Bush won again for the 5th or is it 6th or 7th or 8th time?

[signu459]

Well for all the recounters out there the truth is in.

According to the Palm Beach Post, which is a very liberal newspaper, Bush would have GAINED 6 votes if the count of the nonvotes AKA dimpled ballots had taken place.

Funny how the story was buried and no one covered it???

Here is the story direct from the Palm Beach Post web site


Election 2000: Dade recount would have helped Bush totals
• More on the Florida Vote

By Clay Lambert and Bill Douthat
Palm Beach Post Staff Writers
MIAMI -- George W. Bush would have gained six votes more than Al Gore if all the dimples and hanging chads on 10,600 previously uncounted ballots in Miami-Dade County had been included in the totals, according to a review by The Palm Beach Post.

That result would have been a hard blow to Al Gore's hopes of claiming the presidency in a recount. Before the vice president conceded last month, the Gore camp had expected to pick up as many as 600 votes from a Miami-Dade recount -- barely enough to overtake Bush's razor-thin Florida lead. Instead, The Post's review indicates Gore would have lost ground.

If everything were counted -- from the faintest dimple to chads barely hanging on ballots -- 251 additional votes would have gone to Bush and 245 more would have gone to Gore, The Post review showed.

The review, concluded last week, also showed that the vast majority of ballots rejected as under-votes (meaning there was no clear punch for any candidate) when counted by machine appeared, in fact, to cast no vote for president. About 7,600 under-votes had no mark at all on the presidential column, or in rare cases included multiple votes that defied judgment. Most of the voters who did not indicate a vote for president did punch choices in other races.

But at least 2,257 voters apparently poked at their ballot cards without properly inserting them into the voting machines. Miami-Dade County Elections Supervisor David Leahy said that's because the voters failed to follow directions.

Of these miscast votes, 302 more would have gone for Gore than Bush, under Leahy's theory.

Even if those votes had been cast correctly, however, it would not have changed the outcome of a presidential election that turned on 537 votes for Bush in Florida.

"In other words, Dade was a wash," said Ivy Korman, director of special projects for the Miami-Dade County supervisor of elections. "And, knowing our county the way that we do, that is why we didn't feel the need to do a manual recount."

Gore easily carried the county by more than 39,000 votes on Nov. 7. The certified results in Miami-Dade were 328,808 for Gore and 289,533 for Bush, according to the Florida secretary of state's office.

Counts' results will vary

The Miami-Dade canvassing board abandoned its manual recount Nov. 22 after counting 140 of the county's 616 precincts. And four teams of judges in Leon County were about halfway through Miami-Dade's disputed ballots Dec. 9 when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped all recounts in Florida. No results were released from the judges' partial recount.

The Post's review of all the under-votes is the first of several planned or under way. Later this month, a consortium that includes The Post, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times plans to begin looking at the under-votes in each of Florida's 67 counties. The Miami Herald and USA Today are doing a similar review. The Herald/USA Today review, using accountants, is expected to be finished in Miami-Dade this week.

Because of varying judgments by reviewers on how each ballot is marked and the inevitable human error that occurs when thousands of ballots are examined by hand, results of the reviews by newspapers are almost certain to differ.

Furthermore, experts say no count -- whether done by hand or by machine -- will ever be exact. Computer industry consultants estimate the error rate for counting punch cards could run as high as 1 percent and varies with the number of times the cards are handled.

(For example, results changed in 313 of Palm Beach County's 531 precincts when the ballots were counted by hand.)

In the 37-day contest of Florida election results, Gore had hoped to find a mother lode of votes in heavily Democratic South Florida to overtake Bush. A manual recount in Broward County added 567 votes for Gore. Although it did not meet the deadline, the manual recount in Palm Beach County would have added 174 votes.

The Bush campaign contended the recounts were unnecessary because Bush won on Nov. 7 and in the mandated machine recount conducted Nov. 8.

Pattern in mis-punches?

In the Miami-Dade under-vote, the largest group of marked ballots was the 2,257 cleanly but inaccurately punched cards. During the media review, Leahy, the elections supervisor, demonstrated how many voters might have punched odd-numbered chads, which didn't correspond to any of the 10 candidates for president named on the ballot.

