Reported by The Economist

[tw]

In the 17 Nov 2001 issue is this little tidbit:

Correction In the issues of December 16th 2000 to November 10th 2001, we may have given the impression that George Bush had been legally and duly elected president of the United States. We now understand that this may have been incorrect, and that the election result is still too close to call. The Economist apologises for any inconvenience.

[russotto]

*sigh*. Count after count after recount has been done, and damn near all of them still favor Bush. You have to go through some extreme stretches (like counting overvotes while not counting military votes) to get a result favoring Gore. The Economist should get over it.

Though I do like the "Memo" circulated recently:

Office of the President of the United States

September 12, 2001

Dear Al:
We found some more votes. You won. When would you like to take over?

Sincerely,

George Bush

[Xugumad]

That claim is incorrect. If all Florida votes had been recounted - and had the recount been confirmed as legal, then Gore would have won Florida. Go search the web for the results of the AP recount. The press intentionally didn't publish the results so as to not cause 'trouble' during the bombing of Afghanistan.

This is well-documented. It's not speculation. Had Gore continued with his declared strategy, however, he still would have lost, as he wasn't demanding a Florida-wide recount, merely a recount of certain counties - where the difference wouldn't have turned it around for him.

http://www.salon.com/politics/featur...ndex_np.html?x

The Economist is a moderately right-wing publication, which has almost always favoured Republican economic policy over Democratic economic policy. They supported Major over Blair in Britain in 1997. They have *NO* reason to support Gore, other than impartiality. You claim that they should get 'over it'. It's tough to get over the facts, and ignore the truth. Read the article linked above - the US press certainly tried it.

X.

[wwarner11]

To keep going over and over about this election is to say the least, it is stupid. If you cannot offer solid evidence that Gore won this election, then it is, at the time of the Supreme Court decision, over finis,complete, done and whatever. I wanted the Yankees to win the world series, they lost,baseball will survive just as this country will not come to the end. Aside from that isn't The Economist a British publication? If Mad magazine had a editorial supporting the Gore argument on this election would you support their view?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Xugumad
http://www.salon.com/politics/featur...ndex_np.html?x

Last I understood, Gore still would have lost Florida, even if everything fell his way. Show me something that won't cost me a $30/year subscription regarding the opposite.

[tw]

Originally posted by wwarner11
To keep going over and over about this election is to say the least, it is stupid. If you cannot offer solid evidence that Gore won this election, then it is, at the time of the Supreme Court decision, over finis,complete, done and whatever.

We will never know the will of the voters in FL because the election system was corrupted by those who run it. And who might those be? Not independents. Democrats and Republicans who have litttle interest in making the system more reliable. There only interests are in making the system appear reliable and to keep a professionally responsible independent operation out.

Have we changed anything having learned in FL how bad the system operates? No. Those punch card ballots are still being used. Are the party election officials now replacing those worn punch holes and repeatedly cleaning out the punch holes? We don't even know. Although there was talk of reparing the election system, all that has long since subsided. I believe there are some Philly locations (and maybe also in Abingtion) where the election system still keeps breaking down.

All The Economist has done is demonstrate (by making a correction) that we don't really know and will probably never know who won the election. That same statement should be reported everywhere else because it is still accurate.

Had the court system been honest, all voters in FL would have had an immediate relection - because the tally was that corrupted by those running the system. Also adding to the corrupt was that lady Sec of State with big makeup who is a classic example of a partisan politician. Those running the system are still running the system. It is not operated by the people. It is run by the Democratic and Republican parties.

[Undertoad]

Just one quick note - Abington, as part of Montgomery County, uses all-electronic voting machines. They work well. Some folks, who are not computer folks, are intimidated by them (and as a result, almost nobody will cast a write-in vote here).

Except for the voter identity problem, the electronic machines reduce the chance of error or fraud. To count the votes, you press a button in the back of the machine, and a tape is printed with the complete counts for that machine. The only votes tallied by hand are the absentee ballots. The count is finished 10 minutes after the polls close.

Most polling places post the printed tapes at the door, so it gets harder to introduce fraud, as almost anyone can check the results. As long as those machines are audited somehow, it would be pretty hard to steal an election through fraud here.

Why did Montco go for the expensive electronic machines? I don't know! Philly needs them more; that's where all the fraud is. What if there's a "Florida" situation in Pennsylvania? All the counties have different voting methods. It'd be a mess.

[wwarner11]

tw, for your information the system used in Florida for the purpose of voting was not corrupt, antiquated yes corrupt no. While it is true that there are dishonest people in politics. The overwhelming majority of the people in government today up to and including the Secretary of State of Florida are honest and law-abiding people who want to give something back to society. You say the punch card system is corrupt, and yet Al Gore's campaign manger William Daley who in addition to that job, is the Cook County Democratic chairman, Cook County has the very same punch card system in place. If you go to the site of the Secretary of State of Florida you will find that the issue of improving and changing the system of voting by punch card that is now in place, is now being actively pursued.You say the court system is not honest. For your information the rule of law is the glue that keeps this country together. To attack this Harris woman's use of makeup seems to me to be very juvenile. I do have a suggestion, on your tombstone it should read "Here Lies TW, Gore won". That will show the world.

