratic Party Chairman Paul Berendt said he will request a recount in only a few selected counties if that's all the party has money to pay for when the 5 p.m. deadline hits today.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
BTW, Al Gore was specifically looking for recounts in counties that were supposed to be, and were, heavily favored for him and were also the only counties that ended up with spoilage in higher percentages than the acceptable state range. When the race is down to 500 vote difference, and your best performing counties have to throw away thousands of votes... Really, is it that much of a stretch to think this would be a logical step?
|
I disagree. I can't post the link to this, because you have to pay to get into these archives.
Quote:
Blame Gore's lawyers for his defeat
The San Diego Union - Tribune; San Diego, Calif.; Dec 15, 2000; Michael D. Ramsey;
Copyright SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY Dec 15, 2000
A fair manual recount of Florida's votes might show Vice President Al Gore to be the winner in that state, and thus the winner of the election. Yet George W. Bush will be the next president. If you're upset at that result, consider blaming Al Gore's lawyers.
Gore partisans see the U.S. Supreme Court as the culprit, first for halting the on-going manual recount in Florida, then for preventing a new recount because (said the court) Florida law required recounts to be completed by Dec. 12.
But blaming the court overlooks the real reason why a fair recount could not have been completed by Dec. 12: Gore's lawyers spent the previous five weeks arguing for an unfair recount.
From the beginning, Gore's legal team pressed for a recount designed to overstate Gore votes. They wanted selective recounts only in heavily Democratic counties. They wanted to count "votes" based on indentations in the ballot card barely visible to the naked eye. They wanted subjective, undefined counting standards that varied from county to county and even (as Gore's counsel admitted to the Supreme Court) from counting table to counting table within the same county. At no point in any filing or any argument to any court did any Gore lawyer advocate a statewide recount of all counties -- Republican and Democrat alike -- based on uniform objective and easily applied standards.
The process Gore's team created was so patently unfair that in Tuesday's ruling seven members of the U.S. Supreme Court (including Democrat Stephen Breyer and moderate David Souter) found it unconstitutional. These seven justices went on to say that only a uniform statewide recount based on objective standards -- a recount Gore's team never advocated -- would be fair and constitutional. But then five of the seven found that there was no time to do it over. And so Bush was president.
Consider instead what might have happened if the Gore team had pressed for a uniform statewide recount based on objective standards, early in the process. In all likelihood, that count could have been completed in the five weeks between the election and Dec. 12. And the Supreme Court likely would not have halted it, because many of the justices objected not to the idea of a recount, but to the unfairness of the recount that was actually happening.
The problem, of course, was that Gore might not have won an even- handed recount. No one knew what would result from a uniform statewide recount based on objective standards. So Gore's lawyers tried to stack the deck by advocating recount procedures heavily favoring their side. In the end, they spent five precious weeks pursuing a count so unfair that seven members of the U.S. Supreme Court could not accept it.
The moral is a hard lesson against lawyers' overreaching. Lawyers are told to zealously advocate for their clients. But, as Gore now painfully knows, there is such a thing as overzealousness. By working every angle to give Gore the greatest advantage in the recount, Gore's lawyers ultimately denied him any recount at all. A more modest campaign, seeking a process fair to both sides, would have given Gore at least a recount, and perhaps the presidency.
There is a lesson for clients as well. Lawyers will try to exploit legal loopholes to secure tactical advantages. That is part of their training. But focus on tactical advantage may blind lawyers to larger issues of the reasonableness of their actions. Clients should not let lawyers' machinations override their own sense of fairness.
Gore took a step in the right direction when, early on, he personally proposed a statewide rather than a selective recount. But he made that proposal in a context that seemed more a political gambit than a serious proposal, and he failed to follow through and direct his lawyers to halt their quest for a rigged process.
Finally, there is a lesson about judges (and justices). One may have doubts about some of the legal reasoning the Supreme Court majority used in support of its decision to deny a new recount. But whatever the legalities, as a matter of rough justice the court seemed to reach a fair result.
Gore's lawyers had five weeks to argue for a fair recount, and instead used all of that time arguing for a one-sided recount carefully crafted to give Gore the victory. After their tireless campaign to rig the recount, one cannot have much sympathy for the Gore team's claim that the process should be further extended to give them a chance to do what they should have done in the first place.
And that is why lawyers' efforts to secure tactical advantages are so often self-defeating. Law may be perceived as awash in technicalities, but at the end of the day, judges have a way of finding for the side that has acted the most reasonably.
By overplaying their hand, Gore's lawyers looked unreasonable, quite apart from the merits of Gore's basic (and not unreasonable) claim that Florida's vote should be recounted by hand. And that -- and not the "partisanship" of the Supreme Court -- is why George W. Bush will be the next president.
