WR - Was the 2000 Presidential election result affected by any haste in the vote count ?

11-26-2007, 06:06 PM

UFO Future Ship

whore

Join Date: Nov 2007

Location: Oxfordshire

Posts: 28/0.07

Threads: 4

Friends Network

Was the 2000 Presidential election result affected by any haste in the vote count ?

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Having left a reply in another thread, it occurred to me that it might be more appropriate to place it in a separate thread. I don't usually comment on political matters. However the following is something that left me perplexed. For me, the United States of America is the greatest nation on earth. I have always had the utmost respect for it, and still do. The following has not in any way changed that view. It's simply that this moment in the 2000 election process left me totally bewildered.

The thing that stands out in my mind about the 2000 election, was the way part of the television media presented the apparent impatience of the American people, in wanting the election result declared without delay. The most memorable moment for me was seeing a Democrat supporter comment that he would prefer the vote count and declaration to be carried through with no further hold up. I remember how surprised I felt on hearing this. A TV network is always striving to present a balanced view of proceedings, and I'm sure all the networks endeavoured to uphold those traditional values throughout the election. I fully understand that processing those "hanging, torn and spoilt chad voting slips" was something that needed to be done as a matter of urgency. But when the Presidential race was that close, surely wasn't it more important to get the vote count right. Even if it did entail a little delay in getting all the postal votes from service personnel etc, together with the above mentioned "chads". The overall impression I received from the news coverage was that the American people in general wanted it decided quickly. I'm not saying the final vote count wasn't correct. It's just that it left at least one observer (myself) concerned as to whether every single valid vote had been included in the final tally.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lightning Plasma UFO" - One of the strangest UFOs ever seen throughout the history of recorded sightings.

| quote |

Sponsored Links
REMOVE ADS

11-26-2007, 06:50 PM	#2
*michaeljohn* Scotlands finest SuperMod Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Glasgow Scotland Heritage: Scotsman; Pict Posts: 40,348/21.29 Threads: 2938 Friends Network	Re: Was the 2000 Presidential election result affected by any haste in the vote count ? This is now being discussed in 3 threads. I have no comment other than the fact I have stated in the "Gore Derangement Syndrome" thread that all legal recounts favored Bush. Gore wanted to change the preelection rules in an attempt to keep trying to find a recount that favored him. The Supreme court effectively ended it. However, it took a few weeks to declare a Florida winner. Gore also missed a golden chance to win in 2004 instead of going down as a crybaby and a sore loser. See the aforementioned thread. Time to move on to new topics?
	___________________________________________ The 4th Dynasty begins now!! 1948-54, 1979-1988, 1999-2002, 2008-? --------------------------- BAN LIST: CLICK!!
	\| quote \|

11-27-2007, 09:47 PM	#3
fmb bitch Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: SC Posts: 2,435/3.36 Threads: 73 Friends Network	Re: Was the 2000 Presidential election result affected by any haste in the vote count ? Maybe it's time for new topics, but I'm glad to see a newbie posting and threading!! I see why you decided to place this in a seperate thread; also, I noticed you seem to place great faith in television newscasts to be objective and "do the right thing". Unfortunately, many news agincies in the United States left those ideals by the wayside some time ago. I don't think any single news outlet in the US is "fair and balanced" in any way, shape, or form. Also, I'm glad to see a non-US citizens view; being from the UK, you offer a perspective I (we) cannot see....

	\| quote \|

12-02-2007, 01:37 PM

ddoubleez

Test Tickel

Join Date: Feb 2007

Location: houston, texas

Posts: 1,769/2.53

Threads: 78

Friends Network

Re: Was the 2000 Presidential election result affected by any haste in the vote count ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

This is now being discussed in 3 threads. I have no comment other than the fact I have stated in the "Gore Derangement Syndrome" thread that all legal recounts favored Bush. Gore wanted to change the preelection rules in an attempt to keep trying to find a recount that favored him. The Supreme court effectively ended it. However, it took a few weeks to declare a Florida winner. Gore also missed a golden chance to win in 2004 instead of going down as a crybaby and a sore loser. See the aforementioned thread.

Time to move on to new topics?

I did spend about an hour and a half on thanksgiving to answer you and point out a few areas that the media let both of us down, but I lost it when I drilled 'post reply' and I have not had enough time to put it together.....

But:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._p..._election,_2000

Quote:

Post recount
After Florida was decided, Texas Governor George W. Bush became President-elect and began forming his transition committee. In a speech on December 13, Bush said he was reaching across party lines to bridge a divided America, stating that "the President of the United States is the President of every single American, of every race, and every background."[10]

On January 6, 2001, a joint-session of Congress met to certify the electoral vote. Twenty members of the House of Representatives, most of them Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, rose one-by-one to file objections to the electoral votes of Florida. However, according to an 1877 law, any such objection had to be sponsored by both a representative and a senator, and no senator would co-sponsor these objections. Therefore, Gore, who was presiding in his capacity as President of the Senate, ruled each of these objections out of order.

Bush took the oath of office on January 20, 2001.

In the aftermath of the election, independent recounts were conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today, concluding that Bush would have won in all legally requested recount scenarios, and in all other scenarios except for "a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards,” which would have gone to Gore [5].

Additionally, The Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center to examine 175,010 ballots that were never counted in Florida. [6] The investigation took 8 months and cost $900,000.[citation needed] Their results showed that the winning candidate varied based on the method used to include or interpret ballots.[11] For cases where all of their examiners agreed, the nine different recount scenarios resulted in Bush prevailing four times, and Gore prevailing in the other five. Ironically enough, under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won.

And with information like this:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

Quote:

Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud

DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."

| quote |

12-03-2007, 09:55 PM

michaeljohn

Scotlands finest SuperMod

Join Date: Nov 2003

Location: Glasgow Scotland Heritage: Scotsman; Pict

Posts: 40,348/21.29

Threads: 2938

Friends Network

Re: Was the 2000 Presidential election result affected by any haste in the vote count ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddoubleez

So, over 2 weeks after I ask you for the umpteenth time if Gore blew it by not conceding, all you can do is say you lost your post on the 22nd and haven't had time to fix it? All you have to do is say you agree or disagree with what I asked and add a little text as to why. I am tired of the debate over who won Florida. I will not respond to any further discussion in this matter.

Answer my question and that question alone and do it in your Gore Derangement Syndrome thread, I am closing this one. 2000 is ancient history now. Bush won it and legally.

Here is my question one last time, answer it, and it alone. You can probably answer it in a minute or two.

Did Gore miss a golden opportunity to win in 2004? I maintain had he conceded in 2000 and not been a crybaby, he could have built his 2004 campaign on his 2000 popular vote win, and "getting Florida right".

3 threads on this topic is way too much.

___________________________________________

The 4th Dynasty begins now!!
1948-54, 1979-1988, 1999-2002, 2008-?

---------------------------

BAN LIST: CLICK!!

| quote |