Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San
Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.

Oh well...

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San
Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.

Oh well...

You mean the Red Sox will try to lie and cheat to win, while Houston will
mispronounce their words?

From: "Schizoid Man"
Date: 10/20/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.


One big difference, you need four games to win the series but you need five
justices to become President.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Schizoid Man"
Date: 10/20/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San
Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.


One big difference, you need four games to win the series but you need
five
justices to become President.

Actually, you just need honest people counting the votes not trying to keep
counting until their guy wins.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/21/2004 3:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Schizoid Man"
Date: 10/20/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San
Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.


One big difference, you need four games to win the series but you need
five
justices to become President.

Actually, you just need honest people counting the votes

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won. I agree that is all we really need though. Funny how a
group that claims to be so anti-litigation would sue to stop democracy. But
anyways, Houston didn't make it.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/21/2004 3:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Schizoid Man"
Date: 10/20/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San
Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.


One big difference, you need four games to win the series but you need
five
justices to become President.

Actually, you just need honest people counting the votes

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

Gore never won any legal count in Florida that I can recall. He never won
any count in Florida done by anybody that I can recall.

I agree that is all we really need though. Funny how a
group that claims to be so anti-litigation would sue to stop democracy.
But
anyways, Houston didn't make it.


They are anti-frivolous litigation. Making sure the election isn't stole
from you is hardly frivolous.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

No, Gore lost 5 out of 6 counts, including losing all four
counts of the NYT and Miami Herald, whch were pro Gore.
The only coung Gore won, strangely enough, was when the
Bush counting criteria were applied to the count.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/21/2004 3:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Schizoid Man"
Date: 10/20/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San
Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.


One big difference, you need four games to win the series but you need
five
justices to become President.

Actually, you just need honest people counting the votes

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

Gore never won any legal count in Florida that I can recall.

Of course not, The supreme court interviened. He did win the most accurate
count however.

He never won
any count in Florida done by anybody that I can recall.

Your recollection is not a reflection of reality in this case. There was a full
state recount after the fact and Gore won it.



I agree that is all we really need though. Funny how a
group that claims to be so anti-litigation would sue to stop democracy.
But
anyways, Houston didn't make it.


They are anti-frivolous litigation.

Well preventing the votes from being recounted is worse tyhan frivilous, it's
simply anti-democratic.

Making sure the election isn't stole
from you is hardly frivolous.

Niether is stealing one.

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

No, Gore lost 5 out of 6 counts, including losing all four
counts of the NYT and Miami Herald, whch were pro Gore.
The only coung Gore won, strangely enough, was when the
Bush counting criteria were applied to the count.









Yeah, the state wide recount. The only fair recount. The recount that should
have been done. It was ironic though.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

No, Gore lost 5 out of 6 counts, including losing all four
counts of the NYT and Miami Herald, whch were pro Gore.
The only coung Gore won, strangely enough, was when the
Bush counting criteria were applied to the count.









Yeah, the state wide recount. The only fair recount. The recount that
should
have been done. It was ironic though..

It was only one of three statewide recounts. Please note that had Gore
won his court case, this is NOT how the recount would have proceded.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net



Gore never won any legal count in Florida that I can recall.

Of course not, The supreme court interviened. He did win the most accurate
count however.


One of the three most accurate recounts. Bush won the other two.
And the recount was by the criteria Bush argued for, not by the criteria
Gore argued for.

And thank you for finally admitting that Gore was not advocating
the most accurate recount.

He never won
any count in Florida done by anybody that I can recall.

Your recollection is not a reflection of reality in this case. There was a
full
state recount after the fact and Gore won it.



There were three recounts done according to the Bush criteria, and
Gore won one of them. I fond it ironic that you now admit that
the recount according to the Bush criteria is the most accurate recount,
and that the recounts performed by the criteria advocated by Gore
are the least accurate recounts


I agree that is all we really need though. Funny how a
group that claims to be so anti-litigation would sue to stop democracy.
But
anyways, Houston didn't make it.


They are anti-frivolous litigation.

Well preventing the votes from being recounted is worse tyhan frivilous,
it's
simply anti-democratic.


they wer already recounted twice. The official vote is the result of
the second recount.


Making sure the election isn't stole
from you is hardly frivolous.

Niether is stealing one.


Yhank you for admitting Gore's deviousness.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/21/2004 3:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Schizoid Man"
Date: 10/20/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San
Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win
their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.


