AP has the full text available; you can also get it from the Florida Supreme Court website. Because these are likely to be overloaded for the next several hours, I've made it available here at my Website, too.

A first reading (perusal, really) leads me to make these comments, in no particular order.

First, the court acknowledges, and does not question, Harris' claim that she made her ruling based on her understanding of the law. The media hasn't mentioned this much, but she obtained an opinion from the Florida Division of Elections and attempted to follow it. The Court notes this, then states on page 12 that they disagree with the FDE's interpretation:

The Division opines that an “error in the vote tabulation” only means a counting error resulting from incorrect election parameters or an error in the vote tabulating software. We disagree.

I only mention this because of the vitriol that has been heaped on Ms. Harris by the Gore camp (the LEAST being that she's a "partisan Republican" and the worst that she's a "soviet commissar[g]"). The Court acknowledges that Harris sought advice from the Elections department in Florida before making her decision.

By the same token, Republicans have already begun saying that the Florida Supreme Court is "biased" and "partisan," on THEIR part, for making this decision. I think that's unfair, too. To this layman, at least, it's a very well-defended decision.

You should read the opinion. I make this note, because there are things in there that haven't been well-covered in the media, and which are at odds with statements sometimes made by EITHER the Gore or Bush camps.

For example, see Section VI, "Statuatory Ambiguities," which begins on page 17. Harris' decision is based on an older law from the 1950's. The Florida legislature amended that law in the 1980's. The Court points out that the newer law always takes precedence over the old. The older law has "shall;" the newer law DOES have "may" in its wording.

The bigger problem -- and I wasn't aware of this, either -- is that the Florida Code is contradictory. Speaking as a conservative, don't EVER give a court contradictory statues, because they'll invent something. Sure enough, they played Thomas Edison here.[g]

The Court gives one example of ambiguity on page 26:

In the present case, section 102.112 contains a detailed provision authorizing the assessment of fines against members of a dilatory County Canvassing Board. The fines are personal and substantial, i.e., $200 for each day the returns are not received. If, as the Secretary asserts, the Department were required to ignore all returns received after the statutory date, the fine provision would be meaningless.

Uh ... good point. Hadn't thought of that. :)

From my viewpoint, the decision appears to be a well-thought-out compromise from the Court; Gore gets his recount, but they're strictly limited; they can't go on forever. It's hard to fault the Justices for that, and it's unfair to call them "partisan."

("Liberal," maybe -- and I'm not even so sure of that. But not partisan.)

OK: I hereby declare this "Everyone Gets To Play Amateur Lawyer!" day. Read the decision and see what you think. Comments are welcome. [g]

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2000

Answers

I had followed this to the extent that I was pretty certain the law was ambigous, contradictory or both, so I wasn't sure what the court would do.

However, I did feel Harris, as the co-chairman of the Bush campaign in Florida, and as a citizen who has been pushing for a job in the Bush administration, assuming he wins, should have excused herself from the decision loop as not being unbiased in the matter. That isn't only common sense, it is always smart politics, if you take the long view.

In the case of unclear statutes, the courts will usually try to go with the spirit/intent of the legislation as passed, rather than the most restrictive interpretation. Which seems to be pretty much what they did.

And, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I was saying the whole state should be recounted several days ago. I still think this, even though I am aware that Bush has had a much larger percentage of his votes recounted than Gore. (I'm not sure as I don't have detailed numbers, but I think the second run through the machines, with NO hand counts applied, put Gore ahead, by something like 30 votes. But Seminole county added quite a few for Bush with a hand count, putting Bush back in the lead.)

By no means does this assure anyone that Gore will be the next president. The Florida legislature is already making noises about declaring Bush the winner, and to the devil with the court, the House is yelling dittos, and who knows? Bush may still be ahead after the votes are all in.

