|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/25/2008 11:16:26 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
The Nation investigation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010430/lantigua/single
The Salon investigation:
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html
NY Times
There others but a lot of the other draw heavily upon these.
The Nation is as about as left wing and biased as you can get.
The Salon article is by Greg Palast, who is as about a vicious anti-American and Bush hater as you can find. It was published on Dec 4th, 2000 - well before sufficient time to study the events in detail.
The NY Times article is largely based on Greg Palast's Salon articles and was published on Dec 7th. A little too early for distance as well.
Most of the information is claims of Republican racism and denial to vote for minorities. There were a lot of lawsuits and charges ... so tell me, how did all the lawsuits and charges come out in the end?
I saw nothing about the actual counting of ballots (which was the issue, was it not?)
Most of the people who claim that "Gore won" base that claim on pure ignorance - on their part, and on the part of some reporters - and on a selective perception bias. In other words, they believe what they want to believe and disregard anything that challenges their basic assumptions.
The truth is you have to finagle the numbers something terrible to get a "Gore win" (which is exactly what the Gore campaign attempted to do).
Some detailed studies:
Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed
by Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
05/15/2001 - Updated 05:18 PM ET
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.
And here is the Miami Herald's take on the same study, which they co-sponsored (this is an archived copy, the original is no longer on their website):
REVIEW SHOWS BALLOTS SAY BUSH BUT GORE BACKERS HAVE SOME POINTS TO ARGUE
Author: MARTIN MERZER
Miami Herald, The (FL)
April 4, 2001
The Herald's examination of votes cast in all 67 Florida counties projects Gore falling further behind if the recount Democrats advocated had continued.
Republican George W. Bush's victory in Florida, which gave him the White House, almost certainly would have endured even if a recount stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been allowed to go forward.
In fact, a comprehensive review of 64,248 ballots in all 67 Florida counties by The Herald and its parent company, Knight Ridder, in partnership with USA Today, found that Bush's slender margin of 537 votes would have tripled to 1,665 votes under the generous counting standards advocated by Democrat Al Gore.
The newspapers' ballot review was conducted by the public accounting firm BDO Seidman, LLP. It was designed to answer a question asked by many Americans and certain to be examined by historians:
What would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not halted the sweeping r! ecount of undervotes - ballots without presidential votes detected by counting machines - ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on Dec. 8, a month after the November election?
The answer: under almost all scenarios, Bush still would have won.
Another, even more detailed study:
Florida recount study: Bush still wins
Study reveals flaws in ballots, voter errors may have cost Gore victory
~(Nov 2001)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.
NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99 percent of them
The full NORC study referenced above can still be found online here. There are some very technical and detailed things about the study (they didn't actually give an answer of "who won", but did a technical analysis of the voting system of Florida, and included many ballots that would never have been recounted, for example), that gives something for everyone. But even the organizations who trended pro-Gore had to first admit that in all likely scenarios, Bush would have still prevailed.
You can Google the NORC study, and read what major news services said about it yourself, if you are interested in learning the truth, rather than simply reinforcing your current biases. Almost every analysis concludes that Bush would have won in any realistic scenario.
Finally, a pretty good overview of the entire Florida mess, and one which places a lot of blame on Gore, saying that he intentionally tried to undermine the election (and lead - in effect a coup d'etat) can be found here: Intentional Election Disruption
Gore did more damage to the US political system than Osama bin Laden, in my opinion.
Firm
PS. This is an example of what I consider "good sources". Not the links you provided.
|
|
|
|
