IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2000 elections , Bush conspiracies , election conspiracies

Reply
Old 4th August 2009, 12:44 AM   #1
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Debunking the 2000 election theft CT

In another thread a member here posted this, which I chose kind of arbitrarily as an example of posts I've seen comparing the recent spike of noise from the Obama Birthers with the *similar theory* that bush stole the 2000 election, a debunked myth fueled by fermenting sour grapes from hardcore Liberals who just hated Bush because of his freedoms and 'cause he won it fair and square.

Originally Posted by gtc View Post
If you believe Bush stole the election then you believe a conspiracy theory as hard as it may be for some to accept that.
I can accept that - I suspect, strongly, there was a conspiracy of collusion between key people to implement illegal tactics to ensure they won. By the narrow margin, it seems they measured carefully and went for the subtle look - nearly flush, not waaaay too far off... I first suspected this as the election happened and came down to, of all places Florida, with one candidate’s brother as governor and his state campaign director as Sec of State, no wonder he won – but there was the narrowness of it – 537 votes IIRC, and the controversies over ballots and a re-count demand, which was then shut down with the narrowest Supreme Court majority possible. Somehow… that smelled fishy to me.

No secret, I was never a fan of the man, his party, his policies, his style, nor later his manipulation of the shock of 9/11 into the reckless aggression that’s gotten us all in such a mess – nor for that matter his blatant theft of the 2000 election!

Recently I came to suspect my thinking on this issue has been muddled, as I started looking into the available debunks. Rather than try to scan the whole field and get at underlying patterns, I’d like to see first what people have to say about this whacked-out sore-loser conspiracy theory. Links, key quotes, y’know, the standard. Who has debunked this and where? I started looking myself but realized there are multiple motivated minds here to cover that aspect with gusto.

All right, thanks.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 03:36 AM   #2
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
bump for the later time zones

grandiose claims of election fraud are at issue.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 04:30 AM   #3
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
 
JoeyDonuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,536
I'm sure that this was investigated thoroughly by the DNC. If it was, in fact, stolen - go back to one of the litmus tests for conspiracy theories.

How many people would it take to pull this off? How many people would have to keep quiet about it? The Bush Administration wasn't good about keeping any of their misdeeds and blunders under wraps - wiretapping, Valerie Plame, GITMO, etc.

If there was proof the election was "stolen" I'm fairly sure Democratic Party officials would have found it and raised the roof right off the Supreme Court. They were chomping at the bit to get their man in.

No links for ya, sorry - only my two cents on the matter.

It's past my bedtime.
__________________
EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!
JoeyDonuts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 04:35 AM   #4
Good Lt
Graduate Poster
 
Good Lt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,498
Weren't there several media-initiated investigations into this whole affair that turned up nothing?

I'm seriously asking without snark intended - it was so long ago that all I really remember was a bunch of my college classmates (and professors) swearing about Bush, but the details are hazy to me at this point.

The same thing is going on now with the birthers and Obama - swearing, attribution of malevolence to every action, calls for agitation and disobedience because of the coming tyranny, etc.
__________________
Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny.
- Liszt

Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful.
- Ian Faith
Good Lt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 04:55 AM   #5
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Cool, thanks guys. That's a start, and before I finally crash out myself.

Well I don't know the debunks real well but the media investigations probably refers to this:
Quote:
But in fact, every single recount of the votes in Florida determined that George W. Bush had won the state's twenty-five electoral votes and therefore the presidency. This includes a manual recount of votes in largely Democratic counties by a consortium of news organizations, among them the Wall Street Journal, CNN, the Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times. As the New York Times reported on November 21, 2001, "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward." The USA Today recount team concluded: "Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."
That's from the one debunking site I've looked at much: http://qando.net/archives/004158.htm
Mostly Quoting Stealing Elections by John Fund (misid'd as James Fund), of WSJ

I'm not sure of their methodology, but it certainly sounds like good evidence. Another site specifies that "the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore." This to the 537 from the official count. By sheer accident they had fudged it upwards by only 44 votes out of millions. That's damn good counting.

This would mean the 5-4 decision in Bush v Gore is irrelevant. The re-count would only have confirmed - with even greater delay - that the number of cast votes indeed favored the Governor's big bro. This is something the CTers need to acknowledge. And what should we be called - we have Truthers, Birthers, this could be...

But I realize this and I still have my doubts about the election and its fair-n-squareness. And that is the riddle. Who can discover and debunk?
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 05:05 AM   #6
Good Lt
Graduate Poster
 
Good Lt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,498
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Cool, thanks guys. That's a start, and before I finally crash out myself.

Well I don't know the debunks real well but the media investigations probably refers to this:


That's from the one debunking site I've looked at much: http://qando.net/archives/004158.htm
Mostly Quoting Stealing Elections by John Fund (misid'd as James Fund), of WSJ

I'm not sure of their methodology, but it certainly sounds like good evidence. Another site specifies that "the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore." This to the 537 from the official count. By sheer accident they had fudged it upwards by only 44 votes out of millions. That's damn good counting.

This would mean the 5-4 decision in Bush v Gore is irrelevant. The re-count would only have confirmed - with even greater delay - that the number of cast votes indeed favored the Governor's big bro. This is something the CTers need to acknowledge. And what should we be called - we have Truthers, Birthers, this could be...

But I realize this and I still have my doubts about the election and its fair-n-squareness. And that is the riddle. Who can discover and debunk?
I would probably trust the mainstream sources on this one more than the second one you cited (FrontPageMag) which is biased to the right.

Not that the information isn't valid or correct there, but just so you know where it's coming from
__________________
Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny.
- Liszt

Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful.
- Ian Faith
Good Lt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 05:09 AM   #7
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,030
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
And what should we be called - we have Truthers, Birthers, this could be...


...Voters?


Seriously. The real question here is, in a country as politically polarized as the US has been over the last 10-20 years, how the heck does any election come down to what was essentially a statistical coin flip? About 500 votes between candidates, out of millions?

Someone, somewhere, needs to start running candidates that people actually want to vote for. If either of Bush or Gore had been the sort of man who people wanted to vote for, rather than just being party hacks, even getting 1% of the people who didn't vote out to the polls would have swamped the other candidate.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 05:26 AM   #8
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Good Lt View Post
I would probably trust the mainstream sources on this one more than the second one you cited (FrontPageMag) which is biased to the right.

Not that the information isn't valid or correct there, but just so you know where it's coming from
It was quoting CNN quoting the WSJ, so bias prob. irr.
Pont is, I can see this debunk as valid tho I didn't double check it myself.

Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
...Voters?
I think that works actually

Quote:
Seriously. The real question here is, in a country as politically polarized as the US has been over the last 10-20 years, how the heck does any election come down to what was essentially a statistical coin flip? About 500 votes between candidates, out of millions?

Someone, somewhere, needs to start running candidates that people actually want to vote for. If either of Bush or Gore had been the sort of man who people wanted to vote for, rather than just being party hacks, even getting 1% of the people who didn't vote out to the polls would have swamped the other candidate.
It's true there would probably be no swamping either way but
well I can't handle the suspense and I'm afraid everyone else will get bored before guessing what I'm getting at - the people who did want to vote either for or against one of the candidates but simply weren't allowed to.

I know this has been "debunked" too, but if you look at the first site I linked, it only covers it barely at the bottom. The writer there knows the best foot - votes CAST had Bush winning - and puts that foot forward, huh?

Here a Youtube video

My point is, I'm not convinced of this second class of debunk.
One example I don't buy:
Quote:
If even one black person had been denied the right to vote, that person's name would have been blasted on the front page of every newspaper in this country.
http://www.lipstickalley.com/f153/de...-myths-136553/
And it's not just me, there are millions of other "Voters" like me who aren't convinced either. Oh I am the last one? oh, dear... So anyway, who's found better debunks that actually discuss on the ground voting and not just the recount crap with a weak aside on the former?

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 4th August 2009 at 05:36 AM.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 07:20 AM   #9
IMST
If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger, There'd Be a Whole Lot of Dead Copycats
 
IMST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,326
Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts View Post
How many people would it take to pull this off?
Not ignoring the rest of it, but to this point: 6.
All it took was the Supreme Court stopping all recount efforts, assuming the real vote total in FL came down as a coin flip the other way.
Not some grand conspiracy, but with a SecState willing to stop the recount and a Supreme Court willing to agree, the total that was in favor of the party all 6 belonged to got the white house.
Add to that the poorly designed ballot that got some people confused and left some votes difficult to count (remember pregnant chads? Elderly Liberal Jews for Buchannan?) to further muddle the count.
And to the frustration of the moderate left, the influence of the Workers World party, the Trotzkist party that stole more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore.
And don't forget the frustration of those that think maybe democracy should be based on the popular vote.

/rambling frustration
__________________
Creativity is more than just being different. Anybody can plan weird; that's easy. What's hard is to be as simple as Bach. Making the simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity. - Charles Mingus
IMST is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 07:37 AM   #10
SkepticGuy
Critical Thinker
 
SkepticGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 454
Looking back at George H.W. Bush's victory in 1988, and the "conspiracy buzz" of the time, can shed some light on the 2000 victory, and related conspiracy speculation.

CIA Insider Analyzes The 1988 Election (video)
Former CIA official John Stockwell looks at the 1988 presidential elections. He analyzes the amazing loss by the Democrats of a seemingly certain victory. He also assesses what a Bush administration can be, particularly when so many people inside and outside the government, at home and abroad, have knowledge of so much damaging information about Bush's past. Stockwell views the elections from the power elite and ruling class perspective in which we operate under a single party system which is split in two, with both parties being controlled by powerful ruling class institutions and individuals. He places Dukakis' performance within this framework.


At the time, conspiracy theorists in 2000 were drawing many parallels to Bush Sr's victory in 1988. Nine years later, much of that discussion is lost or difficult to locate. This video might provide some insight into the mindset that inspires the speculation.
__________________
Your friendly ambassador from the world of conspiracy theorists.
AboveTopSecret.com --- ATS on Twitter
SkepticGuy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 09:24 AM   #11
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,030
Originally Posted by In My Spare Time View Post
And to the frustration of the moderate left, the influence of the Workers World party, the Trotzkist party that stole more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore.


Yeah! Goddamn voters, voting for the party they actually want to win! Who do they think they are?



Originally Posted by In My Spare Time View Post
And don't forget the frustration of those that think maybe democracy should be based on the popular vote.

Oh....um...wait...what are we being outraged about, again?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 10:38 AM   #12
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by SkepticGuy View Post
Looking back at George H.W. Bush's victory in 1988, and the "conspiracy buzz" of the time, can shed some light on the 2000 victory, and related conspiracy speculation.

CIA Insider Analyzes The 1988 Election (video)
Former CIA official John Stockwell looks at the 1988 presidential elections. He analyzes the amazing loss by the Democrats of a seemingly certain victory. He also assesses what a Bush administration can be, particularly when so many people inside and outside the government, at home and abroad, have knowledge of so much damaging information about Bush's past. Stockwell views the elections from the power elite and ruling class perspective in which we operate under a single party system which is split in two, with both parties being controlled by powerful ruling class institutions and individuals. He places Dukakis' performance within this framework.


At the time, conspiracy theorists in 2000 were drawing many parallels to Bush Sr's victory in 1988. Nine years later, much of that discussion is lost or difficult to locate. This video might provide some insight into the mindset that inspires the speculation.
That's strange, because Bush, Sr., led in all the polls in the runup to the election, and nobody was particularly surprised when he cruised to victory.

Bush, Jr. also led in the pre-election polling, but what nobody knew at the time was that the DWI charge from 1974 apparently caused some voters to change their minds at the last minute.

What surprised me in 2000 was that although there was a heavy focus on who at Fox News had called Florida for Bush, there was not much concern about who at the major nets had mistakenly called Florida for Gore early in the evening. That clearly was the big mistake; the call for Bush seemed right at the time it was made as Bush had a big lead. Remember, Gore was on his way to make a concession speech when suddenly a large block of votes for him was counted (Miami-Dade?) which reduced the margin substantially.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 10:40 AM   #13
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,334
He is being outrages that the voters are not as far to the left as he thinks they should be.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 10:46 AM   #14
IMST
If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger, There'd Be a Whole Lot of Dead Copycats
 
IMST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,326
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Oh....um...wait...what are we being outraged about, again?
I got started on that election and didn't stop where I should've. Feel free to carry on without my angst.
__________________
Creativity is more than just being different. Anybody can plan weird; that's easy. What's hard is to be as simple as Bach. Making the simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity. - Charles Mingus
IMST is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 01:23 PM   #15
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by In My Spare Time View Post
Not some grand conspiracy, but with a SecState willing to stop the recount and a Supreme Court willing to agree, the total that was in favor of the party all 6 belonged to got the white house.
So it might seem, and maybe so. Depends on how many votes there really were each way to count. Some usually credible sources say even if those six hadn't done that, Bush would still win.