One thing for sure, we have certainly gotten a look at the collective rear ends of our political parties.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2000

Paul: even though I am aware that Bush has had a much larger percentage of his votes recounted than Gore. (I'm not sure as I don't have detailed numbers, but I think the second run through the machines, with NO hand counts applied, put Gore ahead, by something like 30 votes. But Seminole county added quite a few for Bush with a hand count, putting Bush back in the lead.) I DO have the actual numbers in front of me. The Bush hand recounts occurred in primarily small counties, most of which used mark sense machines. Franklin: Gore: 2042 Bush: 2448 After recount: Gore 2046 Bush: 2454.

Hamilton: Gore: 1718 Bush: 2153 After recount: Gore 1722 Bush: 2146. Notice that Bush LOST 7 votes there.

Lafayette: Gore: 788 Bush: 1669 After recount: Gore 789 Bush: 1670.

Seminole: Gore: 5888 Bush: 75293 After recount: Gore 59174 Bush: 75677.

Taylor: Gore: 2647 Bush: 4051 After recount: Gore 2649 Bush 4056.

Washington: Gore: 2796 Bush: 4983 After recount: Gore 1798 Gush 4994.

All in all, the hand recounts didn't gain much for Bush. All counties totaled showed a gain for Gore of 2,841 and a gain for Bush of 1,357. The highest discrepancies between the first count and the automatic recount showed up in the punched card districts that are being hand counted by the Democrats, although I'll never know why they didn't include Pinellas, where Gore gained 417 and Bush lost 61 on the machine recount.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2000

Anita, you may not realize this, but the smaller counties ONLY do hand counts. They are still using paper checkoff ballots.

Oh, heck, I'll just post some of the sections of the law, then we can all get on the same wavelength.

Link to the entire law, forms, handbooks and everything else you want to know if you are running in Florida.

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/laws/index.shtml

The following are sections that shed light on the situation now pertaining in Florida.

101.5614(5)If any ballot card of the type for which the offices and measures are not printed directly on the card is damaged or defective so that it cannot properly be counted by the automatic tabulating equipment, a true duplicate copy shall be made of the damaged ballot card in the presence of witnesses and substituted for the damaged ballot. Likewise, a duplicate ballot card shall be made of a defective ballot which shall not include the invalid votes. All duplicate ballot cards shall be clearly labeled "duplicate," bear a serial number which shall be recorded on the damaged or defective ballot card, and be counted in lieu of the damaged or defective ballot. If any ballot card of the type for which offices and measures are printed directly on the card is damaged or defective so that it cannot properly be counted by the automatic tabulating equipment, a true duplicate copy may be made of the damaged ballot card in the presence of witnesses and in the manner set forth above, or the valid votes on the damaged ballot card may be manually counted at the counting center by the canvassing board, whichever procedure is best suited to the system used. If any paper ballot is damaged or defective so that it cannot be counted properly by the automatic tabulating equipment, the ballot shall be counted manually at the counting center by the canvassing board. The totals for all such ballots or ballot cards counted manually shall be added to the totals for the several precincts or election districts. No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board. After duplicating a ballot, the defective ballot shall be placed in an envelope provided for that purpose, and the duplicate ballot shall be tallied with the other ballots for that precinct.

(Next to the last sentence REQUIRES manual count, plus examination of ballots for the INTENT of the voter. AND since they are required to DUPLICATE the ballots, where do you think all those chads are coming from?)

102.141(4) If the returns for any office reflect that a candidate was defeated or eliminated by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, that a candidate for retention to a judicial office was retained or not retained by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast on the question of retention, or that a measure appearing on the ballot was approved or rejected by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast on such measure, the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a recount of the votes cast with respect to such office or measure. A recount need not be ordered with respect to the returns for any office, however, if the candidate or candidates defeated or eliminated from contention for such office by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office request in writing that a recount not be made. Each canvassing board responsible for conducting a recount shall examine the counters on the machines or the tabulation of the ballots cast in each precinct in which the office or issue appeared on the ballot and determine whether the returns correctly reflect the votes cast. If there is a discrepancy between the returns and the counters of the machines or the tabulation of the ballots cast, the counters of such machines or the tabulation of the ballots cast shall be presumed correct and such votes shall be canvassed accordingly.

