Votes will be counted

[bob]

Votes will be counted. Supreme Court of Flordia rules for Gore.

Clydefo, if the votes are counted they almost have to be added by the Queen GOP of Flordia. The other hand counts were accepted by her on Tuesday. I am sure it is worth $100 to see Gore win.

Not over yet, but seems it will be resolved.

[LawyerRon]

Bob,
The Court only said the manual count could proceed. They did not address the question as to whether the Secretary of State MUST accept the count, ie, "certify" the count. My guess is they ruled this way because they don't know! That's because the law is unclear on this issue. They reached their "narrow" ruling on an issue they believe is within their jurisdiction. The Court's playing games here.

Here's the problem bob: They're introducing human error again for a fourth time. Every re-count produces a different result.

Now check this out bob: Last night I watched a "hand count" in progress; A ballot was held up and a pair of examiners looked at the Ballot; there was a black pencil dot in the middle of the "chad" thingy. BUT, the chad was not punched out, or even disturbed.

So, I ask you bob, IS THIS A VOTE? Or, did the person "touch" the chad and then say to himself, "both these guys are jerks, I'm not voting for either one", and then decided not to punch the chad through?

Tell me the answer bob, I want to know what the "subjective intent" of this ONE VOTER was! What if the chad was broken 1/4 of the way or only 1/2 way? Where do you draw the line bob?

That's why the law says you're not entitled to a perfect election bob, only a "fair" one. The fact is both candidates got screwed out of votes. The system is IMPERFECT for BOTH candidates bob, that's why it's "fair" as a matter of law and our courts have said this time and again.

[bob]

A 1998 Flordia Supreme court ruling on the counting of absentee ballots said that determining the intent of the voters should take precedence over strict compliance with procedural election laws.

If a ballot card has no other marks for presidant then clearly if the chad is disrupted for any 1 canidate there was an attempt to vote. What is so hard about that.

As for Palm Beach this will be the FIRST hand count - stop the 4 X count spin.

All of the GOP lawsuits have been a wash or a loss.
The GOP has continued to try to stop the hand counts and then say the deadline is up. No one is buying that in the courts.

[LawyerRon]

Quote:
"If a ballot card has no other marks for presidant then clearly if the chad is disrupted for any 1 canidate there was an attempt to vote. What is so hard about that."

There is not ONE court in this country that would agree with that statement. That is not, and never has been our law.
You still have not answered my question. All you've done is repeat something you've read. So what. The law in virtually every state holds that the "intent of the voter" should control. You haven't shed any light on anything. You've only experessed your personal bias.

Now back to the real issue: How do you determine the "subjective intent" of the voter? The answer is, no one can. Not you, not me.

Further, you never addressed my first issue as to whether the "new and improved hand count results" must be accepted and certified. The fact is the Court dodged this issue because they don't know themselves.

Bob, you may think I'm for the Republicans but I'm not. I I just analyze the facts as I see 'em.

Sorry, but I don' pimp for either party.

The fact is, one of the candidates is gonna get screwed. I'm just waiting for one of these courts to show some backbone but they keep passing the buck.

[bob]

"All you've done is repeat something you've read"

Well you are wrong there. That was my take on the Chad issue.


"There is not ONE court in this country that would agree with that statement"

Well I disagree, I think most would - given the punch type ballot.


"You've only experessed your personal bias"

You asked me.


""new and improved hand count results" must be accepted and certified. The fact is the Court dodged this issue because they don't know themselves. "

Court knows to wait until the right time to rule. No point in being arbratary

[LawyerRon]

So I see you are answering my question in a roundabout way. You say the court "can" interpret the "subjective intent" of the voter with the pencil mark on the chad. To what degree can they determine this? What if it's a light pencil dot. Or a medium pencil dot.

What you're missing here is the responsibility of the voter. You want to remove that responsibility and excuse the voter for being a dumbass and unable to punch a ballot correctly.

Here's what I believe:
I believe the voter is responsible for their vote. I believe they have a duty to vote the correct way. And if they discover they made a mistake, it's their responsibility to correct it by asking for another ballot. They're not living up to their responsibilty when the wake up the next day and say, "hey, I think I accidently voted for Buchanan".

