For Democrats: Does 2000...

[J. J.]

Yes. There is not one shread of doubt in my mind that Al Gore won Florida. If the GOP wanted to have recounts in other close states, so be it. A vote is a vote and a vote should always be counted. If Gore, after the recount, still lost Florida so be it, but that recount never really happened, so there are still a lot pissed off Democrats.

The GOP had a recount in NM.

Would you care to site the source for your claim, in regard to the 2000 Presidential Election?

[J. J.]

One county, not the entire state, which in terms of raw votes (but not percentage) was closer than FL.   Bush probably should have asked for a recount of the entire state.

Gore had recounts in several counties in FL, and those were hand recounts.

The yawning might indicative of a lack of blood flow to your brain, which could explain the delusional aspects of some of your posts.

[J. J.]

One county, not the entire state, which in terms of raw votes (but not percentage) was closer than FL.   Bush probably should have asked for a recount of the entire state.

Gore had recounts in several counties in FL, and those were hand recounts.

The yawning might indicative of a lack of blood flow to your brain, which could explain the delusional aspects of some of your posts.

Spin spin spin, you hypocrite.

Like I said, you've demonstrated once again you delusional state. 

Like I've said, I have no problem with a candidate asking for a recount (and didn't in the WA gubenatorial or OH presidential races this year).  I do have a problem with a candidate asking for recounts in some places, and when he doesn't win, trying to find enough votes to win, like Al Gore tried. 

Had Roosevelt Count provided Bush with a plurality in NM, I certainly would say that there should have been state wide recount there as well.  I didn't see Bush trying to keep couting votes there (or in Iowa or OR) until he had a win.

I also have a problem, as did Congress when they adopted the safe harbor legislation, trying to delay a result so that votes cannot be counted, like Al Gore did.

Tell me jFRAUD is it the Democratic Party's policy to try to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters, like Al Gore tried in 2000?

The greatest hypocracy was Gore's "Count every vote" when the didn't really try to.

[J. J.]

You're trying to justify a NM recount while attacking a FL recount? What a bunch of crap.

And how dare you call Al Gore a hypocrite? There were military absentee ballots with no postmark that were never counted before. There were Republican absentee ballots that were modified by a Republican after they were recieved. Normal practicse would be to not count the first, and probably the 2nd. Guess what? Al Gore did not oppose counting those, even though they helped Bush, and they got counted.

It's pretty sad that you have to resort to immature name calling.

I call Gore a hypocrite because he is one.  A call you jFRAUD because you post fradulant things.  But you are hypocrite as well.

I would have supported, after the official count, either candidate calling for a statewide recount FL.  I would have supported either candidate calling for a statewide recount in NM; I certainly would have supported a recount in NM, if Bush would won on the basis of the one county recount.
The problem was that neither candidate ask for one.

Gore was being hypocritical when he said, "Count every vote," and then only tried to count some of them.  He didn't try for a statewide recount until after it was clear he'd still lose after the Democratic areas were counted.

Gore was being hypocritical again, when he tried for the statewide recount, days after the partical recount.  He didn't the votes counted.  He didn't FL to cast its Electoral Votes.  Constitutionally, he need a majority of the Electoral Votes cast; if he could prevent FL from casting theirs, he had a majority. 

Face it, Al Gore's goal was to prevent a state from casting its Electoral Votes.  I ask again jFRAUD,  is it the Democratic Party's policy to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?  That is almost what happened in 2000.

[J. J.]

Gore should have called more for a statewide recount. He never opposed a statewide recount.