One big difference, you need four games to win the series but you need
five
justices to become President.

Actually, you just need honest people counting the votes

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

Gore never won any legal count in Florida that I can recall.

Of course not, The supreme court interviened. He did win the most accurate
count however.

He never won
any count in Florida done by anybody that I can recall.

Your recollection is not a reflection of reality in this case. There was a
full
state recount after the fact and Gore won it.

Did he win according to his own criteria?

I agree that is all we really need though. Funny how a
group that claims to be so anti-litigation would sue to stop democracy.
But
anyways, Houston didn't make it.


They are anti-frivolous litigation.

Well preventing the votes from being recounted is worse tyhan frivilous,
it's
simply anti-democratic.

They didn't prevent a recount, there had been several, they just insisted
that Florida follow it's own laws.

Making sure the election isn't stolen
from you is hardly frivolous.

Niether is stealing one.


Then why did the Democrats try to do so?
They tried to mislead, they are the only ones who actually tried to deny
certian votes and they cherry picked the precincts where they wanted a
recount, because they thought it would serve their puposes better.
It was Democrats who were trying to steal something, it was the GOP who
simply wanted to follow the law.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

No, Gore lost 5 out of 6 counts, including losing all four
counts of the NYT and Miami Herald, whch were pro Gore.
The only coung Gore won, strangely enough, was when the
Bush counting criteria were applied to the count.









Yeah, the state wide recount. The only fair recount. The recount that
should
have been done. It was ironic though.

To bad Gore wasn't honest enough to ask for one.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/23/2004 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/21/2004 3:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Schizoid Man"
Date: 10/20/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San
Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win
their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.


One big difference, you need four games to win the series but you need
five
justices to become President.

Actually, you just need honest people counting the votes

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

Gore never won any legal count in Florida that I can recall.

Of course not, The supreme court interviened. He did win the most accurate
count however.

He never won
any count in Florida done by anybody that I can recall.

Your recollection is not a reflection of reality in this case. There was a
full
state recount after the fact and Gore won it.

Did he win according to his own criteria?

No. He had nothing to do with it. It was an independent state wide recount.



I agree that is all we really need though. Funny how a
group that claims to be so anti-litigation would sue to stop democracy.
But
anyways, Houston didn't make it.


They are anti-frivolous litigation.

Well preventing the votes from being recounted is worse tyhan frivilous,
it's
simply anti-democratic.

They didn't prevent a recount, there had been several, they just insisted
that Florida follow it's own laws.

They certainly did prevent a recount. What were they doing if they weren't
preventing a recount? It is up to Florida to make these calls not the supreme
court.



Making sure the election isn't stolen
from you is hardly frivolous.

Niether is stealing one.


Then why did the Democrats try to do so?

Both sides tried to gain the advantage. Bush got his way.


They tried to mislead, they are the only ones who actually tried to deny
certian votes and they cherry picked the precincts where they wanted a
recount, because they thought it would serve their puposes better.

Complete nonsense. Of course they were worried about the counties where the
**** ups were most prevelent. They should have taken the high road and asked
for a state wide recount. It really doesn't matter though. The choice was for
the state to make until the supreme court highjacked the election. That was
bull****.


It was Democrats who were trying to steal something, it was the GOP who
simply wanted to follow the law.

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state make the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose where it didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/23/2004 1:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

No, Gore lost 5 out of 6 counts, including losing all four
counts of the NYT and Miami Herald, whch were pro Gore.
The only coung Gore won, strangely enough, was when the
Bush counting criteria were applied to the count.









Yeah, the state wide recount. The only fair recount. The recount that
should
have been done. It was ironic though.

To bad Gore wasn't honest enough to ask for one.

Wouldn't have mattered. The supreme court wasn't honest enough not to steal the
election either way.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/23/2004 12:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:




One of the three most accurate recounts. Bush won the other two.

I was only aware of one state wide recount by hand. The one Gore won.



NYT, Miami Herald and a group called NORC.
You are referring to the Miami Herald recount, where
GOre won statewide. However, Gore argued AGAINST
a statewide recount in its briefs, whle Bush, though arguing
against any recount, argues that if there were to be a recount
ordered, it should be statewide.


And the recount was by the criteria Bush argued for, not by the criteria
Gore argued for.

And thank you for finally admitting that Gore was not advocating
the most accurate recount.

Finally? When have I ever said otherwise? Both sides were trying to cheat.
Bush
got his cheat via the supreme court ruling. It should have been left up to
Florida how to deal with the problem. Their election their solution. That
didn't happen.