Quote:
Add to that the poorly designed ballot that got some people confused and left some votes difficult to count (remember pregnant chads? Elderly Liberal Jews for Buchannan?) to further muddle the count.
Since this affects votes cast it is a factor in the 50-50 result, not sure how big

Quote:
And to the frustration of the moderate left, the influence of the Workers World party, the Trotzkist party that stole more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore.
And don't forget the frustration of those that think maybe democracy should be based on the popular vote.
Neither one of us mentoned Nader. Being a Washingtonian can do that, since a lot of us here did vote N but Gore won our 9 anyway, right?

So as I suspected the first debunker mentions what I suspected they would - the recount, and even after I try to shift the gears, those who feel my frustration are - complaining about the recount.

Skeptic Guy: Thanks for the vid link, I'll check it out w/a skim later on.

What I'm curious about is stuff like this from multiple accounts:
Quote:
when the poll worker tried to call the office of the supervisor of elections to verify Ms. Ramsey’s registration status, she was unable to get through. According to Ms. Ramsey, the phone lines remained busy for three and a half hours—a delay she had never experienced during her time as a poll worker [....] poll workers did not allow them to vote because their names did not appear on the rolls. [...others...] should be allowed to vote, provided that the poll worker could verify the voter’s registration status with the supervisor of elections office. Many of these voters, however, were not permitted to vote because the poll workers could not get through [...] she used her personal cellular phone to call the supervisor of elections office all day, but was only able to get through two or three times over the course of 12 hours. [...] mostly African American and Hispanic voters being turned away because their names did not appear on the rolls. The precinct clerk at her site was unable to get through to the central election office
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm

The question here is how many votes were not allowed to be cast this way? If there were enough, between Dem Repub and other to make a net loss of 493 votes all you'd need to get the numbers we got.

and this:
Quote:
Marilyn Nelson, a poll worker with 15 years of experience in Precinct 232 in Miami-Dade County, encountered “quite a few” people whose names did not appear on the rolls at her precinct. When she called the supervisor of elections office, she was told that their rights had been taken away from them due to an alleged felony conviction. She was further instructed by the supervisor’s office that she could not inform those voters of the reason for their removal from the rolls, but she was instructed to “tell them to call downtown at a later date.”[206]
Professor Darryl Paulson testified that the Hillsborough County supervisor of elections estimated that 15 percent of those purged were purged in error and they were disproportionately African American. According to Professor Paulson, another source estimated that 7,000 voters, mostly African Americans and registered Democrats, were removed from the list.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm

Other estimates run as high as 20,000

An actual Youtube video
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 01:29 PM   #16
IMST
If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger, There'd Be a Whole Lot of Dead Copycats
 
IMST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,326
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
So it might seem, and maybe so. Depends on how many votes there really were each way to count. Some usually credible sources say even if those six hadn't done that, Bush would still win.
I think I tried to disclaimer that with the bit about actual vote total. Probably should have been more clear.

Quote:
Since this affects votes cast it is a factor in the 50-50 result, not sure how big
Bush was on top of the ballot and it would have taken a very special kind of stupid not to push the right hole for him. If you weren't paying close attention, Gore was a lot more subtle. I disagree that this is a 50-50 factor.


Quote:
Neither one of us mentoned Nader. Being a Washingtonian can do that, since a lot of us here did vote N but Gore won our 9 anyway, right?
I went with WWP because at the time I was so sick of people saying "it's all Nader's fault" when every third party had more votes than the difference.
__________________
Creativity is more than just being different. Anybody can plan weird; that's easy. What's hard is to be as simple as Bach. Making the simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity. - Charles Mingus
IMST is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 02:14 PM   #17
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
So it might seem, and maybe so. Depends on how many votes there really were each way to count. Some usually credible sources say even if those six hadn't done that, Bush would still win.


Since this affects votes cast it is a factor in the 50-50 result, not sure how big


Neither one of us mentoned Nader. Being a Washingtonian can do that, since a lot of us here did vote N but Gore won our 9 anyway, right?

So as I suspected the first debunker mentions what I suspected they would - the recount, and even after I try to shift the gears, those who feel my frustration are - complaining about the recount.

Skeptic Guy: Thanks for the vid link, I'll check it out w/a skim later on.

What I'm curious about is stuff like this from multiple accounts:

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm

The question here is how many votes were not allowed to be cast this way? If there were enough, between Dem Repub and other to make a net loss of 493 votes all you'd need to get the numbers we got.

and this:

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm

Other estimates run as high as 20,000

An actual Youtube video
What you are missing is that this is stuff that became significant after the fact. Nobody, but nobody, had any idea that Florida was going to be the linchpin of the entire election going into election day. Indeed, most people just assumed that since Bush had a statistically significant lead in the polls going into the election, that he was going to win. And Gore, despite winning the popular vote by a plurality, actually did pretty well in the tight states; he won Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico all by a margin of less than 0.5%, whereas Bush won all of his states except Florida by a comfortable margin. Indeed, had he won Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico (but lost Florida) we would have had the astounding result of a tie in the electoral college.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 03:08 PM   #18
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by In My Spare Time View Post
Bush was on top of the ballot and it would have taken a very special kind of stupid not to push the right hole for him. If you weren't paying close attention, Gore was a lot more subtle. I disagree that this is a 50-50 factor.
I think you misread that - it's an X-factor against Gore that helped towards the 50-50 split. I can't dismiss this one, but my guess is it's secondary.

Quote:
I went with WWP because at the time I was so sick of people saying "it's all Nader's fault" when every third party had more votes than the difference.
Yep and I also didn't mention Nader for similar reason - I think he was a deciding factor nationwide if not in Florida, but it's only a side issue that might come up AFAIC.

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
What you are missing is that this is stuff that became significant after the fact.
I'm sure I misunderstood that but - voter disenfranchisement is significant when it happens and someone else is told "you aren't on the rolls, no vote, no matter how much ID you have."
Quote:
Nobody, but nobody, had any idea that Florida was going to be the linchpin of the entire election going into election day.
Probably not, but it was 25 electoral votes that Bush wanted and, coincidentally, his brother was in charge and had publicly (jokingly) promised to deliver the state, and I suspect he was not joking. That everything else was decided and tied with attention on Florida at the end would then be the "oops, oh s***" point. It was supposed to be one of two or three states, which would have limited scrutiny in an "oh well, he woulda won anyway" situtation. Which is exactly what we heard anyway, based on VOTES CAST.
Quote:
Indeed, most people just assumed that since Bush had a statistically significant lead in the polls going into the election, that he was going to win. And Gore, despite winning the popular vote by a plurality, actually did pretty well in the tight states; he won Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico all by a margin of less than 0.5%, whereas Bush won all of his states except Florida by a comfortable margin. Indeed, had he won Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico (but lost Florida) we would have had the astounding result of a tie in the electoral college.
Interesting... so Democrat voters then were not particularly likely to be bumped from the rolls and unable to be reinstated in time and thus not allowed to cast their votes?

