[quote] Those newspaper analyses showed a couple of things:
1. that more people voted for Gore in Florida,
2. that enough of Gore's votes were thrown out on technicalities to give Bush the win,
3. that legitimate recounts were never allowed because the Supreme Court got involved in a political case about state law - exactly the kind of case that the Supreme Court would normally avoid, and
4. who would have won the recount depends on the method of getting rid of votes - Bush would have won some, Gore would have won some.
It's also interesting to note that the Republicans wouldn't have been bored with it if Gore had won - they said they would not forget it and they would see Gore as illegitimate. <hr></blockquote>
What year is it???
What year was the election???
Hmmm how can we grow up now???
Look I for one think that we SHOULD NOT forget our past but there is a little thing called moving on. Finding out that Gore has 3 more votes or whatever is pointless because you and I BOTH know the gov't isn't going to throw out Bush and Install Gore now... that's called a coup my friend and something of that nature would be a DISASTER to what we know as a Democracy.
[quote] Umm, dude, where have you been? He's a REPUBLICAN! <hr></blockquote>
And a comment like that just screams immaturity. Grow up... I could say the same thing of Democrats... but I won't stoop to your level.
Good, bad , or indifferent we are holding people at Guantonimo Bay...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh! You were talking about those people! Now I know it's safe to diregard the rest of what you have to say.
[quote]<strong>... And to answer you directly on your questioning of the reality of the Hollywood Blacklist..it was and is a factual case...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What the hell are you talking about? I never said otherwise. I never went anywhere near this subject. Read what I wrote please.
BRussell, all recounts conducted as Florida law dictates indicated that Bush recieved more votes than Gore.
What you are asking for is, essentially, to change methods of recount until Gore comes out the winner. The first count showed Bush as the winner. Florida law mandated that a vote that close involve a recount, Bush won again. And again. And again.
DAM NIT! I have to get to work and you make this damn thread! I HATE YOU!
that's called a coup my friend and something of that nature would be a DISASTER to what we know as a Democracy.
Well, im not sayign that Gore DID win, I dont have the facts, I only know that a LOT of votes that PROBABLY would have gone to Gore were thrown out.
However assuming as you are that Gore did win by, say, 3 votes...
Would it not be more of a "disaster to what we know as a Democracy" if some one who was NOT duely elected gained control of the government and started doing stuff like proposing laws and starting wars.
Not ot mention that the people who delayed the recounts and stopped all the hand recounts were card carrying members of the Republican party, and even related to Bush him self (Thainkya Jayeb).
Other problems that I have with him:
- Uuuuhh, I... uhhh... the American people... uhh... hmmmm...
To put in other words I think that we should have some one who ISNT Quayle worthy (ok, not quite) as the representitive of our country.
-I feel the Bush family is morally bankrupt. Let us not forget some of the CIA actions while GB was head.
-His VP (Cheny) was one of the top anti-Womens rights lobyists.
-Were talking about more or less the same government that was in when his father was in power (need we remember that).
-so much more that Im not going to say because I was supposed to start working an hour and a half ago
What the hell are you talking about? I never said otherwise. I never went anywhere near this subject. Read what I wrote please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A sincere apology for my lack of clarity on this Roger..in your reference to" Mcarthyism left wing" statement I thought you were referencing the Mccarthy Blacklist..sorry for this confusion on my part. Clarity tends to become cloudy in these hot debates
Hmmm how can we grow up now???</strong><hr></blockquote>It's been a year. One year. Is it a sign of being grown-up to ignore the biggest election fiasco of our generation?
If our voting system was a perfect measure of voter intent, which is what we should strive for, then Gore would be president. I know it's not comforting or fun to think about failure, but don't you think it's necessary in order to improve?
The election of Bush shows that an unwanted candidate can win. We should strive to improve that system, not ignore the problems. In the future it will help both Repubs and Dems.