I'll let tw handle most of this, but I just wanted to point one thing out -

"corrupt" doesn't necessarily mean "dishonest". It can mean "riddled with errors". When you hear about a "corrupted" file, do you think that means that it's dishonest and mischievous?

Also...

The overwhelming majority of the people in government today up to and including the Secretary of State of Florida are honest and law-abiding people who want to give something back to society.

Do you have evidence to this, or are you really that naive? Money talks, my friend. A lot of them are there for the money.

As for referring to her makeup - how is this juvenile? He wasn't insulting - he simply said she had "big makeup". Oooh. I guess you dismissed (or maybe never even considered?) the fact that making references to subtle details will enhance an argument in a sub-conscious sense because it gives the listener the feeling that the arguing person was paying great attention to detail. Only tw knows why he wrote it, but it doesn't read to me like he was saying "Ooh! Ugly woman! Ugly woman bad! Ugly makeup! UGLY! POOPOO! POOPOO ON UGLY WOMAN!" That would have been "juvenile".

Oh yeah. I have a suggestion - on your tombstone, have inscribed "Here lies WWARNER11, the fucking smartass."

[wwarner11]

Your mad Bush won and Gore lost. Get over it.

Heh.

It's "you're", first of all. It's a contraction of "you" and "are" - it does NOT imply ownership, as "your" does. It implies "you are" - hence, "you're". Example:

"Your a mongrel idiot." - Incorrect
"You're monumentally stupid." - Correct

"You're brain doesn't work for shit." - Incorrect
"Your brain is really just a moldy meatloaf, isn't it?" - Correct

Secondly, I voted for Bush and I'm glad he won. But that doesn't change the fact that your argument, as well as your little smartass remarks, make no sense.

You're incapable of arguing on an intellectual level. Get over it.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Xugumad
That claim is incorrect. If all Florida votes had been recounted - and had the recount been confirmed as legal, then Gore would have won Florida. Go search the web for the results of the AP recount. The press intentionally didn't publish the results so as to not cause 'trouble' during the bombing of Afghanistan.

Sorry, every source I find gives Bush Florida, unless (as I mentioned) you count
over-votes, which was never an option.

This is well-documented. It's not speculation. Had Gore continued with his declared strategy, however, he still would have lost, as he wasn't demanding a Florida-wide recount, merely a recount of certain counties - where the difference wouldn't have turned it around for him.

A full recount would have gone for Bush. A partial recount would have gone for
Bush. Only a statewide recount including overvotes would have gone for Gore. That means that in cases where both Gore and some other candidate (besides Bush) were punched, it would be counted as a vote for Gore.

[tw]

Originally posted by russotto
Sorry, every source I find gives Bush Florida, unless (as I mentioned) you count over-votes, which was never an option.

A full recount would have gone for Bush. A partial recount would have gone for Bush. Only a statewide recount including overvotes would have gone for Gore.

Well that already is in direct contradiction to what The Economist said. The Economist noted one study that said a statewide count would have given Bush the FL votes. Another previous study, using a different criteria reached the opposite conclusion. But then as so many other publications have noted previously, the results all depend on the criteria used. The vote submitted to the Courts was so grossly flawed as demonstrated by no news publication coming to the same conclusion.

For example many votes were thrown out because the voter punched in for Gore, but then also wrote in Gore's name. According to the election board criteria, that counted as a double vote and was disqualified - even thought the will of the voter was obvious. The election system in FL was that screwed up by those running the system.

Another problem: those punch card holesin the machines had to be repeatedly cleared. In counties where Gore was heavily favored, the election officials were never told to keep clearing out the punch out holes. Therefore the Gore voters most often had 'dimpled chads'. Was this done intentionally. Maybe. Maybe not. But the election was corrupted.

Another problem was that the guides for punching were worn and not replaced. Therefore the dangling chad was a common problem in polling stations. That simply meant the machines would reject many votes - more corruption.

Of course 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Who are they? Are they the people's representives or those who also fear campaign finance reform? The election is controlled and dominated by the political parties - not by the people. Political parties are top management. We knew then who the problem was. Its been over a year. Have we fixed the problem? Of course not. We still have a corrupted election system.


BTW, in Abingtion, I was hearing reports that the company who installed all those electronic voting machines was being sued because of voting machine failures. This was a repeat problem. I thought that was Abingtion.


Ironic that someone would mention Cook County to prove me wrong. Cook County (Democrats) and the suburbs (Republicans) love the current corruption. It means each party gets their own people in power - the people be damned. We know those areas are ripe with corruption. So why don't the 'powers that be' address the problem? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to who? The fox is in the chicken coop and has no interest in fixing the problem. Again we see what happens when Democrats and Republicans control the election process - just like campaign financing.

As for that Sec of State with big makeup - her name is irrelevant and forgotten by many. But everyone knows who she is, not by her name, but by all that 'Tammy Faye' makeup.

It was no disrespect to her, although considering her partisan actions in FL elections (after having asked about a job in the possible George Jr administration), she deserves no respect.

[Undertoad]

Yes, AFAIK there were huge problems with the first electronic machine they brought in - so many problems that they switched to a different electronic voting machine for the next year, at great cost. I think what you must have heard about is how they tried to recover some of those huge costs from the first company.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
I'll let tw handle most of this, but I just wanted to point one thing out -

dham, I need your address. I'm going to send you a 3lb can of decaf.