Patterico's Pontifications

10/17/2007

Stu707’s Letter

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:29 pm



Stu707, aka Stuart Makagon, wrote a letter to the Whittier Daily News (reprinted here in the Pasadena Star News), which reads as follows:

When the New York Times lifted the Times Select curtain, it returned columnist Maureen Dowd to the light of day.

The angry left’s maiden aunt displayed her work in a tasteless caricature of Justice Clarence Thomas (Oct. 10). She even flayed fellow journalists, ABC’s Jan Crawford Greenburg and Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes,” for daring to depart from leftist media orthodoxy on Justice Thomas.

Maureen Dowd revisited another of the left’s cherished notions – Al Gore’s “true claim” that the Supreme Court “carjacked” the presidency from him in Bush v. Gore. Leaving aside the question of how anything other than a car can be carjacked, Dowd ignores the rulings in Bush’s favor by every Florida and federal court – save the ultra-liberal Florida Supreme Court – that heard any aspect of the case.

After the election, a consortium of media outlets including the New York Times conducted an extensive review of Florida ballots in the 2000 election. They concluded that Florida’s election officials got it right. Bush won Florida.

They even considered the hypothetical results had Florida used any of several alternative counting methods. Bush would have won under any of these save one.

Ironically, Gore’s attorneys had argued in court against that method claiming it would have been unfair.

Stuart Makagon

“Leaving aside the question of how anything other than a car can be carjacked . . .” Classic! I love it!

I actually stumbled across this e-mail on my own, and asked Stu707 if I could reprint it here, and reveal his identity to all of you. I saw Dowd’s column and merely sighed. But it’s nice to see someone willing and able to make her look even stupider than she makes herself look.

UPDATE: Some commenters say Stu707 is wrong. They want to refight the 2000 election yet yet yet again. Count me out. But that doesn’t mean I have never discussed it. I have — at length. I wrote a whole lot of words on this topic a long time ago, here, so that I would never have to write about it again.

38 Responses to “Stu707’s Letter”

  1. “After the election, a consortium of media outlets including the New York Times conducted an extensive review of Florida ballots in the 2000 election. They concluded that Florida’s election officials got it right. Bush won Florida.”

    No, they did not report that.
    If all the votes had been recounted, not only those requested by Gore’s team, then Gore would have won.

    We’ve gone over this before on this site. This time, Pat, you’re simply lying.

    blah (7b03e4)

  2. I hate to see your credibility get carjacked like this, “blah.” (Assuming that is your real name . . .)

    Patterico (bad89b)

  3. Links to Wikipedia and Bugliosi on a political issue?

    Don’t get me wrong: I like Bugliosi. But he’s wigged out on political issues.

    Yeah, where did I ever get the idea that Dowd was a leftist? Now I am being taken to task for it — by a guy named “blah,” no less. How utterly humiliating.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  4. A couple of points:

    Dowd ignores the rulings in Bush’s favor by every Florida and federal court – save the ultra-liberal Florida Supreme Court – that heard any aspect of the case.

    Actually, that’s not true. As far as I know, the only federal court that ruled in GWB’s favor was the USSC. The federal district and appellate courts ruled against GWB in Siegal v. LePore and against the pro-GWB plaintiffs in Touchston v. Shepperd.

    —————————–

    After the election, a consortium of media outlets including the New York Times conducted an extensive review of Florida ballots in the 2000 election. They concluded that Florida’s election officials got it right. Bush won Florida.

    They even considered the hypothetical results had Florida used any of several alternative counting methods. Bush would have won under any of these save one.

    Ironically, Gore’s attorneys had argued in court against that method claiming it would have been unfair.

    If you’re talking about the review conducted by NORC under contract with the media consortium, the fact is that the scenario under which Gore would have won is actually the scenario closest to what the USSC had contemplated. That is, with the ballots being counted again from the beginning (not just a continuation of the existing count), including overvotes as well as undervotes (a standard implied in the USSC holding), Gore always comes out ahead:

    And yet if a statewide standard had been developed in time to decide the 2000 election, it likely would have helped Gore. . . .

