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

Drudge ^ | 11/11/2001 | Matt Drudge

[Bubba_Leroy]

The democRATS have a poll up on democRAT.com. "Did Bush Win the Presidency or Did He Steal It."

You can Freep, er I mean vote HERE. Vote early and often, just like the democRATS do!

[PhiKapMom]

To add on -- make sure the first mention you make is that Monday is Veterans Day for the Government and that on this day the media is trying to undermine the military's Commander in Chief while at the same time refusing to acknowledge all of those military absentee ballots that were not counted and not putting the military absentee ballots that were counted in the vote totals!

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Whatever else we agree or disagree about, it's hardly specific. I wouldn't have been able to do much better if someone had _asked_ me to write something non-specific.

[KQQL]

Remember this story back in May,2001.
( Proves to me this story is a rehash of what Miami Herald said in May of 2001)

Published Friday, May 11, 2001

`OVERVOTES' LEANED TO GORE

But to win, he needed help of dimpled ballots
BY MARTIN MERZER
mmerzer@herald.com

Democrat Al Gore might be president today if Florida's ``overvotes'' had been examined and counted -- but only if dimples on ``undervote'' ballots were accepted as valid votes, the first statewide review of overvotes shows.

Republican George W. Bush still would have prevailed -- even with the overvotes tabulated -- if undervotes had been counted under more restrictive standards, the review indicates.

The review, conducted by The Herald, its parent company, Knight Ridder, USA Today and several other newspapers, also shows that Gore's name was marked on overvotes far more often than Bush's name -- fodder for Democrats who insist that most Floridians intended to vote for Gore. Overvotes are ballots rejected by counting machines because they show more than one vote for president. Undervotes are ballots without presidential votes detected by counting machines.

The findings produce an ambiguous conclusion to an unprecedented effort to examine more than 176,000 untabulated ballots in Florida's disputed presidential election.

......... Continued at the link below.......

http://www.miami.com/herald/special/news/flacount/docs/068716.htm

[TLBSHOW]

This is going to be good, drudge will blast the media tonight.

[Timesink]

You can Freep, er I mean vote HERE. Vote early and often, just like the democRATS do!

ROFL! You really can vote over and over and over! Just hit the back button!

[Timesink]

Well, I think Sec.2(a) is very specific. If very specifically authorizes the president to do just about anything he wants against the individuals and states that bear even slight responsibility. Including Afghanistan.

[Bubba_Leroy]

When I started voting it was 1% "he won" and 99%"he stole it." It is now 54% "he won" and 46% "he stole it." Way to go Freepers!

[cidrasm]

The premise for this lunacy is really over the top. "Let's count illegal votes, yeah that'll make a story!!!"

I think the media needed something exciting to sell since the War On Terrorism is going too slow for their taste.

[engrpat]

56 Bush won..go vote

[CWRWinger]

"He needs to do the right thing."

The delusional RATS are notorious for not believing in absolutes and the rule of law. IMO, it's hypocritical of them to even attempt to identify what's 'right'.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"very specifically authorizes". Oh boy.

[KQQL]

don't forget to erase your cookies, so you can vote often.

[PianoMan]

I could only get the vote button once, but I'm glad you got it more times. We're winning now!

[KQQL]

don't forget to erase your cookies, so you can vote often.

[hoot2]

"why do 'they' keep beating a dead horse!"

cuz they can't beat anything else....
or can they... Audio

[Dr. Frank fan]

You social-constructivist you.

When we are talking about Votes (=a legal fiction, created by society through its laws), then yes I am a "social-constructivist", I suppose.

The Secretary of State has the final say so. It doesn't follow that she can't get it wrong.

As long as she does it legally, it does.

Now if she were to say "I decided a seven-day deadline was too long - get those vote tallies in within 37.37 hours", she would get it wrong. Or if she said, "Do not include the votes of any black people in your final tallies". Or if she said "Add the number 538 to your final tally for Mr. Gore." Or if she said "crack a raw egg onto each ballot and if the yoke slides to the left, count it for Mr. Gore; if the yoke slides to the right, count it for Mr. Bush."

So you see there are plenty of ways in which she could have "gotten it wrong". But as long as she follows the law as it was written before Election Day, there is no "getting it wrong". The term "wrong" doesn't even make sense; it does not apply to this situation.

Once again, we are talking about Votes here, which are legal fictions created by the actions of society through laws in the first place. The only question of importance is, Who got more Votes (not "ballots")? To discover the answer to this we have no choice but to appeal to the Laws which create those things known as Votes. Just looking at ballots isn't enough. One must look at those ballots in accordance with Election Laws. This was already done and cannot be repeated (you know, because of that little thing known as a "deadline").

[bray]

I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED that PravdABC BS would say that Gore Won if you used their counting method which of course is unconstitutional. Liberals do not follow laws of couse. They will do anything to hold onto their lost socialist power. The Rats are out and are only becoming less and less a valid voice as we prosecute this war. As if GW was going to get a fair break by the criminal liberal media, so they could not continue to beat this dead horserace.

Pray for President Bush and the Truth!

[Bubba_Leroy]

If you have the Internet Explorer 6 you can automatically block cookies.

They have another poll you should vote in too. "Should We Just 'Get Over It'?" You can vote HERE.

[fjsva]

in chicago the democrats are really good at voting.

Yeah, they get a lot of practice voting 2-3 times per election. Even after death.