Ramsey is a practicing lawyer, constitutional law professor at the University of San Diego and former U.S. Supreme Court clerk.
|
Or you can have this one:
http://www.law.utah.edu/pdf/rg_spring_01.pdf
Quote:
That 7-2 decision rested on a simple
premise: If there is going to be a manual
recount, it should be conducted properly.
It is not permissible for some counters
to treat unperforated ballots as votes, and
others as nonvotes. Nor is there any
apparent reason to count undervotes but
not overvotes. And the Florida court’s
decision to certify dubious results from
Broward County and the most heavily
Democratic precincts of Miami-Dade,
without any judicial scrutiny, had no legit-imate
justification. Any of these errors
might be of sufficient magnitude, in so
close an election, to swing the result. It
is no surprise that seven justices of the
Supreme Court would hold that a recount
under these conditions is unlawful.
To be sure, there are good arguments
that there should not have been a manual
recount at all. The Florida Supreme Court’s
ruling involved substantial alteration of the
voting scheme as set forth in the Florida
election code. Only “legal votes” may be
counted, and the most straightforward defi-nition
of a “legal vote” is one that was in
compliance with the clear voting instructions.
Moreover, the Florida statutes entrust
the primary responsibility for vote count-ing
to county boards, subject to the super-vision
of the secretary of state, with
judicial review to ensure that they have not
abused their discretion. For the state
supreme court to transfer this authority to
the courts was a significant change.
|
Or this:
Quote:
A MUDDLED RULING
By Michael W. McConnell
Finally, the Florida law clearly states
that if a manual recount is ordered, it must
include “all ballots.” This is an important
safeguard against cherry picking. Yet the
Florida court ordered a manual recount
only of the undervotes.
Ordinarily, these would be issues of
state law, on which the state courts are the
final authority. But Article II, Section 1 of
the U.S. Constitution, which provides that
electors must be chosen in the manner
directed by the state legislature, requires
federal review to ensure that the state
courts have followed the mandates of the
state legislature, instead of their own pref-erences
on election procedures. This issue
is a federal question in the unique circum-stance
of the choice of electors. George W.
Bush’s lawyers made a powerful case that
the Florida ruling violated that standard.
But only three justices—William
Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence
Thomas—were ultimately persuaded by
the Article II argument. The majority
rested entirely on the theory that the
recount, as ordered by the Florida court,
would violate the equal protection of the
laws by failing to provide a uniform stan-dard
for vote counting, by counting some
overvotes and not others, and by failing to
recount the challenged results in Brow-ard
and Miami-Dade. That rationale was
sufficiently uncontroversial to command
widespread assent among the justices—
even those presumably favorable to Mr. Gore.
It was far from clear, however, what
the high court could do, at this late date,
to correct these problems. The Florida
Supreme Court placed the U.S. Supreme
Court in a very difficult position by order-ing
a recount, without constitutionally
adequate safeguards, at the latest possible
date. Conducting a recount under proper
standards would take time. Certainly, a
recount would prevent the state from
meeting Tuesday’s deadline for “safe harbor”
treatment under federal law. Indeed, it
appears all but impossible that the court
could have completed a proper recount
by the constitutional deadline of Dec. 18,
when the electors meet and vote.
Some of the dissenting justices blamed
this delay on the Supreme Court’s grant
of a stay. But that is unfair. Even if there
had been no stay, the recount would
have to start afresh, and under proper
standards. The stay had nothing to do with
it. The real cause of the delay was a series
of decisions by the Florida Supreme Court.
The first was its Nov. 21 decision to reduce
the contest period by eight days to permit
more recounting prior to certification. The
second was its failure to initiate the
statewide recount weeks ago, when there
was still time to do so on an orderly basis.
The third was its decision, last Friday,
to proceed without constitutionally adequate
standards. Mr. Gore deserves some of the
responsibility for these decisions, since in
each case he got what his lawyers had
asked for in court.
The question of remedy is the troub-ling
aspect of the decision. The five
justices in the majority held that, since
there is no time to complete a proper
recount by Dec. 12, all recounting must
end. Justices Breyer and Souter argued
that the real deadline is Dec. 18, and that
the court should remand for the Florida
court to decide whether to try to accom-plish
a recount by that time.
As a matter of federal law, Justices
Breyer and Souter have the better argu-ment.
The Dec. 12 “deadline” is only a
deadline for receiving “safe harbor” protec-tion
for the state’s electors. A state is free
to forgo that benefit if it chooses. The
majority opinion responded that the
Florida court itself had treated Dec. 12 as
the operative date for concluding the vote
count. That’s true. Indeed, in its first deci-sion,
the Florida court calculated the time
allowable for recounting votes by count-ing
backward from Dec. 12. Nonetheless,
the decision is one for the state to make.