    Using a statewide standard for counting undervotes that included a review of overvotes, Gore always comes out on top, the media analysis showed:

    * With overvotes and looking at only cleanly punched holes in punch card ballots, Gore defeats Bush by 115 votes.
    * With overvotes and if the punch card standard was relaxed to count votes with one corner of the chad dangling, Gore defeats Bush by 60 votes.
    * With overvotes and punch chards with chads hanging by two corners, Gore defeats Bush by 105 votes.
    * With overvotes and the most lenient standard of counting dimples alone as votes on punch card ballots, Gore defeats Bush by 107 votes.

    St. Petersburg Times

    Mickey Kaus went so far as to say that if the USSC had allowed the count to proceed, Gore likely would have won. He finds it ironic that it would have been under a standard that the GWB lawyers had actually urged:

    Kausfiles

    Itsme (689e6f)

  5. See my update. I once said all I plan to say on this topic. You guys have fun re-fighting it.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  6. Well, my post was addressed to the misstatements in this guy’s letter. Which you posted.

    Sorry you don’t care to stick around and defend it, but hey … it’s your blog.

    Itsme (689e6f)

  7. I can’t help but notice this, though, from Itsme’s own link. I cite it only because it’s the very link Itsme used. Here is some language that, while admittedly highly equivocal, gives us a suggestion as to what might have happened if the counting hadn’t stopped:

    If the recounts had proceeded, who would have won the presidency?

    The answer is Bush.

    Kinda mealy-mouthed, but there you have it.

    Again, though, I cite it only for the amusement of pointing out what Itsme’s own link says. If anyone wants to really get into the meat of it, they must show familiarity with my former post on the matter, linked in my update. It demolishes the Democrats’ spurious claims on this matter, once and for all, and is my final word on the matter.

    Here endeth the lesson.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  8. I already defended it, at very great length, Itsme. But since you can’t be bothered to follow a link, I’ll just reproduce my entire post here. Then I will go to bed. Good night.

    Don’t miss the discussion of dimples. Brings all the horrors back.

    Tom Maguire thinks he has come up with an explanation for Paul Krugman’s recent assertion that two of three recounts of undervotes would have given the 2000 election to Al Gore. If Maguire is right, then Krugman’s assertion is still dishonest — but in a slippery and underhanded fashion, rather than a blatant and easily disproved fashion.

    That sounds more like the Krugman we know and love! Which makes me think Maguire is on to something.

    Warning: the following post contains some painful resurrected details of the 2000 post-election brouhaha. If reading those details stressed you out then, re-living them today may have similar effects. Pregnant mothers and those with weak hearts are warned that they proceed at their own risk.

    The entire affair started with this August 19 Krugman column, in which Krugman falsely stated:

    Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida’s ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.

    That was just blatantly false, as even Krugman admitted in a correction in his August 26 column. But that correction also raised a few eyebrows, as it appeared to once again deceptively state the results of the Miami Herald consortium’s survey of undervotes:

    [T]he public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald. Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.

    An August 22 column with an appended correction made it clear that the “earlier study” Krugman was referring to was an April 2001 study by a “media consortium led by The Miami Herald.” That column also made the curious “two out of three” assertion:

    About the evidence regarding a manual recount: in April 2001 a media consortium led by The Miami Herald assessed how various recounts of “undervotes,” which did not register at all, would have affected the outcome. Two out of three hypothetical statewide counts would have given the election to Mr. Gore. The third involved a standard that would have discarded some ballots on which the intended vote was clear. Since Florida law seemed to require counting such ballots, this standard almost certainly wouldn’t have been used in a statewide recount.

    Regular readers will remember that I was agog at reading Krugman’s pronouncement regarding the results of the Miami Herald consortium’s study. A May 2001 description of the study’s results in USA Today clearly stated that Bush would have won three of four recounts:

    The newspapers then applied the accounting firm’s findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.

    The paper went on to note that the razor-thin win (3 votes) was too close to be considered reliable.

    At the time, I said:

    I’m just utterly flummoxed. Is a New York Times columnist just repeatedly lying to his readers about an easily checkable fact, even after getting called on it by his public editor? Or is this guy living in a parallel universe where what he is saying is true? Please, someone help me. What is going on here?

