RE: [EM] Who did you say won?
Hrm. I studied this particular issue. Some people from Harvard applied Bayesian Ecological Inferences to the absentee ballots. They report the fact that, according to the Office of the Florida Secretary of State, ON ELECTION DAY, Gore was ahead by 202 votes. So, at the moment it was called for Bush, Gore was ahead. One note on those ballots, as related in the New York Times longest story ever (in column inches) The Republicans were using opposite arguments in different counties. In GOP strongholds they were arguing absentee ballots must be counted, in Gore strongholds, that they must be thrown away. This is in the court transcripts. By the way, if examined at the State level, or in any pair of courts, really, that practice is illegal, in the sense that the whole line must be dismissed. (See New Hampshire and Maine fighting over the river between them, a change in the how much is mine by New Hampshire was totally ignored, because they had earlier claimed a different portion). I am not a laywer. However, there is lots more. Bush and Harris slashed the voter aide funds by half, gave RICH districts laptops in order to deal with voted problems. They gave poor districts BUSY PHONE NUMBERS. How's that for a big FUCK YOU??? Or how about this peice of total horseshit? In Texas they had a hand recount, but that's not good enough for Florida? Howabout the _fact_ that the law in Florida was intent of the voter NOT intent of the voter IF it can be ascertained via a machine. The facts are, if they had recounted the whole state, or the THOUSANDS of jewish gore voters in palm beach county were counted as they INTENDED to vote (the law in Florida, and there are plenty of overvotes to statistically _prove_ it happened) it was NO CONTEST. BUSH IS A SHIT EATING MONKEY -Original Message- From: Bart Ingles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [EM] Who did you say won? I've seen most of these assertions before, but I would hardly say that they constitute proof. For one thing all of these sites share a similar political viewpoint-- for balance you might as well link to some far right-wing sites to get the other side of the story. For another, I don't know how you'd go about verifying most of these claims. Although Palast does seem to go out of his way to point out that some of his work was carried by the BBC, which I had always considered to be a member of the mass media. One of Palast's statements seems particularly implausible: ...on the Florida ballots voter race is listed. I have never heard of identifying information, let alone race, being listed on a modern U.S. ballot. Are there any Florida voters here who can confirm this? If so, there's a good place to start reforming. At any rate, all of this emotion over an essentially tied election seems like a waste to me. Election fraud, the electoral college, campaign finance reform-- none of these can have much effect unless the election is close to begin with. If there is a rightful winner other than the declared one, then as far as I'm concerned it should be the unknowable candidate who was excluded due to Duverger's Law and and our plurality system. Bart Tom McIntyre wrote: Eric Gorr wrote: At 6:21 AM + 2/24/03, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: Is that what the mass media said? I am not aware of any independent study which claims that Gore would have won regardless of what the Supreme Court did. Here's an article telling how the same study that showed that The Supreme Court's intervention probably did not affect the outcome of the limited recounts then under way, also showed that more people probably cast valid votes for Gore than for Bush. It goes on to say why you didn't hear about that latter part. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm Of course, Gore would have won without recounts had it not been for a deliberate effort by Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, and Republican lawmakers to illegally purge tens of thousands of Democrats from the Florida voting rolls. A list of Greg Palast articles providing proof of the illegal purging: http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1subject_nam e=Theft%20of%20Presidency This one sums it up pretty well: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=177row=1 An article that sums up other ways voters were disenfranchised in Florida: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Corruption/How_GOP_Gamed_Florida .html And this article hints (but doesn't actually claim) that computerized voting machines programmed with a Republican slant may have been in use in this Florida election: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
RE: [EM] Who did you say won?
Josh Narins wrote: BUSH IS A SHIT EATING MONKEY This is merely the worst example from a thread that has long since strayed off topic. I understand that we're here to talk about elections, but the issue of the 2000 Florida recount is only tangentially related to the issues of election method theory. It's appropriate to say, for example, that approval voting is easier to count and avoids some of the issues that cropped up in the recount. But any relation of the recount to election method theory went out the window a while ago on this thread. I'm not totally against off-topic posts here, but let's try to keep it to a minimum. Remember that lots of people get these messages, and a lot of them don't care about the Florida recount (or, they read about these issues and made up their own mind a long time ago). The signal-to-noise ratio is bad enough around here lately without people knowingly making it worse. And yes, I'm aware of the irony of posting off topic to this list in order to decry that exact practice, so don't bother pointing it out. It was reluctance to do this that kept me quiet up to now. -Adam P.S. Josh, in response to another off-topic post of yours - I'd be happy to bet you $20 that Israel does not attack Iraq in the event of a US/Iraq war, regardless of whether Iraq attacks Israel. For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
Re: [EM] Who did you say won?