Just as easy an argument is that Gore got his cheat via
the Florida Supreme Court ruling.

And it DID happen that Bush won the Florida vote and both of two
recounts. That is how Florida certified its vote.






There were three recounts done according to the Bush criteria, and
Gore won one of them.

Like I said. I only heard about the one Gore won.

I fond it ironic that you now admit that
the recount according to the Bush criteria is the most accurate recount,
and that the recounts performed by the criteria advocated by Gore
are the least accurate recounts

I find it ironic that you see any irony there at all. I have never
advocated
Gore's position on how the ballots should have been recounted.




they wer already recounted twice. The official vote is the result of
the second recount.

The court stuck it's nose where it did not belong. The state should have
been
left alone to do what it saw fit. That did not happen. Anytime the supreme
court tells a state they cannot do a recount for a more accurate result
they
are making an anti-democratic ruling.


Then that goes for the State Suprteme Court as well.
An d teh recount ordered by the Florida State Supreme Court
was NOT, I repeat, NOT the 'most accurate' one you
have been referring to. The Florida Suptreme
Court ordered a recount in four counties, not statewide.
The Miami Herald post election recount gave the four county recount to
BUSH. The Statewide went to GOre, but that is NOT
the one Gore asked the Court to order.



Yhank you for admitting Gore's deviousness.

They were both quite devious. Bush just got his way with his theft of the
election by a 5 to 4 vote in the supreme court.


There were two votes on two issues, one vote
was 5-4, the other was 7-2
Your memory appears to be very 'selective'.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/23/2004 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/21/2004 3:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Schizoid Man"
Date: 10/20/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San
Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win
their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.


One big difference, you need four games to win the series but you
need
five
justices to become President.

Actually, you just need honest people counting the votes

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

Gore never won any legal count in Florida that I can recall.

Of course not, The supreme court interviened. He did win the most
accurate
count however.

He never won
any count in Florida done by anybody that I can recall.

Your recollection is not a reflection of reality in this case. There was
a
full
state recount after the fact and Gore won it.

Did he win according to his own criteria?

No. He had nothing to do with it. It was an independent state wide
recount.



I agree that is all we really need though. Funny how a
group that claims to be so anti-litigation would sue to stop
democracy.
But
anyways, Houston didn't make it.


They are anti-frivolous litigation.

Well preventing the votes from being recounted is worse tyhan frivilous,
it's
simply anti-democratic.

They didn't prevent a recount, there had been several, they just insisted
that Florida follow it's own laws.

They certainly did prevent a recount. What were they doing if they weren't
preventing a recount? It is up to Florida to make these calls not the
supreme
court.



Making sure the election isn't stolen
from you is hardly frivolous.

Niether is stealing one.


Then why did the Democrats try to do so?

Both sides tried to gain the advantage. Bush got his way.


They tried to mislead, they are the only ones who actually tried to deny
certian votes and they cherry picked the precincts where they wanted a
recount, because they thought it would serve their puposes better.

Complete nonsense. Of course they were worried about the counties where
the
**** ups were most prevelent. They should have taken the high road and
asked
for a state wide recount. It really doesn't matter though. The choice was
for
the state to make until the supreme court highjacked the election. That
was
bull****.


It was Democrats who were trying to steal something, it was the GOP who
simply wanted to follow the law.

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state make
the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose where it
didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

Will you remember that you made this argument
after November 2, 2004? I think the Democrats
will be asking for US Supreme Court intervention
after they lose the 2004 appeals in state courts.

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/23/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/23/2004 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/21/2004 3:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Schizoid Man"
Date: 10/20/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San
Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win
their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.


One big difference, you need four games to win the series but you
need
five
justices to become President.

Actually, you just need honest people counting the votes

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

Gore never won any legal count in Florida that I can recall.

Of course not, The supreme court interviened. He did win the most
accurate
count however.

He never won
any count in Florida done by anybody that I can recall.

Your recollection is not a reflection of reality in this case. There was
a
full
state recount after the fact and Gore won it.

Did he win according to his own criteria?

No. He had nothing to do with it. It was an independent state wide
recount.



I agree that is all we really need though. Funny how a
group that claims to be so anti-litigation would sue to stop
democracy.
But
anyways, Houston didn't make it.


They are anti-frivolous litigation.

