Scrat wrote:PDiddie wrote:Scrat wrote:PD - Don't blame me if you can't read. The law reads explicitly of PRECINCTS, not counties. Your bias and willful ignorance is staggering! I expected more of you, but I suppose that was my error. In the end, you're just Tartarin with different plumbing.
Are you arguing that the initial recount of Gore's cherry-picked three PRECINCTS revealed an "error likely to effect the outcome"? If you are, then show me the numbers. If not, then suck it up and admit you were wrong, because THAT IS THE STANDARD THE LAW SETS FOR ALLOWING A FULL STATE-WIDE MANUAL RECOUNT.
If it says what
you think it says,
THEN CITE IT.
Paste it in, right here.
You haven't (after three challenges),
because it doesn't.
Your miscomprehension, and arrogance associated with, is truly appalling.
Alas, not unexpected.
Once again (and not for you, Scrat, because you just can't get it):
The FOUR counties Gore had re-counted are/were Broward, Volusia, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach.
Not three and certainly
not precincts.
Nor is there any standard nor requirement for recounting precincts (specifically from your first citation).
Florida state law mandated an automatic recount because of the closeness of the election, and Gore petitioned for an additional recount in the four counties I named.
Now.....it's time for you to
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
PD - Do I really have to paste the SAME TEXT over again? What then? Will you still pretend I didn't? Will you still pretend it doesn't exist? <sigh> Probably... Here, let me copy and paste if FROM EARLIER IN THIS VERY DISCUSSION:
Scrat wrote:Here's the link:
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0102/ch0102.htm
* (Be sure the correct year is selected in the drop down list! You want Title IX, Ch 102 as was in place in 2000.)
And here's the relevent section, referring to what can LEGALLY be done following the manual recount of the 3 cherry-picked precincts (bold mine):
Quote:(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:
(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;
(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or
(c) Manually recount all ballots.
The
fact (there's that word again) is that the result of the original 3 precinct recount was well within the margin of error and therefor DID NOT indicate any error. Under the Florida election law in place at that time, a full manual recount of all precincts is NOT ALLOWED. Game over. You are done.
And since you want to hang on the minutia, here's this from just before that seciton:
Quote:(d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts...
Now, you can continue to bleat on about how what the law refers to as "precincts" are in reality counties, or you can actually THINK about the law and the specifics cited here. It's a simple "IF A then B" rule. A did not occur, so you don't get to go to B. Get it?
Now, let me copy and paste again to save myself some effort (but I'll edit it to try to force you to actually answer the f#$%ing question)...
Are you arguing that the initial recount of Gore's cherry-picked counties (which involved at least three precincts, get it?) revealed an "error likely to effect the outcome"? If you are, then show me the numbers. If not, then suck it up and admit you were wrong, because THAT IS THE STANDARD THE LAW SETS FOR ALLOWING A FULL STATE-WIDE MANUAL RECOUNT.
You can't go to the state-wide count without meeting that standard.
p.s. I got the nicest laugh at your calling someone else (me)
arrogant. How rich! Bravo!
God, you're so blinded by your partian meanness, I almost feel sorry for you.
Let's try this for hopefully the final time (although something tells me you won't be able to let it go).
Q. If you were right, then why did the recount proceed? Why didn't some lawyer or legal scolar in the entire state of Florida, from the state Supreme Court all the way down to the Justice of the Peace in Daytona beach cite what you did and stop it?
A. Because your interpretation is inaccurate.
(Boy, that's about as nice as I can be without cursing your foolishness.)
I'm under no obligation to show you the numbers, but I will anyway:
Florida election law permits a challenge over "any . . . allegation which, if sustained, would show that a person other than the successful candidate was the person duly . . . elected." (from your link).
In Miami-Dade, Gore's attorneys argued that the county, having conducted a preliminary recount that suggested the machine votes were off, was obliged to conduct a full recount and wrongly called it off (perhaps you recall that mob of Repulican aides that gathered outside the offices of the canvassing board and yelled and bum-rushed them -- sort of like what
you are doing here; screaming your point as loud as possible with the intention of bullying your way to acceptance). He wanted the court to have a full review of the 10,000 "undervotes"-- ballots on which there was no vote recorded for president. And at the very least, he wanted the county to include the 157 additional votes it found for Gore.
In Palm Beach, Gore argued that the county canvassing board should have had the extra few hours it unsuccessfully sought to get through the final 800 to 1,000 ballots prior to Harris' certification. He also argued that the board used an unduly strict standard to judge the "dimpled" ballots.
And he challenged the "butterfly" ballot that confused a number of voters and may have resulted in invalidating a number of Gore votes (the so-called Jews for Buchanan).
(all that from
this Washington Post compendium.)
I'll leave out the other two counties' data of this post because that's more than enough to alter the outcome. It satisfied everyone at the time...does it satisfy
you?
Scrat wrote:You can't go to the state-wide count without meeting that standard.
Actually you can (of course! *slaps Scrat's amazingly tiny little brow* since that's exactly what happened!).
As I have previously posted, the state-wide tally's margin of victory for Bush was .03 (and the recount-trigger is .05).
Accept that you are wrong, or don't; I could care less at this point. I'll tell you what; you don't have to admit it publicly here. At any rate there's no more you can do to redeem yourself as the forum's prime lunatic at this point than Gore can do to change the outcome.
And as a sidebar, in refreshing my understanding of this quandary, your citation popped up a good number of times.
Not a single legal expert --
not a single one, Scrat -- came anywhere near your interpretation of the statute.
That's probably why the recount proceeded.
Stop pretending to be right, though; or I'll have to call you on it again.
:wink:
