Cheating Allegations...The Truth about Bush 2000

[demswin2004]

Bush's campaign took a swing direction. Everything looked good for Gore on election night. Despite the mixed polls, showing Bush ahead by one point, hope for Gore was still intact. For example, Gore was the Vice President of a successful president (Clinton). Before you start to complain about Clinton's scandal (you know, Monica Lewinsky and the Impeachment).....his popularity remained in the 60s despite that. Anyway, Gore actually had a better plan for America, and was trusted more.

On November 4, 2000: that brutal night that took a total turn.

CBS reported Florida for Gore.
ABC reported Florida for Gore.
NBC reported Florida for Gore.
MSNBC reported Florida for Gore.
CNN reported Florida for Gore.
Fox News Channel reported Florida for Bush.
CNN admits they made a mistake; call it for Bush.
MSNBC and NBC admit they've made a mistake; call it for Bush.
CBS admit they've made a mistake; call it for Bush.
ABC admit they've made a mistake; call it for Bush.

Everything was a mistake. First of all, when Gore called the recount, everyone said it was going to go in favor of him, but suddenly Bush ended up winning by only 538 votes. But what about all those African-American congressmen who complained about the supposedly-disenfranchising used. Of course, it helps when the Chairman of your campaign is on the voting record team. And also, your brother is the Governor of the state....doesn't that bring up questions.

OPEN for discussion....signing off.

[??????????]

This is SO yesterday.

[PBrunsel]

Oh please, you got this off of Farenheit Propaganda and "Out Foxed." Next you'll be telling us that "Galluping Rightward" is the reason that Kerry lost.

(By the way, the begining of Farenheit 9/11 when it shows Gore in front of the "Florida Victory" sign, that was on the morning of November 7, 2004, and expressed his hope for that night.)

[J. J.]

And also, your brother is the Governor of the state....doesn't that bring up questions.

OPEN for discussion....signing off.

No, not since he recused himself.

[Cashcow]

He actually won by 537 votes.

"Won" in the sense that he is President today. Had the actually votes been counted, he would have lost.

[A18]

He actually won by 537 votes.

"Won" in the sense that he is President today. Had the actually votes been counted, he would have lost.

Repeating the same thing does not make it true, even if you do like ignoring the numerous investigations into this. The Associated Press and New York Times concluded that had a full state-wide recount been conducted, Bush would have won by a wider margin.

[Cashcow]

Are you arguing against the Drudge Report?

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm

[A18]

I'm supposed to care what Drudge says?

[Will F.D. People]

Anyway, Gore actually had a better plan for America, and was trusted more.

Are you referring to the lockbox? I am pretty sure that was ridiculed, not trusted.

First of all, when Gore called the recount, everyone said it was going to go in favor of him, but suddenly Bush ended up winning by only 538 votes.

I don't remember "everyone" saying it would go for him. I think we need to remember exactly what Gore asked for. He did not want to "count every vote", despite the mythology the revisionist Gore apologists would have us believe. He only wanted to go to the three or four most solidly Democrat counties in the state and look for extra votes there, under the auspices of Democrat elections supervisors. There was great alarm among people that he would succeed in finding enough votes in his selective recount to change the outcome.

I was alarmed enough about this that I went to the Supreme Court to demonstrate to show my support for the Bush side in "Bush v. Gore" during first time the Supreme Court took up the case . It was a friendly crowd on both sides, and in talking to the people on the Gore side, I could not find one single person who could defend what Gore was actually doing.

I submit a thought experiment. Consider an election in a Southern state where a black candidate has a narrow lead over white candidate after all the precincts report. The white candidate declares that he is sure there there are some more white people out there who meant to vote for him, so he asks the white supervisors of elections in only the four most solidly white counties to see if there aren't a few more votes for him that maybe they missed the first time. Many people would view this with utter contempt. I submit that this is exactly what Gore was trying to do, with Republicans and Democrats in place of black and white people.

I believe that anyone trying to stand in the way of Gore was on the side of right.