[quote]Finding out that Gore has 3 more votes or whatever is pointless because you and I BOTH know the gov't isn't going to throw out Bush and Install Gore now... that's called a coup my friend and something of that nature would be a DISASTER to what we know as a Democracy.<hr></blockquote>A coup? Make sure you watch those open flames around that straw man you just erected. Who has said that Bush should be thrown out of office and Gore put in instead?
[quote]And a comment like that just screams immaturity. Grow up... I could say the same thing of Democrats... but I won't stoop to your level.<hr></blockquote>
That was a joke. A JOKE! Just to give the full quote from me - nota bene the smiley:
[quote]Umm, dude, where have you been? He's a REPUBLICAN!
Sheesh, we should have a FAQ for these newbies.
<hr></blockquote>
Wow, you Repubs are so tense. Not enough blow jobs from your interns, apparently.
(I can't wait to see the reaction from that last line - you Repubs are so easy to bait, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
<strong>Actually, he's using 9/11 as an excuse to overthrow the Taliban and in the process get control of oil reserves in Uzbekistan and several other Russian countries.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now I think bush is turning the war on terror away from its intended goal, and that bush loves big oil and big biz, but this is crazy. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
the real story is that Bush has desolved congress and realy has already taken over Iran, Iraq, and most of the other mid-east countries. We just dont know abaout it!!
If our voting system was a perfect measure of voter intent, which is what we should strive for, then Gore would be president. I know it's not comforting or fun to think about failure, but don't you think it's necessary in order to improve?
The election of Bush shows that an unwanted candidate can win. We should strive to improve that system, not ignore the problems. In the future it will help both Repubs and Dems.
The electoral college is in place for a reason. Sometimes the will of the people is not the right decision. Other presidents have been elected while losing the popular vote, not just Bush. I seriously think that the majority of Americans are not qualified to vote in a presidential election. Oh ya, they did another unofficial recount in the fall I think it was and guess who won, that's right, Bush. Get over it, he is your President now and it is time to move on. Remember, there are republicans that had to sit through 8 years of Clinton, YOU CAN SURVIVE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
<strong>The electoral college is in place for a reason. Sometimes the will of the people is not the right decision.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not talking about the Electoral college.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>You assume that everyone thinks like you do and that those poor folks in Florida really meant to vote Gore in, despite what all recounts showed...</strong><hr></blockquote>It's not an assumption, groverat.
But if you look at the details of those studies, more people intended to vote for Gore, by about eight thousand.
How do they know this? Here's one example: because of ambiguous ballot designs, lots of people wanted to make sure their vote was clear, and so they wrote "Gore" in the write-in section after voting for him in the regular way. This was an "overvote," and wasn't counted because it was technically voting for more than one candidate, which is not a legal vote. But obviously those people were voting for Gore.
Yes, under the most likely recount scenarios (even the one that Gore initially requested haha), enough of those types of votes would have been thrown out to make Bush president by a few hundred. But under a few other methods, Gore would have won.
Why do you think the networks initially called it for Gore? It's because they ask people who they voted for after they leave the polls, and a lot more people said they voted for Gore. But enough of their votes were thrown out that Bush was elected.
There's a lot more out there to be found if you're interested in looking for it...
btw, as far as Georgia goes-- I've heard through a friend that protecting the pipeline was actually mentioned in, well, the Georgian press. Perhaps we'll hear more about this if another overseas paper picks up the story.
[quote]But if you look at the details of those studies, more people intended to vote for Gore, by about eight thousand.<hr></blockquote>
And what of military votes that were thrown out on technicalities just like "overvotes"?
It's a wash and you're trying to make it sound like it was an obvious decision.
[quote]because of ambiguous ballot designs<hr></blockquote>
Ambiguous?
Maybe if you're a complete moron.
[quote]Yes, under the most likely recount scenarios<hr></blockquote>
By "most likely" do you mean, "state mandated"?