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 4th August 2009 at 03:09 PM.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 04:04 PM   #19
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Cool, thanks guys. That's a start, and before I finally crash out myself.

Well I don't know the debunks real well but the media investigations probably refers to this:


That's from the one debunking site I've looked at much: http://qando.net/archives/004158.htm
Mostly Quoting Stealing Elections by John Fund (misid'd as James Fund), of WSJ

I'm not sure of their methodology, but it certainly sounds like good evidence. Another site specifies that "the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore." This to the 537 from the official count. By sheer accident they had fudged it upwards by only 44 votes out of millions. That's damn good counting.

This would mean the 5-4 decision in Bush v Gore is irrelevant. The re-count would only have confirmed - with even greater delay - that the number of cast votes indeed favored the Governor's big bro. This is something the CTers need to acknowledge. And what should we be called - we have Truthers, Birthers, this could be...

But I realize this and I still have my doubts about the election and its fair-n-squareness. And that is the riddle. Who can discover and debunk?
The Media Consortium Florida Ballot Project found that a full recount of all Florida ballots statewide would have given a narrow election victory to Al Gore.

Quote:
Rather than dimples or not-dimples, the deciding factor in the recount was inclusion of all ballots or only a subset of ballots. And the deciding line was very simple – if all of the ballots were counted there were enough potential Al Gore votes to give him a victory, but any smaller subset of ballots would retain or even enlarge George W. Bush’s margin.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 04:20 PM   #20
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The Media Consortium Florida Ballot Project found that a full recount of all Florida ballots statewide would have given a narrow election victory to Al Gore.
I presume this is to be a debunk. Thanks, it perfectly illustrates my points from above.

Also the first link I analyzed does mention race discrimination but only in the context of spoilage/ballot errors, making the genius case that the voting machine can't tell your race. DUHbunkt! Voter rolls, which determined who was allowed to even go to the machines, is not mentioned. One side complaint about traffic stops was half-debunked, only mentiond to show how black voters are scared of cops, which makes you wonder... Felon purges not mentioned. Etc. ...
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 07:37 PM   #21
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Oddly enough, the recent HBO movie Recount settled my mind about the whole thing. I still think that a majority of voters in Florida headed for the polls to vote for Al Gore and not George Bush. But the way it happened is the way it happened.

Last edited by boloboffin; 4th August 2009 at 07:38 PM.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 08:39 PM   #22
SmartyPants
Thinker
 
SmartyPants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
Oddly enough, the recent HBO movie Recount settled my mind about the whole thing. I still think that a majority of voters in Florida headed for the polls to vote for Al Gore and not George Bush. But the way it happened is the way it happened.
To add to that, I've always liked Bill Maher's take on it: "It wasn't stolen...but it did fall off a truck." Of course, there was mass hypocrisy from the Supreme Court on top of it all. But you're right. What's done is done.

I've always said that the only reason Al Gore lost the election was because of Al Gore, and not because of the SCOTUS, fraud, or Nader. All he needed was one more state. He could not win Tennessee, his own state. He could not win New Hampshire or a bellweather like Missouri. He could not win another 1% of Democrats in Florida who either voted for Bush or did not vote at all. And, bad as his campaign was, he really should've had no trouble winning in any case, because he was running in almost the best possible climate for any sitting Vice President against a man who, let's face it, never showed much intellect or experience.
SmartyPants is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2009, 11:15 PM   #23
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
Oddly enough, the recent HBO movie Recount settled my mind about the whole thing. I still think that a majority of voters in Florida headed for the polls to vote for Al Gore and not George Bush. But the way it happened is the way it happened.
Watched the trailer just now, looks good. But the fact that it's called recount, is about the afterwards maneuvers and Gore's speech and problems with the numbers it misses the mark, IMO, making your settled status worthless, IMO. How did the movie explain away the unknown number (probably higher than 500) of primarily democrat voters simply turned away? Did it mention Database Technologies at all?
---
Another good video, less fictionalized - Unprecedented
Like most it muddles all complaints/allegations together, leaving one with the impression that the counting of cast votes was the problem, but along the way it shows some of the disenfranchisement info.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...96012004214536
---
Originally Posted by SmartyPants View Post
To add to that, I've always liked Bill Maher's take on it: "It wasn't stolen...but it did fall off a truck." Of course, there was mass hypocrisy from the Supreme Court on top of it all. But you're right. What's done is done.
In a sense, of course we're all the way past the other end of two terms. In another sense - have we learned our lessons and had justice been served? It was like a rape in a way - and one that led to pregnancy and the monster child we've dealt with for eight years there. Statute of limitations de darned to heck, says I. I am not a bringer of charges but one who thinks its worth revisiting.

We have a high-tech data arrangement that managed to block some number of voters, by accident they say. We have sample witness accounts of the effects (you can't vote go home), some estimates and projections on how many, all I've seen well above the threshold of making the difference. links provided throughout. Can we know these unjust denials of voting rights were unintentional? We have the contracts, the companies, no way to disprove add'l sums for unknown "answers" to tricky problems. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm

Motive, means, opportunity... right? Prove me wrong.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 01:14 AM   #24
SmartyPants
Thinker
 
SmartyPants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
In a sense, of course we're all the way past the other end of two terms. In another sense - have we learned our lessons and had justice been served? It was like a rape in a way - and one that led to pregnancy and the monster child we've dealt with for eight years there. Statute of limitations de darned to heck, says I. I am not a bringer of charges but one who thinks its worth revisiting.

We have a high-tech data arrangement that managed to block some number of voters, by accident they say. We have sample witness accounts of the effects (you can't vote go home), some estimates and projections on how many, all I've seen well above the threshold of making the difference. links provided throughout. Can we know these unjust denials of voting rights were unintentional? We have the contracts, the companies, no way to disprove add'l sums for unknown "answers" to tricky problems. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm

Motive, means, opportunity... right? Prove me wrong.
You have little quarrel from me, you understand. It pains me to even think about that night, the first time I ever voted in a presidential election. But, as you can see from my prior post, I feel that the dirty tricks that no doubt took place (and take place in every election from both sides, although I think the GOP is just better at it - Okay, the Bush campaigns were significantly dirtier - not necessarily inherently less "ethical") and played a role in the outcome, would likely not even had mattered had the Gore campaign simply been mediocre.

