« U.S. Senator Says Block Grant Program Misused | Main | It's Deja Vu All Over Again »
July 06, 2006
Let Every Vote Count
That is the mantra of leftists when they lose elections. We are witnessing this sham of a mantra in Mexico. When a Democrat or international leftists say "every vote should count" what they mean is that "if every vote is counted, the leftist candidate would always win." Therefore, if a conservative candidate wins, there is something wrong (voting machines, disenfranchisement, etc).
President Bush won the 2000 election by winning in Florida. The initial vote count for Florida gave Bush about 1000 more votes than Algore. After several state recounts and audits by major media organizations (CNN, New York Times, WaPo), Bush won by 537 votes.
Therefore, the original vote count was off by around 433 votes out of 5,962,657 or an error of 7.26e-5 or 0.0000726% of the total vote. I'll say this again, the recount showed that the margin of error from the first vote count that gave Bush a 1000 vote lead, to the final count (after four recounts) that gave Bush a 537 vote lead was next to nothing. The only way Gore would have won was if the following were true:
• Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171 [clear volation of the equal protection clause in the US Constitution - the Supreme Court ruled 7-2]
• Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 [voter invalidated their own ballot by writing on it]
• Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 [reading tea leaves]
• One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60 [reading tea leaves]
The Supreme Court decision is a red herring for the Democrats because, regardless of the SCOTUS decision, Bush would still have won the election. But why was the US Supreme Court involved in the decision in the first place? Because Algore was trying to cheat. His legal counsel selected four heavily Democratic counties in Florida and demanded a hand recount (knowing that hand recounts are less reliable than machine recounts). Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court felt it had the right to rewrite election laws AFTER the election took place; this violate the explicit language of the Florida Constitution:
Article IV, Section 2: The Legislature, at its first session after the ratification of this Constitution, shall provide by law for the registration of all the legally qualified voters in each county, and for the returns of elections; and shall also provide that after the completion, from time to time, of such registration, no person not duly registered according to law shall be allowed to vote.
There is nothing in the constitution about the Florida Supreme Court determining the laws for the returns of elections or ensuring that only registered voters vote. This is EXPLICITLY given to the legislature--not the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court let Algore have hand recounts in only the counties he wanted (we'll call that "cherry picking").
The next ploy is to cry racism and disenfranchisement. The USCCR found no, none, zero, zilch, nada evidence of voter disenfranchisement:
In June 2001, following a six-month investigation that included subpoenas of Florida state officials from Governor Jeb Bush on down, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that found no evidence of voter intimidation, no evidence of voter harassment, and no evidence of intentional or systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.
Headed by a fiercely partisan Democrat, Mary Frances Berry(*), the Commission was very critical of Florida election officials (many of whom were Democrats). For example, "Potential voters confronted inexperienced poll workers, antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations, and other barriers to being able to exercise their right to vote." But the report found no basis for the contention that officials conspired to disenfranchise voters. "Moreover," it said, "even if it was foreseeable that certain actions by officials led to voter disenfranchisement, this alone does not mean that intentional discrimination occurred," let alone racial discrimination.
*whiny crybaby that wouldn't leave when her time was up.
Contrast that finding for the USCCR with the explicit attempt by the Gore campaign to throw out ALL OVERSEAS BALLOTS (most of which were military service men and women). That is blatant disenfranchisement--not the fables spread through the media (like black people eating each other in New Orleans last year).
Simply put, leftists believe any election is rigged if they do not win. We only have to go to the experts on leftwing thinking at Huffington Post:
We're going to give them one more chance to hold elections that are credible. We're going to throw ourselves into this next election, getting out as many voters as we can.
,,,And so, when the Repubs win yet again, surprisingly maintaining their control of Congress, notwithstanding their subterranean approval ratings, we will be prepared to note all the anomalies and improprieties -- and, at long last, to SAY NO. As this will have been the fourth election cycle ravaged by Bush/Cheney since 2000, Americans must finally go Ukrainian, and just refuse to acknowledge BushCo's latest "win."
Republicans can't win. If they do, it's fraud. That is the mindset.
Turn now to elections in Mexico. The media tried to spin this out of control after the votes came in on the first day giving the conservative candidate a 300,000 vote lead. It was the "narrowest of margins" the NY Times said.
Really? It was a bigger margin of the popular vote than John F. Kennedy got in 1960. Did the Republicans whine and complain and demand recounts? Nope. They took defeat like a grown-up.
Now, if the leftist loses, he will send his "demonstrators" (aka rioters) to the street. To do what? He lost.
He wants to do what most leftists do if they lose...try to cheat.
Posted by Aaron at July 6, 2006 08:20 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lifelikepundits.com/cgi-bin/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/2550
Comments
It looks, now like Calderone won. Fine. The opposition still did the right thing demanding a full and complete recount.
The rest of your rant is nothing but partisan lies. Bush lost in Florida and the only thing that kept Gore from Office was a supreme court packed with Republican appointees.
Here is the data returned from the COMPLETE recount funded by a consortium of eight news organizations in 2001.
Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171
• Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115
• Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107
• One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
They were released on November 12, 2001. Because or the events of Septembet 11, 2001, of course, no one want to know and those papers that did mention the recount published only those portions of the report that seemed to indicate that bush had won.
So Bush stole the election in 2000, used the events of 9/11 to keep his stolen office and has been running this country into the ground even since.
Aaron, you are not a stupid man, and I doubt an ignorrant one. So that means you must be a dishonest, partisan, plutoctat that will go on supporting the worst president in American history and I have no doubt will still be defending him when he is on trial for the war crimes that the Supreme court just opened him up to here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/washington/29cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
If you had any regard for this country or the laws that govern it you would not still be supporting this criminal.
Posted by: IaintBacchus at July 6, 2006 02:17 PM
Show one thing I said in my post that is a lie.
Posted by: Aaron at July 6, 2006 02:45 PM
And your 100 vote lead examples that were never undertaken does not take into account the estimated 15,000 votes Bush lost from the panhandle after the media ran to the mic and said Gore won florida when their polls were open for another hour.
Try READING the entire wiki article instead of just scanning for the only tidbits that say Gore won.
And have you ever read Bush v. Gore? Do you even know what the case was about? You just say "Supreme Court Selected Bush" and never argue what the merits of the decision is based on the Constitution--just like you are now calling Bush a war criminal because of the headlines you read from the NYTimes.
Did you read the 123 page Hamdan decision? I didn't read it all, but I read at least 50 pages of it that outlined the reasoning for the majority and the dissents.
Try learning to support something on the merits, not the outcome.
Posted by: Aaron at July 6, 2006 02:48 PM
IaintBacchus,bed wetting POS.
George W Bush will be know as the greatest President of our time.Your pathetic white trash Clinton will be known for what he is , A friken rapist and a theif.Just like your democrat party.
If you had any regard for this country or the laws that govern it you would go hag yourself and go straight to hell, LOSER.
Posted by: RobLACa. at July 11, 2006 06:35 AM