Well preventing the votes from being recounted is worse tyhan frivilous,
it's
simply anti-democratic.

They didn't prevent a recount, there had been several, they just insisted
that Florida follow it's own laws.

They certainly did prevent a recount. What were they doing if they weren't
preventing a recount? It is up to Florida to make these calls not the
supreme
court.



Making sure the election isn't stolen
from you is hardly frivolous.

Niether is stealing one.


Then why did the Democrats try to do so?

Both sides tried to gain the advantage. Bush got his way.


They tried to mislead, they are the only ones who actually tried to deny
certian votes and they cherry picked the precincts where they wanted a
recount, because they thought it would serve their puposes better.

Complete nonsense. Of course they were worried about the counties where
the
**** ups were most prevelent. They should have taken the high road and
asked
for a state wide recount. It really doesn't matter though. The choice was
for
the state to make until the supreme court highjacked the election. That
was
bull****.


It was Democrats who were trying to steal something, it was the GOP who
simply wanted to follow the law.

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state make
the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose where it
didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

Will you remember that you made this argument
after November 2, 2004?

No.

I think the Democrats
will be asking for US Supreme Court intervention
after they lose the 2004 appeals in state courts.

I doubt it happen but It wouldn't surprise me if the opportunity reared it's
ugly head. One thing the two parties seem to have in common is they believe one
bad deed deserves another.

(S888Wheel) wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Well preventing the votes from being recounted is worse than frivilous,
it's simply anti-democratic.

They didn't prevent a recount, there had been several, they just
insisted that Florida follow it's own laws.

They certainly did prevent a recount. What were they doing if they
weren't preventing a recount? It is up to Florida to make these calls
not the supreme court.

Certainly that was the case the Supreme Court would have been expected to
make in "Bush vs Gore" according to its recent history of Federal vs States'
rights. However, by invoking "equal protection" in its reasoning, they
have created an alarming precedent in that _any_ election that uses different
counting methods for different groups of voters could subsequently be
declared invalid. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/23/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state
make
the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose where it
didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

Will you remember that you made this argument
after November 2, 2004?

No.


I didn' think so.

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 6:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/23/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state
make
the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose where it
didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

Will you remember that you made this argument
after November 2, 2004?

No.


I didn' think so.








You didn't think so what? What were we talking about?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

Date: 10/24/2004 6:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:





All that matters is
propertly counting the votes. This is much
more important than who wins for any particular
four year term.

yeah and it didn't happen.


Nor did Gore want it to happen.



The correct way to perform any recount to determine
who wins a state's electors is by a statewide recount.

Legally the correct way is determined by the state officials. I would say
that
in many cases a state wide recount is best and most fair. It is not always
neccessary though. If there is a specific problem in a specific district
then
there is not neccessarily a good reason to make the whole state recount
their
votes.



Yes, there is a good reason , partial recounts are not equitable, not are
they legal.
A recount has to recount each ballot.



I don't care who would have won.
Picking off selective recounts of particular
counties is unconstitutional,

What part of the constitution prevents states from picking specific
problems in
vote counting that happened in specific districts and going back and
correcting
those mistakes?

and flat out wrong
looking at it logically.

In some cases yes and in some cases no. In this case I agree that a state
wide
recount was the best choice. Supreme court intervention was the worst
choice.


Well, Gore's proposed remedy was NOT a statwide recount.
At the time I felt he made a big mistake in asking for
a partial rather than a total.he got greedy, and fished for his best
assumed statistical cahnce. His problem was that
he had a limited amount of time for legal maneuvering, and he
wasted it on that issue. If he poroposed a statewide, there
would be less to argue about, it would have put
the Reps ina less tenable position, and he probably would have
won the right to the recount. Instead he went for all
or nothing, and got nothing.



You can't have a maix and match result constituting
a bunch ao partial counts slapped together.

But that is what we have. Balloting is not standardized in most states.
With
computerized voting would you say that any computer glitch would be
logical
grounds for recounting all noncomputer cast votes in any state along with
recounting the computerized ones? I don't.



Iagree that uniformity within a state is preferable.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 6:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/23/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state
make
the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose where
it
didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

Will you remember that you made this argument
after November 2, 2004?

No.


I didn' think so.

You didn't think so what? What were we talking about?


State's rights

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 2:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

Date: 10/24/2004 6:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:





All that matters is
propertly counting the votes. This is much
more important than who wins for any particular
four year term.

yeah and it didn't happen.