Miami-Dade elections officials assigned only even numbers to the presidential candidates -- No. 4 for Bush, No. 6 for Gore, No. 8 for Libertarian Harry Browne and so on.

Leahy showed that when punch cards were laid over the ballot booklets instead of inserted into the machine the arrow corresponding to Bush appeared to point to the No. 5 chad rather than the proper No. 4 chad. Likewise, the arrow for Gore appeared next to the No. 7 rather than the correct No. 6.

The Post found 1,023 cleanly punched holes at No. 7; Leahy speculates these may have been attempts to vote for Gore. There were 721 clean punches at No. 5; these could have been attempts to vote for Bush. The Post also found 129 more odd-numbered marks that were not clean punches, such as dimpled or partly detached chads.

Miami-Dade elections officials have been aware since November that a small percentage of voters wrongly punched odd-numbered chads. The Post's tally of 2,257 clean punches in the presidential column is about one-third of 1 percent of the 653,963 ballots cast in the county.

Korman said the instructions were clear and appeared in both English and Spanish on ballot cards and machines.

"You can lead some people to water, but you can't make them drink," she said.

Larry Klayman is chairman of Judicial Watch Inc., a governmental watchdog group conducting its own review of under-votes in eight Florida counties.

"These are interesting findings and point to the need for a new system," Klayman said. "The system we have is broken."

Klayman said his organization would intervene on behalf of a lawsuit filed Thursday by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union, claiming that irregularities in Florida's vote amount to a denial of the equal protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Question of equal protection?

Judicial Watch supports the claim that the NAACP and ACLU make regarding equal protection, but it does not support their claim that there is also evidence of racial discrimination in the outcome of the presidential election.

The Post review, however, found that the rate of voting mishaps was greater in black-majority precincts than elsewhere. While 1.6 percent of all votes cast countywide for president were not counted because they were considered under-votes, that rate was 2.7 percent in the 112 precincts with a black majority.

In the 24 precincts where a majority of voters were 65 or older, 2.1 percent of the voters cast under-votes, while 1.4 percent of the voters in the 217 Hispanic-majority precincts delivered under-votes.

For example, in Precinct 513 in northwest Miami-Dade, where blacks make up 96.3 percent of the registered voters, 7 percent (28 voters) miscast ballots.

Thomasina Williams, an attorney representing the NAACP and other civil rights groups suing the state and seven counties over the election, said black precincts in Miami-Dade could have had more problems because they may have been using older, less reliable voting machines and were assigned poll workers with less training.

"Predominantly black areas fall prey to that because they don't get the same service," said Williams, who filed suit in federal court in Miami Wednesday asking that the punch-card system be eliminated.

Miami-Dade elections officials were not available Friday to comment on Williams' claims.

The Post also found some voters used pens or pencils to shade or circle their choice for president. The outcome in such cases was a tie: 23 votes each for Bush and Gore.

Also among the ballots were 24 cleanly punched votes for Bush and 35 for Gore that had not been counted by the machines. One theory: The chads had been dislodged sometime after the initial machine count and during the seven occasions Leahy estimates in which the ballots were handled since the election.

Media review called waste

Republicans are conducting their own review of disputed ballots in Florida. Mark Wallace, a Miami attorney representing the state's Republican Party, said the media's review is a waste of time.

"It doesn't matter what the outcome is," he said. "The fact that we gained votes is fine and dandy, but the things you (The Post) counted didn't correspond with the law."

Calls to the Democratic Party were referred to the Democratic National Committee, which did not immediately return calls.

Staff writer Brian Crecente, database editor Christine Stapleton and clerk Janis Fontaine contributed to this story.

[signu459]

I just thought I would add soem fuel to the fire since none of the recount advocates have responded.

The Miami Herald newspaper reported this morning (Feb. 26)
that even if ballots in Miami-Dade county with the slightest
dimple, indentation or "hanging chad" were counted in Al
Gore's favor, George W. Bush still would have won the
election. "Al Gore would have netted no more than 49 votes
if a manual recount of Miami-Dade' ballots had been
completed," concluded public accounting firm BDO Seidman --
a firm hired by the Herald and their parent company, Knight
Ridder to conduct a private recount.

