🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:100uq0e88cbo805@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "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.

As Gore's Florida Campaign Chair (Fla Attny Gen Bob Butterworth - D)
admitted, Florida case law does NOT allow manual recounts for voter error.

"(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