(In other words, the only way to avoid a recount in Florida would be for Gore to request such not be done, in WRITING. When the Bush camp filed injunctions, they were trying to stop the law from working.)

(Also, I find this section to be highly important.)

102.166 Protest of election returns; procedure.--

(1) Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest.

(2) Such protest shall be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 5 days after midnight of the date the election is held, whichever occurs later.

(3) Before canvassing the returns of the election, the canvassing board shall:

(a) When paper ballots are used, examine the tabulation of the paper ballots cast.

(b) When voting machines are used, examine the counters on the machines of nonprinter machines or the printer-pac on printer machines. If there is a discrepancy between the returns and the counters of the machines or the printer-pac, the counters of such machines or the printer-pac shall be presumed correct.

(c) When electronic or electromechanical equipment is used, the canvassing board shall examine precinct records and election returns. If there is a clerical error, such error shall be corrected by the county canvassing board. If there is a discrepancy which could affect the outcome of an election, the canvassing board may recount the ballots on the automatic tabulating equipment.

(4)(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested.

(b) Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 72 hours after midnight of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later.

(c) The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. If a manual recount is authorized, the county canvassing board shall make a reasonable effort to notify each candidate whose race is being recounted of the time and place of such recount.

(d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts.

(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.

(6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.

(7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:

(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.

(b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent.

(8) If the county canvassing board determines the need to verify the tabulation software, the county canvassing board shall request in writing that the Department of State verify the software.

(9) When the Department of State verifies such software, the department shall:

(a) Compare the software used to tabulate the votes with the software filed with the Department of State pursuant to s. 101.5607; and

(b) Check the election parameters.

(10) The Department of State shall respond to the county canvassing board within 3 working days.

I don't claim to have read every word of those statutes, but I did pick through them pretty carefully, looking for the most pertinent items.

(So I learned to do my research in a very tough school. Ah, well.)

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2000

Paul:

even though I am aware that Bush has had a much larger percentage of his votes recounted than Gore.

THIS was what prompted my response. Duval County [for instance] went to Bush 152082 to 107680 for Gore. Gore picked up 184 on the machine recount, and Bush picked up 16, but I HARDLY think that the six counties involved in a hand-recount for Bush constitute a larger percentage of his votes recounted. Broward had more votes for Bush than Duval.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2000

Paul,

After re-reading the decision and legal opinions on that decision, I've changed my mind. While I think the justices tried to defend their ruling and did a decent job, so far as it goes, I don't think they've succeeded.

For one thing, after listening to members of the Florida legislature who passed the code in question, their "intent" was clear: they DID intend that there would only be manual recounts in the event of fraud or machine failure.

For another, it's fishy the way the court handled this. They issued the injunction unilaterally, before being asked to do so; this telegraphed their intentions to anyone who was paying attention (and I admit, I didn't).

I will defend them this far: I don't think their decision is partisan. I think it's liberal. :)

I'm working on a ditty about this. More on my thoughts later.

For now, suffice to say, this may be the death knell for judicial activism in this country. A lot of conservatives are furious today; there's even murmured (ie, nothing overtly public yet) talk about impeaching the Florida State Supreme Court for violating the separation of powers.

Whether you agree with me or not, I think we'll both say this: this thing is far from over, and I didn't think it could get any uglier. I'm now beginning to believe that I was wrong.

The time has also long since passed that I should give you the Golden Crystal Ball award for having the closest and most accurate prediction about this election. YOU said that it would drag on for weeks and could result in court fights, and could even go to the House of Representatives.

YOU were right. :)

(Although you did miss the mark with that thingie about Hawaii ... what WERE you thinking?[g] Y'shoulda stuck with what you said at first, that it would either be Florida or Pennsylvania that would decide the election.)

