View Full Version : Cool new HBO movie: 'Recount' about the 2000 election
http://www.hbo.com/films/recount/
I'm sold just on the cast, the content is a bonus. Kevin Spacey and Denis Leary rock!
Maybe they will tell me who really won ;-)
TIVO has been set for a week! I'm really looking forward to it.
Thank you for reminding me to set mine! My luck, I'd forget.
*must do in advance, must*
I've only got a half hour left to watch........the acting is really good.
Mia, if you finished watching it........don't tell me how it ends!
What a great movie - I knew it would be. I didn't pay a lot of attention to this when it was happening - and since then I've not seen a huge reason to since it's over.
But that was sad to watch. GWB stole America! And Al Gore let him by laying down at the end.
That damn Scalia, who is freaking buddies with Bush - argh, it just upsets me, the corruption is so deep. I used to lace my cynicism with a tad of optimism that SCOTUS stood in the way of the death of America; now that naive thought is gone.
!
I feel like an idiot. A simple google search shows clearly how corrupt this man is - ARGH!
Oddly, a Boston Legal episode opened my eyes about the SCOTUS, and I had to face that I simply didn't want to see it before.
Did I say 'argh!'?
Lily, lol we were posting at the same time.
I didn't watch it until tonight either.
OK, I won't tell you how it ends, ha-ha!
Elrathin
05-29-2008, 04:38 AM
Don't have HBO so don't have a clue what the move was about or how good it was or wasn't.
Then why are you posting?
:p
What a great movie - I knew it would be. I didn't pay a lot of attention to this when it was happening - and since then I've not seen a huge reason to since it's over.
One of my bosses at the time and I used to fight over this when it was happening. We were having a rather loud discussion in my office one day and didn't know the big boss was in the building.
...........He got yelled at more than me.
And Al Gore let him by laying down at the end.
I have to disagree........there came a time when it had to end. Gore showed he was the bigger man........what was it he said? Country before political party.
That damn Scalia, who is freaking buddies with Bush - argh, it just upsets me, the corruption is so deep. I used to lace my cynicism with a tad of optimism that SCOTUS stood in the way of the death of America; now that naive thought is gone.
I love when I learn something I didn't know. I didn't know this was a one time only decision and never to be used again!
I love when I learn something I didn't know. I didn't know this was a one time only decision and never to be used again!
I know! What the hell?
I liked the part where it was shown that George W. signed into law in Texas that dimpled chads should be counted, but his camp was now arguing they shouldn't.
Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Gore showed he was the bigger man........what was it he said? Country before political party.
I understand this viewpoint, but feel it was in the country's best interest to find out who really won that damn election.
To me, it was wrong to lay down. To me, Gore was more concerned with what people would think than what was best for the nation. To me, no matter how long it took or how many people were inconvenienced, the principles should have been upheld.
If Bush had really won Florida, a recount would have befitted him. There would not be this forever doubt.
If Gore had really won, the nation could have had the President they elected, and we would know he doesn't back down when the stakes are high.
Also, I feel a dangerous precedent was set.
I know! What the hell?
I liked the part where it was shown that George W. signed into law in Texas that dimpled chads should be counted, but his camp was now arguing they shouldn't.
Like I said.......you should have heard the arguments between my boss and I.
To me, it was wrong to lay down. To me, Gore was more concerned with what people would think than what was best for the nation. To me, no matter how long it took or how many people were inconvenienced, the principles should have been upheld.
It was getting close to inauguration. I forget, wasn't it in the Constitution that by a certain date?
If Bush had really won Florida, a recount would have befitted him. There would not be this forever doubt.
If Gore had really won, the nation could have had the President they elected, and we would know he doesn't back down when the stakes are high.
Well, some people are still arguing that one!
Also, I feel a dangerous precedent was set.
Well....the Supreme Court said it was a one time decision. There was some good debates going here a few times on voting machines. I think that's about the closest we'll get to something like this again in our lifetime....but I agree, in all this time that has passed, someone just for history's sake should count them, so we'll actually know......but it'll never happen.
Never say never. Someday when they decide it's no longer a risk to our national security, someone may be permitted to count those votes, or release the results of some counting that already happened in secret.
wasn't it in the Constitution that by a certain date?