Reasonable people can disagree about what the best way to resolve the Florida election would have been. The way Gore himself wanted to resolve it was outrageous.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Anyway, Gore actually had a better plan for America, and was trusted more.

Are you referring to the lockbox? I am pretty sure that was ridiculed, not trusted.

First of all, when Gore called the recount, everyone said it was going to go in favor of him, but suddenly Bush ended up winning by only 538 votes.

I don't remember "everyone" saying it would go for him. I think we need to remember exactly what Gore asked for. He did not want to "count every vote", despite the mythology the revisionist Gore apologists would have us believe. He only wanted to go to the three or four most solidly Democrat counties in the state and look for extra votes there, under the auspices of Democrat elections supervisors. There was great alarm among people that he would succeed in finding enough votes in his selective recount to change the outcome.

I was alarmed enough about this that I went to the Supreme Court to demonstrate to show my support for the Bush side in "Bush v. Gore" during first time the Supreme Court took up the case . It was a friendly crowd on both sides, and in talking to the people on the Gore side, I could not find one single person who could defend what Gore was actually doing.

I submit a thought experiment. Consider an election in a Southern state where a black candidate has a narrow lead over white candidate after all the precincts report. The white candidate declares that he is sure there there are some more white people out there who meant to vote for him, so he asks the white supervisors of elections in only the four most solidly white counties to see if there aren't a few more votes for him that maybe they missed the first time. Many people would view this with utter contempt. I submit that this is exactly what Gore was trying to do, with Republicans and Democrats in place of black and white people.

I believe that anyone trying to stand in the way of Gore was on the side of right.

Reasonable people can disagree about what the best way to resolve the Florida election would have been. The way Gore himself wanted to resolve it was outrageous.

FL law allows him to challenge exactly 3 counties. FL election law is rather useless.

[demswin2004]

This is all rediculous. Republicans are saying that 'it was so yesterday'. If you cheated...and got away with it....it can't be yesterday. Throughout Rutherford B. Hayes term...people called him a liar. As an American, I have the right to express my feelings, and this means a lot to me. First of all, a report said Gore would've won by at least 2,000 votes from African-Americans, which would've made him president. Mrs. Harris, the Chairman of Bush 2000, and the vote counter in Florida in 2000 used disenfranchising to help Bush.

This is no 'Fahrenheit Propaganda' or anything of it. I'm just telling you all what happened that night. None of you Republicans have answered my question....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[??????????]

This is all rediculous. Republicans are saying that 'it was so yesterday'. If you cheated...and got away with it....it can't be yesterday. Throughout Rutherford B. Hayes term...people called him a liar. As an American, I have the right to express my feelings, and this means a lot to me. First of all, a report said Gore would've won by at least 2,000 votes from African-Americans, which would've made him president. Mrs. Harris, the Chairman of Bush 2000, and the vote counter in Florida in 2000 used disenfranchising to help Bush.

This is no 'Fahrenheit Propaganda' or anything of it. I'm just telling you all what happened that night. None of you Republicans have answered my question....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cites? Links? CREDIBLE Proof? Both sides cheat. IF they did, so be it. Lets move on.

[freedomburns]

This is all rediculous. Republicans are saying that 'it was so yesterday'. If you cheated...and got away with it....it can't be yesterday. Throughout Rutherford B. Hayes term...people called him a liar. As an American, I have the right to express my feelings, and this means a lot to me. First of all, a report said Gore would've won by at least 2,000 votes from African-Americans, which would've made him president. Mrs. Harris, the Chairman of Bush 2000, and the vote counter in Florida in 2000 used disenfranchising to help Bush.

This is no 'Fahrenheit Propaganda' or anything of it. I'm just telling you all what happened that night. None of you Republicans have answered my question....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cites? Links? CREDIBLE Proof? Both sides cheat. IF they did, so be it. Lets move on.