Nor did Gore want it to happen.

What Gore wanted was irrelevent. He had no authority to act.





The correct way to perform any recount to determine
who wins a state's electors is by a statewide recount.

Legally the correct way is determined by the state officials. I would say
that
in many cases a state wide recount is best and most fair. It is not always
neccessary though. If there is a specific problem in a specific district
then
there is not neccessarily a good reason to make the whole state recount
their
votes.



Yes, there is a good reason , partial recounts are not equitable, not are
they legal.
A recount has to recount each ballot.

Depends on the reason for a recount.





I don't care who would have won.
Picking off selective recounts of particular
counties is unconstitutional,

What part of the constitution prevents states from picking specific
problems in
vote counting that happened in specific districts and going back and
correcting
those mistakes?

and flat out wrong
looking at it logically.

In some cases yes and in some cases no. In this case I agree that a state
wide
recount was the best choice. Supreme court intervention was the worst
choice.


Well, Gore's proposed remedy was NOT a statwide recount.

Doesn't matter does it? He had no authority to act.


At the time I felt he made a big mistake in asking for
a partial rather than a total.he got greedy, and fished for his best
assumed statistical cahnce. His problem was that
he had a limited amount of time for legal maneuvering, and he
wasted it on that issue. If he poroposed a statewide, there
would be less to argue about, it would have put
the Reps ina less tenable position, and he probably would have
won the right to the recount. Instead he went for all
or nothing, and got nothing.

I agree that it was a mistake. I don't agree that it mattered or made the
supreme court intervention any less wrong.





You can't have a maix and match result constituting
a bunch ao partial counts slapped together.

But that is what we have. Balloting is not standardized in most states.
With
computerized voting would you say that any computer glitch would be
logical
grounds for recounting all noncomputer cast votes in any state along with
recounting the computerized ones? I don't.



Iagree that uniformity within a state is preferable.

You didn't answer the question though. Does a state need to recount all ballots
even if we are talking about a problem that could only affect computerized
balloting?

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 2:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 6:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/23/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state
make
the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose where
it
didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

Will you remember that you made this argument
after November 2, 2004?

No.


I didn' think so.

You didn't think so what? What were we talking about?


State's rights



I don't remember what I said.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/23/2004 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/21/2004 3:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Schizoid Man"
Date: 10/20/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San
Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win
their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.


One big difference, you need four games to win the series but you
need
five
justices to become President.

Actually, you just need honest people counting the votes

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

Gore never won any legal count in Florida that I can recall.

Of course not, The supreme court interviened. He did win the most
accurate
count however.

He never won
any count in Florida done by anybody that I can recall.

Your recollection is not a reflection of reality in this case. There was
a
full
state recount after the fact and Gore won it.

Did he win according to his own criteria?

No. He had nothing to do with it. It was an independent state wide
recount.



I agree that is all we really need though. Funny how a
group that claims to be so anti-litigation would sue to stop
democracy.
But
anyways, Houston didn't make it.


They are anti-frivolous litigation.

Well preventing the votes from being recounted is worse tyhan frivilous,
it's
simply anti-democratic.

They didn't prevent a recount, there had been several, they just insisted
that Florida follow it's own laws.

They certainly did prevent a recount. What were they doing if they weren't
preventing a recount? It is up to Florida to make these calls not the
supreme
court.



Making sure the election isn't stolen
from you is hardly frivolous.

Niether is stealing one.


Then why did the Democrats try to do so?

Both sides tried to gain the advantage. Bush got his way.


They tried to mislead, they are the only ones who actually tried to deny
certian votes and they cherry picked the precincts where they wanted a
recount, because they thought it would serve their puposes better.

Complete nonsense. Of course they were worried about the counties where
the
**** ups were most prevelent. They should have taken the high road and
asked
for a state wide recount. It really doesn't matter though. The choice was
for
the state to make until the supreme court highjacked the election. That
was
bull****.


It was Democrats who were trying to steal something, it was the GOP who
simply wanted to follow the law.

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state make
the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose where it
didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

The Attorney General was trying to follow the law and certify the count but
then Gore's people went to court.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 2:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

Date: 10/24/2004 6:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:





All that matters is
propertly counting the votes. This is much
more important than who wins for any particular
four year term.

yeah and it didn't happen.


Nor did Gore want it to happen.

What Gore wanted was irrelevent. He had no authority to act.





The correct way to perform any recount to determine
who wins a state's electors is by a statewide recount.