The Gore campaign, in my opinion, has taken far less blame from the left than it should've...and I think the left blaming, nay demonizing, Nader is pathetic and irresponsible. Not that anyone brought it up, but many from the same left that blame Bush and SCOTUS are also the same people who blame Nader, who most certainly was not part of any "conspiracy." (They should not be surprised when people wear shirts that say "Sore/Loserman") In my view, you cannot blame both; at some point you have to pick a side, and the most logical side is placing the blame squarely on Gore, who I admire more now than then, who also had a little help from SCOTUS and the expected dirty tricks (He had no "help" from Nader. People are, or should be, free to run and vote for whom they choose, and not be attacked for it).

But make no mistake; while the election winner may always be in question, Gore's and the Democrats' incompetence is what really spelled defeat in that election.
SmartyPants is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 01:46 AM   #25
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by SmartyPants View Post
You have little quarrel from me, you understand. It pains me to even think about that night, the first time I ever voted in a presidential election. But, as you can see from my prior post, I feel that the dirty tricks that no doubt took place (and take place in every election from both sides, although I think the GOP is just better at it - Okay, the Bush campaigns were significantly dirtier - not necessarily inherently less "ethical") and played a role in the outcome, would likely not even had mattered had the Gore campaign simply been mediocre.
I'm seeing two ways to read this, but you mean it was less than mediocre then? I'm not disagreeing, not a huge fan. I voted nader since he was more in line with my idealism at the time and WA was pretty safe for Gore, who was the "not Bush."

Quote:
The Gore campaign, in my opinion, has taken far less blame from the left than it should've...
I guess I'm vague on the details but didn't he concede right away, giving the GOP some "too late" room? That and a -meh- campaign.

Quote:
and I think the left blaming, nay demonizing, Nader is pathetic and irresponsible. Not that anyone brought it up, but many from the same left that blame Bush and SCOTUS are also the same people who blame Nader, who most certainly was not part of any "conspiracy." (They should not be surprised when people wear shirts that say "Sore/Loserman") In my view, you cannot blame both; at some point you have to pick a side, and the most logical side is placing the blame squarely on Gore, who I admire more now than then, who also had a little help from SCOTUS and the expected dirty tricks (He had no "help" from Nader. People are, or should be, free to run and vote for whom they choose, and not be attacked for it).
True, there's a whiney character and sloppy thinking involved in that kind of schizo blame-pinning. I can see their point tho in that Nader votes really DID make a difference in some states that helped Bush along in the end, conspiracy not necessary, and it's only natural they should note that for future reference. Some got too loud and preachy about it (Moore at al.) but people app. took note and IIRC 3rd parties fared worse in elections since.

Quote:
But make no mistake; while the election winner may always be in question, Gore's and the Democrats' incompetence is what really spelled defeat in that election.
Well, it's what spelt it's down to Florida and you're at the mercy of the dirty tricks neither of us is denying happened there (tho I'd guess we disagree on what exactly is likely). So yeah, too bad that became the deciding point.

Thanks for commenting.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 01:59 AM   #26
Minadin
Master Poster
 
Minadin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,469
The thing that many non-Americans (and sadly, many Americans) fail to understand about the overall popular vote is that it doesn't really matter, but that, more importantly, it's by design. In our representative republic, votes are weighed by state population, through the Electoral College. Each voter in each state represents all of the residents of that state, whether they vote or not - or even if they can.

For instance, the population of Missouri (where I live) is roughly 6 million, and we have 11 Electoral votes. The population of Illinois is nearly 13 million, and they have 21 Electoral votes.

If there were some strange election where 2 million Missouri residents all voters voted against a candidate, but only one Illinois citizen voted, and voted for him, he would win, 21 to 11, even though the popular vote was 2 million to 1 against.

I also find it funny that the exact same people who were mad about the popular vote in 2000 when Bush won the Electoral but not overall Popular vote, were trying to obtain a victory via the Electoral vote in 2004 when their candidate clearly lost the popular vote.

Last edited by Minadin; 5th August 2009 at 02:03 AM.
Minadin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 02:14 AM   #27
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Minadin, cool, thanks for the civics info, it helps add texture and context and is probably more needed than I'd like to admit (I keep thinking people are smarter than they seem and gettin shown wrong ).

This actually hits home a bit as in 2000 I was starting college and thinking of teaching, and was student teaching at a middle school. my lessons were Brazil and the Electoral College. I taught the kids all about, esp. the weird things like how the real electoral vote could disagree with the nationwide popular vote. Within a few months of that lesson, the election ahppened and dang if they probably didn't get the best example of paying attention in school, which still makes me smile and also sad at the same time.

Anyway, since each state selects its electors by statewide popular vote, every vote does count, and Bush got Florida's 25 by a margin of about 0.01% In fact let's ignore the national election and the aftermath and just think of this as the Florida vote in and of itself. If it hadn't been for unusually high electoral irregularities, overseen by Bush's Florida campaign manager (in another capacity of course), that left fouled or completely blocked from the system some unknown (thousands) number of Democrat votes, Gore would have won by whole tenths of a percent. Then he'd win the contextless Florida election thing, right?

There are plenty of possible debunks, but I'm not seeing them yet.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 02:39 AM   #28
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by SkepticGuy View Post
Looking back at George H.W. Bush's victory in 1988, and the "conspiracy buzz" of the time, can shed some light on the 2000 victory, and related conspiracy speculation.
watched it and no, no relevance to this discussion. It was interesting, better listening than viewing I suppose. But discussing it further would take us off-topic here.

Quote:
At the time, conspiracy theorists in 2000 were drawing many parallels to Bush Sr's victory in 1988.
Yeah, probably since one was the other's son.

Quote:
Nine years later, much of that discussion is lost or difficult to locate. This video might provide some insight into the mindset that inspires the speculation.
No, the video doesn't even mention Bush jr being Bush sr's son. But thanks for sharing it.

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 5th August 2009 at 02:42 AM.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 02:53 AM   #29
Minadin
Master Poster
 
Minadin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,469
My vote was most likely disenfranchised in 2000. I was overseas, voting absentee. I had to try to explain the various intricacies of our electoral system to my Danish relatives. Fun.
Minadin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 10:38 AM   #30
SmartyPants
Thinker
 
SmartyPants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
I'm seeing two ways to read this, but you mean it was less than mediocre then? I'm not disagreeing, not a huge fan. I voted nader since he was more in line with my idealism at the time and WA was pretty safe for Gore, who was the "not Bush."
Less than mediocre, yes. Somewhere between that and bad. FWIW, I almost voted Nader, but I lived in Missouri at the time and feared a Bush win. I was not enthusiastic about Gore, although I think now he would've made a decent president. I also believe, though I have no hard evidence at hand to back this up, that most Nader voters wouldn't have even voted had he not been in the race.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
I guess I'm vague on the details but didn't he concede right away, giving the GOP some "too late" room? That and a -meh- campaign.
He conceeded the first night, early morning I believe, then took back his concession shortly afterward.


Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
True, there's a whiney character and sloppy thinking involved in that kind of schizo blame-pinning. I can see their point tho in that Nader votes really DID make a difference in some states that helped Bush along in the end, conspiracy not necessary, and it's only natural they should note that for future reference. Some got too loud and preachy about it (Moore at al.) but people app. took note and IIRC 3rd parties fared worse in elections since.
Well, yes, Nader was a slight problem for Gore, I agree. But it shouldn't have been enough to give Bush the victory in my opinion. As I've said before, Nader had every right to run in that election, and people had every right to vote for him.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Well, it's what spelt it's down to Florida and you're at the mercy of the dirty tricks neither of us is denying happened there (tho I'd guess we disagree on what exactly is likely). So yeah, too bad that became the deciding point.
Bush, at least in Florida and probably other places in South, did some rotten things. i.e. putting flyers on car windows in minority neighborhoods saying you can't vote if x,y,z is true or going into other Democratically favored neighborhoods and claiming the election was on the 8th. Stuff like that. But then again, people really should know their voting rights. Oh, and I do think the ballots were confusing...I've never understood why we can't just fill in a bubble and throw it into the Scantron...but that's hardly Bush's fault.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Thanks for commenting.
You bet.
SmartyPants is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 10:42 AM   #31
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Attempts to debunk the conspiracy to steal the 2000 presidential election have never been seriously made. There's been tiny bits here and there, but Al Gore apologists have never come up with anything substantial.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 10:44 AM   #32
SmartyPants
Thinker
 
SmartyPants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by Minadin View Post
The thing that many non-Americans (and sadly, many Americans) fail to understand about the overall popular vote is that it doesn't really matter, but that, more importantly, it's by design. In our representative republic, votes are weighed by state population, through the Electoral College. Each voter in each state represents all of the residents of that state, whether they vote or not - or even if they can.

For instance, the population of Missouri (where I live) is roughly 6 million, and we have 11 Electoral votes. The population of Illinois is nearly 13 million, and they have 21 Electoral votes.

If there were some strange election where 2 million Missouri residents all voters voted against a candidate, but only one Illinois citizen voted, and voted for him, he would win, 21 to 11, even though the popular vote was 2 million to 1 against.

I also find it funny that the exact same people who were mad about the popular vote in 2000 when Bush won the Electoral but not overall Popular vote, were trying to obtain a victory via the Electoral vote in 2004 when their candidate clearly lost the popular vote.
I wish that we didn't have a winner take all system. Rather, I wish it was more like the Democratic primary system or perhaps we could award an electoral vote for every congressional district won. Not that I think these ideas are foolproof, but there needs to be some kind of system where the electoral vote majority matches up with the popular vote.

I totally agree with the highlighted paragraph.
SmartyPants is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 11:31 AM   #33
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
I'm sure I misunderstood that but - voter disenfranchisement is significant when it happens and someone else is told "you aren't on the rolls, no vote, no matter how much ID you have."
Yes, but what you have is anecdotes of that type of treatment, which the Democratic party specifically solicited; they went out and looked for people who claimed they had problems. And note what is not specified in these anecdotes:

1. Whether the person had moved recently.
2. Whether the person was a felon who was purged from the voting rolls.
3. Whether the person had not voted recently and was purged for that reason (a federal requirement, by the way).

Against the anecdotal evidence, we have the fact that 5,950,000 people did vote in Florida in 2000, versus about 5,300,000 in 1996 and about 5,300,000 in 1992. The increase in the number of votes in Florida from 1996-2000 was about 12.4%, while the increase nationally was about 9.5%. Gore got about 365,000 more votes in Florida than Clinton had in 1996; the problem was that Bush got about 667,000 more votes in Florida than Dole had (third party candidates got a lot fewer votes in 2000 than they had in 1996, mostly because Ross Perot got about 500,000 in the former election).

Quote:
Probably not, but it was 25 electoral votes that Bush wanted and, coincidentally, his brother was in charge and had publicly (jokingly) promised to deliver the state, and I suspect he was not joking. That everything else was decided and tied with attention on Florida at the end would then be the "oops, oh s***" point. It was supposed to be one of two or three states, which would have limited scrutiny in an "oh well, he woulda won anyway" situtation. Which is exactly what we heard anyway, based on VOTES CAST.
Of course he wasn't joking; any campaign manager in any state intends to deliver his state. That does not mean that he intends to deliver his state by hook or by crook.

Quote:
Interesting... so Democrat voters then were not particularly likely to be bumped from the rolls and unable to be reinstated in time and thus not allowed to cast their votes?
We don't know how many Republicans were preventing from voting because their names were purged from the voter rolls, because the Democrats had no interest or incentive to locate them.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 12:51 PM   #34
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Yes, but what you have is anecdotes of that type of treatment, which the Democratic party specifically solicited; they went out and looked for people who claimed they had problems. And note what is not specified in these anecdotes:

1. Whether the person had moved recently.
2. Whether the person was a felon who was purged from the voting rolls.
3. Whether the person had not voted recently and was purged for that reason (a federal requirement, by the way).
The source of those anecdotes was Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election, an official report of the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights on the 2000 election in Florida. Quoting from the Findings and Recommendations:

Quote:
While some of those denied the right to vote in the November 2000 election no doubt were legally denied that right, others who should have been legally entitled to vote were also denied that right. Indeed as this report demonstrates, Florida state law in some instances virtually guaranteed that some citizens who were legally entitled to vote would be denied that right. The statute’s silence on other instances provided tacit approval for the denial of some to vote. Not all voices were heard on Election Day, and the law provides no meaningful way for their voices to now be heard.
When Florida purged the databases, they assumed that even inexact matches were felons. Those who were purged were not notified. On election day they discovered that they were not on the rolls. To compound the error, the purged voters were not allowed to cast a provisional ballot.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 02:07 PM   #35
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The source of those anecdotes was Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election, an official report of the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights on the 2000 election in Florida.
Exactly, thank you. I suspect that most of the people gathering the evidence were Democrats but not THE Democrats. I don't know the process of selection, but a small sampling of witnesses was selected.

They spoke with “100” witnesses - Four specific accounts of those not allowed to vote since their names were excluded from the rolls for unsure reasons: Three African-American women, Cathy Jackson, Donnise DeSouza, Angenora Ramsey, and a Latina Margarita Green, and one R. Jai Howard speaks for a group of African-American students claiming similar problems.
Six Poll workers as well described unsettlingly regular irregularities that day, I think their testimonies are the most damning. Four people affected by the flawed felon purge list (it's not clear which of them were and weren't allowed to vote at election time), and others who found problems with the 'motor voter" system, etc.