Here is some proof SR.  I think we all agree that statistics can tell you a big part of the story.  More proof is coming, and where there's smoke, there's fire.

freedomburns

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_15415.shtml

 
 

  Print This Story  E-mail This Story


Editor's Note | A copy of the working paper, raw data and other information used in the study described below can be found here. - wrp
    Go to Original

    UC Berkeley Research Team Sounds 'Smoke Alarm' for Florida E-Vote Count
    By UC Berkeley

    Thursday 18 November 2004

Research team calls for investigation.
    Today the University of California's Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team released a statistical study - the sole method available to monitor the accuracy of e- voting - reporting irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000-260,000 or more excess votes to President George W. Bush in Florida in the 2004 presidential election. The study shows an unexplained discrepancy between votes for President Bush in counties where electronic voting machines were used versus counties using traditional voting methods - what the team says can be deemed a "smoke alarm." Discrepancies this large or larger rarely arise by chance - the probability is less than 0.1 percent. The research team formally disclosed results of the study at a press conference today at the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center, where they called on Florida voting officials to investigate.

    The three counties where the voting anomalies were most prevalent were also the most heavily Democratic: Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, respectively. Statistical patterns in counties that did not have e-touch voting machines predict a 28,000 vote decrease in President Bush's support in Broward County; machines tallied an increase of 51,000 votes - a net gain of 81,000 for the incumbent. President Bush should have lost 8,900 votes in Palm Beach County, but instead gained 41,000 - a difference of 49,900. He should have gained only 18,400 votes in Miami-Dade County but saw a gain of 37,000 - a difference of 19,300 votes.

    "For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting - someone must investigate and explain the statistical anomalies in Florida," says Professor Michael Hout. "We're calling on voting officials in Florida to take action."

    The research team is comprised of doctoral students and faculty in the UC Berkeley sociology department, and led by Sociology Professor Michael Hout, a nationally-known expert on statistical methods and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center.

    For its research, the team used multiple-regression analysis, a statistical method widely used in the social and physical sciences to distinguish the individual effects of many variables on quantitative outcomes like vote totals. This multiple-regression analysis takes into account of the following variables by county:

number of voters
median income
Hispanic/Latino population
change in voter turnout between 2000 and 2004
support for Senator Dole in the 1996 election
support for President Bush in the 2000 election
use of electronic voting or paper ballots
    "No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained," said Hout. "The study shows, that a county's use of electronic voting resulted in a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. There is just a trivial probability of evidence like this appearing in a population where the true difference is zero - less than once in a thousand chances."

    The data used in this study came from public sources including CNN.com, the 2000 US Census, and the Verified Voting Foundation. For a copy of the working paper, raw data and other information used in the study can be found at: http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/.
 

[??????????]

Bush won Florida by 381,000 votes as certified by the state of Florida. Meaning its done & over. Even if they found out 260,000 votes were wrong it wouldn't be enough.

[freedomburns]

That's not the point of the study.  Even if it is over, it needs to be fixed, and it certainly doesn't lend the President any more of a mandate to know that the election was extremely close, and some shady shenanigans took place.  Numbers don't lie.

fb

[??????????]

That's not the point of the study.  Even if it is over, it needs to be fixed, and it certainly doesn't lend the President any more of a mandate to know that the election was extremely close, and some shady shenanigans took place.  Numbers don't lie.

fb

51-48 is not extremely close. Its a comfortable win.

[Hitchabrut]

Don't forget the uncounted absentee ballots and the county recount cherry-picking.

[zorkpolitics]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This non peer reviewed study has already been debunked.  The so called unexpected vote gain reflects a shift in Jewish and over 65 vote to Bush between 2000 and 2004, and these voters were heavly concentrated in Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade.

It is inappropriate to use regression analysis when external facters affect a change

[Andrew]

Repeating the same thing does not make it true, even if you do like ignoring the numerous investigations into this.

Right you are.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong you are.  From page A1 of The New York Times, November 12, 2001:

Ballot standards under which all disqualified ballots statewide would have been re-examined; Gore would have received the most votes

Allowing only fully-punched ballot cards and correctly marked optical-scan ballots:
Bush  2,915,130
Gore  2,915,245

Using each county's own standard:
Bush  2,917,676
Gore  2,917,847

Allowing dimples on punch cards and any marks on optical-scan ballots that indicate a candidate choice:
Bush  2,924,588
Gore  2,924,695

[The Vorlon]

Are you arguing against the Drudge Report?