Legally the correct way is determined by the state officials. I would
say
that
in many cases a state wide recount is best and most fair. It is not
always
neccessary though. If there is a specific problem in a specific district
then
there is not neccessarily a good reason to make the whole state recount
their
votes.



Yes, there is a good reason , partial recounts are not equitable, not are
they legal.
A recount has to recount each ballot.

Depends on the reason for a recount.





I don't care who would have won.
Picking off selective recounts of particular
counties is unconstitutional,

What part of the constitution prevents states from picking specific
problems in
vote counting that happened in specific districts and going back and
correcting
those mistakes?

and flat out wrong
looking at it logically.

In some cases yes and in some cases no. In this case I agree that a
state
wide
recount was the best choice. Supreme court intervention was the worst
choice.


Well, Gore's proposed remedy was NOT a statwide recount.

Doesn't matter does it? He had no authority to act.


At the time I felt he made a big mistake in asking for
a partial rather than a total.he got greedy, and fished for his best
assumed statistical cahnce. His problem was that
he had a limited amount of time for legal maneuvering, and he
wasted it on that issue. If he poroposed a statewide, there
would be less to argue about, it would have put
the Reps ina less tenable position, and he probably would have
won the right to the recount. Instead he went for all
or nothing, and got nothing.

I agree that it was a mistake. I don't agree that it mattered or made the
supreme court intervention any less wrong.





You can't have a maix and match result constituting
a bunch ao partial counts slapped together.

But that is what we have. Balloting is not standardized in most states.
With
computerized voting would you say that any computer glitch would be
logical
grounds for recounting all noncomputer cast votes in any state along
with
recounting the computerized ones? I don't.



Iagree that uniformity within a state is preferable.

You didn't answer the question though. Does a state need to recount all
ballots
even if we are talking about a problem that could only affect computerized
balloting?



If what is done to the computerized system constitutes a recount, yes,
then there should be a statewide recount.
T

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 2:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 6:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/23/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the
state
make
the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose
where
it
didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

Will you remember that you made this argument
after November 2, 2004?

No.


I didn' think so.

You didn't think so what? What were we talking about?


State's rights



I don't remember what I said.

" If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state
make the call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck
it's nose where it didn't belong and thwrted democracy."

I have a feeling that this time, the Dems will be
calling for intervention by Federal Courts.

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/25/2004 5:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 2:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

Date: 10/24/2004 6:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:





All that matters is
propertly counting the votes. This is much
more important than who wins for any particular
four year term.

yeah and it didn't happen.


Nor did Gore want it to happen.

What Gore wanted was irrelevent. He had no authority to act.





The correct way to perform any recount to determine
who wins a state's electors is by a statewide recount.

Legally the correct way is determined by the state officials. I would
say
that
in many cases a state wide recount is best and most fair. It is not
always
neccessary though. If there is a specific problem in a specific district
then
there is not neccessarily a good reason to make the whole state recount
their
votes.



Yes, there is a good reason , partial recounts are not equitable, not are
they legal.
A recount has to recount each ballot.

Depends on the reason for a recount.





I don't care who would have won.
Picking off selective recounts of particular
counties is unconstitutional,

What part of the constitution prevents states from picking specific
problems in
vote counting that happened in specific districts and going back and
correcting
those mistakes?

and flat out wrong
looking at it logically.

In some cases yes and in some cases no. In this case I agree that a
state
wide
recount was the best choice. Supreme court intervention was the worst
choice.


Well, Gore's proposed remedy was NOT a statwide recount.

Doesn't matter does it? He had no authority to act.


At the time I felt he made a big mistake in asking for
a partial rather than a total.he got greedy, and fished for his best
assumed statistical cahnce. His problem was that
he had a limited amount of time for legal maneuvering, and he
wasted it on that issue. If he poroposed a statewide, there
would be less to argue about, it would have put
the Reps ina less tenable position, and he probably would have
won the right to the recount. Instead he went for all
or nothing, and got nothing.

I agree that it was a mistake. I don't agree that it mattered or made the
supreme court intervention any less wrong.





You can't have a maix and match result constituting
a bunch ao partial counts slapped together.

But that is what we have. Balloting is not standardized in most states.
With
computerized voting would you say that any computer glitch would be
logical
grounds for recounting all noncomputer cast votes in any state along
with
recounting the computerized ones? I don't.



Iagree that uniformity within a state is preferable.

