| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/3/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12774 Activity:very high |
3/19 Apparently the Taiwanese have hired Jeb Bush to run their election.
\_ Huh?
\_ I don't know about that comparison. If, however, the President
of the United States use his presidential powers to stage an
assassination attempt by Al Queda in a last minute bid to
win the election, that would be comparable to what happened in
Taiwan.
\_ No matter how many times you repeat this, it is still
not true.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,430306,00.html
\_ What's not true? "It"? "It" is true. Join us in the
year 2004. The weather is great up here!
\_ I was referring to the ballot shennanigans, not the assasination.
\_ Oh my God, can't you just let it go and moveon? The whole
country has been over this a million times. The press did
their own recount of everything, Gore lost, join us up here
in the now and the future.
\_ No matter how many times you repeat this, it is still
not true.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,430306,00.html
\_ What's not true? "It"? "It" is true. Join us in the
year 2004. The weather is great up here!
\_ Will you please open your eyes? The recount itself is
meaningless. The only way that election would have
been valid is if they'd had a runoff. The difference
in ballots was squarely within the margin of error!
Take Stats and you'll know that you can draw no solid
conclusions in a contest like that.
\_ We don't do "runoffs" nith si country. Were *you*
calling for a run off in 92 when Perot took 19%? The
election was valid. It followed the laws and it's
unfortunate but there is no procedure for statistical
margin of error problems. Winner takes all and that's
that. I've had "stats", thanks. Have you had civics?
It's over, move on. Frothing won't bring more people
\_ Oh, he became president through a _legit_ process.
(You could make the argument that the process
needs fixing, but so far, it's legit by
definition).
to your party for 2004.
\_ There are so many red herrings here, I think you
must be a fishmonger. I know we don't have run-
offs; I'm saying that not having runoffs is
assinine. I'm calling for a runoff because the
difference in votes fell within the margin of
error; in 92, this was not the case in any state.
\_ It wasn't worth saying anything more to such crap. If
you had posted something worth responding to, you would
have had a real response. As I said when I responded.
There's no reason to provide a real response to a frothing
troll who has added nothing to the thread. You might as
well just say, "Yes, it is!" so I can say, "No, it isn't!"
and we can cut'n'paste back n forth for a while. Add value
and you'll get a real reply. Do you really honestly
believe you said something worth responding to?
\_ I don't know about that comparison. If, however, the President
of the United States use his presidential powers to stage an
assassination attempt by Al Queda in a last minute bid to
win an election, that would be comparable to what happened in
Taiwan.
meaningless. The only way that election would have
been valid is if they'd had a runoff. The difference
in ballots was squarely within the margin of error!
Take Stats and you'll know that you can draw no solid
conclusions in a contest like that.
\_ This has got to be tearing Taiwan apart right now. Anyone with
relatives/friends/actual presence there like to comment?
I'm done frothing; I'm trying to get reforms.
Bush is president now, so be it; but don't pretend
he's president through a legit process.
\_ Oh, he became president through a _legit_ process.
(You could make the argument that the process
needs fixing, but so far, it's legit by
definition).
\_ Rule #1) Have family in high places. Rule #2) Have the supreme
court in your back pocket - maybe go duck hunting together. It
worked for us!
\_ Rule #3) wear tinfoil hat. If you had a higher quality post
you'd get a higher quality response, frother.
\_ Uh huh. Your only response is to continue to claim,
against all evidence, things that are not true.
\_ It wasn't worth saying anything more to such crap. If
you had posted something worth responding to, you would
have had a real response. As I said when I responded.
There's no reason to provide a real response to a frothing
troll who has added nothing to the thread. You might as
well just say, "Yes, it is!" so I can say, "No, it isn't!"
and we can cut'n'paste back n forth for a while. Add value
and you'll get a real reply. Do you really honestly
believe you said something worth responding to? |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,430306,00.html The first survey, conducted on behalf of the Washington Post, shows that Mr Gore had a nearly three-to-one majority among 56,000 Florida voters whose November 7 ballot papers were discounted because they contained more than one punched hole. The second and separate survey, conducted on behalf of the Palm Beach Post, shows that Mr Gore had a majority of 682 votes among the discounted dimpled ballots in Palm Beach county. In each case, if the newly examined votes had been allowed to count in the November election, Mr Gore would have won Floridas 21 electoral college votes by a narrow majority and he, not Mr Bush, would be the president. Instead, Mr Bush officially carried Florida by 537 votes after recounts were stopped. In spite of the findings, no legal challenge to the Florida result is possible in the light of the US supreme courts 5-4 ruling in December to hand the state to Mr Bush. But the revelations will continue to cast a cloud, to put it mildly, over the democratic legitimacy of Mr Bushs election. Some 56,000 so-called overvotes were examined in the Washington Post survey. All of these ballot papers were ruled to be invalid votes on November 7 because they contained two or more punched holes in the presidential section of the ballot. Twelve Florida counties used voting machines where voting was by punch cards in this way, and eight of them participated in the survey: Broward, Highlands, Hillsborough, Marion, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Pasco and Pinellas. None of the ballot papers in the survey formed part of any official count or recount. The research shows that 45,608 of the 56,000 ballot papers 87 of the total contained votes for Mr Gore, compared with 17,098 containing votes for Mr Bush 33. In 1,367 cases, voters punched every hole except that for Mr Bush. In cases where the voters cast invalid overvotes in the presidential election, but then cast valid votes in the US senate contest lower down on the same ballot, 70 voted Democrat, Mr Gores party, and only 24 voted Republican. The disproportion was especially dramatic in Palm Beach, whose butterfly ballot paper interleaved two lists of candidates in such a way as to show Mr Gores name second on the ballot paper, but to require the voter to punch the third hole to record a vote for him. Though no absolute conclusions can be drawn from the overvotes, the implication that many thousands more invalidated Floridians intended to vote for Mr Gore than for Mr Bush seems hard to resist. The survey also clearly implies that some of Floridas voting machines were inadequate and that many voters were confused by the procedure. In the second survey, the Palm Beach Post examined 4,513 dimpled undervotes - so named because no hole was punched in the ballot paper - and which were excluded from the November and December manual recount process. In each case, the Palm Beach county canvassing board ruled that no vote had been cast on these ballots but Democratic or Republican observers disputed the ruling. The ballots in the survey had been set aside for a possible court-ordered review that never took place. Of the disputed ballots, some 2,500 had dimples for Mr Gore, while 1,818 had similar marks for Mr Bush. If they had been counted, Mr Gore would have had a net gain of 682 votes. This would have been in addition to a separate net gain of 174 votes from Palm Beach which was disallowed by Floridas secretary of state. |