BDO Seidman used the loosest possible standard in their
recount. Any ballot that "bore some kind of marking that
might be interpreted as a vote" for either presidential
candidate was counted.

And Gore still fell short.

In fact, when BDO applied a stricter standard to the recount
(only counting ballots that bore clear marks of a
presidential vote) George W. Bush actually picked up votes
in Miami-Dade.

Any way you count the ballots, the facts are now clear:
even when you add the 49 "votes" Al Gore picked up in Miami-
Dade to the recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, and Broward
county Florida...

..George W. Bush remains the undisputed winner.

Keep in mind that this latest recount was conducted by an
independent accounting firm -- and not the local Democratic
Party bosses who wanted to control the recount process.

[Deacon]

Anybody know James Carville's email address? These articles should be forwarded to him.

[signu459]

Deacon,

LOL- when is that bald headed grimlin gonna learn?

[Tanked]

The Miami Herald's recount was only a limited recount. They chose to go with a cheap, fast recount of just the "undervotes" in selected counties. The TRUTH will be in the total recount yet to be completed. Some people prefer to declare a winner after all votes are counted.

Appears that, contary to conventional wisdom at the time, the greater number of "valid, but uncounted ballots" were in the overcount votes.

We can just wait to see what a full recount indicates. I am glad to see however that "recounts" are now accepted. Just think how happy everyone will be with a full recount in a couple of weeks.

http://slate.msn.com/code/KausFiles/...idMessage=6897

Excerpt:
... Because the Herald will recount--visually inspect--only Florida's 60,000 "undervotes." Undervotes are ballots on which counting machines discerned no vote for president. The Herald decided not to recount the state's more numerous (110,000-120,000) "overvotes"--that is, ballots declared invalid because votes for two or more presidential candidates were detected. The press consortium will count both kinds of votes. The issue of whether to count both kinds of votes is one reason talks between the Herald and the consortium broke down.

[Tanked]

BTW - Should have mentioned in previous post that President Bush did give an excellent speech this evening.

Except for a couple of lines - could of been a Democrats speech!

[gregt]

Does anybody honestly think that a recount of the votes at this point (all or partial) is going to be more accurate? It is inconcievable that the ballets would be in better condition now than they were on election night. It is also inconcievable to me that anybody on either side of the fence could expect that a count at this point would not be so filled with fraud (whether intentional or just due to strong bias) as to be totally useless.

[signu459]

Originally posted by gregt
Does anybody honestly think that a recount of the votes at this point (all or partial) is going to be more accurate? It is inconcievable that the ballets would be in better condition now than they were on election night. It is also inconcievable to me that anybody on either side of the fence could expect that a count at this point would not be so filled with fraud (whether intentional or just due to strong bias) as to be totally useless.

Yup you're totaly correct.

[signu459]

Tanked,

i don't don't know that I would exactly call it is aDemocrats speech or even close. He did seem to give away a lot of money, more than I would like. But I seemed to niotice that way more often than not the left side of the chamber was sitting on it hands while the right was cheering loudly. Not to menetion that he said over and over that the money was not the governments it was the poeples and that we know how to spend our money better than they do. That is definitely not a demo theme.

I love Dashels response, how can that guy get up and lie so much on national TV?

[Northern Reef]

He still lost the popular vote.

Neener, neener, neener.

[Staceon]

The speech last night was decent. Still felt he was pandering, but heck I feel almost every politican does that. I really wish they would drop the social security lines, it was NEVER supposed to be a retirement fund.

Tim LMAO about Dashel, man its hard to stomach that stuff.

You know what I would like to see? Just as Parliament does...a Q&A with the pres. That aint goanna happen.

[signu459]

Originally posted by Northern Reef
He still lost the popular vote.

Neener, neener, neener.

