🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:100mctrn8sje42c@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:ikEOb.58218$gM3.17706@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > news:100lql0nfisuv40@corp.supernews.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
> >
>
> Well, let's address just the first one of your misrepresentations.  Any
> actual reading of your source shows they dwell on minute differences and
> minute error - without ever saying just what the final margin was.  We do
> know that any counting method will have error.  Further, we know the
typical
> Margin of Error for various methods.  While you've demonstrated the manual
> count was not perfect, you've not demonstrated that it was within the
Margin
> of Error.

Let's go back to what you said:

"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."

If you check out the NORC study, all of the 6 of the scenarios that Gore
"supposedly" won were within 500 votes. Link:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/gore_wins6of9.html

As I have pointed out, with 1400 ballots unaccounted for, the so-called up
to 500 vote lead for Gore is within the 1400 ballots, i.e. there is no proof
that any of those 9 scenarios are valid.

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

> Further, your source has an over-reliance on machines - as the following
> quote demonstrates:
> --------
> But a machine sort of those ballots for NORC coders produced only 640
> under-votes and 1,197 over-votes.
> --------
>
> Your source impeaches itself by bringing up the issue but not reporting
the
> resolution.
>
> Still, how do you account for the fact that your source also said:

You quoted an article that used the NORC, now the NORC is unreliable????

> -----------
> The wrong man became president of the United States in January.
>
> That isn't an opinion. It's a fact. History will draw its conclusions as
to
> whether the country benefited from the mistake.
>
> In March, The Post published the most important ballot review from the
2000
> presidential election in Florida. The paper reported that the "butterfly
> ballot" cost Al Gore about 6,600 net votes in Palm Beach County because of
> confusion that resulted in double punches. George W. Bush's margin in
> Florida, the state that put him in the White House, was 537 votes.
> http://vander.hashish.com/articles/election2000/norcpbp.html

So I understand, under Florida Code, a vote cannot be thrown out if the a
canvassing board can determine the intent of the voter. You have posted an
article that says that it can determine the intent. IF they could determine
the intent, why couldn't the State of Florida?