Yeah, but SCOTUS put the stay on the recount, otherwise it would have gotten done in time.
'Irreparable harm' had to be pulled out of their BUTTS to make that ruling!
It's a disgrace.
Never say never. Someday when they decide it's no longer a risk to our national security, someone may be permitted to count those votes, or release the results of some counting that already happened in secret.
I hope I live long enough to see it.......but I have a feeling there will be a fire or a flood before that ever happens.
Yeah, but SCOTUS put the stay on the recount, otherwise it would have gotten done in time.
Aha.......you're right!
you're right!
This used to be my favorite phrase! :p
Now it's 'I'm going to vote for Ron Paul'.
I don't suppose I'll get that one from you, though?
Um not any more. I used to be a huge Ron Paul supporter.......those rascist papers bothered me and his I don't remember, I don't know, I don't care drove me away. That and as much as some say that all politicians lie, the things he was promising he would do would never happen, as you need the support of both sides of the aisle to make them work.......and he didn't have it.
Darn, well 'you're right' is my SECOND favorite phrase ;-).
The papers bothered me too, but he doesn't do anything racist in the way he makes decisions in congress.
I don't care what's in a person's head - I'm hiring them to do a job, and how they do it is what's important to me.
Plus, I don't believe him to be racist.
I've not studied the newsletter issue enough to determine what's what there.
I almost forgot! How did you like Denis Leary's rant at the end?
'Clinton should have gotten a blow job from Sharon Stone'.
It's either not on youtube yet, or I am not putting in the right search terms.
Trailer for those that haven't seen it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oH8gm9I0eM4
Katherine Harris was a stupid biAtch clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=59t2CDA2JEY
AlanC
05-30-2008, 07:15 AM
Well....the Supreme Court said it was a one time decision. There was some good debates going here a few times on voting machines. I think that's about the closest we'll get to something like this again in our lifetime....but I agree, in all this time that has passed, someone just for history's sake should count them, so we'll actually know......but it'll never happen.
It was done... and Bush did win. An inconvenient truth perhaps?
From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1212292800&en=e068b428d75ed960&ei=5070)
Never let facts get in the way of a good TV show.
So when did this recount occur to discover this?
AlanC
05-30-2008, 07:37 AM
In November of 2001 and it was overseen by a consortium of newspapers including the Miami Herald.
From your article:
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did.
The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."
preservanation
05-30-2008, 12:28 PM
The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes." Gore didn't want to count all votes, just the votes in heavy Dem counties..Broward, Dade and Palm beach.
The votes he didn't want to count were the absentee military ballots.
BTW, did they mention that it was Gore who brought the law suit to the Supreme Court (not Bush) because Fla determined that he/they were breaking election law by interpreting ballots with no uniformity and in cherry-picked counties?
Just curious.
AlanC
05-30-2008, 04:23 PM
Mia, there are two things here that have to be considered.
The first is that when all the laws of Florida were followed concerning that election, Bush won.
Had Gore been allowed the recount he had asked for, in selected counties, he would have still lost.
The speculation as to the result of a statewide recount is just that, speculation. It is improbable speculation because he never asked for that, and the Supreme Court of Florida did not consider it when the case was sent back to them by the SCOTUS.
There was no real scenario in which Al Gore would have won that election. Time to accept it and move on.
Wndrtch
05-30-2008, 04:47 PM
I hear, this movie grandstands on the notion that every vote should count, so long as we can decern the intention of the voter, yet fails to mention that the Gore legal team fought to throw out oversea military ballots in-total, because they found a few signatures in the wrong spot on the app-form.
But what would you expect from a bunch of Left-wing activits, crybaby actors?
Wndrtch
05-30-2008, 04:50 PM
Mia, there are two things here that have to be considered.
The first is that when all the laws of Florida were followed concerning that election, Bush won.
Had Gore been allowed the recount he had asked for, in selected counties, he would have still lost.
The speculation as to the result of a statewide recount is just that, speculation. It is improbable speculation because he never asked for that, and the Supreme Court of Florida did not consider it when the case was sent back to them by the SCOTUS.