The law does not excuse these voters, although the Demecrats would like you believe the law will. Under these circumstances, your vote is wasted. Absent fraud, the law will not revist your vote. And if you would like to allege fraud, you've got a very heavy burden to carry to make that argument fly under these facts.

What I object to in this whole mess is the "sloppy" procedures that were followed allowing this mess to occur in the first place. Both candidates have been deprived of a decisive result.

[bob]

"So I see you are answering my question in a roundabout way. You say the court "can" interpret the "subjective intent" of the voter with the pencil mark on the chad. To what degree can they determine this? What if it's a light pencil dot. Or a medium pencil dot. "

Pencils are not used on the punch cards in question.



"hey, I think I accidently voted for Buchanan".

That is not the issue at this point. The issue is not incorrect voter choice. Just if the ballot has been punched for Gore or Bush and uncounted because the machine can not read the card. The old machines can not reject the physical ballot like the other counties in flordia. Many other counties had fast hand counts of machine rejected ballots only. Not possible in the disputed counties.

[LawyerRon]

Bob,
A pencil mark (dot) was shown on the ballot being examined by the two examiners on the evening news. People sometimes use sharpened pencils to punch the chad out, though their not supposed to.

But let's follow your rule with no pencil: The chad has an endentation in it, a deep one. It didn't get punched through. Is this a vote? Or did the person change their mind. You say you can determine the person's intent by carefully scrutinizing the dent.

You can dance around the issue till the cows come home but you still can't arrive at an answer.

See bob, you won't address the "personal responsibility" approach because it doesn't fit with the result you want.

[bob]

"But let's follow your rule with no pencil: The chad has an endentation in it, a deep one. It didn't get punched through. Is this a vote? Or did the person change their mind. You say you can determine the person's intent by carefully scrutinizing the dent."

Change their mind and decide not to vote at all? No I don't think so. A deep endentation is a vote.

Now A small endentation for Bush and a large endentation for Gore does not make a vote for either one.

As for the part of your post about dancing you do not debate the issue as if you were a lawyer.
Where is "personal responsibility" in Flordia law

[LawyerRon]

bob,
OK, a deep indentation is a vote. Shallow indentation: no vote. I hope the examiners know this and are trained to distinguish deep from shallow. Maybe they were all issued micrometers to measure the depth.


Quote:
".....you do not debate the issue as if you were a lawyer".

You're absolutely right bob, because I'm not debating another Lawyer.

Quote:
"Where is "personal responsibility" in Flordia law"

I never said it was Florida Law. Go back and read my post on personal responsibility, I started by saying, "Here's what I believe".


You see, I'm having fun here. If I didn't like you bob, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So, having said all that, after Bush wins the hand count, are you willing to concede he's the legitimate winner?

[bob]

"Shallow indentation: no vote"

I said
"Now A small endentation for Bush and a large endentation for Gore does not make a vote for either one. "

A small indentation is a vote too. I was trying to say if two indentations on same balot it is invalid. If only 1 small or not it is a vote.


"You're absolutely right bob, because I'm not debating another Lawyer."

You may have passed the Bar but that does not make my points less valid.


"So, having said all that, after Bush wins the hand count, are you willing to concede he's the legitimate winner? "

It appears that once the remaining counties are counted and the overseas are counted and all votes are credited - Who ever wins wins. Bush can even call for the remaining Flordia counties hand count if he is behind.

Either one wins makes no great difference to me. I was undecided up to 1 week before the election. I just could not vote for someone who probably messed up his ballot too :)

[LawyerRon]

Bob,
Your point is just as valid as mine. Please realize I always "take the other side". If you were arguing for Bush, I would be arguing for Gore. I like to look at an issue from the all sides and try to understand what's really going on beneath the surface.

I'm calling a truce and going to bed. Take care bob.