That's about what I'd expect from a Gore supporter. ;-) Narins, Josh wrote: Hrm. I studied this particular issue. Some people from Harvard applied Bayesian Ecological Inferences to the absentee ballots. They report the fact that, according to the Office of the Florida Secretary of State, ON ELECTION DAY, Gore was ahead by 202 votes. So, at the moment it was called for Bush, Gore was ahead. One note on those ballots, as related in the New York Times longest story ever (in column inches) The Republicans were using opposite arguments in different counties. In GOP strongholds they were arguing absentee ballots must be counted, in Gore strongholds, that they must be thrown away. This is in the court transcripts. By the way, if examined at the State level, or in any pair of courts, really, that practice is illegal, in the sense that the whole line must be dismissed. (See New Hampshire and Maine fighting over the river between them, a change in the how much is mine by New Hampshire was totally ignored, because they had earlier claimed a different portion). I am not a laywer. However, there is lots more. Bush and Harris slashed the voter aide funds by half, gave RICH districts laptops in order to deal with voted problems. They gave poor districts BUSY PHONE NUMBERS. How's that for a big FUCK YOU??? Or how about this peice of total horseshit? In Texas they had a hand recount, but that's not good enough for Florida? Howabout the _fact_ that the law in Florida was intent of the voter NOT intent of the voter IF it can be ascertained via a machine. The facts are, if they had recounted the whole state, or the THOUSANDS of jewish gore voters in palm beach county were counted as they INTENDED to vote (the law in Florida, and there are plenty of overvotes to statistically _prove_ it happened) it was NO CONTEST. BUSH IS A SHIT EATING MONKEY For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
Re: [EM] Who did you say won?
Narins, Josh wrote: BUSH IS A SHIT EATING MONKEY As I said in a private correspondence, monkeys are intelligent primates with cute mannerisms. There's no need to insult them with that comparison ;) Alex For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
Re: [EM] Who did you say won?
At 6:21 AM + 2/24/03, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: Is that what the mass media said? I am not aware of any independent study which claims that Gore would have won regardless of what the Supreme Court did. For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
Re: [EM] Who did you say won?
Eric Gorr wrote: At 6:21 AM + 2/24/03, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: Is that what the mass media said? I am not aware of any independent study which claims that Gore would have won regardless of what the Supreme Court did. Here's an article telling how the same study that showed that "The Supreme Court's intervention probably did not affect the outcome of the limited recounts then under way", also showed that "more people probably cast valid votes for Gore than for Bush". It goes on to say why you didn't hear about that latter part. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm Of course, Gore would have won without recounts had it not been for a deliberate effort by Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, and Republican lawmakers to illegally purge tens of thousands of Democrats from the Florida voting rolls. A list of Greg Palast articles providing proof of the illegal purging: http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency This one sums it up pretty well: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=177row=1 An article that sums up other ways voters were disenfranchised in Florida: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Corruption/How_GOP_Gamed_Florida.html And this article hints (but doesn't actually claim) that computerized voting machines programmed with a Republican slant may have been in use in this Florida election: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm
Re: [EM] Who did you say won?
I've seen most of these assertions before, but I would hardly say that they constitute proof. For one thing all of these sites share a similar political viewpoint-- for balance you might as well link to some far right-wing sites to get the other side of the story. For another, I don't know how you'd go about verifying most of these claims. Although Palast does seem to go out of his way to point out that some of his work was carried by the BBC, which I had always considered to be a member of the mass media. One of Palast's statements seems particularly implausible: ...on the Florida ballots voter race is listed. I have never heard of identifying information, let alone race, being listed on a modern U.S. ballot. Are there any Florida voters here who can confirm this? If so, there's a good place to start reforming. At any rate, all of this emotion over an essentially tied election seems like a waste to me. Election fraud, the electoral college, campaign finance reform-- none of these can have much effect unless the election is close to begin with. If there is a rightful winner other than the declared one, then as far as I'm concerned it should be the unknowable candidate who was excluded due to Duverger's Law and and our plurality system. Bart Tom McIntyre wrote: Eric Gorr wrote: At 6:21 AM + 2/24/03, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: Is that what the mass media said? I am not aware of any independent study which claims that Gore would have won regardless of what the Supreme Court did. Here's an article telling how the same study that showed that The Supreme Court's intervention probably did not affect the outcome of the limited recounts then under way, also showed that more people probably cast valid votes for Gore than for Bush. It goes on to say why you didn't hear about that latter part. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm Of course, Gore would have won without recounts had it not been for a deliberate effort by Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, and Republican lawmakers to illegally purge tens of thousands of Democrats from the Florida voting rolls. A list of Greg Palast articles providing proof of the illegal purging: http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency This one sums it up pretty well: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=177row=1 An article that sums up other ways voters were disenfranchised in Florida: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Corruption/How_GOP_Gamed_Florida.html And this article hints (but doesn't actually claim) that computerized voting machines programmed with a Republican slant may have been in use in this Florida election: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