So, essentially, if we used all methods that were favorable to Gore we might be able to squeeze him in as the winner?
And this is your "perfect world" scenario?
Once again,
[edit]
From the link:
"Under any standard used to judge the ballots in the four counties where Gore lawyers had sought a recount -- Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia -- Bush still ended up with more votes than Gore, according to the study."
"Florida law provided no mechanism to ask for a statewide recount, only county-by-county recounts."
Dubya is your president by perfectly legal means. I know it eats at you, but it's true.
The truth is people will never be satisfied re: the actual outcome of the Florida ballot-- the entire state was a mess... the stupid chads, the disenfranchised blacks, the republican protesters paid for and bussed in by the GOP-- and truthfully there were probably just as many infractions committed by Democrats. A more interesting story is Nevada, who voted Bush-Cheney since the promised to oppose the Yucca Mountain project. Bush lied, and people in Nevada are pissed! Looks like the US's toxic waste will be located only 90 miles from Vegas...
Thank Farging Jebsu that we're going to use Yucca, it's the only logical thing for us to do.
(Or maybe we should just leave it all in the open pools near all major population centers where it is now!)
[edit]
Point of order:
There were no disenfranchised blacks, it was a smokescreen from Jesse and his friends and never panned out to be credible.
Bussing supporters in was done by Democrats (including the infamous "cigarettes for votes"). I haven't heard of Republicans doing it in Florida, but I wouldn't doubt it.
So, essentially, if we used all methods that were favorable to Gore we might be able to squeeze him in as the winner?
And this is your "perfect world" scenario?
This argument doesnt work because, in the minds of those who favor Gore, the methods favorable to Gore would be a complete recount by hand checkign all the dimpled chads and written or "double voted" ballots.
Yes, I think that Gore probably would have won in those cases.
[quote]
Under any standard used to judge the ballots in the four counties where Gore lawyers had sought a recount -- Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia -- Bush still ended up with more votes than Gore, according to the study
<hr></blockquote>
also stated
[quote]
But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or amore restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.
<hr></blockquote>
and
[quote]But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.
<hr></blockquote>
The point that most Gore supporters call on is that the elections are neither a legal battle to be won, nor a game to be played, but a set of votes to be counted. It shouldnt matter than "as the game is played Bush won" because the intention is that the person whom the people want should be elected.
There were no disenfranchised blacks, it was a smokescreen from Jesse and his friends and never panned out to be credible.
Links? Evidence? Whered you hear this? Anything?
Bah, never mind, this has all been descussed before, lets concentrate on why we hate Bush again
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
Hrm, so basically some people were going to have a meeting a year ago to investigate "widespread" disenfranchisement and basically came up with the fact that blacks were 14% more likely to be refused based on felony-related technicalities than whites.
Comments
1. that more people voted for Gore in Florida,
2. that enough of Gore's votes were thrown out on technicalities to give Bush the win,
3. that legitimate recounts were never allowed because the Supreme Court got involved in a political case about state law - exactly the kind of case that the Supreme Court would normally avoid, and
4. who would have won the recount depends on the method of getting rid of votes - Bush would have won some, Gore would have won some.
It's also interesting to note that the Republicans wouldn't have been bored with it if Gore had won - they said they would not forget it and they would see Gore as illegitimate. <hr></blockquote>
What year is it???
What year was the election???
Hmmm how can we grow up now???
Look I for one think that we SHOULD NOT forget our past but there is a little thing called moving on. Finding out that Gore has 3 more votes or whatever is pointless because you and I BOTH know the gov't isn't going to throw out Bush and Install Gore now... that's called a coup my friend and something of that nature would be a DISASTER to what we know as a Democracy.
[quote] Umm, dude, where have you been? He's a REPUBLICAN! <hr></blockquote>
And a comment like that just screams immaturity. Grow up... I could say the same thing of Democrats... but I won't stoop to your level.
