🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:100lql0nfisuv40@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:PZpOb.9824$2o2.6894@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Russell Senior" <seniorr@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:8665fac6py.fsf@coulee.tdb.com...
> > > >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Cook <mcook@prodigy.net> writes:
> > >
> > > Mark> Gore never filed the paper work for a complete recount.
> > >
> > > The point is _not_ who filed which papers when, the point is who got
> > > the most legally cast votes in Florida.  If the US Supreme Court's
> > > standard, the obvious one I have just mentioned, were applied, then
> > > Gore won Florida.
> >
> > There is no proof that Gore ever won Florida. None. Of course if you had
> it,
> > you would have posted it.
> >
> Bullshit.
> -------------------
> So Al Gore was the choice of Florida's voters -- whether one counts
hanging
> chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news
> organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any
> chad measure, Gore won.

The NORC study gives a disclaimer that says that their study was not to
prove who won and who lost. The reason for that disclaimer is because the
NORC did not check every disputed ballot.

One of those media outlets was the Palm Beach Post. They said, and so does
the NORC, that they could not recheck every ballot, i.e. the 9 scenarios
that they laid out were with the number of ballots that went unchecked. To
say that the NORC proved that Gore won is a false statement.

"The precinct reports from the counties to the state showed that those
ballots should add up to be 176,446 ballots."

"But NORC's county-by-county inspection of those so-called under-vote and
over-vote ballots turned up only 175,010. Somehow, the counties failed to
provide more than 1,400 of the spoiled ballots statewide."

In fact the NORC instead of trying to count, they ended up using the
county's own totals.

"Volusia County election officials, after competing a hand count that
produced the county's certified results, commingled the ballots they counted
as votes with the ballots they had decided were over-votes or under-votes.
When asked to re-segregate both the under-votes and over-votes for media
review, they should have produced 346 ballots."

"But they delivered 510 ballots - 147 percent more than election officials
certified to the state-for review by NORC."

"In the end, the consortium found recounting Volusia's vote unreliable, so
the county's certified election results are used instead in all the
scenarios of the study."

All of the "Gore scenarios" are within the 1,400 unchecked ballots.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/neverknow.html

> Gore won even if one doesn't count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today
> estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed "butterfly ballots,"

The butterfly ballot was a legal ballot, designed and approved by the
Democrats in Palm Beach County. Both Florida and Federal Case Law says that
a candidate does NOT have a constitution right to a placement on a ballot.
Therefore, the ballots IS a legal ballot.

See: Nelson v Robinson (301 So.2d 508, Fla. Ct. App. 2d Dist.,1974.)

And

See: Gilhool v.Chairman & Com'rs., Philadelphia Co. Bd. of Elec.) 306
F.Supp. 1202 (E.D.Pa.1969), aff'd 397 U.S. 147 (1970).

> or
> the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely
> identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

It is unfortunate that several hundred were wrongfully removed, but those
hundreds do not trump the thousands of felons who illegal voted.

Palast reported on 12/4/2000, that he *estimated* that 7,000 voters were
wrongfully moved because of the felon list.

"An additional 279 were not close matches with names on the county's own
voter rolls and were not notified. Of the 3,258 names on the original list,
therefore, the county concluded that more than 15 percent were in error. If
that ratio held statewide, no fewer than 7,000 voters were incorrectly
targeted for removal from voting rosters."

AND

"In the 10 counties contacted by Salon, use of the central voter file seemed
to vary wildly. Some found the list too unreliable and didn't use it at all.
But most counties appear to have used the file as a resource to purge names
from their voter rolls, with some counties making little -- or no -- effort
at all to alert the "purged" voters. Counties that did their best to vet the
file discovered a high level of errors, with as many as 15 percent of names
incorrectly identified as felons."

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html

Apparently, the ratio did not hold up. While Palast contacted only 10
counties, The Palm Beach Post did a study that included all counties. They
found that 20 counties, or 30% of them did not use the list. That fact
clearly defeats the idea that all 57,700 voters listed were actually purged.
The Post could only find 1,104 were wrongfully removed.

"At least 108 law-abiding people were purged from the voter rolls as
suspected criminals, only to be cleared after the election. DBT's computers
had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of cases they did not
share the same name, birthdate, gender or race. One Naples man was told he
couldn't vote because he was linked with a felon still serving time in a
Moore Haven prison."

"Florida officials cut from the rolls 996 people convicted of crimes in
other states, though they should have been allowed to vote. Before the
election, state officials said felons could vote only if they had written
clemency orders, although most other states automatically restore voting
rights to felons when they complete their sentences. This policy conflicted
with a 1998 court ruling that said Florida had "no authority" to deny civil
rights to those who had them restored in other states. After the election,
the state changed its policy."