There was no real scenario in which Al Gore would have won that election. Time to accept it and move on.
Of course they always seem to forget, that IF Al had at least taken his home state of Tenn., then Florida would not have mattered.
I guess they were tired of his "silver-spoon", "holyer-than-thow" attitude.
Gore didn't want to count all votes, just the votes in heavy Dem counties..Broward, Dade and Palm beach.
The votes he didn't want to count were the absentee military ballots.
That is the way they began, but went on to ask for a complete recount. SOME of the votes they didn't want to count were absentee miliarty ballots - the ones that were not valid (didn't have a postmark, or were not signed and dated for the ones on ships that don't get postmarks). This was used to make them look very bad, but the GOP had already declared other absentee votes from overseas invalid for the same reason, so.......)
BTW, did they mention that it was Gore who brought the law suit to the Supreme Court (not Bush) because Fla determined that he/they were breaking election law by interpreting ballots with no uniformity and in cherry-picked counties?
Just curious.
The GOP was the first one to file a lawsuit. They knew it would be thrown out, but wanted to get in line for SCOTUS.
The Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling overriding the lower court's decision not to recount, then SCOTUS reversed it in favor of Bush, finding that 'irreparable harm' would be done to him if these votes were to be recounted.
Weird. Seems like the only 'harm' that could happen is if in fact he was not the winner, that would e discovered.
A machine went beserk, at least 50,000 people were illegally purged from the rolls, the counties all had different standards and equipment, one county had confusing ways of listing the candidates and lining them up with the holes to punch,,,,,,,the whole thing started because a group of people said they think they voted for PB instead of Gore.
Then the media called it too early - before all the numbers was in. A margin under 3% requires a machine recount by law.
Mia, there are two things here that have to be considered.
The first is that when all the laws of Florida were followed concerning that election, Bush won.
Had Gore been allowed the recount he had asked for, in selected counties, he would have still lost.
The speculation as to the result of a statewide recount is just that, speculation. It is improbable speculation because he never asked for that, and the Supreme Court of Florida did not consider it when the case was sent back to them by the SCOTUS.
I do not say that Gore won for sure - what I say is we don't know and we should.
Speculation is all there is, since a complete recount was never done. My point was refuting your assertion that it was done, and Bush really did win Florida.
The Gore campaign did at one time get a state-wide recall ordered by the court. It was stayed by the US Supreme Court, however.
There was no real scenario in which Al Gore would have won that election. Time to accept it and move on.
Well, he did win the popular vote, and arguably may have won the electoral, so I don't think this is an accurate statement.
As for moving on, obviously we all have - when did a study of history and seeking accuracy become a bad thing?
Of course they always seem to forget, that IF Al had at least taken his home state of Tenn., then Florida would not have mattered.
I guess they were tired of his "silver-spoon", "holyer-than-thow" attitude.
That's irrelevant. If he won Florida, he didn't need Tenn.
If he didn't, then we could discuss other reasons he didn't win, but the thing came down to Florida, and the results there will never be truly known.
Silver spoon? LOL, to me Bush was the crybaby. If I was secure in my win, I'd be calling for a recount myself! to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt I was the true winner.
Obviously Georgie was afraid of the results, or he wouldn't have fought it :unreal:
Wndrtch
05-30-2008, 06:00 PM
That's irrelevant. If he won Florida, he didn't need Tenn.
I think the voters of Tenn, knew more about their guy than the rest of us, and voted accordingly.
If he didn't, then we could discuss other reasons he didn't win, but the thing came down to Florida, and the results there will never be truly known.
We do know.
You're guy lost. :bye:
Silver spoon? LOL, to me Bush was the crybaby. If I was secure in my win, I'd be calling for a recount myself! to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt I was the true winner.
Sorry Mia, but you NEVER give back the ground you already took.
Obviously Georgie was afraid of the results, or he wouldn't have fought it :unreal:
So, I guess Obama should push for recounts in Fl and MI then?
I think the voters of Tenn, knew more about their guy than the rest of us, and voted accordingly.
Well, then, why did we even waste time consulting the rest of the country?
LOL
You're guy lost
Gore wasn't my guy - I guess it's assumed that I had a personal bias toward him, instead of the truth, which is that I would have simply preferred for it to be right, whichever way it went.
