MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:15:05 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:59:26 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Elections are supposed to be decided by voters, not courts

It was.

Except for those who were disenfranchised by the US Supreme Court
decision, of course.

That happened to no one.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

Dick Morris made

Elections are supposed to be decided by voters, not courts

It was.

and when the
highest court in the land renders a blatantly partisan decision like
that,

laughing uproariously

And the SCOFLA's decision's weren't partisan? The Chief Judge himself
was appalled by them, and strongly dissented.

It's time to Move On.

The Algore campaign was the one who initiated the legal action over the
election, and put the election outcome in the courts, when Algore tried
to sue his way into the Presidency, and it is Algore's fault that it
went to the U.S. Supreme Court, because that it the ultimate destination
for a case of such national importance, unless the Bush campaign were to
wimp out in the face of Algore's litigation.

LooseChanj wrote:

On or about Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:59:26 GMT, Dick Morris
made the sensational claim that:
Manual recounts were an entirely legitimate process under Florida law,
which has long held that ascertaining the will of the voters takes
precedence over all other considerations.

The "will of the voters" was clearly divided. So the electoral delegates
should have been as well.

Not permisable under Florida election law, as it existed on election
day. Changing the standard after election day would have violated US
law.

Under the most reasonable sets of conditions Gore would have won the
manual recount,

Reasonable for whom?

Reasonable to me, at least.

Can you provide any cites which indicate Gore would have
won?

Here are some links to an AP story dated 11-12-2001:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in317662.shtml
http://dir.salon.com/politics/wire/2...unt/index.html
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...1/a01wn007.htm

Other 2000 election sites:
http://reason.com/0103/fe.mg.election.shtml
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/election2000-0a.htm
http://www.listproc.bucknell.edu/arc.../msg00051.html
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/a...nbushvgore.pdf
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/floridareview.htm
http://votermarch.org/NORC.htm
http://www.literalpolitics.com/Archi...he_recount.htm

Of course, if all of the votes had been counted the way the voters
intended, the exit polling data would have held up and the election
would have been over on election day.

Cherry picking districts to recount sounds an awful lot like trying to
tip it over the rim. Which implies an underhandedness I find extremely
distasteful, and did at the time.

It was a strategic error, but Gore was certainly within the law to
request recounts in whatever counties he wished. The chosen counties,
which tended to favor Gore, were also ones which used the error-prone
punched-card voting system, and, together, were large enough to possibly
affect the outcome of the election. If you want to challenge an
election you go where the disputed ballots are. The Bush team had the
same right to request recounts in counties where Bush was strongest but
they elected not to do so. This quote sheds some light on the matter:

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publi...4/zelnick.html
"Baker also rejected suggestions that Bush try to neutralize Gore’s
selection of four heavily Democratic counties for recount purposes by
requesting recounts in a number of heavily Republican counties. That, he
felt, would let Gore define the rules of the game. "I thought we held
the high moral ground," Baker later said. "Our position was it’s over.
We won. Let’s stop counting. Let’s go home." Not all of Baker’s concerns
were quite so lofty. State GOP leaders had warned him against seeking
recounts in GOP counties because their surveys were showing that, even
in those Republican strongholds, the undervotes seemed to be
concentrated in Democratic precincts."

The Bush team criticized Gore endlessly for requesting selective manual
recounts, when they had exactly the same oportunity and chose not to use
it for purely strategic reasons. Then, when the Florida Supreme Court
removed their objection to selective recounts by ordering manual
recounts in *all* Florida Counties they objected to that too! Their
strategy was based strictly on resisting any and all recounts by any
means necessary. "High moral ground" indeed.

--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:15:05 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:59:26 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Elections are supposed to be decided by voters, not courts

It was.

Except for those who were disenfranchised by the US Supreme Court
decision, of course.

That happened to no one.

It happened to almost everyone whose ballots were rejected by the
machines, but which contained a clear indication of who they intended to
vote for. Those were legal ballots under Florida law, and few of them
showed up in the final tally.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:32:52 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



LooseChanj wrote:

On or about Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:59:26 GMT, Dick Morris
made the sensational claim that:
Manual recounts were an entirely legitimate process under Florida law,
which has long held that ascertaining the will of the voters takes
precedence over all other considerations.

The "will of the voters" was clearly divided. So the electoral delegates
should have been as well.

Not permisable under Florida election law, as it existed on election
day. Changing the standard after election day would have violated US
law.

It was Gore who was attempting to change the standard.

Elections are supposed to be decided by voters, not courts,

That is fine in principle. What election systems - and in particular
the "winner takes all" systems - do not take into account is the fact
that an election is a measurement, and as any measurement has an error
(which itself can be measured in various ways from the actual election
data). If the outcome is to be a binary decision, as in this case, and
the margin of error is as large - or, in the case under discussion,
substantially larger - than the difference that leads to the decision,
it seems appropriate to say that the election has had a random result,
because repeating it would in all probability lead to a different result.

So what the courts should have done is to select a person, have the
incumbent say whether he wants heads or tails, and have that selected
person throw a dollar to decide.

Jan

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:32:52 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



LooseChanj wrote:

On or about Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:59:26 GMT, Dick Morris
made the sensational claim that:
Manual recounts were an entirely legitimate process under Florida law,
which has long held that ascertaining the will of the voters takes
precedence over all other considerations.

The "will of the voters" was clearly divided. So the electoral delegates
should have been as well.

Not permisable under Florida election law, as it existed on election
day. Changing the standard after election day would have violated US
law.

It was Gore who was attempting to change the standard.

Pithy soundbites are your forte and are usually a good way to debate.
Say enough to indicate derision and superior knowledge, but too little
to be actually challenged in reply.

Here, however, Dick has done a much more credible job of explaining and
defining his position. Merely saying "no" in a sentence or two isn't an
effective rebuttal in an issue as fraught with controversy as this one
was (and obviously still is, given the nature of the exchanges like this
one which are still occurring three and a half years later).

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 07:26:55 -0500, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It was Gore who was attempting to change the standard.

Pithy soundbites are your forte and are usually a good way to debate.
Say enough to indicate derision and superior knowledge, but too little
to be actually challenged in reply.

Here, however, Dick has done a much more credible job of explaining and
defining his position. Merely saying "no" in a sentence or two isn't an
effective rebuttal in an issue as fraught with controversy as this one
was (and obviously still is, given the nature of the exchanges like this
one which are still occurring three and a half years later).

Perhaps, but my time is limited. Anyone who wants to research the
matter and find the truth is free to do so.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

Perhaps, but my time is limited.

ROTFLMAO.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.