    After all, Krugman’s dishonesty is usually the slippery and underhanded kind — not as seemingly blatant as this. I genuinely couldn’t figure out what was going on. I observed, not completely facetiously: “I’m really starting to wonder whether Paul Krugman is looking at a different 2001 study of undervotes by a consortium including the Miami Herald than I am.”

    I e-mailed the indefatigable Tom Maguire for help. He calls ’em as he sees ’em and does excellent research. If anyone could get to the bottom of this, I thought, perhaps he can.

    Tom appears to have found something that, if you twist it this way and that, and ignore several inconvenient facts, offers some deceptive textual support for the Krugman claim. Tom’s explanation renders Krugman’s assertion merely sleazy and deceptive, rather than blatantly false. Bingo! That’s our boy’s M.O.! Tom’s explanation has got to be right.

    The explanation relies on this language from an April 4, 2001 Miami Herald article, reproduced by Maguire here. The Herald observes in the article that numerous undervotes never made it to the canvassing boards to begin with, and says:

    Had all canvassing boards in all counties examined all undervotes, thousands of votes would have been salvaged in Broward County, Palm Beach County and elsewhere long before the election dispute landed in court – and the outcome might have been different, The Herald found.

    In that scenario, under the most inclusive standard, Gore might have won Florida’s election – and the White House – by 393 votes, The Herald found. If dimples were counted as votes only when other races were dimpled, Gore would have won by 299 votes.

    But if ballots were counted as votes only when a chad was detached by at least two corners (the standard most commonly used nationally), Bush would have won by 352 votes.

    Does this explain Krugman’s “two out of three” claim that had me so mystified? Perhaps. Does it make that an honest claim? Not a chance, for many different reasons.

    Most obviously, this is not the way the newspapers reported their findings — it’s an afterthought buried within the articles, based on an unrealistic hypothetical (that the courts would toss out already-completed hand recounts). But Krugman treats it as the study’s major finding. That is deceptive right off the bat.

    Second, the claim overstates the certainty of what would have happened if all undervotes were counted — because the newspapers didn’t necessarily examine all the undervotes. The very same article states:

    Of course, regardless of the undervote reviews, only one thing is truly clear: Precise numbers released on Election Night mask a world of imprecision and chaos.

    Responding to Herald requests for undervotes, only eight of Florida’s 67 counties were able to produce for inspection the exact number they reported on Election Night. Elsewhere, there is no way to know whether the Election Night figure, the number of ballots actually inspected, or some other number is correct.

    Third, Krugman’s formulation is a play on words that describes two standards favoring Bush (“two-corner detachments” and “clear punches”) as only one (“at least two corners detached”), making it seem like Bush won under only one standard. But you could just as easily describe the two Gore standards (“any dimples” and “dimples with other dimples”) as a single standard (“dimples”). With that verbal sleight of hand, you could say Bush won two of three standards (“two-corner detachments” and “clear punches”) vs. Gore’s one (“dimples”). It’s the same thing, but — presto-change-o!Bush, not Gore, wins two of three.

    What fun you can have with deceptive wording!

    Of course, Krugman takes his description from the description in the article itself — but the authors of the article would probably have taken more care to separate out the different standards if they were reporting this as the study’s major finding — which they were not, though Krugman pretends they were (assuming Maguire is right to assume this article is the basis of Krugman’s assertion).

    But Krugman’s most obnoxious claim is the one that gets the blood boiling the most when you finally understand the chutzpah of his assertion. That is his claim that the standard under which Bush won an undervote recount is an unreliable standard that “almost certainly wouldn’t have been used in a statewide recount.” This is the very same standard described by the Miami Herald as “the standard most commonly used nationally.” Interesting. Krugman doesn’t mention that.

    The obvious question is: why would the most common nationwide standard be one that “almost certainly” wouldn’t have been used in a statewide recount? Brace yourself. According to Krugman, it’s because it that standard, the two-corner standard, “would have discarded some ballots on which the intended vote was clear.”

    Clear?? These are dimples, folks. Dimples!

    Dimples aren’t clear.