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2000

Does your Golden Ball have a Denny Hastert in it? Gets squirrely don't it? Still, we're beter off than Peru mostly because our electorate is as yet unmotivated. Suits me.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2000

Last night the leader of the Florida house was openly talking about the possibility of ignoring the vote and having the House pick the Florida electors. They are allowed to do this, it would raise holy hell, but they are allowed to do it if they feel that the vote totals are corrupt or compromised. The Republicans outnumber the Democrats in both houses down here, they certainly have the votes to do it if they decide to go that route, and if Al Gore wins because of dimpled chads, well, stay tuned.

Insofar as this election goes I must agree with Al Gore; "You ain't seen nothing yet".

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2000

Well, if you go to the Florida election code, and read the whole thing, parts relevant to this mess, it says hand counts are flat out the standard. I don't care what the legislators claim their intent was after the fact, that is what they voted on.

Anyhow, this mess is heading straight for the legislature. And that is what I now believe the Bush camp's plan was from day one.

If Bush wanted to get the most accurate vote tally, he would have asked for a hand recount of all of Florida, and they would have asked Harris to go along with it. End of story.

Bush is afraid he has lost, in a real recount. So he has filed injunctions to prevent the local boards from making the decisions the law says is their job. Exactly the same thing he is now howling about the Court doing, but he did it first. His injunctions made it impossible for the county boards to make that decision, so the whole mess wound up in the courts.

In other words, BUSH did not trust the process.

When you don't trust the process to give the decisions you want, you try to get things transferred to a venue you figure will give you the decision you want.

And I now firmly believe this will go into the history books in exactly that way.

Bush wants to delay things until either Gore quits, or the voting is placed into a Republican dominated venue, either the Florida House or the House of Representatives. He has nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by trying to get a 'speedy end to the process'.

Hindsight is better than foresight, and hindsight says Bush wants delay, and never mind the spin.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2000

Paul,

What you say is right up to a point. What I object to is that the court, first, invited itself into the fray and issued an injunction BEFORE it was asked to, and then refused to rule on several key questions. Either, combined with the fact that Florida *MISQUOTED* the Illinois decision (more in a moment), could be grounds for the US Supremes to, at the very least, remand the case back to Florida for further consideration.

The key issue is the standards for COUNTING those ballots and determining voter "intent." This has been Bush's objection all along and Gore's lawyers MISQUOTED the Illinois decision that the Florida Supreme Court relied on.

In Illinois, the court ruled that dimpled and not-clearly-marked ballots *COULD NOT* be included in the count.

*Could not.*

If you want to know why, imagine some ordinary voter who despises BOTH candidates. She went to vote because she wanted to make sure her candidate for the school board and county commission went in; while she's looking at the ballots, she says, "oh, well, maybe I'll vote for Gore, 'cuz Mom and Dad were Democratic ..." and idly pokes the stylus in the "Gore" hole ... but then says, "nah, I'll stick to my original decision: I'm just not going to vote for President at all."

Hey, now there's a "dimple!" But if this vote is counted for Gore, it does NOT represent the will of that voter. It represents a vote created from whole cloth.

Further, Paul, election procedure, posted for the public, states that the voter is supposed to examine his/her ballot before handing it to the precinct workers to MAKE SURE that his/her vote is correct. The VOTER is instructed to look for hanging chads, double marks, etc.

Like I've said a dozen times, I've watched and have been involved in elections since I was a kid. The rules are clear and are there for a reason. For example, double-marked ballots *MUST* be thrown out, period. There is NO WAY to determine "voter intent."

It's easy to blame all of this on Bush, but I'm sorry, I think that's ludicrous. Gore is carefully manipulating this to ensure that his vote count is maximized. I'll grant that YOU wanted a statewide recount. But Bush chose a different strategy. More to the point, Gore DIDN'T (not until he KNEW that it was too late for such a count to be implemented; that was pure grandstanding on his part).