Mac Guru
<strong>
Good, bad , or indifferent we are holding people at Guantonimo Bay...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh! You were talking about those people! Now I know it's safe to diregard the rest of what you have to say.
[quote]<strong>... And to answer you directly on your questioning of the reality of the Hollywood Blacklist..it was and is a factual case...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What you are asking for is, essentially, to change methods of recount until Gore comes out the winner. The first count showed Bush as the winner. Florida law mandated that a vote that close involve a recount, Bush won again. And again. And again.
Perhaps you and Fran can start a conspiracy club.
that's called a coup my friend and something of that nature would be a DISASTER to what we know as a Democracy.
Well, im not sayign that Gore DID win, I dont have the facts, I only know that a LOT of votes that PROBABLY would have gone to Gore were thrown out.
However assuming as you are that Gore did win by, say, 3 votes...
Would it not be more of a "disaster to what we know as a Democracy" if some one who was NOT duely elected gained control of the government and started doing stuff like proposing laws and starting wars.
Not ot mention that the people who delayed the recounts and stopped all the hand recounts were card carrying members of the Republican party, and even related to Bush him self (Thainkya Jayeb).
Other problems that I have with him:
- Uuuuhh, I... uhhh... the American people... uhh... hmmmm...
To put in other words I think that we should have some one who ISNT Quayle worthy (ok, not quite) as the representitive of our country.
-I feel the Bush family is morally bankrupt. Let us not forget some of the CIA actions while GB was head.
-His VP (Cheny) was one of the top anti-Womens rights lobyists.
-Were talking about more or less the same government that was in when his father was in power (need we remember that).
-so much more that Im not going to say because I was supposed to start working an hour and a half ago
<strong>
A sincere apology for my lack of clarity on this Roger..in your reference to" Mcarthyism left wing" statement I thought you were referencing the Mccarthy Blacklist..sorry for this confusion on my part. Clarity tends to become cloudy in these hot debates
<strong>What year is it???
What year was the election???
Hmmm how can we grow up now???</strong><hr></blockquote>It's been a year. One year. Is it a sign of being grown-up to ignore the biggest election fiasco of our generation?
If our voting system was a perfect measure of voter intent, which is what we should strive for, then Gore would be president. I know it's not comforting or fun to think about failure, but don't you think it's necessary in order to improve?
The election of Bush shows that an unwanted candidate can win. We should strive to improve that system, not ignore the problems. In the future it will help both Repubs and Dems.
[quote]Finding out that Gore has 3 more votes or whatever is pointless because you and I BOTH know the gov't isn't going to throw out Bush and Install Gore now... that's called a coup my friend and something of that nature would be a DISASTER to what we know as a Democracy.<hr></blockquote>A coup? Make sure you watch those open flames around that straw man you just erected. Who has said that Bush should be thrown out of office and Gore put in instead?
[quote]And a comment like that just screams immaturity. Grow up... I could say the same thing of Democrats... but I won't stoop to your level.<hr></blockquote>
That was a joke. A JOKE! Just to give the full quote from me - nota bene the smiley:
[quote]Umm, dude, where have you been? He's a REPUBLICAN!
Sheesh, we should have a FAQ for these newbies.
Wow, you Repubs are so tense. Not enough blow jobs from your interns, apparently.
(I can't wait to see the reaction from that last line - you Repubs are so easy to bait, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Uh..yeah. Sure. And where did you get this information? Had you actually read something other than a liberal press
<hr></blockquote>
You should move to Russia,where the liberal press is quickly disappearing,thanks to Putin.
The way to fix most of our governmental problems would be to let me become a dictator!!! Free lolipops for everybody!!!
Seriously though, the only person capable of running things properly died on a cross and rose from the grave about 2000 years ago.
