VisorCentral.com - (In)Decision 2000 Discussion

Pages (7): « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- (In)Decision 2000 Discussion (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=9179)

Posted by lennonhead on 11-21-2000 06:29 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Isn't Chad a country in Africa? How do we know the intent of pregnant and puckered Chads? I'm confused. Let me vote again. I may not be able to follow an arrow, but I can decide who the most powerful man (militarily) in the world is. I just hope Bush wins. That way we'll have less restriction on guns so when the revolution comes I can defend myself. I've got a bunch of crap left over from my Y2K planning, but with Jesus coming soon I don't think I'll need it. I voted for James. If he can rule over VisorCentral with an iron fist he can whip this country into shape. I'm moving to Chad.

lol, I think this about sums everything up

I'll join the Hand party, but I better get a Prism

__________________
<A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>

Posted by Charo on 11-27-2000 06:47 AM:

Re: Re: how Texas recounts punch card ballots & chads

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toby
That's all well and good, but what does it have to do with Florida?

My point was that in Texas, Bush's Secretary of State requested the 1997 law and Bush signed it, that requires a manuel recount (& only one) and also requires that all types of chads, including dimples, be counted.

But Bush's point man, James Baker, and Bush are nothing short of being hypocrites to complain about a manuel recount and counting various type chads when that's the way they wanted it to be required in Texas. And since the 1997 law was passed, three Republicans in Texas have won the mandatory manuel recounts of identical punch card type ballots. By counting dimples and all the rest of the chads.

Nothing was left out. If you want, I will send you the Austin American Statesman, the San Antonio Express-News and the Washington Post newspaper articles quoting the law.

Florida, of course can do it by Florida law or if they have no applicable law regarding the various type chads, manuel or machine recounts, pass what they want.

[Edited by Charo on 11-27-2000 at 01:52 AM]

Posted by LanMan on 11-27-2000 02:53 PM:

The count, recount, and counter-recounts are over. Bush Wins! Now let the "contest" begin.

__________________
<><

Posted by Toby on 11-27-2000 03:26 PM:

Re: Re: Re: how Texas recounts punch card ballots & chads

quote:
Originally posted by Charo
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toby
That's all well and good, but what does it have to do with Florida?

My point was that in Texas, Bush's Secretary of State requested the 1997 law and Bush signed it, that requires a manuel recount (& only one) and also requires that all types of chads, including dimples, be counted.

This is still irrelevant since Florida is not Texas.

quote:
But Bush's point man, James Baker, and Bush are nothing short of being hypocrites to complain about a manuel recount and counting various type chads when that's the way they wanted it to be required in Texas.

Ummm...no. From what I've seen of the Texas law, they have specific stated requirements which are consistent across the state and are in place. If Florida had such standards in place before the election, then they'd have been hypocrites, but they didn't.

quote:
And since the 1997 law was passed, three Republicans in Texas have won the mandatory manuel recounts of identical punch card type ballots. By counting dimples and all the rest of the chads.

There are no mandatory manual recounts. There is only a preference for manual counts when both manual and machine recounts are requested. As I said, the way that the statute I've seen is written, this seems to be a compromise of expedience, cost, and noncontestability.

quote:
Nothing was left out. If you want, I will send you the Austin American Statesman, the San Antonio Express-News and the Washington Post newspaper articles quoting the law.

I'll go with what I've seen on CNN and MSNBC.

quote:
Florida, of course can do it by Florida law or if they have no applicable law regarding the various type chads, manuel or machine recounts, pass what they want.

Ummm...no. They cannot pass what they want in regards to this election. The rules have to be in place before the election is held. There were already rules and practices in place in these counties. Gore and his flunkies just wanted to change the established practices and rules to suit their purpose. They wanted to allow the fine upstanding canvassing boards the ability to manually count the votes which some of their practices had previously not considered votes, until those boards decided that either there wasn't a significant enough discrepancy to warrant a manual recount or not enough time before the court's arbitrary deadline to complete the recount. Then, all of a sudden, they became functionaries and bureaucrats.

Posted by Charo on 11-28-2000 01:04 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: how Texas recounts punch card ballots & chads

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toby
I'll go with what I've seen on CNN and MSNBC.

Ah, those talking heads, paragons of accurate election coverage.

Posted by Toby on 11-28-2000 03:16 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: how Texas recounts punch card ballots & chads

quote:
Originally posted by Charo
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toby
I'll go with what I've seen on CNN and MSNBC.

Ah, those talking heads, paragons of accurate election coverage.

Actually, I was talking about what they had posted in regards to the law, i.e. a more complete rendering than just what's counted (which you posted), so roll your eyes right back into your head. They also posted what the conditions are that lead up to that point. Ultimately, the point that should be derived is that Texas's system is clearly defined. Florida's is also clearly defined in most ways. However, they are defined _differently_. All of the whining about wanting to use Texas's standard for Florida is moot (or should be if the media and politicians were being honest). If Florida had Texas's standards passed _before_ the election, this thing would have all been over already (regardless of the outcome). We wouldn't have Algore trying to make a desperate plea for counting "all" the "votes" in only one county while ignoring the rest of the state (especially when there are 35,000 undervotes in the areas which _aren't_ considered Democratic strongholds, which Miami-Dade _isn't_anyway_).

And no, I don't take the talking heads word blindly. The only person in the media currently that doesn't turn my stomach is Pat Caddell.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:01 PM.

Pages (7): « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page