recounts must be done, to be started immediately.

All undervotes for the entire state must be counted if they have not been counted thus far.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), December 08, 2000

Answers

And the stock market PLUNGES...did ya notice?

-- k. (k@a.n), December 08, 2000.

ROFL Kritter

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 08, 2000.

As the token liberal on this forum, I just want to say that I thought today was pretty cool [court-wise.] Lewis and Clark decided to NOT disenfranchise thousands of voters, and the Florida Supremes decided to NOT disenfranchise thousands of voters. [I was particularly pleased that they left out the Nassau County vote challenge...which would ALSO have disenfranchised 197 voters.] I was ALSO pleased that the Florida Supremes said that undercounts in ALL counties should be included. Sounds like a fair day TO ME.

Of course we all know that no matter WHAT the courts decide, their decisions will go up the ladder to the Supreme Supremes, but this seemed fair to me.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 08, 2000.

Revote rather than recount. How can you "recount" a vote that did not register to begin with? This is such a can of worms---chuck it all and have a Gore-Bush runoff for the entire state of FL; no, for the entire country.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 08, 2000.

Nope, no runoff. Loincloths and pointed sticks, that's the ticket!

-- I'm Here, I'm There, (I'm Everywhere,@So.Beware), December 08, 2000.

Anita, "token Liberal"? How about Patricia, Cherri, Doc Paulie, Celia, the feminist from Ohio (sorry, the name escapes me), FS, Tarzan, Brian and a some others I can't recall? I think we're pretty even around here among those who use real names.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 08, 2000.

Lars-

How dare you describe me as "liberal". Clearly, I'm a strong conservative.

:-)

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 08, 2000.

Lars, in answer to your point I sure do hope the SC has also handed down how to do the recount. What constitutes a vote from a ballot with an "undervote"? Also, time is running, tick, tick...

Doc Paulie didn't like my rendition of a Beatles tune:

We're so sorry, Uncle Albert

But we haven't found a bloody vote all day

We're so sorry, Uncle Albert...

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 08, 2000.

Another "token liberal" checking in (and smiling). Interesting day in the judiciary, I see.

And to think just a few short weeks (days?!) ago, I honestly thought I was "moderate". Well, maybe a "moderate liberal" (there was that test I took that time.....).

Uh, I'm Here, if I wake up in the middle of the night screaming because of the nightmares I'm having thanks to the vision of either Bush or Gore in a freaking loincloth, can I call you to share it with you?!?!

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 08, 2000.

Sorry, Patricia. If the image of those two in loincloths causes mental distress (or at the very least the dry heaves), please keep it to yourself. The very fact that I thought of it implies that I've obviously got enough problems of my own, y'know?

-- I'm Here, I'm There, (I'm Everywhere,@So.Beware), December 08, 2000.

Touche'

(If I LOL here at work one more time, they're gonna cart me away.)

(I'm trying to find a "down side" to that.....)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 08, 2000.

Is this FL Supreme Ct ruling appealable to the US Supreme Ct? Round and round we go.

Where can I buy a loin cloth?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 08, 2000.

A friend of mine summed up my own opinion about the election yesterday. He said that when school kids study this election in the future, they're going to ask "Why didn't they just count the votes?"

Now, a Bush supporter might say the votes have been counted, recounted and recounted again, but in fact the Bush campaign has been successful on more than one occasion in stopping some manual recounts before they could be completed. And recounts that had been done were thrown out by Harris when she certified Florida's total.

What we're talking about is who will assume the highest office in the country. Future generations who will have forgotten how tedious and drawn-out the last month has been may wonder why the non-machine readable undervotes where the intention of the voter was clear weren't counted in a race as extremely close as this one.

With today's decision by the Florida Supreme Court, the undervotes may end up being included in the state's total -- IF the undervotes can be counted in time.

It would be bad for Bush if he were inaugurated and then for a count of the undervotes after that point to show that Gore had won Florida.

-- (Count@the.undervotes), December 08, 2000.

What's significant about today's ruling by the state's justices is that they ordered a broader recount than Gore had hoped for, saying that undervotes must be recounted in all 67 Florida counties "where such a recount has not yet occurred."

This is the way to determine--with the best possible accuracy--who won Florida.

-- (Count@the.undervotes), December 08, 2000.