If the votes were recounted and the winner was George W, then so be it. That's how we do things here. My complaint is about despite what you say, I do not believe it is known who won, and I feel that is a travesty.
preservanation
05-30-2008, 10:41 PM
The GOP was the first one to file a lawsuit. They knew it would be thrown out, but wanted to get in line for SCOTUS....yes to stop the unconstitutional and irregular counting of cherry picked votes, but the first suit was brought by Gore.
November 8, 2000
No Clear Winner In Electoral Vote... Gore Retracts Concession Call... Gore is First Presidential Candidate Since 1972 to Lose Home State.
November 9, 2000
Gore Lawyers Plan Suit to Overturn Bush Victory... Fla. Recount Is Likely Just Start of Fight... Lawsuit Seeks New Election Over `Misleading' Ballot
November 10, 2000
Bush Maintains Slim Lead... Gore Won't Concede Even After Florida Recount... Motion for New Election in Palm Beach Dismissed
November 11, 2000
Florida Says Controversial Palm Beach Ballot Was Legal... Bush Camp Presses Gore To Concede... Pensacola Ballot Prompts Fraud Invesigation
November 12, 2000
Officials Begin Florida Hand Count... Bush Goes to Court To Halt Recount... Recount Judge Handles Tough Cases
November 13, 2000
Judge Refuses To Stop Handcount... Gore Launches First Direct Court Action in Florida... Countywide Manual Recount in Palm Beach
November 14, 2000
Bush Camp to Appeal Florida Hand Count Ruling... Dems Drive to Keep Counting Votes... Slow-Motion Larceny in Florida
November 15, 2000
More Legal Confusion in Recount... Bush/Gore Join Lawsuit on Recounts... Appeals Court to Hear Bush Case
November 16, 2000
Florida Certifies Bush Lead... Florida Secretary of State Denies Hand Recounts... Florida Officials Take Election Law to Court... Judicial Watch 2000 Florida Ballot Inspection
November 17, 2000
Trial Judge Says Florida Can Reject Late Votes... Florida High Court Stops Certification... Gore Campaign To Appeal Decision
November 18, 2000
Courts Whipsaw Gore, Bush... Hundreds of Overseas Ballots Rejected... US Appeals Court Denies Bush Request
November 20, 2000
Republican, Democrat Electors Divided Over Electoral College... Democrat Memo on How to Disqualify Military Votes Published... GOP Protests Miami-Dade Recount
Discerning 'True Voter Intent?'
November 21, 2000
Florida High Court: Accept Late Ballots... Bush Camp Takes Issue Over Ballots... Gore Counting on Florida Dimples
November 22, 2000
Miami-Dade County Ends Recount... Florida Judge Rules on Dimpled Ballots... Cheney Has Artery Stent Put In
November 23, 2000
Court Allows Miami-Dade Count to End... Feeney: Support Building for Legislative Intervention... Gore Challenges Miami-Dade Move
November 24, 2000
Florida Lawmakers Anger At Court May Not Vanish... Court Won't Order Dade Recount... Recount Heads to Supreme Court
November 25, 2000
Broward County Finishes Recount... Bush Sues Over Absentee Ballots... Bush Challenge Would Be Moot If He Wins Florida
November 26, 2000
Bush Is Certified Winner in Florida... Palm Beach Stops Count for Deadline... Fla. Count Draws Gore, Bush Closer
November 27, 2000
Gore Contests Fla. Certification... Gore Says He'll Win If Uncounted Votes Are Tallied... Bush Plans for New Administration
November 28, 2000
Gore's Fights Spreads To 5 Courts... Bush, Gore Plea to Supreme Court... Gore Allegations Said 'Simply Wrong'
November 29, 2000
Leon County Judge Grants Gore Motions... Florida Legislative Panel Reviews Options On Electors... Gore Lawyer Calls Bush Case Flimsy
November 30, 2000
Florida Legislature Calls Special Session... Gore Says Fla. Can't Name Electors... Bush: Legislature Can Pick Electors
December 1, 2000
Supreme Court Ends Hearing on Bush-Gore Election... Gore Dealt Double Defeat in Florida... Fla. Court Refuses Manual Recount
December 2, 2000
Fla. Lawmakers Call Special Session... Gore Suit Goes Slowly As Bush Speeds Up Transition... Florida Absentee Ballots Challenged
December 4, 2000
Florida Judge Rejects Gore Election Challenge... U.S. Supreme Court Orders New State Ruling On Bush-Gore Battle