You didn't answer the question though. Does a state need to recount all
ballots
even if we are talking about a problem that could only affect computerized
balloting?



If what is done to the computerized system constitutes a recount, yes,
then there should be a statewide recount.
T


That would be a complete waste of time and money since noncomputerized ballots
cannot be affected.

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/25/2004 5:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 2:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 6:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/23/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the
state
make
the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose
where
it
didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

Will you remember that you made this argument
after November 2, 2004?

No.


I didn' think so.

You didn't think so what? What were we talking about?


State's rights



I don't remember what I said.

" If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state
make the call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck
it's nose where it didn't belong and thwrted democracy."


I never said that.

I have a feeling that this time, the Dems will be
calling for intervention by Federal Courts.

George M. Middius wrote:

Clyde Slick said:


I have a feeling that this time, the Dems will be
calling for intervention by Federal Courts.


I agree. This time, the Republicans will get caught dead to rights.

Which will make no difference since there's no law concerning
how the delegates themselves decide to vote. Ie - it's not moral,
but technically legal to buy off or otherwise influence them
at the Electoral Assembly. Sure, it would get them banned from
it in the future, but there's nothing that can stop them from voting
against their candidate if they feel the incentive is strong
enough.

Watch - if it gets that close, it will happen. Then people will
at least see how broken our system is.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

I have a feeling that this time, the Dems will be
calling for intervention by Federal Courts.

I agree. This time, the Republicans will get caught dead to rights.


Theyn haven't done anything. Sure, there have been a few
intermittent frauds on both sides, but those were
efforts of a few overzealous individuals.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/25/2004 5:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 2:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 6:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/23/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the
state
make
the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose
where
it
didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

Will you remember that you made this argument
after November 2, 2004?

No.


I didn' think so.

You didn't think so what? What were we talking about?


State's rights



I don't remember what I said.

" If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state
make the call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck
it's nose where it didn't belong and thwrted democracy."


I never said that.


Ok, I guess someone else said it. Sorry if
I misattributed the quote to you.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...


George M. Middius wrote:

Clyde Slick said:


I have a feeling that this time, the Dems will be
calling for intervention by Federal Courts.


I agree. This time, the Republicans will get caught dead to rights.

Which will make no difference since there's no law concerning
how the delegates themselves decide to vote. Ie - it's not moral,
but technically legal to buy off or otherwise influence them
at the Electoral Assembly. Sure, it would get them banned from
it in the future, but there's nothing that can stop them from voting
against their candidate if they feel the incentive is strong
enough.

Watch - if it gets that close, it will happen. Then people will
at least see how broken our system is.


Each party picks its electors based upon party loyalty.

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/25/2004 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/25/2004 5:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 2:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 6:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/23/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the
state
make
the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose
where
it
didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

Will you remember that you made this argument
after November 2, 2004?

No.


I didn' think so.

You didn't think so what? What were we talking about?


State's rights



I don't remember what I said.

" If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state
make the call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck
it's nose where it didn't belong and thwrted democracy."


I never said that.


Ok, I guess someone else said it. Sorry if
I misattributed the quote to you.


No, I said it I just won't remember it. Remember?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/23/2004 1:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

No, Gore lost 5 out of 6 counts, including losing all four
counts of the NYT and Miami Herald, whch were pro Gore.
The only coung Gore won, strangely enough, was when the
Bush counting criteria were applied to the count.









Yeah, the state wide recount. The only fair recount. The recount that
should
have been done. It was ironic though.

To bad Gore wasn't honest enough to ask for one.

Wouldn't have mattered. The supreme court wasn't honest enough not to
steal the
election either way.

The only thing the Supreme Court did was allow Florida to certify the
election according to their laws. They did not decide the election.

George M. Middius wrote:


Joseph Oberlander said:


I agree. This time, the Republicans will get caught dead to rights.

Which will make no difference since there's no law concerning
how the delegates themselves decide to vote.


Forget the delegates. The Poobs will try to steal the election at every
turn. They've already started their dirty tricks in Ohio. Florida is still
a mess. Who knows what chicanery they're trying in the other swing states?

And if all of that doesn't work, take it to the Supreme Court.

It will take a landslide to keep Bush from winning via dirty tricks.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

I have a feeling that this time, the Dems will be
calling for intervention by Federal Courts.

I agree. This time, the Republicans will get caught dead to rights.


The Republicans don't operate ACORN.