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: GolferGuy1 ]</p>
<strong>Actually, he's using 9/11 as an excuse to overthrow the Taliban and in the process get control of oil reserves in Uzbekistan and several other Russian countries.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now I think bush is turning the war on terror away from its intended goal, and that bush loves big oil and big biz, but this is crazy. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
the real story is that Bush has desolved congress and realy has already taken over Iran, Iraq, and most of the other mid-east countries. We just dont know abaout it!!
If our voting system was a perfect measure of voter intent, which is what we should strive for, then Gore would be president. I know it's not comforting or fun to think about failure, but don't you think it's necessary in order to improve?
The election of Bush shows that an unwanted candidate can win. We should strive to improve that system, not ignore the problems. In the future it will help both Repubs and Dems.
The electoral college is in place for a reason. Sometimes the will of the people is not the right decision. Other presidents have been elected while losing the popular vote, not just Bush. I seriously think that the majority of Americans are not qualified to vote in a presidential election. Oh ya, they did another unofficial recount in the fall I think it was and guess who won, that's right, Bush. Get over it, he is your President now and it is time to move on. Remember, there are republicans that had to sit through 8 years of Clinton, YOU CAN SURVIVE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
Think about this for a second... think about what you're saying.
You assume that everyone thinks like you do and that those poor folks in Florida really meant to vote Gore in, despite what all recounts showed...
Does this not smack of insane bias on your part?
Bah! Not even he could handle it when your faced with something like the US, the Russians, and Afghanistan
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
<strong>The electoral college is in place for a reason. Sometimes the will of the people is not the right decision.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not talking about the Electoral college.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>You assume that everyone thinks like you do and that those poor folks in Florida really meant to vote Gore in, despite what all recounts showed...</strong><hr></blockquote>It's not an assumption, groverat.
Yes, the headlines said <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A12623-2001Nov11"; target="_blank">"Bush would have won."</a>
But if you look at the details of those studies, more people intended to vote for Gore, by about eight thousand.
How do they know this? Here's one example: because of ambiguous ballot designs, lots of people wanted to make sure their vote was clear, and so they wrote "Gore" in the write-in section after voting for him in the regular way. This was an "overvote," and wasn't counted because it was technically voting for more than one candidate, which is not a legal vote. But obviously those people were voting for Gore.
Yes, under the most likely recount scenarios (even the one that Gore initially requested haha), enough of those types of votes would have been thrown out to make Bush president by a few hundred. But under a few other methods, Gore would have won.
Why do you think the networks initially called it for Gore? It's because they ask people who they voted for after they leave the polls, and a lot more people said they voted for Gore. But enough of their votes were thrown out that Bush was elected.
A bit on Halliburton's contract for building bases in Afghanistan: <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/issmain.shtml#Commentary1"; target="_blank">http://www.southernstudies.org/issmain.shtml#Commentary1</a>;
More about the bases in the LA Times: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/la-010602milmemo.story"; target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/la-010602milmemo.story</a>;
The Pakistani official who claimed the Bush Administration had threatened the Taliban with war was actually Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik (BBC): <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm"; target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm</a>;
A discussion of the actual reserves located in the Russian states: <a href="http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/dev_xyz/pipeline/goldmines_majid.htm"; target="_blank">www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/dev_xyz/pipeline/goldmines_majid.htm</a>
An independent report on negotiations with the Taliban written by a French journalist-- with sources: <a href="http://www.christusrex.org/www1/icons/abramovici.html"; target="_blank">http://www.christusrex.org/www1/icons/abramovici.html</a>;
White House press release announcing an oil contract with Kazakhstan: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011221-10.html"; target="_blank">www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011221-10.html</a>
Pakistan and the new Afghan government are already buddy-buddy over the pipeline: <a href="http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2002/0209/448097021FR09KARZAI.html"; target="_blank">www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2002/0209/448097021FR09KARZAI.html</a>
Two French authors have written a book about Bush, the Taliban, and the oil reserves-- here are some online summaries: <a href="http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/02/08/forbidden/print.html"; target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/02/08/forbidden/print.html</a>;
<a href="http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/bl_tft.htm"; target="_blank">http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/bl_tft.htm</a>;
Former UN official discussing the book on CNN: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html</a>;
Halliburton builds oil pipelines too-- here's a mention of a 12-year contract they received for offshore construction in the Caspian region: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,579174,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,579174,00.html</a>;
More about Halliburton and the US's oil policies from Cheney himself: <a href="http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-dc062398.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-dc062398.html</a>;
This article provides an excellent overview of Enron's dealings with the pipeline, the Taliban, and Cheney's involvement-- with an excellent timeline of events: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12525"; target="_blank">http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12525</a>;
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/letters_ed.html?BulletinID=13"; target="_blank">http://www.alternet.org/letters_ed.html?BulletinID=13</a>;
Back off from the Bin Ladens-- <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/0111/07/world/world100.html"; target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/news/0111/07/world/world100.html</a>;
There's a lot more out there to be found if you're interested in looking for it...