December 5, 2000
Fla. High Court to Hear Arguments on Gore Appeal... Florida Legislators May Not Meet... 11th Circuit Hears Bush Appeals
December 6, 2000
Florida Lawmakers Set Special Session Friday... U.S. Appeals Court Rejects Bid to Halt Hand Recount... Gore Endorses Lawsuits To Reject Absentee Votes... Judge Hears Bush's Overseas Ballot Appeal
December 7, 2000
Florida Lawmakers Call Special Session... Fla. Legislature to Pick Electors... Fla. High Court To Hear Gore Appeal... Gore Weighs-In On Seminole Votes
December 8, 2000
Fla. Supreme Court Orders Partial Recount... Bush Wins Absentee Ballot Rulings... Fla. Lawmakers Open Session
December 9, 2000
U.S. Supreme Court Stops Illegal Florida Recount... Experts See High Court's Ruling Language As Crafty... Student Files Misconduct Complaint
December 11, 2000
Florida Legislation Committees Vote To Name Electors... Supreme Court Arguments Conclude... Court Upholds Military Ballots
December 12, 2000
Supreme Court Rules on Florida Case... Head of Democrat Party Urges Gore to Concede... Gore Team Mulling Next Step
December 13, 2000
Gore Drops Out of Race Five Days Before Electoral College Vote... Gore Accepts Bush As 43rd President... President-Elect Bush: 'I Will Give It My All'
December 18, 2000
The Electoral College 2000 Presidential Election... Electoral Vote Totals... Popular Vote Totals... Electoral College Members... Certificates of Ascertainment... Certificates of Vote... State Laws and Requirements http://www.covenantnews.com/election.htm
In short, what a mess.
In shorter, Bush won.
What I don't understand is why HBO is picking at the scab?
Eight years have gone by and history has been written.
Was the show worth it?
So we should just forget about history? Take whatever was told to us at that time, never re-examine it?
Do you feel this way about all documentaries/docudramas/books? I guess I'll toss my history materials completely - it doesn't matter now.
preservanation
05-30-2008, 10:49 PM
I guess, Mia.
I just know that the 2000 election is a very sore subject and why those who lost would want to see it all again is strange.
Maybe to re-ignite the fire?
I don't know...
I don't see how it's different than any other movie dealing with a historical matter.
There are lots of points of view to explore, new information comes in,,,,,,I'm not understanding why this one thing should just be buried.
...yes to stop the unconstitutional and irregular counting of cherry picked votes, but the first suit was brought by Gore.
So one suit was legit and the other wasn't?
Regardless, the point is that you stated Gore filed the first suit, and he did not.
preservanation
05-30-2008, 11:23 PM
the point is that you stated Gore filed the first suit, and he did not.
November 13, 2000
Gore Launches First Direct Court Action in Florida...
Regardless, if you thought you learned truths that you didn't know by watching an HBO "documentary...All the power to you.
You acknowledged here that Bush and Co filed the first suit, you just said it was for a good reason:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mia
The GOP was the first one to file a lawsuit. They knew it would be thrown out, but wanted to get in line for SCOTUS.
...yes to stop the unconstitutional and irregular counting of cherry picked votes, but the first suit was brought by Gore.
preservanation
05-31-2008, 11:59 AM
You're right Mia...I drop my initial contention. (hate it when that happens...:D)
I should have said "Gore Launched First Direct Court Action"
I didn't see the show...but from what I understand Gore was not the focus, it was mostly behind the scene stuff.
Is that correct?
Damn, two 'you're rights' in one thread. Will you be going on to my new favorite phrase, 'I am voting for Ron Paul'? :evil:
Yes, the 'players' so to speak. Of course it was from a Dem POV, and I take that into account. When I watch docudramas, I can usually distinguish between the docu and the drama part; when I can't I look things up to see.
preservanation
05-31-2008, 09:53 PM
Damn, two 'you're rights' in one thread.
