4 ms·

You are entitled to your dubious opinions but please do not try to change history. All newspapers agreed that Gore won Florida. What they said was that the Gore

by hristov 14y ago

You are entitled to your dubious opinions but please do not try to change history. All newspapers agreed that Gore won Florida. What they said was that the Gore vs Bush decision would not have made a difference. That is because in his legal case Gore chose the wrong Florida counties where to request a recount. But if all votes were counted, Gore won. And no the electoral college does not exist to avoid deadlock. Do you know what the chances of deadlock are in a popular vote of about 100 million people? Oh and can you show me any documented case where someone gives homeless people cigarettes to make them vote for someone? How would that even work? You know you usually have to register before hand.

spindritf 14y ago
> please do not try to change history. All newspapers agreed that Gore won Florida. That's the funniest comment in this thread. I love the idea of history or truth as something established by consensus between newspapers. I don't mean to say that your conclusion is wrong but your method is somewhat lacking.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  As a response to a claim about what the NYT reported it makes perfect sense.
dctoedt 14y ago
> You are entitled to your dubious opinions but please do not try to change history. All newspapers agreed that Gore won Florida. What they said was that the Gore vs Bush decision would not have made a difference. That is because in his legal case Gore chose the wrong Florida counties where to request a recount. But if all votes were counted, Gore won. Um, not quite; you've misstated the conclusion of the news organizations' study of the uncounted ballots. In a much-expanded recount, according to the Times wrap-up piece in November 2001 [1], Gore might have won in a few possible scenarios, but only by a teeny, tiny margin at best (smaller than the margin Bush ended up with). Even that possibility depended on the different counties' election officials recounting the disputed ballots in the same way that the news organizations' independent auditors did. The Times had endorsed Gore --- as it has every other Democratic presidential candidate starting in 1960 [2]. Yet the lead grafs of the Times piece were commendably explicit: "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. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore." [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html [2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/28/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/28/opinion/presid...
- hristov 14y ago
  From your own link: "But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. " So I am right.
  - dctoedt 14y ago
    > So I am right. Absolutely --- if by "Gore won" you mean that Gore might have pulled ahead, by around 115 votes, and been declared the winner, if all of the following had occurred: (i) Gore had asked the courts for a full statewide recount, instead of the more-limited recount that he did ask for; * and (ii) the courts had found sufficient cause to order such an expansive (and expensive) recount, instead of limiting the recount to specific areas where good reason had been affirmatively demonstrated; AND (iii) in such a statewide recount, the various voting officials in Florida's 67 counties had (x) tagged the same specific 175,010 ballots as problematic as did the news organizations' independent observers, and then (y) reached the same conclusions about those ballots as did the independent observers. * * As explained in the Times article We can never know whether (ii) and, especially, (iii) would have occurred.
  - jmaygarden 14y ago
    If you want to see real election fraud, then look no further than Chicago in 1960 [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...
logn 14y ago
> And no the electoral college does not exist to avoid deadlock. Do you know what the chances of deadlock are in a popular vote of about 100 million people? It might not be the intention to avoid deadlock (I have no idea). But it could definitely happen. You don't need an even split for this to occur, just enough to require a recount, which in a popular vote might mean recounting every single vote in the country which would be a nightmare.
- Evbn 14y ago
  We count them once, what is so hard about counting them twice? And if recounts change counts, maybe we should fix the bugs in the counting system.

by hristov 14y ago

spindritf 14y ago

> please do not try to change history. All newspapers agreed that Gore won Florida. That's the funniest comment in this thread. I love the idea of history or truth as something established by consensus between newspapers. I don't mean to say that your conclusion is wrong but your method is somewhat lacking.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago
As a response to a claim about what the NYT reported it makes perfect sense.

dctoedt 14y ago

> You are entitled to your dubious opinions but please do not try to change history. All newspapers agreed that Gore won Florida. What they said was that the Gore vs Bush decision would not have made a difference. That is because in his legal case Gore chose the wrong Florida counties where to request a recount. But if all votes were counted, Gore won. Um, not quite; you've misstated the conclusion of the news organizations' study of the uncounted ballots. In a much-expanded recount, according to the Times wrap-up piece in November 2001 [1], Gore might have won in a few possible scenarios, but only by a teeny, tiny margin at best (smaller than the margin Bush ended up with). Even that possibility depended on the different counties' election officials recounting the disputed ballots in the same way that the news organizations' independent auditors did. The Times had endorsed Gore --- as it has every other Democratic presidential candidate starting in 1960 [2]. Yet the lead grafs of the Times piece were commendably explicit: "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. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore." [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html [2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/28/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/28/opinion/presid...

hristov 14y ago
From your own link: "But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. " So I am right.
- dctoedt 14y ago
  > So I am right. Absolutely --- if by "Gore won" you mean that Gore might have pulled ahead, by around 115 votes, and been declared the winner, if all of the following had occurred: (i) Gore had asked the courts for a full statewide recount, instead of the more-limited recount that he did ask for; * and (ii) the courts had found sufficient cause to order such an expansive (and expensive) recount, instead of limiting the recount to specific areas where good reason had been affirmatively demonstrated; AND (iii) in such a statewide recount, the various voting officials in Florida's 67 counties had (x) tagged the same specific 175,010 ballots as problematic as did the news organizations' independent observers, and then (y) reached the same conclusions about those ballots as did the independent observers. * * As explained in the Times article We can never know whether (ii) and, especially, (iii) would have occurred.
- jmaygarden 14y ago
  If you want to see real election fraud, then look no further than Chicago in 1960 [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...

logn 14y ago

> And no the electoral college does not exist to avoid deadlock. Do you know what the chances of deadlock are in a popular vote of about 100 million people? It might not be the intention to avoid deadlock (I have no idea). But it could definitely happen. You don't need an even split for this to occur, just enough to require a recount, which in a popular vote might mean recounting every single vote in the country which would be a nightmare.

Evbn 14y ago
We count them once, what is so hard about counting them twice? And if recounts change counts, maybe we should fix the bugs in the counting system.