btw, as far as Georgia goes-- I've heard through a friend that protecting the pipeline was actually mentioned in, well, the Georgian press. Perhaps we'll hear more about this if another overseas paper picks up the story.
And what of military votes that were thrown out on technicalities just like "overvotes"?
It's a wash and you're trying to make it sound like it was an obvious decision.
[quote]because of ambiguous ballot designs<hr></blockquote>
Ambiguous?
Maybe if you're a complete moron.
[quote]Yes, under the most likely recount scenarios<hr></blockquote>
By "most likely" do you mean, "state mandated"?
So, essentially, if we used all methods that were favorable to Gore we might be able to squeeze him in as the winner?
And this is your "perfect world" scenario?
Once again,
[edit]
From the link:
"Under any standard used to judge the ballots in the four counties where Gore lawyers had sought a recount -- Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia -- Bush still ended up with more votes than Gore, according to the study."
"Florida law provided no mechanism to ask for a statewide recount, only county-by-county recounts."
Dubya is your president by perfectly legal means. I know it eats at you, but it's true.
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26521-2002Mar1.html"; target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26521-2002Mar1.html</a>;
(Or maybe we should just leave it all in the open pools near all major population centers where it is now!)
[edit]
Point of order:
There were no disenfranchised blacks, it was a smokescreen from Jesse and his friends and never panned out to be credible.
Bussing supporters in was done by Democrats (including the infamous "cigarettes for votes"). I haven't heard of Republicans doing it in Florida, but I wouldn't doubt it.
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
There were no disenfranchised blacks, it was a smokescreen from Jesse and his friends and never panned out to be credible.
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Coulda fooled me.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/florida.vote/"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/florida.vote/</a>;
Executive Summary of Report: <a href="http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm</a>;
Edit: Added executive summary
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: Mr. Satellite ]</p>
And this is your "perfect world" scenario?
This argument doesnt work because, in the minds of those who favor Gore, the methods favorable to Gore would be a complete recount by hand checkign all the dimpled chads and written or "double voted" ballots.
Yes, I think that Gore probably would have won in those cases.
[quote]
Under any standard used to judge the ballots in the four counties where Gore lawyers had sought a recount -- Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia -- Bush still ended up with more votes than Gore, according to the study
<hr></blockquote>
also stated
[quote]
But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or amore restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.
<hr></blockquote>
and
[quote]But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.
<hr></blockquote>
The point that most Gore supporters call on is that the elections are neither a legal battle to be won, nor a game to be played, but a set of votes to be counted. It shouldnt matter than "as the game is played Bush won" because the intention is that the person whom the people want should be elected.
There were no disenfranchised blacks, it was a smokescreen from Jesse and his friends and never panned out to be credible.
Links? Evidence? Whered you hear this? Anything?
Bah, never mind, this has all been descussed before, lets concentrate on why we hate Bush again
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
Pardon me for being underwhelmed.