[clydefo]

bob,<br>I agree that the FSC ruling suggests that the recount will ultimately add to Gore's total. I hope it will be enough to offset Bush's expected lead in the overseas ballots. That overseas number will be known by Sat pm. Over the next week as the FSC deliberates the appeal from this morning's rulings by the Leon County court, and as Gore's daily numbers climb, it's going to be exciting. Two horses at full gallop side by side down the home streach. My vandalized and weathered Gore yard signs have not yet fallen!<p>I think you are correct that I'm going to lose that impulsive wager that I made in another thread. Three takers so far: the stupid thing expires in 18 hours, and hopefully no one will notice it because they are watching TV or reading news sites.

[clydefo]

LawyerRon,<br>You said, <b>"Now back to the real issue: How do you determine the "subjective intent" of the voter? The answer is, no one can. Not you, not me."</b><p>What is the definition of "subjective intent"? Is it any different than "intent"? It's difficult for me to imagine someone being able to dimple a chad without breaking-loose at least one corner; they must be exceeding rare. At any rate, wouldn't your rule of offsetting errors apply to the human examination and counting of these ballots?<p>Katherine Harris, Fl Sec of St, said that the fact that a hand-recount might affect the outcome of the election is not enough reason to conduct one. Isn't the exact opposite true? All over the USA, vote totals differing by less than the machine margin of error are hand-counted for the express purpose of determining who actually received the most votes. <p>In New Mexico, they settle a dead-even tie popular vote with a poker game, do you know how they do it in Florida?

[LawyerRon]

In legal terms, when Lawyers speak of "subjective intent", they mean you go inside the head of that person and try to determine that person's intent. Contrast this with an "objective" standard which generally asks "what would be the intent of the reasonable person".

What I was discussing with bob was the inevitable "hair splitting" that can happen with these hand counts. Is a dot with a pencil a vote? Is an Indentation in the chad a vote? Did I change my mind and decide not to vote?

What started this thread was bob's declaration about the Florida Supreme Courts ruling stating it was a victory for Gore. His inference was this was a great victory for Gore and the hand counted votes would be added in his column.

Here's what I'm trying to get across here, and it's frustrating because nobody's catching on: These Courts and Judges are playing games just like everybody else. Their rulings pass the buck and don't really decide anything. This is happening because they are in uncharted legal territory and aren't even sure themselves what to do.

Yes, they have the authority to allow the count to proceed. But, do they have the authority add the votes to the Gore or Bush column? THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE! That's the question to which no one has an answer.

[clydefo]

If it is unclear whether the FSC has authority to order the S of S to add the recounts to the current tally, does the court have the authority to enjoin her from issuing a Certification until the matter is settled? Perhaps beyond Dec 18th?

[LawyerRon]

A court can always issue an injuntion (right or wrong) and the parties must adhere to that injunction or face the contempt power of that court. The remedy is to go to a higher court and have them lift the injunction.

The Secretary of State has said she will not consider the re-count in her certification of the election. She will only consider the overseas ballots.

When there' s little or no case law on an issue, the courts tend to engage in the buck passing we are seeing here. There's really no case or statute for them to "hang their hat on" so to speak.

[clydefo]

If later this morning the Leon County judge rules that she is abusing her discretion in summarily dismissing the recounts, wouldn't it be another PR disaster for Bush if she Certifies tomorrow? Knowing that the FSC has allowed the recount to continue in spite of her edict on Tuesday (that they stop), isn't it likely to be a futile official act on her part if it ultimately turns out that Gore has more votes?

[LawyerRon]

I don't think the judge will rule that way. Abuse of discretion is a legal standard requiring certain facts be met. I don't think those facts are present. Technically, the law is on the Secretary of State's side. The law compels her to act. However, the problem here is that there is a "gap" in the law.

Quote:
"...wouldn't it be another PR disaster for Bush if she Certifies tomorrow? "

The inference in your statement is that she's biased in favor of Bush because she's Republican. I disagree. Further, your statement implies that Bush is somehow the cause of all of this. He's merely standing his ground the same as Gore.

[glc]

Ron - you hit the nail on the head. Judge Lewis just issued his ruling. On to the next level.

[clydefo]

She is more than just a Republican, she is his Florida campaign manager.<p>I see that Judge Lewis has tossed it to the FSC. The buck has stopped.