Yeah, but the "undervotes" are ballots that didn't have a discernable vote for president on them. Who is going to say it's a vote or not? Now we'll have a whole state full of dimpled chads. It leaves so much open to personal opinion when no "real" standards are put in place...and don't even seem to be forthcoming. Fraud is a real thing that really happens, folks...and if no ones looking, at least a quarter of these vote counters are capable of thinking about it.

To each of you...a ballot with holes clearly punched in all other places...has just a slight dimple under a presidental candidates name. Is it a vote?

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), December 08, 2000.

Count the undervotes,

If you want the votes counted, why not count ALL the undervotes? The undervotes for the entire nation? That way, all of the votes will indeed be counted, not just the ones in Florida. In some states, the number of undervotes could change the outcome of those states. Are you really sure that is what you want?

To be fair to every American, if the undervotes are counted in Florida, they should be counted from sea to shining sea.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), December 08, 2000.

Sheeple,

If you think there's another state where a count of the undervote would affect the electoral vote from that state, then I'm all in favor of counting the undervote there too. I'm no hypocrite.

Florida seems to be the only state right now where the vote is so close that an undervote count might make a difference. This isn't about the popular vote nationally--Gore won that. I'm in favor of an undervote count in, for example, New Mexico, if there's any doubt about who should be getting New Mexico's electoral votes.

-- (Count@the.undervotes), December 08, 2000.

kritter,

Are you suggesting there's never a good reason for manual recounts, and that they should be made illegal everywhere because the process is always inherently flawed? Manual recounts are a legal option by law in both Florida and Texas.

The possibility of fraud always exists--that's why we have courts. And manual recounts in Florida have been subjected to a tremendous amount of scrutiny. The chances of Bush or Gore getting in as a result of fraud is very slim in my opinion.

-- (Recount@the.undervote), December 08, 2000.

I signed my last message "Recount@the.undervote."

Sorry about that. Sheesh! I can't even remember my temporary handle. Maybe it's a sign of middle-age....

-- (Count@the.undervotes), December 08, 2000.

count the votes,

The other night on TV, a show on FoxNews showed exactly which states could be overturned if the undervotes were counted. I think it was something like six states. I remember that New Mexico, Oregon were in those six. Others that seem to pop into my mind, Wisconson, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Not sure on the last four. Now, all things considering, that is a whole lotta EC votes in those six states.

If the undervotes are to be counted, to be fair to ALL the people of this nation, ALL the undervotes needs to be counted.

Now, what should we do about all of the felons that voted? What should we do about the votes for smokes? What should we do about the votes for food stamps? What should we do with all of the college students in Wisconsin that walked up and registered to vote under numerous names?

This has gone way beyond crazy. It has to stop sometime, and the sooner the better for this nation. Personally, to me, at this moment in time, I don't give a rats ass who wins, just pick one and be done with it. But it must be FAIR to all the people.

Sad to say, I've heard talk from people where I work about actually taking up arms to settle the matter. Now that scares the shit out of me, and it should you as well. Do I want to become involved in a civil war because of the "Win at no costs" attitude? Hell no.

YMMV

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), December 08, 2000.

recount the undervotes.... lol... enough said!

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), December 08, 2000.

Count:

But the undervotes have already been counted. Twice. We know exactly how many undervotes there are. Remember, an undervote is a ballot with NO selection made. It is NOT a vote for EITHER candidate.

So if we've already counted them, why ask to count them? If they are not votes for either candidate, they are not votes. So who should these undervotes be credited to? The nonvote for Gore or the nonvote for Bush?

The chief justice of the FSC lists the practical problems here. What standard is to be used to decide if a nonvote is really a vote? Who determines this standard? Should the standard be statewide, or should every county have its own? Who should count? Who should oversee the counts? Who has the right to protest a decision? When a decision is protested, who adjudicates? If the count is not complete in time, do we accept a partial count? The majority failed to address ANY of these questions adequately, and the result will be chaos. If we presume some of these undervotes are really votes the machine got wrong, why do we not assume that the machine got some *overvotes* wrong as well? Shouldn't we be looking for valid votes among the overvotes then?

We are NOT told *how* to count (or not count) undervotes at all, we are simply told to begin immediately. In the computer world, this joke takes the form of "you guys start coding, and I'll go up and find out what they want." There is nowhere near time to count even a fraction of the statewide undervotes alone. So who gets to decide where we start, and who gets to decide whether to accept that fraction? Again, we are given no guidance.

Hey, the Chief Justice pointed out a whole *list* of reasons this decision wouldn't even begin to pass Constitutional muster.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 08, 2000.

Well said, Flint.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 08, 2000.