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm

A later and far more compresensive study, done by The NYTimes, CNN, Washoington Post and assorted others concluded that Bush did, indeed, win...

Sorry, but that is the truth...

Please, please, PLEASE let go of 2000...

Freedom Burns... 8 media outlets, including the NY Times, CNN and The Washington Post, - hardly a friendly group vis a vie the Bush administration, took 6 months and $10,000,000 to recount every single ballot in Florida - over votes, undervotes, chads, "voter intent" etc...

Here is the link:

Florida recount study: Bush still wins

Here are the highlights:

Florida recount study: Bush still wins
 
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. [/color]

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies.

NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and punch-card ballots.

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

Gore's four-county strategy

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.


Yes there are counting scenarios where if you bend the rules one way Gore wins, and other scenarios if you bend the rules the other way Bush wins by a larger margin.

Obviously out of 6 million votes even tiny changes can reverse a 537 vote margin, but the wacho left's contention that zillions and zillions, or even thousands of votes being tossed away is just simply wrong and utterly unsupported by any valid evidence. - Do you have a single actual piece of evidence that a single vote was ripped up or tossed away..?

Bottom line

If you use the ballot counting standards that were published and existed on election day (as Federed law demands - The Florida Supremes not withstanding you cannot change the rules AFTER the ballots have been cast), Bush won.

If you change the rules after the fact and use ballot counting standards you wish might have existed, there are scenarios where Gore might have won.

So what...?

It's history...

The rules as they existed on election day show a Bush victory...

get over it.. 2008 is not too far away...

2008 is now closer time wise than 2000

Look to the future, not the past... you will be a lot happier...

[Sam Spade]

Hey, I still want the Democrats to live their political lives through the 2000 election.

It ensures that us right-wing Republicans will continue to gain more and more power at different levels. 

[Monty]

Are you arguing against the Drudge Report?

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm

A later and far more compresensive study, done by The NYTimes, CNN, Washoington Post and assorted others concluded that Bush did, indeed, win...

Sorry, but that is the truth...

Do you mean this study, Vorlon?

"The study's key result: When the consortium tried to simulate a recount of all uncounted ballots statewide using six different standards for what constituted a vote, under each scenario <b> they found enough new votes to have narrowly given the Florida election--and by extension the presidency--to Al Gore." </b>

http://www.fair.org/extra/0201/fla-recount.html

[J. J.]

Are you arguing against the Drudge Report?

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm

A later and far more compresensive study, done by The NYTimes, CNN, Washoington Post and assorted others concluded that Bush did, indeed, win...

Sorry, but that is the truth...

Do you mean this study, Vorlon?

"The study's key result: When the consortium tried to simulate a recount of all uncounted ballots statewide using six different standards for what constituted a vote, under each scenario <b> they found enough new votes to have narrowly given the Florida election--and by extension the presidency--to Al Gore." </b>

http://www.fair.org/extra/0201/fla-recount.html

You forgot this quote:

Under three models that attempted to duplicate the various partial recounts that were asked for by Gore or ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, however, Bush maintained a slight margin of victory.

Now, there are only two choices in this type of a situation:  1.  Keep the vote as counted and declared.  2.  Give Gore the judicial relief he wanted.  The result would have been exactly the same; Bush carries Florida.

[Monty]

Yes, but I still believe more Floridians voted for Gore than Bush.

This quote sums it up nice.

"Al Gore beat George Bush in Florida by almost every vote-counting standard save the one the Gore team managed to choose," the Court 'did not have to take the election away form Al Gore: He and his campaign gave it away themselves.'"

http://www.fair.org/extra/0201/fla-recount.html

[J. J.]

Well, no, because the vote count using the standard showed a Bush win.

Monty you are really grasping at straws.