[bob]

Decision:

"/The limited issue before me on this Motion is whether the Secretary of State has violated my Order of November 14, 2000. The Plaintiffs assert that she has acted arbitrarily in deciding to ignore amended returns from counties conducting manual recounts. I disagree.
As noted in my previous Order, Florida law grants to the Secretary, as the Chief Elections Officer, broad discretionary authority to accept or reject late filed returns. The purpose and intent of my Order was to insure that she in fact properly exercised her discretion, rather than automatically reject returns that came in after the statutory deadline.
On the limited evidence presented, it appears that the Secretary has exercised her reasoned judgment to determine what relevant factors and criteria should be considered, applied them to the facts and circumstances pertinent to the individual counties involved, and made her decision. My Order requires nothing more/"

Note LIMITED ISSUE and ON THE LIMITED EVIDENCE PRESENTED, IT APPEARS


It has a way to go. Gore's lawyers messed up in argueing their case. That mistake can be undone.

[Karel]

The buck has stopped, clydefo? Seems to me this judge just handsomly tossed it back...

You can of course correct me if I'm wrong, because for the last 10 days I've been trying desperately to understand this mess.

[bob]

"/she's biased in favor of Bush because she's Republican. I disagree/"

Blocking all attempts for recounts then saying it is to late after she accepted other hand recounts that were on time. I do not know what to say.

[clydefo]

Karel,<br>It looks like the FSC is going to have to make some decisions. Conflicting laws have to be reconciled. I don't know to whom they could pass the buck.

[stylin19]

bob

it does seem unfair, but i'm thinking she has to stick to the statutory deadlines. time always matters. so if they do the recount, they need to get it in by the deadline. volusia did. ( which turns out to be good for Bush) I don't see where she told the county comissioners to not recount. She just said that she couldnt accept them past the dealine.

I'm just wondering, if the dems file 102.168 and cite #2) as ambigueous re: deadlines, do they have a shot to get the recount deadline moved ? Will the courts correct an ambiguity after the fact (if there IS an ambiguity) ? or let the original deadlines stand.



while this whole thing gets sadder & sadder, it IS a fascinating lesson about states rights and how to apply the state law.



[Edited by stylin19 on 11-17-2000 at 04:00 PM]

[LawyerRon]

Clyde,
It could stop at the Florida State Court. The U.S. Supreme Court does not necessary have jurisdiction over this matter. There is a concept called “Adequate State Grounds” that the U.S. Supreme Court uses to decline to hear a case. The Court will look at the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court and if they decide that court’s ruling rests on “Adequate State Grounds”, they will not hear this case.

As I mentioned in previous posts, many people are unaware that the U.S. Supreme Court is a court of “limited jurisdiction”. Basically they only hear cases that involve Constitutional issues. So unless someone successfully raises some Constitutional violation to invoke Federal Question Jurisdiction, they are powerless to hear this case.

[stylin19]

LawyerRon

thanx....

What is exasperating and confusing the situation is the networks (i watch mostly MSNBC..but jump around)
are not telling us the true ruling. we read a "breaking news headline" that doesn't go into true details and we start repeating wrong info. For instance "FLA. Supreme court rules hand recount can continue" is not really what that ruling was. Same deal when the Fed court kicked the repubs out.

I have been watching C-SPAN later at night, which televises (if they can) entire proceedings. it give a better\truer picture of what's going on.

Jim Baker got it right a couple a days ago, when he explained how the dems spun the court rulings, and what they REALLY were\mean (according to him).

[bob]

Stylin19

What is missing in clarity.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/fsct11-16order.pdf

[stylin19]

bob,

thanx....but is this a dirty trick to get me to download & install adobe acrobat reader ? :)

guess i'll have to.

[bob]

It is moot now. supreme court ruled that the FSOS can not certify Saturday and must wait until further instructions.

Next issue is do the manual votes count. Unless FSOS certifies anyways then Clydefo will collect his money.

[clydefo]

It looks like the FSC is taking firm control of the situation. They sure are making their eventual decision easier for themselves by enjoining Harris from certifying the election. The Bush camp has to delay the victory party once again. It's like election night all over again; watching the totals mount!