    First, let’s remember why those undervotes never made it to the canvassing boards to begin with. From an April 5, 2001 Miami Herald article, reproduced by Maguire here:

    Consistency was hard to come by. Piles of dimpled ballots never made it to the canvassing boards for scrutiny because elections workers and observers agreed among themselves that they contained no valid votes.

    So this treasure trove of votes — including a significant number where the voters’ intent was supposedly “clear” according to Krugman — consisted of ballots that, elections workers and observers from both political parties agreed, showed nothing.

    Clear, indeed.

    At the risk of giving you flashbacks that may send you into paroxyms of rage once again, let’s take a very close look at just how “clear” dimples are. All we need to do is consult the very same April 5, 2001 Miami Herald story we just quoted. This is where it gets ugly, and the bad, bad memories start to resurface. Remember, as you read this, that Krugman is saying dimpled ballots can be “clear”:

    [A]s the recount battle went to court again and again, and the canvassing board members saw dimpled ballot after dimpled ballot, the basis for judging a vote evolved.

    In both counties, board members started looking at the whole ballot rather than just the presidential chad in an effort to determine voter intent. In Palm Beach, the canvassing board counted dimples as votes if the rest of the ballot bore similar marks instead of clean punches.

    Generally there had to be some pattern that this was how the person voted,” said Judge Charles Burton, the chairman of the Palm Beach board. “Out of 22 votes if you just had two little dings, we wouldn’t necessarily count that.”

    Broward canvassing board members Robert W. Lee and Gunzburger tended to view a dimple as a vote if there were other marks on the ballot for candidates of the same party. Lee, a Democrat and county court judge, even made a list showing which punch-card numbers corresponded to Democrats and which ones corresponded to Republicans. A quick glance at the list and the ballot would show whether the voter appeared to choose a straight ticket.

    “There had to be a pattern of two or three dimples in the Democratic field for me to feel comfortable to count a dimple for Gore,” Lee said.

    . . . .

    Even canvassing board members acknowledge they could not be 100 percent consistent over the long days. “I’m sure there’s a few [ballots] in there now that if I went back and looked, I’d say these are votes, and if I went through the votes, I’d say some are not votes,” Burton said.

    Take a deep breath, folks — we’re still not done:

    The order in which ballots came before the canvassing board was another variable. If the board saw a dimpled ballot and called it for Gore, they might call the next dimpled ballot for Bush. But if a similar ballot came three hours later, it might be discarded.

    “At 10 a.m. a person might be a little more conservative, and by 10 p.m they may be a little more liberal,” said LeMieux of the Broward GOP.

    Oh my God. Are you remembering the horror of watching this all unfold? It’s all coming back to me, and it’s not pleasant.

    So why am I putting you through this pain? Yes, I’m being cruel — but there’s a reason: we all need a reminder of just how “clear” voter intent is when punch-cards are merely dimpled — and why the Supreme Court was dead right to find an equal protection violation due to the standardless recounts at issue in Bush v. Gore. When the people responsible for counting the votes “tended to” view dimples as votes depending upon their subjective analysis of other votes on the card; when they say things like “we wouldn’t necessarily count that”; when they say that a ballot they would have counted as a vote on one day, they wouldn’t have counted as a vote the next; when the standards evolve while the count is going on — well, then, Mr. Krugman, that is not what I call “clear.”

    True, you could have had a recount that simply chose a standard (for example, any mark on a chad) and counted ballots that way. But doing that doesn’t mean that the voter’s intent on a dimpled ballot would be “clear.” And, even applying such a seemingly unmalleable standard wouldn’t necessarily get you consistent results. As the same story acknowledges:

    Adding pressure on boards was the inherent difficulty of assessing punch cards. A chad is no bigger than a freckle. A dimple to one person can be a shadow to another.

    Tom Maguire’s valiant efforts notwithstanding, I have yet to see a scenario under which Krugman can be fairly said to have represented truthfully the results of the 2001 undervote recount. If Maguire has truly found the basis of Paul Krugman’s statement, it merely reveals another scenario under which Krugman is being dishonest. Indeed, this scenario involves multiple new layers of Krugman dishonesty. You can peel that onion all night long and never finish the job.

    Of course, all it would take would be one e-mail from the public editor or Krugman himself, and we could end this game of speculation over where Paul Krugman gets his facts. Whaddya say, guys? Can you solve the mystery for us?

