🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:101000akni8hj9b@corp.supernews.com...
> You're misrepresenting legal nits and parsing terms - which in no way
> support your thesis that Bush took the high road and the Dems the low.
The
> truth is the exact opposite.

I have proven otherwise.

> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:z8QPb.61002$Wy7.44429@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > news:100uq0e88cbo805@corp.supernews.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
> >
> >
> >
>
>