Palast in the Unprecedented video calls the Felon purge list the most serious disenfranchisement. He found Ion Voltaire Sancho, supervisor of elections for the Capitol-wielding Leon County who wennt to the hassle of checking DBT's list of the county (pop only app 250,000)
Quote:
“the list that we received contained 690 felons supposedly registered in Leon County. When we spent an intensive two-week computer analysis of that data, we were able to confirm thirty-three of those 690 as felons.” 10:11 in vid
That's 4.8% verified correct – either DBT was waaaay wrong, 95% wrong, or Sancho's abilities were not that great.
Palast context 10:30 in vid
Quote:
“95% of the names that he checked were names of people who had never committed a crime. They just happenes to share a name and a rough birthdate with someone who had committed a crime.”
The numbers are less clear to me personally but the vide shows examples where eggregious errors did get through. Okay... that's evidence I can't take without question but it would show in one smallish county alone 657 lost votes, among people w/similar names to felons. Percentage for Gore, open to debate
12:32 Palast says statewide at least 15% of blocked felon voters were innocent. Apparently falling back on Paulson, cited on page 1.

Sorry this is incoherent, I'm researching this now and the heat is keeping me stupid. I'll come back in a bit
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 02:51 PM   #36
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The source of those anecdotes was Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election, an official report of the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights on the 2000 election in Florida. Quoting from the Findings and Recommendations:
So that must mean it's completely free of partisan hackery? Try again. The six people on the commission to sign the report were all liberal Democrats. The two dissenting opinions from the commission were not even published on the website. The liberal members of the commission were all involved a bit of skullduggery against the Bush Administration. Victoria Wilson, who had been appointed by Clinton to fill out the remainder of (the deceased) Leon Higgenbotham's term, made the novel claim that she should be entitled to a full 6-year term rather than the two years remaining on Higgenbotham's term. She was able to convince a judge, but lost on appeal.

And again, the anecdotes do not tell us the crucial information as to whether these people had moved, were felons, or had failed to vote in recent elections, all of which are grounds for being removed from the voter rolls.

Quote:
When Florida purged the databases, they assumed that even inexact matches were felons. Those who were purged were not notified. On election day they discovered that they were not on the rolls. To compound the error, the purged voters were not allowed to cast a provisional ballot.
Yes. Now all you have to do is prove that this was a conspiracy, and not just typical governmental incompetence.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 04:37 PM   #37
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
And again, the anecdotes do not tell us the crucial information as to whether these people had moved, were felons, or had failed to vote in recent elections, all of which are grounds for being removed from the voter rolls.
Are you claiming a conspiracy by the U. S. Civil Rights Commission to pass off felons as legitimate voters?

Florida assumed that having a similar name and birthdate was good enough to deny the right to vote. Then provided no notification to those purged, and no process to appeal the decision on election day when these voters first discovered the problem. They operated on the principal that the state doesn't make mistakes, therefore it did't need a process for correcting mistakes.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 04:42 PM   #38
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
So that must mean it's completely free of partisan hackery? Try again. The six people on the commission to sign the report were all liberal Democrats. The two dissenting opinions from the commission were not even published on the website. The liberal members of the commission were all involved a bit of skullduggery against the Bush Administration. Victoria Wilson, who had been appointed by Clinton to fill out the remainder of (the deceased) Leon Higgenbotham's term, made the novel claim that she should be entitled to a full 6-year term rather than the two years remaining on Higgenbotham's term. She was able to convince a judge, but lost on appeal.
It looks like you've studied this a bit. Good work casting doubt, doubt's good, and everyone does have an agenda. BUT, reason for bias does not automatically invalidate one's work - professionals can still gather "just the facts"

And even with just the facts here, we can only get part of the picture from the USCCR report. They were looking for infringements of civil rights, as per the old South problems on the 1960s. There was no "we don't like black people they can't vote" decision or greeting at the polls. But the Commission does claim that "many eligible Florida voters were, in fact, denied their right to vote, with the disenfranchisement disproportionately affecting African Americans." Unless that's a lie, they did look at the whole field somehow and were able to decide which portion was Black.

Quote:
And again, the anecdotes do not tell us the crucial information as to whether these people had moved, were felons, or had failed to vote in recent elections, all of which are grounds for being removed from the voter rolls.
Yes, some were felons, and many more were listed as such and denied. The anecdotes say for a couple examples:
Quote:
Cathy Jackson, an African American woman, has been a registered voter in Broward County since 1996. Upon registering in Broward County, Ms. Jackson was told that if she ever experienced a problem with her voter registration card, she would be allowed to vote if she could produce a valid driver’s license. Ms. Jackson voted in Broward without any incident using her driver’s license since 1996. However, when she went to her polling place, Precinct 52Z, on November 7, 2000, she was told that her name was not on the list. The poll workers suggested that she travel back to her old precinct in Miami-Dade County to vote. Ms. Jackson did as she was advised even though she had voted in Broward County since she moved from Miami-Dade County in 1996. After waiting 45 minutes at her old precinct, the poll workers in Miami-Dade told Ms. Jackson that her name was not on the rolls and referred her back to Broward to vote.
Lost in the shuffle and on neither her old nor new roll. Ooops.

Quote:
Marilyn Nelson, a poll worker with 15 years of experience in Precinct 232 in Miami-Dade County, encountered “quite a few” people whose names did not appear on the rolls at her precinct. When she called the supervisor of elections office, she was told that their rights had been taken away from them due to an alleged felony conviction. She was further instructed by the supervisor’s office that she could not inform those voters of the reason for their removal from the rolls, but she was instructed to “tell them to call downtown at a later date.
That had better be untrue.

Unprecedented (at 14:00) features Rev. Thomas Johnson, Pastor, Gainesville “My rights were stripped.” Out-of-state felon, rights restored, who should have been allowed to vote but wasn’t. These people were supposed to get letters telling them to re-apply for civil rights. This has been called "clearly illegal," a violation of the good faith clause. I'm not sure how many people did or didn't get their letters and how many managed to get their rights back prior to the vote.