He is still the president

Neener, neener, neener

Staceon,

Dashel would have you think that the 80's were the worst economy in the history of the world. He said that we had double digit inflation and interest rates, he was right, Reagan inherited them from Carter. By the time Reagan left office both were well in check, but Dashel tried to blame it on Reagan. Yes we also had a deficiate when reagan left, but Reagan DOUBLED federal revenue fromn 515 billion to over 1 trillion in his eight years due to his tax cuts. Congress promised Reagan a $2 cut in spending for every $1 cut in taxes- guess what they never did it. I also want to remind Sen dashel who was in charge of both houses in congress during the 80's- the Dem's. And who was it that sent every Reagan budget back to him like a Mark Mcguire home run, the dems again. Now if revenue was doubled over 8 years, but congress out spent it whos fault is it? Yes I know defense spend was way up, but look at the end result? No more USSR what a bargin that was.

Mr dashel, take your lies abck to South dakota, find a shack in the woods and don't come back until you have mastered the truth. BTW you're not allowed to mail anythig either.

[Staceon]

Hey Tim,

You know when I was listening to Dashel I began to wonder "does he really believe what he is saying, or is he saying what he thinks the people want to hear". I am coming to the conclusion that he actually does believe it. Its simply easier to believe that stuff than do the research, and you said, discover the TRUTH.

[Tanked]

Latest installment

http://www.miami.com/herald/special/...ocs/032868.htm

Headline reads that Bush would have won recount of undervotes ------ however, says that Gore would have won using the strict standard.

"Indeed, in one of the great ironies of the bitter 2000 election, Bush's lead would have vanished only if the recount had been conducted under severely restrictive standards advocated by some Republicans."

More interesting is the following:

"There is some ammunition in the review for Gore supporters -- though it requires calling into question the manual recounts in Broward and Palm Beach counties."

"The review found that canvassing boards in those counties discarded hundreds of ballots that bore marks no different from those on scores of ballots that were accepted as valid presidential votes."

"Had those ballots instead been counted as valid votes, allowing dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads, Gore would be in the White House today."

Does above mean a little hanky panky or just incompetence? I'll bet Jeb will want to investigate fully.

So either way - strict recount and Gore wins or looser standard with accurate recounts in Broward and Palm Beach and Gore wins.

OK - I'll go with the strict recount advocated by Republicans. Gore wins by only three votes. But then again, the margin of victory doesn't matter. By 3 vote in FL and over 500,000 in the country.

Another review of ballots - all ballots both undervotes and also overvotes is to be completed in a month or so. This should be the best and most meaningful recount. Imagine reviewing all the ballots before calling a close election. What a concept!

[gregt]

Right. And I'm absolutely positive that not one of those ballots has been tampered with in the last 3 months. I have no doubt that they've been under the close watch of only the most honorable and trustworthy people that have only the truth in their interests.

Any recount (unless there has been fraud, or ballets not counted at all), especially an un-official one, will be less accurate than the original count. A recount that continues for 3 months after the election is so pathetically inaccurate as to be meaningless. The opportunity for fraud at this point has been so great that I'd be more inclined to believe that the winner of this "recount" was simply the one who's people cheated better.

[signu459]

Originally posted by gregt
Right. And I'm absolutely positive that not one of those ballots has been tampered with in the last 3 months. I have no doubt that they've been under the close watch of only the most honorable and trustworthy people that have only the truth in their interests.

Any recount (unless there has been fraud, or ballets not counted at all), especially an un-official one, will be less accurate than the original count. A recount that continues for 3 months after the election is so pathetically inaccurate as to be meaningless. The opportunity for fraud at this point has been so great that I'd be more inclined to believe that the winner of this "recount" was simply the one who's people cheated better.

Once again you are right on target!!!

[Joez]

Where's that County guy with the bugged eyes that kept taking his glasses off and holding the ballots up to the light? Great television.

The poster a few back has a point. Let me explain it to y'all:

You see, if you count all of the dimpled, stimpled, folded, spindled, and mutilated ballots. Then multiply them by the number of disenfranchised non-citizens who thought they might vote if someone would give them some cigaretes. Then, multiplied that number by the square root of the area of the pyramids at Giza. Then had Barbara Streisand write "dykes" on each ballot. Then did a harmonic convergence over them with the Great Kreskin hermetically sealed in a giant Lockbox. Then had Al Gore's mother-in-law, high on doggy drugs tabulate the results using an abacus with some of the balls missing. Then had Jane Fonda certify the results with the Viet Cong, you would see clearly that . . .








George Bush is the President.

I hope this clears things up.