<a href='http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041027-123332-5663r.htm' target='_blank'>Democrats begin lawsuits</a>

I hope Al Gore is proud of the precedent he set in 2000.

This election is going to be chaos if it's remotely close.

Wow, I guess those John Edwards "Vote for Me or I'll Sue You" signs weren't a joke! :eek:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:<a href='http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041027-123332-5663r.htm' target='_blank'>Democrats begin lawsuits</a>

I hope Al Gore is proud of the precedent he set in 2000.

This election is going to be chaos if it's remotely close.

I wonder if the campaigns had the forethought this time to set aside money to pay the lawyers. 4 years ago, they were begging for $$$ to pay the fees. Maybe, if we all refuse to pay, the lawsuits will die.

Since the lawsuits have nothing to do with funds spent trying to persuade someone to vote for you, the candidates can raise unlimited amounts from donors and there are no restrictions on the donors. My guess is that both sides have amassed a war chest exceeding $50 million each.

But, the precedent was set by the United States Supreme Court when they bought into Dubya's equal protection argument to interfere in a decision that turned on interpretation of state law. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had it right when they said it was a state matter and the federal government had no business deciding it.

MAKO Wrote:Since the lawsuits have nothing to do with funds spent trying to persuade someone to vote for you, the candidates can raise unlimited amounts from donors and there are no restrictions on the donors. My guess is that both sides have amassed a war chest exceeding $50 million each.

But, the precedent was set by the United States Supreme Court when they bought into Dubya's equal protection argument to interfere in a decision that turned on interpretation of state law. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had it right when they said it was a state matter and the federal government had no business deciding it.

The only reason why you think that is because the lower courts ruled in your favor. A true and fair recount would have been a statewide recount. The targeted recount that algore was after was a direct partisan ploy, and from what I remember, a violation of Florida law. It had nothing to do with being fair and just. All of the recounts showed Bush to be the winner anyway.

Which is an extrememly convenient for you since the leftist Florida Supreme Court essentially rewrote Florida law to benefit Gore...which the Chief Justice so eloquently explained in his dissent on the majority decision.

Quit living in the past...it's not going to help you.

GrayBeard Wrote:The only reason why you think that is because the lower courts ruled in your favor.  A true and fair recount would have been a statewide recount.  The targeted recount that algore was after was a direct partisan ploy, and from what I remember, a violation of Florida law.  It had nothing to do with being fair and just.  All of the recounts showed Bush to be the winner anyway.

I'm almost positive Florida law required that recounts be requested county by county.

That's the way the law works in Ohio.

Gore chose the counties where he thought he could make up votes. In my experience, that's The Way It Works. It wasn't a partisan ploy.

It obviously made no sense for Gore to request recounts in counties where he thought he would lose votes. If Bush wanted to try to pick up votes in these places, he should have requested recounts in these places. Instead, Bush tried to stop recounts, and Harris took his side at every turn.

I can recall a 1994 Ohio election in which recounts were sought in three different counties as part of the same race.

In fact, depending on the county, the parties' lawyers were taking opposite stances on how liberally dangling and pregnant chads should be interpreted to count as a vote. (Eventually, the three boards' of elections came to agree on a common standard, and the Republican eeked out a victory by picking up about 60 votes).

So, in my experience, That's The Way It Works.

It is fundamental to punch card ballots that machines cannot count every vote. Usually this doesn't matter. But in a close election, the only way to measure voters' tried to do was to inspect each ballot tossed aside by the machine.

Mako is a lawyer. I am not. But I remain troubled by the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court opted against trying to count every vote. I think they got it wrong.

I'll say this, too: The spin that Gore's team was somehow lawsuit happy doesn't jive with my memory. His legal team was severely outmanned by the Bush team in Florida in 2000. Bush had Enron flying his lawyers around in planes -- one of many advantages they had.

Quote:Mako is a lawyer. I am not. But I remain troubled by the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court opted against trying to count every vote. I think they got it wrong.

If every vote COULD be counted, it would have been. However if you paid any attention you saw the huge debacle that was indented chad, hanging chad, some person holding up a ballot to a light to see if they could derive voter intent. That is an absolutley ridiculous way to conduct a recount, one person trying to determine the intent of another.

The supreme court got it right. You're just bitter because your boy couldn't steal the election. Not that your morally bankrupt party isn't going to try and make up for it this time.

Quote:I'll say this, too: The spin that Gore's team was somehow lawsuit happy doesn't jive with my memory.

What a shock. :rolleyes:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:If every vote COULD be counted, it would have been.  However if you paid any attention you saw the huge debacle that was indented chad, hanging chad, some person holding up a ballot to a light to see if they could derive voter intent.  That is an absolutley ridiculous way to conduct a recount, one person trying to determine the intent of another.

Happens all the time.

In the 1994 Ohio race I mentioned, I believe this sums up the standards they used for evaluating the chads on ballots the machine was unable to read:

1. Attached by just one corner: It counts as a vote.
2. Attached at three corners. Doesn't count.
3. Attached at four corners but with a clear hole through the center of the chad. Counts.
4. Pregnant or dimpled chad, attached at all four corners. Doesn't count.

As I recall, the biggest dispute between Democrats and Republicans was over whether or not to count chads hanging by two corners. In the Democratic-leaning county, Democrats wanted to count them but Republicans didn't. It was vice-versa in the two Republican-leaning counties: Republicans wanted to count 'em; Dems didn't.

All three boards of elections checked with the secretary of state's office, and I believe all three counties ended up counting chads hanging by two corners as votes.

Bottom line: You make figuring out voter intent much more diffcult than it really is. That was the Republican spin all along in 2000. "Divining voter intent" was a popular catch phrase on Republican news releases.

I've seen it up close. It really isn't that hard to work through.

What I've described above is a pretty reasonable set of guidelines -- enough to resolve virtually every ballot unreadable by a machine.

Had they not done that in Ohio in 1994, the Democrat would have won. But by counting every vote, a Republican ended up upseting an incumbent.

Republicans have held that particular office ever since, too.

Hey Schad since your so bitter maybe you should form a panel that will screen canidates for supervisor of elections. Maybe then the demacratic supervisors wont f up the vote next time. :D

Schadenfreude Wrote:Bush had Enron flying his lawyers around in planes -- one of many advantages they had.

Man, you really do make this crap up as you go, don't you? :eek:

RandyMc Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Bush had Enron flying his lawyers around in planes -- one of many advantages they had.

Man, you really do make this crap up as you go, don't you? :eek:

<a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0803-01.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0803-01.htm</a>

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RandyMc Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Bush had Enron flying his lawyers around in planes -- one of many advantages they had.

Man, you really do make this crap up as you go, don't you? :eek:

<a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0803-01.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0803-01.htm</a>

Wow, how underwhelming can you be? I'd like to see you explain how it was an advantage? Was Gore's team banned from flying during the recount?

The Bush recount team used corporate jets and reimbursed the corporations. All of it legal.

Two years later the Dems raised a stink about it for the 2002 elections and obviously the voters couldn't care less what planes they flew on. The 2002 election wasn't even close and the Republicans were voted back into the Senate majority.

There is a reason why this only shows up on blogs. It was a non-issue then and it is a non-issue now. The only thing left is for you to whine about it.

Pathetic.