Quote:
Yes. Now all you have to do is prove that this was a conspiracy, and not just typical governmental incompetence.
Prove, the way I take it, is a lofty goal. But for evidence: the company asked to make up a list of felons or deceased persons, wrongly registered, was Database Technologies, a Choice Point company, paid $4 million to make a good list to help Florida out.
From chapter five:
Quote:
DBT Online advised the Division of Elections of the likelihood that a significant number of false positives existed and made recommendations to reduce those numbers, according to Mr. Bruder.[62] He further asserted that DBT Online specifically suggested to state officials that narrow criteria be used in creating the lists, which would lower the false-positive rate, and therefore, minimize errors in the number of names matched.[63] Mr. Bruder testified that the company recommended, for example, that it develop criteria requiring an exact match on the first and middle names. Thus, a Floridian named Deborah Ann would not match with the name Ann Deborah.[64] But the Division of Elections favored more inclusive criteria and chose to “make it go both ways,” as Mr. Bruder recalls it.[65] In addition, he pointed out that state officials set parameters that required a 90 percent match in the last name, rather than an exact match.[66] Mr. Bruder insisted that “the state dictated to us that they wanted to go broader, and we did it in the fashion that they requested.”[67]
[...]
Mr. Bruder testified that DBT Online “relied upon the information that was given to us by the Division of Elections, who was giving us the criteria in which to use to do the data processing.”[102] His testimony was corroborated by e-mails from the Division of Elections assistant general counsel.[103] These e-mails were produced pursuant to a Commission subpoena.
The Unprecedented Video (15:45-16:17) shows George Bruder, project manager for DBT, sounding unhappy about the election
Quote:
“there’s no doubt the list included a number of what we call false positives, as the [Florida] division of election required the exceptions list to be very broad. […] “we advised the state of the likelihood of a significant number of false positives and made recommendations to reduce hose numbers. However, and I quote, “we wanted these lists to be fairly broad and encompassing,” said Emmett Bucky Mitchell, former division of elections lawyer, who headed the purge effort.”
The video (10:40) also shows a DBT internal memo where the desire for false positives is passed down to an underling also concerned about false positives. That's what we're going for, don't change the formula. From on high, from the bosses paying them. Their lists came out allegedly 15-95% wrong.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 04:47 PM   #39
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Then provided no notification to those purged,
So far I'm unsure on that point. The video has one supervisor of elections talking about sending out the letters and some they didn' bother, which I think means they just reinstated them. ?? (around 14:00). Did you have a solid source for the letters not sent?

Either way it was illegal to require that and put an unfair burden on a dispproportionately Democrat population.

ETA: To clarify, the law is in ref only to felons who had their voting rights re-instated in another state. That's supposed to follow them to Florida but Jeb decided they would have to re-register to vote in 2000. An illegal decision that might have erased votes...

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 5th August 2009 at 05:20 PM.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2009, 05:40 PM   #40
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
It looks like you've studied this a bit. Good work casting doubt, doubt's good, and everyone does have an agenda. BUT, reason for bias does not automatically invalidate one's work - professionals can still gather "just the facts"

And even with just the facts here, we can only get part of the picture from the USCCR report. They were looking for infringements of civil rights, as per the old South problems on the 1960s. There was no "we don't like black people they can't vote" decision or greeting at the polls. But the Commission does claim that "many eligible Florida voters were, in fact, denied their right to vote, with the disenfranchisement disproportionately affecting African Americans." Unless that's a lie, they did look at the whole field somehow and were able to decide which portion was Black.



Yes, some were felons, and many more were listed as such and denied. The anecdotes say for a couple examples:

Lost in the shuffle and on neither her old nor new roll. Ooops.


That had better be untrue.

Unprecedented (at 14:00) features Rev. Thomas Johnson, Pastor, Gainesville “My rights were stripped.” Out-of-state felon, rights restored, who should have been allowed to vote but wasn’t. These people were supposed to get letters telling them to re-apply for civil rights. This has been called "clearly illegal," a violation of the good faith clause. I'm not sure how many people did or didn't get their letters and how many managed to get their rights back prior to the vote.


Prove, the way I take it, is a lofty goal. But for evidence: the company asked to make up a list of felons or deceased persons, wrongly registered, was Database Technologies, a Choice Point company, paid $4 million to make a good list to help Florida out.
From chapter five:

The Unprecedented Video (15:45-16:17) shows George Bruder, project manager for DBT, sounding unhappy about the election
But that Chapter Five also explains why Florida was so actively purging the rolls of dead people, felons and those who had moved:

Quote:
This section of the statute was passed in response to a 1997 Miami mayoral election where it was challenged in court and went up through the court system in the state of Florida. The gentleman who originally won that mayor’s race was turned out of office. There was a grand jury investigation. There was a Senate select committee appointed to investigate that election. There was [an] allegation and it was eventually proven that a large number of people who were deceased cast ballots—well, someone cast ballots in the name of some people who were deceased in that election. People who were convicted felons who had lost their right to vote under the Florida Constitution cast ballots in that election, and people who were also registered in another municipality or another county within that area cast ballots in the city of Miami mayor’s race.[20]
Discussion of the infamous 1997 Miami race is here:

Quote:
Since that election, state officials have seized more than 5,000 absentee ballots--which favored Suarez by 2 to 1--in a sweeping investigation of fraud that includes allegations that voters were paid for their ballots, that votes were cast by people who live outside the city and that some who supposedly voted have been dead for years.

Manuel Yip, a Cuban immigrant who ran a Miami restaurant before dying four years ago at 75, was found not only to have voted absentee for Suarez, but to have cast post-mortem ballots in at least two other elections.

Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on Wednesday raided the Miami home of a 92-year-old political operative named Alberto Russi and seized about 100 absentee ballots intended for today's election, along with stacks of voter registration cards and absentee ballot applications.

Russi's signature appears on Yip's ballot in a space marked "witness," FDLE agents said. He said his name was forged. He was charged with three counts of election fraud.
So you set the standards for striking someone from the rolls loosely, purging more than is necessary, with the understanding that people can object. See also here, from that same chapter five:

Quote:
Of those voters who contacted the FDLE to appeal the notice from a local supervisor of elections that they were ineligible to vote, approximately 50 percent were found to be convicted of felonies in Florida and 50 percent were determined to not have Florida felony convictions.[88]
Sounds like 50-50 among those purged, but those are only the people who appealed the notice; presumably among those who did not appeal the rate of Florida felony convictions was probably much higher.

Now, I don't know why those who objected weren't allowed to cast provisional ballots; that seems to have varied by polling location according to the testimony.

Quote:
The video (10:40) also shows a DBT internal memo where the desire for false positives is passed down to an underling also concerned about false positives. That's what we're going for, don't change the formula. From on high, from the bosses paying them. Their lists came out allegedly 15-95% wrong.
Is that a range among several counties? As noted above, right about half of the people who appealed were found to have been guilty of a felony; among those who did not appeal I'm sure it was substantially higher.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.