    Patterico (bad89b)

  9. Why thank you, I actually was aware of what that article said. And I had no problem linking to it.

    Because the point I was including appears a little farther down.

    It had to do with what would happen if a full statewide, from the beginning recount happened that included overvotes as well as undervotes.

    You see, all those other scenarios only included undervotes. Yeah, I’m pretty sure you do see that, ’cause it had a big red arrow next to it:

    Bush would have won any hand recount that did not count overvotes.

    Now, we know that if there had been time for the USSC’s order to be carried out, the recount would not have “continued,” it would have started over completely, with uniform standards.

    And, as most likely contemplated by the USSC as well as the Florida judge preparing the standards, it would have included overvotes as well as undervotes. Meaning Gore would have won.

    Of course Mickey Kaus seems to believe it would have happened anyway. But I know you don’t think very highly of him.

    Disingenuity doesn’t serve your argument well.

    Itsme (689e6f)

  10. I said you didn’t care to defend a letter you posted.

    And I did read your link. Thanks.

    Itsme (689e6f)

  11. Itsme – Very deceptive interpretation and quoting in your comment from the St. Pete Times article, which concludes Bush won under the recounts. From the article:
    Under the conditions set by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush began Dec. 9, the day of the recount, 195 votes ahead of Gore. The state’s highest court had reduced the Republican’s state-certified 537-vote advantage by adding in the results of completed recounts in Palm Beach County and in 139 precincts in Miami-Dade.

    Based on the NORC review, Gore never would have gotten closer to Bush than those 195 votes.

    If the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the frantic counting under way that remarkable Saturday, Bush would have increased his lead to 493 votes, the media analysis shows.

    While Gore would have gained 3,010 votes under the recount standards that likely would have been used by the individual counties, Bush would have gained 3,308 votes.

    When you get into the fantasy scenarios of counting spoiled ballots is where you pulled your conclusions and ignored the overall gist of the article. The Supreme Court decision emphasized the equal protection of voters, something Gore and his lawyers could not come up with a plan to do. The Sepremes merely threw it back to the state. Your man lost because the voters decided.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  12. Deception and bad pull quoting seem to be par for the course for you Itsme. I guess like Greenwald, you bear watching. Credibility is not one of your strong points with comments like yours above.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  13. P #9:

    To address your post republished here, let me just say, first, it seems only to talk about the review done by the Miami Herald consortium. The letter you posted referred to the findings of the larger consortium that included the New York Times, and that is what I referred to.

    Second, I don’t see anyplace where you discuss the scenario of a recount that includes overvotes, which is what the media consortium/NORC review posited. And which is what I was discussing.

    And when I say you didn’t care to stick around to defend the letter, I mean that you didn’t defend it against this point as far as I can tell.

    You seem to be rebutting an argument I have not made.

    Nor did you defend what I believe were misstatement of the results of the federal cases. But I guess maybe we agree on that then.

    Itsme (689e6f)

  14. Second, I don’t see anyplace where you discuss the scenario of a recount that includes overvotes, which is what the media consortium/NORC review posited. And which is what I was discussing.

    Yeah, Patterico. You also didn’t analyze the outcome if all the Unicorn votes had been counted, or if the election had fallen on National Opposite Day (where the winner would be the loser), or if people with the middle name of “Beatrice” had been allowed to vote 3 times! You’ve simply stuck to the facts!

    It’s hardly fair to say you’ve covered the topic unless and until you address all the fantastic, invalid-under-the-law scenarios any nutjob can think of which might have eked out a Gore victory.

    Shad (ed8abc)

  15. Counting overvotes? Why the heck would anyone do that? Which way would you count them? Assume straight-party voting?

    You can’t tell me that’s fair.

    Rob Crawford (c55962)

  16. Nor did you defend what I believe were misstatement of the results of the federal cases. But I guess maybe we agree on that then.

    I thought he mentioned “the case” and then you cited other cases.

    Second, I don’t see anyplace where you discuss the scenario of a recount that includes overvotes, which is what the media consortium/NORC review posited. And which is what I was discussing.

    I don’t see anyplace where you prove that overvotes are typically counted in recounts. That evidence is . . .?