Yeah, I broke my old record of...NONE!
LOL
Congrats Mia!
The papers bothered me too, but he doesn't do anything racist in the way he makes decisions in congress.
I don't care what's in a person's head - I'm hiring them to do a job, and how they do it is what's important to me.
Plus, I don't believe him to be racist.
I've not studied the newsletter issue enough to determine what's what there.
I just can't dismiss what's in a persons head isn't important. If there was nothing to hide, he should have gotten to the bottom of it. Having that paper printed for year, even sitting in his office and claiming not to know what was in it, just rings hollow.
It was done... and Bush did win. An inconvenient truth perhaps?
From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1212292800&en=e068b428d75ed960&ei=5070)
Never let facts get in the way of a good TV show.
Alan, I know the difference between a movie and reality.....I also knw what happened. What I was saying was the end of the movie showed a room full of boxes with all the ballots in them.......I just think for history's sake ALL of them should have been counted. I also know it'll never happen.
Oh and I've never been one of those......."the election was stolen" type of people. A decision was made............but like I said, some day someone should just sit down and count them all.
What I was saying was the end of the movie showed a room full of boxes with all the ballots in them.......
I pressed 'pause' on that part and screamed at the TV, lol!
'COUNT ALL THOSE BITCHES, DAMMIT'! :grrrr:
I just can't dismiss what's in a persons head isn't important.
You will make a great member of 'Big Brother Society' :shame:
preservanation
06-02-2008, 11:44 AM
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B 63
I pressed 'pause' on that part and screamed at the TV, lol!
'COUNT ALL THOSE BITCHES, DAMMIT'! :grrrr:
.......and here I thought there was an echo.:madlaugh:
You will make a great member of 'Big Brother Society'
You lost me on this one........if I perceive Paul to be a rascist because of these papers and then cinch the deal in my mind that he must be because he refuses to explain himself, how is that being a member of Big Brother?
Isn't it my duty to vote my conscience?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B 63
I know, preservation, Alan posted the same article.........again Mia and I are discussing the end of the movie. We want all the ballots counted, not run through a machine, not just cities like the article mentioned. Every single one, hand counted.
Wndrtch
06-02-2008, 04:36 PM
Well, then, why did we even waste time consulting the rest of the country?
LOL
They were consulted, and came to the same conclusion.
Gore Sucks! :thumbsup:
Gore wasn't my guy - I guess it's assumed that I had a personal bias toward him, instead of the truth, which is that I would have simply preferred for it to be right, whichever way it went.
If the votes were recounted and the winner was George W, then so be it. That's how we do things here. My complaint is about despite what you say, I do not believe it is known who won, and I feel that is a travesty.
The travesty is that there were rules in place for 200 years to deal with minor errant voting irregularities, and the Democrats saw fit to tear it asunder, because they lost.
The Electoral Colledge is there to negate minor, individual voting irregularities, by making such irregularities a smaller fraction of the total votes for a district. So long as the irregularities stay below 50% of total voting segment for that distruct, then the Electoral Colledge properly represents the will of the majority.
preservanation
06-02-2008, 04:46 PM
Whiners, not winners.
Let's see what hell shall be unleashed once Obama loses.
Deadshot
06-02-2008, 05:02 PM
Care to put your money where your mouth is?
AlanC
06-02-2008, 05:15 PM
I know, preservation, Alan posted the same article.........again Mia and I are discussing the end of the movie. We want all the ballots counted, not run through a machine, not just cities like the article mentioned. Every single one, hand counted.
Lily, I think you are seeking something that cannot be found. There is no final number that is and always will be totally accurate. No matter how the recount is done, by machine, by hand, by committee it will always result in a different number for both candidates.
Each time a paper ballot or punch card is handled, it has the potential to degrade or change. It would depend on who did the counting and what they saw. Remember the hanging chad?
Well after this much more time, there will be just that much more chad hanging. For each group that looks at the ballots, there will be a different number of ballots discarded or devined to be a vote for one or the other.
You could recount those ballots once a year for the next 20 years and you will never get two results that exactly match each other. So then which would be the "real" number or result?