Source: The Palm Beach Post, Felon Purge Sacrificed Innocent Voters,
5/27/2001

See: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm

The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,643 felons
illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68% Democrat. Do the
math and you will see that Gore benefited from these illegal votes by a net
of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats the claim of 1,104 by the
Palm Beach Post.

Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
5/28/2001

This was the original link,
http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/today/news_1.html

Here is another.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Gore-2004-Community/message/11378?source=1

> Gore won even if there's no adjustment for George W. Bush's windfall of
> about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where
lax
> standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to
> Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the
Washington
> Post and the New York Times.

Their study is false, ie it is not based in the law.

In the 2000 election, the Democrats were relying on the outdated, or
superseded, Florida Statute 101.62(7)(c). The Overseas Citizens Voting
Rights Act of 1973 does NOT require postmarks. By a consent decree in 1984,
the Florida Election Code was brought in line with the OCVRA via Florida
Administrative Code 1S-2.013.

See: (Robert) Harris vs. State of Florida Election Canvassing Commission

Link to at: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/00-16423.pdf

"This appeal is about counting overseas absentee ballots in a presidential
election and an attack on paragraph 7 of Rule 1S-2.013 of the Florida
Administrative Code. Plaintiff Appellants want us to nullify paragraph 7.
The pertinent part of the Rule reads this way:"

"With respect to the presidential preference primary and the general
election, any absentee ballot cast for a federal office by an overseas
elector which is postmarked or signed and dated no later than the date of
the Federal election shall be counted if received no later than 10 days for
the date of the Federal election as long as such absentee ballot is
otherwise proper."

Notice the FAC say ballots are to be "postmarked OR signed and dated", not
"postmarked AND signed and dated".

From: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/election2000-0a.htm#Lawsuits

The Democrats made the argument that since Fla. Stat. 101.67 and the Florida
Administrative Code 1S-2.013 differed, that the F.S. 101.67 should win out.
The courts disagreed because the Florida Administrative Code was put into
place to bring Florida Code up to date with the Overseas Citizens Voting
Right Act, i.e. Fla. Stat. 101.67 was no longer controlling in this
situation.

For a history of how Florida Administrative Code 1S-2.013 came about and why
it is controlling read the case of Medina v. Florida ECC.

See: Medina v. Florida Election Canvassing Commission

Link to at: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/medinaorder.pdf

"On December 8, 2000, Judge Lacey Collier refused to order the inclusion of
undated ballots, but said that rejection of ballots for lack of a postmark
only was contrary to federal law."

See: Bush vs. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board

Link to at: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/hills.pdf

Those are some of the cases about overseas ballots. Here are the allegations
made by the NY Times.

http://www.carvercodfl.org/articles/NYTballot1.htm>

"Many of the 680 flawed ballots in the analysis of the overseas envelopes
had multiple defects, so the total number of flaws exceeds the number of
defective ballots. The following questionable ballots were found:"

"344 ballots with no evidence they were cast on or before Election Day. They
had late, illegible or missing postmarks."

They didn't break out the late postmarks. There would be a question as to
what would hold a higher value. The postmarks or the sign and dated ballot.
As the court pointed out in Hillborough, the sign and dated is a sworn
statement.

On the illegible or missing postmarks. As I pointed out above, postmarks are
NOT required, so this is a bogus argument.

"183 ballots with United States postmarks."

To disqualify a ballot because it does not have a APO, FPO, or foreign
postmark is a violation of Federal Law.

From: Bush vs. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board

"96 ballots lacking the required signature or address of a witness."

Under Florida Administrative Code, which is controlling, if a ballot has a
postmark, it is NOT required to be signed.

See: Robert Harris vs. State of Florida Election Canvassing Commission

"169 ballots from voters who were not registered, who failed to sign the
envelope or who had not requested a ballot. A request is required by federal
law."

They grouped 3 different things together. As I pointed out, a signature is
not required under Florida Code. Second, to disqualify ballots solely
because the state has no record of a ballot request is a violation of
Federal Law.

From: Bush vs. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board and From: Robert Harris
vs. State of Florida Election Canvassing Commission

"5 ballots received after the Nov. 17 deadline."

If true, they shouldn't count.

"19 voters cast two ballots, both of which counted."

If true, 19 should not have counted.

As you can see, the claim of 680 is bogus. The actual number is far, far
less.

> Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida's voters

Where is the proof?

> anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half
> million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide. [For more details on
> studies of the election, see  Consortiumnews.com stories of May 12, June 2
> and July 16.]
> http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

Your source has been proven to be incorrect. I think you should look for a
more reliable or unbiased source of information.