It would have been the better course, as a
federal court, to remand.
It would also have been the better
course politically. Such a disposition would
have maintained the 7-2 majority for the
entire holding, which the American public
would find vastly more reassuring. To be
sure, it is probably impossible to conduct
a proper recount by Monday, but by cutting
off the possibility, the court encouraged
critics to blame the court majority—rather
than the passage of time—for the outcome.
Worst of all, this combination—
approving a manual recount under proper
standards, but forbidding the state to
conduct a recount because of time con-straints—
deprives Mr. Bush of the clarity
of victory that he must surely desire.
PROPER CLOSURE
If the court had held that no manual
recount was permitted, as the three conser-vatives
suggested, the dispute would be
over. The decision would have been
controversial, but it would have provided
closure. If there had been a recount
under proper standards, many objective
observers predicted that Mr. Bush would
have been confirmed the winner, maybe
even by a wider margin. Mr. Gore’s best
hopes for victory lay in getting votes
recounted only in the most Democratic
counties by Democrat-dominated boards
subject to variable standards.
In a fair recount, Mr. Bush would most
likely have emerged the winner, with
enhanced public confidence in the results.
As it is, the election ends by the clock.
Many of the vice president’s supporters
will continue to believe—probably to their
graves—that their man would have won
if only they had been given more time.
The court did not have the resolution
to declare that no recount was necessary,
or the patience to declare that a proper
recount should proceed. That means,
unfortunately, that Mr. Bush will take
office under conditions of continued
uncertainty. I do not think that part of the
decision did him, or the nation, a favor.
Michael W. McConnell is the college’s Presidential
Professor of Law. This article is reprinted with
permission from The Wall Street Journal of
Dec. 14. ©2000 Dow Jones and Company, Inc. All
Rights Reserved.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
It's funny that anyone would think it perfectly accepable to believe that some of the most Jewish communities in america would give an avowed anti-semite (Buchannan, 2000) his highest vote percentages in the country. Nowhere else in the state could he garner more than 1000 votes, but in Palm Beach he grabs almost 3500.... yeah, let's just ignore it. I'm sure it's the lone Buchannan stronghold in the nation.
|
Actually, it makes sense when you read about the roundups of drug addicts, winos, and mentally retarded that took place there.
These cretins were coached by the Democrats who rounded them up to vote for one candidate on each page. The Democrat.
The problem was that their coaches couldn’t follow them into the booths. So here’s what they saw on their ballot:
They dutifully "voted" on the right page. Couldn't find a Democrat, so they punched the first one on the page.
Oh, here's an entertaining bit of research:
Quote:
Kids Find Contested Ballot to be Child's Play," The Shreveport Times,
By Don Walker, 11/10/00
"It's a ballot that perplexed Florida voters but was no match for the wits of first- and fourth-graders at Stockwell Elementary School in Bossier City.
"Disillusioned and upset by the lingering chaos of this week's presidential election, fourth-grade teacher Lisa Burns pulled a sample of the controversial Palm Beach County, Fla., ballot off the Internet on Thursday. She then put her class of 9- and 10-year-olds to the test. 'I gave them a ballot and had them take a blue marker to vote for Al Gore and a red marker to vote for George Bush. Then I had them put their name on the bottom of the ballot and turn it in.'
"Turns out this election was mere child's play. Not one of the 22 students present in class Thursday was confused by the ballot. Each one was marked without error.
"Well, if a fourth-grader could do it, how about a first-grader? Down the hall in Stacey Robinson's class, the ballot was handed out to 6- and 7-year-olds. Robinson used an overhead projector to point out Gore's name, then asked the class of 24 students to find his bubble on the punch-card ballot.
"'It wasn't a vote,' Robinson said. 'I just wanted to experiment to see if they could find the correct bubble.'
"When the ballots were turned in, 19 of the first-graders marked the correct bubble for Gore, three picked Buchanan's bubble, one picked Bush's and one marked the bottom bubble for the 'Natural Law' party.
"'If a first-grader can choose the correct bubble, there's no legitimate claim. Anyone could have done it,' Robinson said. 'A grown adult who took any time at all could find it.'
"Still, even in a first-grade classroom, vote tabulations were the subject of protest and controversy. 'I thought we were voting,' Brady McCoy, 6, of Haughton grumbled after he was told to find and punch the 'Gore' bubble. 'I wanted to vote for George Bush!'"
|
Basically, Gore’s partisans should have recruited a better class of morons.
So although Gregoire learned something from the last fiasco, the Washington Democratic party apparently didn't. |