Well, that one intelligent thing you've said on this thread.  Yes, he should have ask for one, when there was adequate time to do one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here, you've demonstrated that either you don't read your own posts or don't understand them.  According to the Village Voice that you cited, only one county in NM was recounted; the state of NM was not.  I frankly would have urged Bush to request one, but he chose not two.  (I'll add that this one county, Roosevelt, lowered the margin by more than 20% of the NM vote; there is no way of telling how many more votes would have gotten.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is the statement from Gore's spokesman, Warren Christopher, in FL:

"Al Gore has more popular votes than anybody else in this election," he continued. "He has more electoral votes. There is no reason that we shouldn't be defending his rights as well as the rights of people of the state of Florida."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qkE7lTkX4vwJ:archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/13/president.election/+Gore+%22more+electoral+votes%22+quote&hl=en

The key here is that they are looking at the current situation.  If it doesn't change Gore had more electoral votes, and they knew it.  The Constitution provides for the candidate with a majority of the votes cast to win. Their goal was to keep it from changing.   Delay until after the count.

That was just a quick Googling; I would suspect that I could find a lot more.  Maybe I could start a "Great Gore Disinfranshisement Plan" thread.

[J. J.]

Gore should have called more for a statewide recount. He never opposed a statewide recount.

Well, that one intelligent thing you've said on this thread.  Yes, he should have ask for one, when there was adequate time to do one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here, you've demonstrated that either you don't read your own posts or don't understand them.  According to the Village Voice that you cited, only one county in NM was recounted; the state of NM was not.  I frankly would have urged Bush to request one, but he chose not two.  (I'll add that this one county, Roosevelt, lowered the margin by more than 20% of the NM vote; there is no way of telling how many more votes would have gotten.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is the statement from Gore's spokesman, Warren Christopher, in FL:

"Al Gore has more popular votes than anybody else in this election," he continued. "He has more electoral votes. There is no reason that we shouldn't be defending his rights as well as the rights of people of the state of Florida."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qkE7lTkX4vwJ:archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/13/president.election/+Gore+%22more+electoral+votes%22+quote&hl=en

The key here is that they are looking at the current situation.  If it doesn't change Gore had more electoral votes, and they knew it.  The Constitution provides for the candidate with a majority of the votes cast to win. Their goal was to keep it from changing.   Delay until after the count.

That was just a quick Googling; I would suspect that I could find a lot more.  Maybe I could start a "Great Gore Disinfranshisement Plan" thread.

I think you're misreading the situtation. He probably either means
1. That Al Gore with Florida has a majority of the electoral votes, and therefore should win
2. That Al Gore has a majority of the non Florida electors, which he's just mentioning for PR value

Anwyays, you failed to address the other points.

1.  I love how you say, he didn't mean exactly what he says.  Chropher (I beleieve he was near the Florida Supreme Court when he said it) said, "He has more electoral votes."  If the process stopped right there, Gore has more votes and wins. 

2.  As you said, without Florida, Gore has a majority.  Further, he didn't, at first, ask a statewide recount, which we both thought he should have (and yes, I would have supported it).  It takes time to count and it would have delayed the certification until after the "Safe Harbor" period, so that the could be challenged yet again.   He asks for just a few counties, and doesn't win.  He then asks for a time consuming recount statewind.  If that fails, he can challenge the electors.  It's win or disinfranchise; it almost worked, too.

As for the issues, Gore didn't challenge them, or there wasn't any proof (which is the same thing I said about WA, if you recall; in that one a Democrat won).  I'm being very consistent in my position on recounts; I wish you were.

You still have not answered by question:  Is it the policy of the Democratic Party to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?

[J. J.]

Gore should have called more for a statewide recount. He never opposed a statewide recount.

Well, that one intelligent thing you've said on this thread.  Yes, he should have ask for one, when there was adequate time to do one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here, you've demonstrated that either you don't read your own posts or don't understand them.  According to the Village Voice that you cited, only one county in NM was recounted; the state of NM was not.  I frankly would have urged Bush to request one, but he chose not two.  (I'll add that this one county, Roosevelt, lowered the margin by more than 20% of the NM vote; there is no way of telling how many more votes would have gotten.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is the statement from Gore's spokesman, Warren Christopher, in FL:

"Al Gore has more popular votes than anybody else in this election," he continued. "He has more electoral votes. There is no reason that we shouldn't be defending his rights as well as the rights of people of the state of Florida."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qkE7lTkX4vwJ:archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/13/president.election/+Gore+%22more+electoral+votes%22+quote&hl=en

The key here is that they are looking at the current situation.  If it doesn't change Gore had more electoral votes, and they knew it.  The Constitution provides for the candidate with a majority of the votes cast to win. Their goal was to keep it from changing.   Delay until after the count.

