It's a little different when one candidate wins the popular vote and the other loses the popular vote and barely wins a state to win the presidency vs what is (most likely) going to happen in this presidential race. Donald isn't going to win the popular vote, and lose the electoral college vote. He isn't going to win the popular vote and win the EC vote. He IS going to lose the EC vote and the popular vote.
5-4. Denny can't even lie convincingly. Gore wanted a full recount. That was the case before the Supreme Court. He was ready to concede until he was informed that it was still a toss-up. Gore did not refuse to accept the results; there were no results until the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision so unprecedented the Court said it should not be a precedent, stopped the recount. We don't know what the results would have been had there been a full recount. Many elections observers believed that a full recount could have (not necessarily would have) shifted the state. We'll never know. When the Court stopped the recount, although it must surely have been a bitter pill for the candidate who undoubtedly won the popular vote, Gore conceded. The amazing thing about right wing talking points - they get put forward on Fox or some talk radio and next thing you know they are being repeated word for word even when glaringly obviously false. No wonder these people are called clones and ditto-heads. No, incidentally, I did not vote for Gore. I voted socialist.
The 7-2 vote Denny referenced was the initial decision to stop the recounting process that had been set by the Florida Supreme Court. " Seven of the nine justices saw constitutional problems with the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution in the Florida Supreme Court's plan for recounting ballots, citing differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount." The 5-4 ruling was the final vote to stop the recount entirely, with the majority ruling that there wasn't sufficient time to impose a uniform standard for the recount. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount But you're right, we'll never know for sure what a full recount would have revealed. The system used by Florida had so many places a potential error could have occurred, that you would never get agreement as to what the "real" vote was anyway. Regarding Trump's comment about not being willing to say whether he would accept the election results, it's either outlandish, if you assume he meant not being willing to accept the results after the process was complete (including any reasonable recounts allowed by law), or it's common sense if you assume he meant that he wouldn't necessarily accept the results on election night in a close state count...just as Gore did. Since he's a total ass-hat, I can believe the first about him quite readily, but can't prove it.
I like the way Oregon and Multnomah county do vote by mail. I get a text when my ballot is mailed. Text when it's received. Text when it's counted. Can view who and what I voted for after the election online. It just gets a little confusing because I cast 20 ballots.
More media bias... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ept-staff-on-cybersecurity-in-2010-video.html Not even mentioned on ABCnews, CNN, CBSNews, USAToday. Or if it's there I suck at finding it, meaning they've back-paged the shit. This is important, because this shows that Clinton new exactly how to handle certain information and then chose to conveniently use the excuse to get herself out of hot water with the FBI. Definitely collusion there of course.
7-2, crandc. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949 Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county.
Several news organizations did spend significant time recounting all the ballots. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Media_recounts USA Today, The Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder commissioned accounting firm BDO Seidman to count undervotes: ballots that did not register any vote when counted by machine (many due to dimpled or hanging chads blocking a hole). BDO Seidman's results, reported in USA Today, show that under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes.[40] Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used. The standards considered by BDO Seidman were: Lenient standard. Any alteration in a chad, ranging from a dimple to a full punch, counts as a vote. By this standard, Bush won by 1,665 votes. Palm Beach standard. A dimple is counted as a vote if other races on the same ballot show dimples as well. By this standard, Bush won by 884 votes. Two-corner standard. A chad with two or more corners removed is counted as a vote. This is the most common standard in use. By this standard, Bush won by 363 votes. Strict standard. Only a fully removed chad counts as a vote. By this standard, Gore won by 3 votes. The study remarks that because of the possibility of mistakes, it is difficult to conclude that Gore was surely the winner under the strict standard.
I've accepted that we're going to get a crappy president either way, and that I voted for a crappy candidate.
