🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:1012gnu8m3o1b26@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Michael Dix" <look@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:401063DF.9050900@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid...
> > Baxter wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Michael Dix" <look@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid> wrote in
message
> > > news:400F5D18.8050900@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid...
> > >
> > >>Baxter wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>It wasn't the Democratic Party.  You're attempting to paint the Dems
as
> > >>
> > > a
> > >
> > >>>villain.  They're not.  Far more damage was done to democracy by the
> > >>>Repuglicans blocking the count than was ever done by anyone's attempt
> to
> > >>>enforce laws on the books.  The specific case you cite is simply a
> > >>>difference between Federal and State law that has nothing to do with
> > >>>Political parties.  In fact, the ruling points that out.
> > >>
> > >>All the countable (i.e. machine-readable) votes were counted. Next
> > >>time, punch the chads all the way through.
> > >>
> > >>The "state law" applied to mutilated ballots, not unpunched ones.
> > >>
> > >
> > > State law applies to all ballots where the "intent of the voter" can
be
> > > determined.  You can turn in a unpunched card with your selection
> written on
> > > it and it is valid and countable.
> >
> > Do you have any reference for that? The only mention of "intent
> > of the voter", from the Florida statutes in 2000, refers to
> > damaged or defective voting cards:
>
> You're over-parsing.  In a hand count, it applies to any and all ballots.
> ---------------
> The Florida Supreme Court in 1917 held, "Where a ballot is so marked as to
> plainly indicate the voter's choice and intent in placing his marks
thereon,
> it should be counted as marked unless some positive provision of law would
> be thereby violated."  Darby v. State, 72 So. 411, 412 (1917).
>
> "No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication
of
> the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board."  Fla.
Stat.
> 101.5614 (5).
> http://www.sonsofliberty.net/florida_supreme_court.htm

Talk about denial. 101.5614 (5) of the Florida Code deals with "damaged or
defective" ballots. No one in the Gore camp suggested that these ballots
were damaged. You are taking a law that deals with damaged ballots and
trying to apply it to non-damaged ballots. An intellectually honest person
would know better.

Florida Case Law, Broward County Canvassing Board vs.. Hogan, says that
manual recounts are not done because of voter error. Of course, they made an
exception for Gore.

"(f) Prior practice before this election, which was not to do a manual
recount because of the claim that a county's machines were failing to count
partially perforated or indented chads. See Transcript of Oral Arg. in Bush,
at 39-40 (concession of Florida Attorney General that no county had
previously done so). For example, in Broward County Canvassing Board v.
Hogan, 607 So.2d 508, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), the board recognized that
"voter error in piercing of computer ballot cards created loose or hanging
paper chads." But the board declined to do a manual recount even though two
machine counts indicated a margin of 3-5 votes. "Such voter errors, the
board explained, are caused by hesitant piercing, no piercing, or
intentional or unintentional multiple piercing of computer ballot cards,
creating what are referred to as overvotes and undervotes. The board
thereupon declined appellee's request for a recount".  Id. (emphasis added).
Thus, before this election, the fact that a request for a manual recount was
based on incompletely perforated chads was considered not just insufficient,
but an affirmative reason to reject a manual recount because the request was
based on voter error rather than on machine or ballot defects."

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/floridahouse.pdf

Intent of the vote Florida had NEVER included a dimpled or pregnat chad.

(b) "Any manual recount cannot count dimpled or pregnant chads. If a manual
recount is done, it should not count a ballot as a vote unless the ballot
left a "clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the
canvassing board." FLA.STAT.�101.5614(5). See also FLA.STAT. �102.166(7)(b).
This was previously determined by the only canvassing board to address the
issue before this election, Palm Beach County, as meaning that chads could
only be counted as votes if at least two corners were detatched, and not if
the chad was merely dimpled or pregnant. See: Petitioner Exh. J. Prior to
this election, no Florida county board had ever counted a dimpled or
pregnant ballot as a vote."

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/floridahouse.pdf