[troysvihl]

>>Unless FSOS certifies anyways then Clydefo will collect his money.<<

Bob, I really think your not quite getting the bet. We won't know who wins until the electoral college meets to vote in December.

[bob]

If the Queen FSOS certifies then there may be a Flordia constitutional crisis and the electors may not be chosen.

[jessho]

Florida law requires the Secretary of State to administer election laws. (Title 4, Chapter 15) If the law requires her to certify the vote, then she has to perform her official duty. The Florida Supreme Court's delay will give them time to review all of the information that has been given to them. (I imagine it is a large pile of paper.)The official certification can stand if they decide the rules of law have been followed.

[Gintaras]

Originally posted by clydefo
She is more than just a Republican, she is his Florida campaign manager.<p>I see that Judge Lewis has tossed it to the FSC. The buck has stopped.

Need to mention that judge Terry Lewis is a democrat?

Both doing very good thing- to stop that madness that whole world laughing at.



p.s.: To fanatical Dem suppoprters: next time you buy lotto ticket- play with the same ticket untill you'll win.

[stylin19]

ah shoot ! let's just give it to Gore.

from the wash. post

"In one piece of welcome news for Gore, Broward officials announced they would use a more expansive standard in evaluating whether voters meant to mark their ballots for one candidate or another.
They will begin counting indentations by candidate names, not just fully or partially punched boxes. The change could increase the overall number of votes counted, a majority of which are expected to go for Gore, based on the overall election results."

[troysvihl]

maybe they should bring in some psychics to determine the original intent of the voters to stupid to completely punch a card

[LawyerRon]

Hey Bob,
I think that Queen FSOS is kinda cute.

[bob]

Just as cute as Betty Davis was 10 years ago.

I think I saw here before in "101 dalmations" :)

[Edited by bob on 11-18-2000 at 04:41 PM]

[LawyerRon]

Bob,
Are you telling me I have bad taste?

[bob]

Depends on your age. If you are under 30 you may have some type of a complex. :)

[LawyerRon]

Quote from the CNN website:

"As the Florida Supreme Court deliberates, legal teams for Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore are fighting over "dimpled chads." The term refers to ballots not completely punched. Democrats want them to be counted, while Republicans say it's impossible to determine voter intent."

Voter intent...hmmm,
Funny, I said the same thing about 5 days ago.

I'll make one more prediction: The FL Supreme Ct. will not go near the issue of "voter intent".

[bob]

Is it impossible to tell voter intent if the ballot is completely punched out?

The SCOF will probably rule that it is up to the individual counties.

[LawyerRon]

Bob,
That's not what the quote says. Please stop changing the facts. Please stick to the facts. They are talking about "dimpled chads" and ballots not completely punched. They are not talking about ballots completely punched.

[bob]

They could have miss punched.

[Mafud]

Originally posted by LawyerRon
So I see you are answering my question in a roundabout way. You say the court "can" interpret the "subjective intent" of the voter with the pencil mark on the chad. To what degree can they determine this? What if it's a light pencil dot. Or a medium pencil dot.

What you're missing here is the responsibility of the voter. You want to remove that responsibility and excuse the voter for being a dumbass and unable to punch a ballot correctly.
(SNIP)

________________________________________________

We peasants out here in our 4 electoral college votes hinterland, spit on your paper ballots. Yep, in good old "backwards" Doodah, we folks vote by... clicking our heels together; joke!
With.... machines!
GASP!
(We knew 99.7% of the Kansas totals within 90 minutes of the polls closing).
(It takes longer to gather the machines up to begin the counting than it does to count the ballots).

Now what you city slickers gotta do is buy you some of these here sophisticated machines like ours then you'd be spending your time talking about Dolly Parton's *beepers* or Julia Robert's lips instead of who won.

[jessho]

I listened to a local "official" explain that the cards could be restricted from being punched completely due to chads that had accumulated under the card. He said that this would be similar to a hole punch that had not been cleaned.
I thought about this, and wondered how only part of the ballot was punched. If the machine had been serviced, why was only the area under the President section not cleaned? Was this intentional? Maybe, instead, the voter suddenly lost their strength at the moment they punched for the President and regained it for the rest of their vote.