Need assistance with neocon argument against Election 2000 recount

[PDittie]

Something about this ain't right.

Would those of you with extensive knowledge and links going back to Florida and Election 2000 please assist?

My little neocon friend argues the following:

-----------------------------------

"For example, rather than simply pulling up the Florida election law for herself, *** is spinning her wheels making an issue of the fact that I prefer not to do it AGAIN.

But let me take the wind out of her sails...

Here's the link:
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0102/ch0102.htm
* (Be sure the correct year is selected in the drop down list! You want Title IX, Ch 102 as was in place in 2000.)

And here's the relevent section, referring to what can LEGALLY be done following the manual recount of the 3 cherry-picked precincts:

Quote:
(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:

(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;

(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or

(c) Manually recount all ballots.

The fact (there's that word again) is that the result of the original 3 precinct recount was well within the margin of error and therefore DID NOT indicate any error. Under the Florida election law in place at that time, a full manual recount of all precincts is NOT ALLOWED. Game over. You are done."

--------------------------------------

FWIW, I've already checked, gregpalast.com, cronus connection, unprecedented.com and a few others, without success.

Help me shoot this down. Thanks.--PD

[grasswire]

1. this person who so reveres the rule of law...

....ought to consider the legality of the purging of thousands of Floridians of color from voter roles.

[PDittie]

2. Yes, of course

I am still trying to understand why there was a recount if what this person posted is accurate.

It's a bit difficult to dismiss election code, and nothing I have Googled through can get me to why a recount proceeded if it was within margin of error.

This was not a sticking point during all of the various machinations of November 2000. What am I missing?

[MissMarple]

3. I don't argue with people like that. They can just go on ahead and be ...

misinformed. They just want to argue and not learn anything. They are very bad muggles. :evilgrin:

[HFishbine]

4. Quite Simply

Seven experts on Florida law interpreted it differently from your freeper friend. Perhaps you'll suggest to her that the Florida Supreme Court knows better than you or she. (And if she tries to come back with the decision of the Supreme Court of the US, remind her that that decision was not about FA election law.)

[PDittie]

5. What seven experts...please?

Here's what I have gotten to:

The only standard for triggering a recount is less than 1% of the vote statewide. That recount was performed, narrowing Bush's lead from 1700+ votes to the certified 537.

Gore petitioned to recount the counties of Volusia, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Broward. But as we all know, those recounts were not completed when the USSC ruled.

Am now off to determine what the tallies were in those 4 counties.

[HFishbine]

8. Oh, sorry

I didn't mean to be so obtuse -- the justices of the Florida Supreme Court who ruled that the recount could go forward.

[JCMach1]

12. Full recount of machine totals was not made for all counties

:(

This was on top of the other problems.

Not even mentioning a hand recount.

[proud patriot]

6. For me it boils down to The U.S. Constitution

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say
the supreme court has a right to stop
States from counting and re-counting the votes .

Even if Florida had not choosen electors by the day
due the Constitution clearly states thre process with
which to proceed .

There was no Constitutional crises .

Now if you add the other factors from Greg Palast
and the butterfly ballot as well as the vote total
if the entire state had been allowed to recount the
votes .

Usurption of power by the republican party by
Illegal Unconstitutional means has transpired
no if and or buts about it .

[papau]

7. Florida law requires a second pass of over and under ballots -and it never

happened in most of Florida.

We never had a legal first count.

[John_H]

9. You havn't given enough info

What precincts is he talking about? Is he talking about the "cherry picked" counties? if so, the disputed ballots exeded the margin after the machine recount (~350) by more than ten times.

Plus, the statute triggers automatic hand recounts. Even if a manual recount was not automatically triggered the statute allows for a judge to order one--which several did:

(8) The circuit judge to whom the contest is presented may fashion such orders as he or she deems necessary to ensure that each allegation in the complaint is investigated, examined, or checked, to prevent or correct any alleged wrong, and to provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances.

Law boy should note the word any.

But even that's not the bottom line. If all the votes were counted using the standards chimp signed into law in texas gore wins. More americans--and more floridians--wanted al gore to be president--and that's after Jeb had illegally purged thousands of likely dems off the rolls, hundreds of jewish liberals voted for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach, and all the dimpled chads had been thrown out.

[PDittie]

11. Exactly and thanks, John

"precincts" is her mistake.

"margin of error" seems to be a mistake as well, because I see nothing in the statutes link above about that. (I should look again to be sure, especially since you reference it also...did I miss something? Repeating, I see nothing in the Florida statutes requiring a specific margin of error mandating a recount save the statewide 1% rule. Nothing relative to precincts or counties about margin of error.)

What an ignorant mistake to make, especially considering the righteousness of her post.

Thanks, everyone.

[JohnGideon]

10. Federal Elections Laws Require:

That voting equipment is serviced and used only after it is certified to be in correct working order. The fact that the punch card machines had full chad baskets, had not had the slots cleaned, and did not have new stylus's was enough to cause a new election in those precincts that used those machines. These were and are important things that must be done prior to each election. If the chad baskets are full, the chads will hang or dimple. If the slots are not clean the stylus will not push the chad so it cuts on the slots; same results. If the stylus's are blunt from use you get the same results again. This was all the responsibility of Katherine Harris.

However, all the hanging or dimpled chads only took the spotlight from the real problem. An optical scan machine in Volusia Co. read 16,203 minus votes for Gore and 4000 plus votes for Bush BEFORE any ballots were put through the machine. An observant poll worker found the problem, but it was not fixed until after all ballots were counted. This caused Gore to begin the process of conceding to Bush. You can read about this in Bev's book.