Under the rules governing that election, George Bush won. Under a recount as was asked for by Gore, George Bush still would have won. The constitutional framework that governs Federal elections was still abused and distorted in a remarkable manner to attempt to change that outcome and yet, George Bush still won.
What would be the point?
Deadshot
06-02-2008, 05:41 PM
I agree with Alan here. What is the point to this. There's a part in the story where Kevin Spacey's character yells "I want to know who won!" 8 years ago that was important, not now.
I don't like Bush and thought he didn't deserve the win, but it's over now. EVEN IF we could, once and for all, find out that Gore won and a handful of "evil GOP operatives" hijacked the election, what would we really do about it?
This isn't some kind of child sexual abuse thing were justice could be meted out, even years later. Maybe a few people actually "cheated" the system, most were simply acting in their party's best interest. To be honest some have already paid a price for their actions, aka Katherine Harris.
It's over and is simply one of those things we'll never be able to find out about.
preservanation
06-02-2008, 05:49 PM
Care to put your money where your mouth is?
Already have....http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?p=174261&highlight=Challenge#post174261
Whiners, not winners.
I agree with you, Bush was a whiner, not a winner.
'Don't recount, I know I might not win if you do. Please, SCOTUS, save me from the irreparable harm caused by not illegitimately following in my Daddy's footsteps!'
:nana:
The travesty is that there were rules in place for 200 years to deal with minor errant voting irregularities, and the Democrats saw fit to tear it asunder, because they lost.
The Electoral Colledge is there to negate minor, individual voting irregularities, by making such irregularities a smaller fraction of the total votes for a district. So long as the irregularities stay below 50% of total voting segment for that distruct, then the Electoral Colledge properly represents the will of the majority.
This might make an interesting argument if the issues were in fact minor, and if we were talking about the Electoral College instead of the actual discussion at hand.
preservanation
06-02-2008, 09:16 PM
Already have....http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?p=174261&highlight=Challenge#post174261
You do understand the concept of "Money", right? Aren't you a conservative? :madlaugh: I'm talking of an actual bet for MONEY. I'd let the Mod's like Zo or Lily handle our names and addresses and I'd say we'd be a ballcap or something under $25 on who would win.
A bet of an avatar isn't that big of a deal. $$$ on the other hand, talks...looks like your bullshit is walking. You want to bet MONEY?
Yeah...I'll get right on that bet.
Mia, don't start with me, I may not be so generous in the future!
:nana:
Wndrtch
06-02-2008, 09:22 PM
This might make an interesting argument if the issues were in fact minor, and if we were talking about the Electoral College instead of the actual discussion at hand.
Sorry.
I thought we were talking about an HBO movie, made by hacks that selectively leave out important events regarding the 2000 election, so they can say "selected, not elected" and make themselves feel better about being losers.
Sorry.
I thought we were talking about an HBO movie, made by hacks that selectively leave out important events regarding the 2000 election, so they can say "selected, not elected" and make themselves feel better about being losers.
Did you watch it? What did they leave out?
Either way, you're discussion here seems like you think our argument is over the electoral college system, which it is not.
Pres, kiss my feline ass :-), you were not generous, just honest. Which I greatly respect, but let's not get too carried away :love:
.......if I perceive Paul to be a rascist because of these papers and then cinch the deal in my mind that he must be because he refuses to explain himself, how is that being a member of Big Brother?
Isn't it my duty to vote my conscience?
Sure it is - I was referring to the 'what's in a person's head' part - it's just a peeve of mine, as the government seems to be getting into our heads too much lately.
If I'm to be fair, I should stay out of theirs too, and judge them by their actions only.
I didn't mean it as a serious contention that you're Big Brotherish.
What would be the point?
The point would be the same thing I've said all along.......history.
Bah, history.
Why would that be remotely important?
Don't look over there.......;-)
AlanC
06-02-2008, 11:48 PM
The point would be the same thing I've said all along.......history.
If an inaccurate result infused with supposition is history, do we not have that now?
As I said, there is no way to retabulate those votes in a way that is any more accurate than they were counted the first few times and the likely potential is that they will be less accurate.
How does that satisfy history?
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.