That was just a quick Googling; I would suspect that I could find a lot more.  Maybe I could start a "Great Gore Disinfranshisement Plan" thread.

I think you're misreading the situtation. He probably either means
1. That Al Gore with Florida has a majority of the electoral votes, and therefore should win
2. That Al Gore has a majority of the non Florida electors, which he's just mentioning for PR value

Anwyays, you failed to address the other points.

1.  I love how you say, he didn't mean exactly what he says.  Chropher (I beleieve he was near the Florida Supreme Court when he said it) said, "He has more electoral votes."  If the process stopped right there, Gore has more votes and wins. 

2.  As you said, without Florida, Gore has a majority.  Further, he didn't, at first, ask a statewide recount, which we both thought he should have (and yes, I would have supported it).  It takes time to count and it would have delayed the certification until after the "Safe Harbor" period, so that the could be challenged yet again.   He asks for just a few counties, and doesn't win.  He then asks for a time consuming recount statewind.  If that fails, he can challenge the electors.  It's win or disinfranchise; it almost worked, too.

As for the issues, Gore didn't challenge them, or there wasn't any proof (which is the same thing I said about WA, if you recall; in that one a Democrat won).  I'm being very consistent in my position on recounts; I wish you were.

You still have not answered by question:  Is it the policy of the Democratic Party to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?

1. He was not suggesting that the process stop there

2. Yes, a statewide recount like they had in NM would have been the way to go. Gore did eventually start calling for a statewide recount. The problem really is that his legal and PR team were getting their asses kicked by the much more expensive Bush version.

Anyways, the Republican Florida legilsature was planning on voting in some Bush electors, even if Bush clearly lost the recount. I don't see how you can argue that they weren't trying to disenfranchise the voters

There were plenty of people disenfranchied with the scrub list, and plenty more votes that went wrong, particularly in minority areas with the machines set to high reject standards. Then there's the Butterfly ballot, designed by a complete DINO. All of these people didn't have their votes counted (despite the fact that illegal absentee votes were counted).

By denying a fair statewide recount, lots of people were disenfranchied. By your reasoning, 6 million people were disenfranchised.

First, the FL Legislature was preparing to meet the "safe harbor" provision of statute.  They were going to send their own electors, if the case was tied up and no electors were chosen.  Now, I would prefer to elect my own electors, but if given a choice between my elected representatives chosing them and not having any, I'd let my representatives elect them.  It would be an unfortunate choice between indirect repesentation and no representation; I'd chose the indirect over none.

You have not read you own article; they had a recount in one county in NM; they did not have a statewide recount.  They had a three county recount in FL.

Now, you are complaining about the Democrat who set up some ballots; it was found to be legal after a court challenge.  And the people who voted by these ballots, had their votes counted, unless they did something like vote for two people.  Illegal votes like that are not counted; people make mistakes in every election.  Why should we credit those to Gore (or better yet, why shouldn't we credit the mistakes in other states to Bush)?

The absentee ballot issue either wasn't challenged or was adjudicated and found to be valid.

And after all of this, the press reviewed the ballots and came to the startling conclusion that Bush won Florida, using the standards that the Florida Supreme Court set.  Only by attempting to delay the vote count, and disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes could Gore win.  He tried and failed.

You still have not answered my question:  Is it the policy of the Democratic Party to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?

[J. J.]

BTW:  If you want to see my "hypocritical" feelings about invalid votes and recounts, got to this thread: 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=14570.0

I'll point out that Rossi is a Republican.