Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > > They also allowed the Republican party to "correct" 20,000
> > absentee ballots
> > > that did not include the required identification numbers on
> > them. By law,
> > > these votes should have been excluded. By law, these votes
> > should not have
> > > been in possession of Republicans outside the election system. By law,
> > > these votes should not have been altered. But the Republicans did it
> > > anyway.
> > a) the 'corrections' were not in the way the voters voted, but in that
> > the ballots were supposed to be printed with their voter ID numbers on
> > them already. Most voters voting in absentia have no means of
> > determining their voter ID numbers, it is the responsibility of the
> > state to provide them. To penalize the voters for the actions of the
> > state is an illegal disenfranchisement, as the courts ruled.
> > b) the ballots were never outside the election system. The GOP provided
> > staff to write in the voter ID numbers on government premises.
> > c) Votes were NEVER altered.
> I agree, with a couple of clarifications. They did not change the votes (as
> far as we know), but it was still illegal. The votes were cast and then
> given to the Republican party which then later resubmitted them to be
> counted. They were originally rejected as invalid and then after being
> changed, were accepted. This is illegal. Votes, even outer envelopes,
> cannot be changed after a voter submits it. Votes also cannot leave the
> control of the election system, go to one political party, and then be
As I said, this is NOT what happened. NO VOTES CHANGED. Get it yet?
Nobody's ballots changed who they were voting for, so therefore no votes
changed. Nor did any ballots leave the control of the election system.
All work done to add the proper voter ID numbers to ballots was done on
> Also not that they only did this with Republican votes, not
> Democratic votes. The reason is that the voting materials were provided by
> the Republican Party which left of the voter ID numbers. Had they been the
> real ballots printed by the State of Florida, they would have been valid.
> The State did not screw these ballots up, the Republican Party did. I agree
> that the votes were probably not altered because they were Republican voters
> only and presumably voted for Bush.
This is incorrect. Both GOP and Democrat registered ballots were printed
without voter ID numbers, and they were 'real ballots'. Moreover, the
Democrats did correct some democrat votes, but gave up and decided to
instead insist all ballots without ID numbers be rejected.
> > >
> > > The Republicans also fought "for" recounts in some counties where they
> > > thought they would improve, like Volusia county, and "against"
> > recounts in
> > > other counties where they thought they would win.
> > Yes, but in no instance did they insist on ballot counting rules that
> > deviated from those in place on election day, as I said before and you
> > ignored.
> Yes they did. They argued that the State Law called for a recount on the
> day of the election, but that Harris was not bound to use these recounts
> later. They reverted back to the original counts for some counties where it
> benefited Bush. Although state law required the recount on the day of the
> election, they changed the requirement for the recount later.
If a recount does not change the result of an election, then whether the
winner wins by 1 million or just 1,000 ballots is irrelevant.
> > Yes, somewhere between 4-6 million ballots were thrown out, including a
> > couple hundred thousand alone in the Illinois County that is home to
> > Gore's campaign chairman, old 'Two Vote' Daley.
> You must not be aware that many of the Republican ballots that were fixed
> duplicated votes. When the ballots were thought to be invalid, many
> republicans went to the polls and voted in person. These voters got to vote
> twice. When they accepted the fixed ballots later, there were computer
> problems with the Republican party records of the fixed votes, such that
> they couldn't verify that Republican votes didn't count twice. Rather than
> throw out some valid votes, they won a court case to allow all the votes,
> including duplicate Republican votes, to count in the system.
This is not correct.
> > > > The spoilsport antics of the rent-a-riot left wing at the inauguration
> > > > and since have continued to help Bush by casting the left as too
> > > > immature to lead, and too shrilly extremist to represent the people.
> > >
> > > This is too funny. The Republicans did the same thing in Miami
> > when they
> > > flew in paid participants for their riot. Both sides do the exact same
> > > thing, and yet most people only recall the poor behavior on one side.
> > Show me footage of a republican 'riot'. Only one instance did they stage
> > a peaceful protest, outside the Dade recount places, where the
> > republicans in the room noticed no disturbances. The democrats claimed
> > it was a 'riot' only because they didn't like the fact that someone was
> > demonstrating 'against' them, which was 'obviously' staged by 'racist,
> > bigoted, sexist, right-wing wackos'.
> Mike, you can nitpick words all you want. The Miami county officials tried
> to move the ballot boxes through the hallway with all the yelling
> protestors. They could not get through. They crowd was not outside, they
> were physically blocking the hallway where the ballots were being carried.
> They refused to allow the officials through. After repeated requests to
> allow them through, the officials gave up and said that they could not
> finish the recount because the yelling crowd of paid republican
> demonstrators were physically blocking their access to the recount room.
> This may not have been a riot, but it was a physical disruption of the
> election process by paid members of Republican congressional staffers who
> were flown down specifically for this purpose. Nitpicking on whether it was
> a riot or not misses the point. They paid protestors and flew them in to
> disrupt a legal process, and it worked. You can't blame Democrats for
> paying protestors and claim that Republicans don't do the same thing.
If the Democrats paid for the protesters BEFORE the election started,
indicating they were planning on trying to steal the election by riot
before it even happened, then any counter-action to set things to right
is perfectly justified. Who initiated the violence? It was the
Democrats. Its who initiates it that counts.
> > This is one more instance of a liberal claiming a crime occurs only
> > because they 'felt intimidated', not that any actually intimidating
> > behavior actually occurred. Much like blacks protesting police checking
> > for outstanding warrants on the election day. Since felons can't vote,
> > its obvious that only those who are felons should be worried about their
> > ability to commit vote fraud being impaired.
> The problem wasn't that felons were kept from voting. The problem was that
> many non-felon blacks were mistakenly marked as felons and kept from voting.
> This was done by a Texas right-wing group that worked for Jeb Bush who came
> in and volunteered to mark black felons in the computer systems. They
> screwed up and blocked all blacks with any police record, not just felony
> records. Many blacks, including state legislators(!) were denied their
> right to vote because they were marked as felons. This is a valid complaint
> for them to make. It is not just that they felt intimidated.
I've heard nothing about this. All I've heard is that some felons who
had had their felonies expunged or gotten petitions of relief from civil
disability granted wound up being wiped from the rolls when they should
not have, which included one felon who sat on an election board.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:04 MDT