    I’ll just throw that question out there like chum in the water and let you sharks feed on it.

    And yes, I hold Mickey in high regard, and don’t appreciate even a sarcastic remark suggesting I don’t — but he and I disagree at times.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  17. According to the State of Florida, 46,000 New York snowbirds were registered in both New York and Florida; many of them voted in both states in the 2000 election.

    Empire State voters picked Gore by 62.4% compared to 36.5% for Bush. If the dual voters chose at the same rate, and if just 5% of the 46,000 dual-registered voters actually cast ballots in both states, then that amounted to an additional 2059 votes for Gore and 840 votes for Bush, a swing of 1219 votes in Gore’s favor.

    aunursa (f365f4)

  18. Basically, anyone who thinks Gore won the election is incredibly stupid, insane, or blindly partisan.

    One point I never see made is that Chicago used punch cards like Florida before, during, and after 2000, yet I don’t see the notoriously corrupt Chicago election results challenged. Remember the dead vote Democrat in Chicago.

    PCD (b47ba5)

  19. Since PCD brought up Chicago: Bill Daley was Gore’s campaign manager in Florida. Democrats find it utterly incredible that a Daley could not “produce” 5,000 votes to put Gore over the top. It was a humiliation for Bill Daley, too. He had to leave Chicago and go live in New York for a while. 😉

    nk (6e4f93)

  20. nk, I always found that funny…

    They sent a Daley to make sure the votes were ocunted fairly. Oh the irony!

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  21. EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

    By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER (NYT) 2527 words
    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.

    I can’t reproduce the entire 2527 word article that appeared in the NY Times in 2001. But the above summary of the article was prepared by the NY Times. Due to the age of the article you will have to buy it from their archives if you want to read it.

    Stu707 (adbb5a)

  22. Patterico;

    I thought you were done with the subject of who woulda’ won?

    I guess your position is; if Bush was gonna win anyway, the Supremes did the right thing with their ‘one time only’ dalliance. Is that your ‘magic bullet’ of jurisprudence?

    Semanticleo (f46d18)

  23. Choice quote from the USA Today article:

    “Because Gore fought for the lenient standard, it may be more difficult now for Democrats to argue that the election was lost in the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court rather than the voting booths of Florida.”

    Ahhhh… if wishes were horses.

    DubiousD (911d3b)

  24. Stu707:

    Can you give me a date on that NYT piece?

    DubiousD (911d3b)

  25. These mental masrurbations by the left about the outcome of the 2000 election gave rise to the very appropriate term, Miss Havisham Democrats. You would have thought all the skin on their dicks had rubbed off by now, but some are clearly still enjoying the self abuse.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  26. #25 DubiousD

    November 12, 2001

    Cut and paste the title into the NYT’s search line (the post ’81 catagory).

    Or here’s a link…

    :)

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  27. Stu707,

    I liked your letter. Well done.

    DRJ (67ced6)

  28. I don’t care who would have won if the recount had proceeded. The only way to ensure fairness and avoid partisan cheating is by conscientiously following the rules that are put in place before the election. By those rules, George Bush won the election. The Florida Supreme Court overturned those rules in order to throw the election to Gore, and by that unbelievably corrupt action, created a national political disaster that still poisons political discourse seven years later.

    If the Florida state legislature cared about the law and about democracy then those justices would have been impeached within a week of having made the decision. The fact that they have escaped all consequences for trying to steal a presidential election is a black eye for Florida.

    Doc Rampage (ebfd7a)

  29. A bit off the topic, but still germane: how does one determine which candidate gets an overvote? If, say, all the overvotes are for Gore, then it goes into the Gore column?

    Additionally, how does one determine when/if the voter’s intentions are “clear”? A friend of mine is a staunch Republican, but detested Ronald Reagan. Her 1980 ballot would have been quite a sight to a recounter.

    Viktor (6c107f)

  30. Thanks, DRJ.

    Stu707 (adbb5a)

  31. P #17:

    I thought he mentioned “the case” and then you cited other cases.

    I see your point. But because he mentioned “rulings in Bush’s favor by every Florida and federal court,” and there was only one lower state court case that led to Bush v. Gore(Gore v. Harris), and no lower federal cases at all, I assumed he meant all the cases.

    ——————————————-

    Second, I don’t see anyplace where you discuss the scenario of a recount that includes overvotes, which is what the media consortium/NORC review posited. And which is what I was discussing.

    I don’t see anyplace where you prove that overvotes are typically counted in recounts. That evidence is . . .?

    I think that’s pretty much a nonanswer to my post.

    You had posted a letter that made claims about the NORC review of ballots, and the various scenarios the review looked at.

    I made a point about a scenario under the NORC review that included overvotes.

    You “defended” the letter with a link and then a post that talked not about the NORC review but the Miami Herald review, and discussed my point about the overvotes not at all.

    Say what you want, but it wasn’t a “defense” that responded to my points.

    As to whether overvotes are “typically counted in recounts,” I don’t know why it would matter to this discussion.

    The point was that, given the GWB arguments, the implications in the USSC holding, and the comments of the Florida judge setting the standards under the FSC order, the scenarios that included counting overvotes in a full statewide recount (either under the USSC or FSC order) may possibly have been the most likely scenarios of all. Not just one highly unlikely scenario low on the scale of possibilities.

    And that was the point I was trying to make in response to the letter.

    ————————————-

    I’ll just throw that question out there like chum in the water and let you sharks feed on it.

    And yes, I hold Mickey in high regard, and don’t appreciate even a sarcastic remark suggesting I don’t — but he and I disagree at times.

    And I don’t appreciate being called a “shark.”

    This letter made very particular claims. I don’t know why you posted it if you are going to insult people who respond to it.

    Itsme (77c7e1)

  32. Viktor #30:

    A bit off the topic, but still germane: how does one determine which candidate gets an overvote? If, say, all the overvotes are for Gore, then it goes into the Gore column?

    Additionally, how does one determine when/if the voter’s intentions are “clear”? A friend of mine is a staunch Republican, but detested Ronald Reagan. Her 1980 ballot would have been quite a sight to a recounter.

    I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the NORC review didn’t attempt to determine whether a particular ballot should be counted for a particular candidate (I think the media consortium interpreted the data).

    I’d guess the types of ballots counted as overvotes where the intent of the voter is clear would include ballots where the voter marked an oval and also wrote in the name of the candidate, or where the ballot was rejected by a scanner because of a stray mark of some sort.

    Itsme (77c7e1)

  33. PS to Viktor:

    I looked it up, and I need to correct my prior about NORC not determining whether a particular ballot went for a particular candidate (which wouldn’t make sense). Here’s the way it worked:

    NORC compiled 17.5 million pieces of information into two primary data sets. One is a ballot-level database (the raw database) that contains information on every chad or candidate space on every ballot across the 67 counties. This file does not attempt to align candidate information across ballots; it simply reflects the reality of the disparate ballot designs used throughout the state of Florida.

    The second is an aligned database that does reconcile every coder’s information for every ballot for each presidential and U.S. Senate candidate. This file contains the first processing step necessary to facilitate comparison of the codings for each candidate regardless of his or her various ballot positions across the state. The raw database is the definitive historical archive of every mark on the uncertified ballots. The aligned file is an analyst’s tool, presenting only the markings related to the various candidate positions on each county’s ballot.

    U Chicago Chronicle

    Hope that’s helpful.

    Itsme (77c7e1)

  34. “I don’t care who would have won if the recount had proceeded. The only way to ensure fairness and avoid partisan cheating is by conscientiously following the rules that are put in place before the election. By those rules, George Bush won the election.”

    The law said that the courts should decide. Those were the rules.

    blah (7b03e4)

  35. blah – The only place where that assessment holds any sway is in your head, and in the DU threads.

    JD (ba4c77)

  36. Yes, the courts should decide, by following the laws as writen.

    Not ignoring them entirely as was done by the state Supreme Court.

    That little fact escapes you, doesn’t it…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  37. Scott Jacobs #37:

    Yes, the courts should decide, by following the laws as writen.

    Not ignoring them entirely as was done by the state Supreme Court.

    Which laws were those, exactly?

    Itsme (77c7e1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3460 secs.