Gore edged ahead of Bush under all the scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide

Drudge ^ | 11/11/2001 | Matt Drudge

[HapaxLegamenon]

APCNNNYTWASHPOSTLATIMESNEWSDAYCHICAGOTRIB will splash in Monday editions an election review...

I do believe APCNNNYTWASHPOSTLATIMESNEWSDAYCHICAGOTRIB were the ones that said "Gore Wins Florida... No wait, Bush Wins Florida, ... Wait ... uh ... uh

[ConsistentLibertarian]

People are getting pretty worked up here over trivia. If the media reported that the price of eggs had gone up in Bolivia, I predict one wouldn't see the same sort of response on FR.

[cardinal4]

I demand a recount of the recount of the..uh..umm....

[Timesink]

Well, when do they start counting all the undervotes and overvotes in the other 49 states? It seems to me if they are going to go with this, they should do them ALL, right?

DING DING DING! Howlin wins Most Important Point of the Night Award! There were several other states where the results were just as close as in Florida, except Gore was declared the victor in those states. The Bush campaign decided NOT to contest those results, because they knew it would take the mess we were already in and just make it four or five times worse.

Thus, anyone who is really interested in knowing The Truth about who won, MUST put the ballot in those states through the same review process as the Florida ballots. Anyone who is not willing to do this is not interested in The Truth; they are only interested in Gore winning.

[cardinal4]

undervotes,yeah thats it undervotes.....

[ConsistentLibertarian]

A war? Does GW think he's waging war without a declaration from Congress? Do you?

[Bubba_Leroy]

You left one out of the series.

[ladyinred]

With all due respect, there is a reason why Congress didn't declare war, and it is valid, and sensible, and has been posted on this forum before.

[Timesink]

Prediction: If, God forbid, any terrorist act occurs tomorrow, or if some major ground offensive begins in Afghanistan that's been planned for weeks, the liberals will claim Bush did it to divert media attention.

[kcvl]

They're trying to tell me that they know exactly how this vote should be counted? If the people voting were too stupid to punch their cards that's TOUGH! Bush is PRESIDENT! I worked hard to keep Algore from STEALING the election from him. They can DECLARE Gore winner all they want. It doesn't change ANYTHING! PRESIDENT BUSH IS PRESIDENT! They can go SCREW themselves.

[Cannon6]

So what? Put some ice on it.

[McGavin999]

Oh, tell that to the men and women who are flying over enemy territory every single day and night. Tell that to the 5,000 people who are still buried under the rubble at the WTC. People who would do something like this at a time like this are scum.

[kcvl]

Let's not leave this beauty out.

[Bubba_Leroy]

A war? Does GW think he's waging war without a declaration from Congress? Do you?

Oh, no. It's a police action like ones that the Democrat presidents Truman, Kennedy and Johnson waged in Korea and Viet Nam. Except this one is being waged by a Republican president, so we'll win.

[TLBSHOW]

In order for them to be pissed off, they'd need to be sane first. Over at DU they're jumping for joy, as if Gore's going to be moving in to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave tomorrow morning. They really think this means something.

I wonder how long it will take for them to realize the country is ignoring them, including even 90% of the people who really did vote for Gore.

NOW THAT IS FUNNY LOL

[Dr. Frank fan]

There's no contradiction in saying that Bush is President even though a majority of ballots were cast in favor of Gore

There's no such thing as a "ballot cast in favor of Gore". Until a ballot is legally counted, it is nothing but a piece of paper with (perhaps) some holes in it. By itself this item is meaningless, until it is converted into a Vote via some pre-arranged legal counting process (namely, a Rule determining whether a ballot is said to be a Vote For Bush, or a Vote For Gore, or a Vote For Browne, or a Non Vote, or whatever). By such a process, a ballot may be said to contain this or that vote, at which point it becomes a Vote.

Of course, the only legal process that can be in effect in this case is the one set up via Florida law prior to the election. According to that process, and the Votes which resulted, Bush got more. This is nothing but a historical statement.

using any standard one thinks would have been appropriate for counting ballots at the time.

Well then this converts it into a very weak claim. You are saying there's no contradiction in saying Bush is President even though Gore "got more ballots" using any standard under the sun for saying that this or that ballot was "cast for Gore". (One possible "standard": If the ballot has a hole in it, it was 'cast for Gore'. Another "standard": If the ballot exists, it was 'cast for Gore'....)

I suppose I will grant your point then. It is of course such a weak point as to be practically meaningless: YES, it is possible that more ballots were "cast for Gore", IF "cast for Gore" is allowed to mean anything one wants.

Big deal.

Compare: There's no contradiction in saying that a referee blew a call and saying that the call is final, binding and not subject to appeal.

The difference is that in this case it is not logically possible for the "referee" to "blow" a call (without actually violating the rules). In a sporting event, the "call" refers to some underlying physical reality, which may be checked via instant replay etc., and you are right that the "call" the referee made may be inconsistent with verifiable reality, and yet the call may be made to stand without any rules having been broken.

But in this case the call is the reality: The definition of a "Vote" is a ballot which has been (1) counted LEGALLY, and (2) certified LEGALLY, by the (3) LEGAL DEADLINE. If the Secretary of State certifies a batch of ballots legally, by the legal deadline, as Votes, then that is what the votes are. As long as she obeys the election law, she cannot "blow the call".

The call is the reality.

If you adopt my position, the claim that Bush won isn't hostage to a claim about the ballots that some people continue to contest.

But I don't have to adopt your position to realize this. All I have to note is that statements about "ballots" are irrelevant to statements about Legal Votes. And it is only Legal Votes which can participate in the determination of an election winner.

If you stick to your position, it is.

No, it isn't. Again, "ballots" are irrelevant until they become Legal Votes, in a legal manner, by the legal deadline.

All of which took place nearly a year ago, the result having been well documented, in favor of Bush, the current President.

[Lizzy W]

This is like a bad dream.

[mystery-ak]

Call it whatever you like, my husband(1sgtUSArmy)calls it a war, so do I.

[Howlin]

It's like that movie Groundhog Day; they just keep counting and counting.

[Timesink]

This from other web sites, what fools! "March on Washington this fri. sat. The uprising has begun."

This just in: Latest Photo from the Declare Gore President March on Washington:

Note huge turnout.