Poll: Who can, in good conscience, think that Gore should win, according to law?

[joshdoe]

Says it all in the title.

 

[Valhalla1]

concede.

 

[Linh]

ditto

 

I don't think Gore can hear you...

Deaf moron...

 

[jmcoreymv]

I do, it has to do with the intent of the voters. In my eyes (and I know most people here dont agree) Gore won the popular vote in the US and in Florida. He won Florida for several reasons in my opinion, one is that the 5000 or so votes that the Republicans filled out voter Id numbers on illegaly. I think these votes SHOULD be counted because the intent of the voter was clearly there, however I also believe that the 1000 or so democrat votes that faced the same technicality should be counted too, and they were not. Also, the many thousands of votes in highly african american counties that were thrown out because the old machines couldnt read them, should be counted because the intent of the voter can be seen. Once again, I know not many people agree with me, but IMO the spirit of the law thinks that if you can discern the intent of the voter, then it should be counted.

 

[jmcoreymv]

-

 

[Valnir]

What about the 5000+ votes Gore got from convicted felonies which were cast illegally?? Those are illegal votes.

The Republicans coming in and fixing a machine error to allow more people to vote (*both Republicans and Democrats*) in no way made things any less fair. Just because they fixed the forms doesn't mean they were sure those people would vote Bush.

However if the freaking media had not jumped the gun and said Gore had won Florida we wouldn't be going through any of this, Bush would have picked up an easy 10,000 more votes in the Panhandle of Florida.

As for voter intent. Considering how easy it is to make a dimple in these ballots and considering the final say on what is a vote comes down to 3 bias people, I seriouslly doubt that the voter's actual intent is carried out more than 50-60% of the time. Hanging chads are one thing, dimples are a completely different thing. If they go with a No Dimple recount, Gore is going to lose some 400 votes in Broward alone. Gore is also not going to make up any ground in Dade, since the votes left to be counted are the votes that came from the heavy Republican areas. (*specifically the Cuban areas*)

 

[snow patrol]

Why on Earth are you viewing Gore as a bad loser and saying that he should concede? It's looking like he quite possibly got MORE votes than Bush in Florida - the only problem being that they weren't all counted correctly first time round.

Why the hell do you think these votes should just be cast aside and forgotten?

 

[Valnir]

Because when the decision of what the voters intent was, based on a small little dimple that may or may not have been made by the voter, is left in the hands of 3 bias people the chances for getting it wrong are greatly increased compared to a machine that reads the cards with no bias. If the voter doesn't take any responsiblity for trying to ensure they voted correctly then whats the point of having any standards for counting at all and just allow all the say to come down to these 3 people on what the voter intended.

My question to you is why should these 100,00 ballots from Florida get such special treatment, when there were over 4 million ballots nation wide that didn't register a Presidential vote?? With so many states so close the only FAIR thing to do would have been to count all the votes manually.

 

[jmcoreymv]

The thing is that of the three bias people, 1 is a republican and 1 is a democrat, so they are not democratically biased like you seem to try and imply.

 

[Valnir]

Umm, wrong.

Broward was 2 Dem's to 1 Rep.
Palm was 3 Dem's to 0 Rep.
Dade 3 Dem's to 0 Rep.

Somehow I don't think these boards can keep a neutral view when it comes to making the final judgement on these ballots.

 

[jmcoreymv]

Are we talking about the judging of the ballots? Isnt there an election worker with a dem and a repub on each side?

 

[Tonec]

In Broward, the elderly woman who sat on the left and the middle judge were in my opinion blatently manufacturing votes for Gore. Which explains why they had lawyers sitting next to them throughout the whole process.
I have a hard time believing the this recount is going to be anything more than a repeat for Gore.

No, the canvassing board is not made up of one neutral official with representatives from both sides. In the above cases, the democrats enjoyed the majority in every case.

 

[Valnir]

I am talking about when they had the first manual recount. That's what the board make up was. Even though there were observers, the final say came to the board.

If they do have this next recount, they have to have an equal board with a true Independant being the 3rd member.

 

[Tripleshot]

Don't worry about it. The courts are doing the counting. It is impossible to get a perfect scenerio that appeases all partisons in this. The votes will be supervised by the courts,the method of determining the validity of a ballot will be known from the beginning and stipulated to in the court records.That is the process going on now in leon county,now that Saul has recused himself. Fascinating that a judge that just ruled against Gore today,is now picked to oversee the recount.

Just get on with the counting. If Bush stalls on this or proceeds with more damn lawsuits and stupid arguing about the count,and he is elected by default, He will be known as an illegitamate pres who stole the election with the help of his Brother in Florida.I would rather see him as a clear winner, without question, having won the popular vote clearly in Florida with every vote counted that could be counted.

 

[ride525]

Count as many votes as can be reasonably discerned.

Whoever gets the most when the count is finished should win.

 

[Deeko]

I think he should win.

 

[veryape]

Ive said it before and i'll say it again. Gore rightfully won so why should he concede? If Bush thought he really won he would be the one asking for a recount just to prove it to the people who doubt it. So who in good conscience can say Bush won the race?

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Count as many votes as can be reasonably discerned. >>

This was done on Nov. 7th. And again in states requiring a mandatory recount. &quot;Reasonable&quot; seems to mean &quot;in favor of the underdog&quot;.

<< Gore rightfully won so why should he concede? >>

veryape,

How do you figure this? There have been at least 4 counts in FL and Bush has won 4 times in a row.

If Gore wins, it will be simply because of his tampering with FL law and because he has friends in high places in that state. Will of the People? Irrelevant. The Will of Selected People In Florida is all that seems to matter here.

 

[Imported]

Concede. This has gone long enough now..

 

[DefRef]

Gore rightfully won so why should he concede?

Huh?!? He's NEVER had a lead and has only closed the gap by having cronies manufacture more votes! The only reason he hasn't conceded was because he was obviously (rightly so) counting on the hacks on the SCOFLA to save his butt one more time.

See my sig for the TRUE VOTE COUNT.:|

 

[fragarific]

JOSH, you could say the same thing for the reverse. Who can, in good conscience, think that Bush should win, according to people's accual votes? Everyone knows that hand recounting one time will finally find the true values. Don't try to end this before it's over.

I'm sick of the people who say they're sick of this election. It's called a power button if you want to turn it off. If you say you're sick, don't listen for a while, then get back into it a few days later.

<EDIT> JellyBelly, please list the four counts. I have heard about an official first count and an official recount. Was there even one county that got their hand recounts in? If Bush had agreed to have 1(one) hand recount of the state, that would be the third count.

 

[ckluu]

Why is it that everytime Republicans do their job, it's call partisanship, and when Democrats do their jobs, it's call following the law???
By the way, can someone determine my intent if I did not vote for anyone??

 

[Pennstate]

NOT ALL UNDERVOTES HAVE INTENT!! THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ASSIGN AN INTENT FOR EVERY UNDERVOTE!!!!!

 

[Format C:]

<< By the way, can someone determine my intent if I did not vote for anyone?? >>

Certainly! You *say* you didn't vote for anyone, but you *could* be lying. Obviously the only fair and impartial way to determine your intent is to look at your ballot. Now, if in doing so it is found that you did NOT clearly vote for Bush then it becomes readily apparent that you must have intended to vote for Gore and your true intended vote will be duely recorded despite your feeble and totally transparent attempt by way of falsehoods at retracting your lawfully cast ballot. You cannot lie and get away with it when the evidence clearly disputes your claims.