It is OBVIOUS that he and his operatives want to turn that election around, period. The arbitrary exclusion of the overseas military vote is the biggest proof of that. If even half of those votes are accepted, Gore loses, period, and he KNOWS it. He *KNOWS* it.

So ... why isn't Gore, your Great Man Of Principle, saying that he *insists* that these votes be counted? Heh. I'll let you guess ...

Bush's biggest complaint is that there's no uniform standard for a hand recount and he's right. Each precinct is basically making it up as they go along.

FoxNews has a camera set up in one of the recount rooms and it's better than Johnny Carson. We were just watching. One person says, "I can't tell." The second says, "it's inconclusive." The third says, "It's a vote for Gore."

In come the Suits. They wave the ballot around their forehead and pronounce that the voter's "intent" was to vote for Gore. Carnak The Magnificent lives!

It's a JOKE. A plain, pure JOKE.

Another demonstration on one of the other morning shows further highlighted the lunacy. The Pretty Face and Pretty Boy took some of the sample ballots and TRIED -- several times -- to cause a "dimple." They couldn't. The chad would pop out every time. The amount of pressure required to create a "dimple" without breaking the chad loose is pretty critical.

This is a complete farce. You can blame it on Bush or claim that it's some higher, sinister strategy on his part, but I don't buy it. I blame this squarely on Gore. He is a sore loser who refuses to accept defeat. It is *HE* who has adopted the scorched earth policy, deciding that, if he CAN'T win, he will do everything in his power to ensure that Bush's presidency is crippled before he even takes office.

From his point of view, if he has to cause a Constitutional crisis to do that, oh, well; too bad. In the meantime, we've become a laughingstock overseas, but hey; that's too bad, too, I suppose.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2000

By the way, here's a good article on the Illinois decision in the Chicago Tribune.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2000

Florida law binds here. Direct quote from that section, which I posted above. --------------------------------------------- No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board. --------------------------------------------- The law as it stands may indeed favor Gore. Is that his fault? Has he ever been involved in the Florida legislature? Should he or should he not be allowed to have his rights under the law? Can Bush's injunctions against Gore be construed as anything but an attempt to interfere with the decisions of the local boards?

Those are the questions. Spin it, twist it, listen to Rush froth over it, it doesn't matter. The law is clear. Whether or not you want to call it psychic or whatever, the law is clear that NO vote should go undetermined if the canvassing board can determine INTENT.

Moreover, if you read the other sections (link above), it plainly says the canvassing board is the deciding body. Bush's injunction was simply to block the canvassing boards from implementing the law as it was written. (And I'm just not impressed by a Republican lawmaker who says he never intended to pass a law that might help a Democrat win in his state. Wonder if he would feel that way if this situation was reversed, as it easily might have been.)

As to the absentee ballots, the court already stretched the date for accepting them by three days. Many of those ballots were never opened, but simply examined for the external markings the law required. (that seems to be the defining statement of the Florida election, Gore wants the law followed, Bush wants it skirted) They also require a witness, and many were not witnessed. Do you want to bend the law to that extent? The absentee ballot is under a stricter standard, for the reason that fraud is very easy with absentee ballots. As you know. And as I most certainly know, from personal experience.

More than 200 were postmarked from the city zoo, with names like Ellie Fant and Jack Ass. Those are also in that pile of 'military' ballots. I presume Ellie voted Republican, while Jack voted Gore. Somehow, I doubt they will stand up to any serious examination. For all I know, the bulk of that pile is actually votes by Jews residing in Israel. The canvassing boards aren't saying.

Anyway, I've never, ever claimed Gore was a Saint. And it isn't his responsibility to try to help Bush along. I wish he had called for a hand recount of the entire state, first thing. But he wants to win, and is pushing for himself. I think he will continue until Bush gets it thrown into the legislative bodies.

I had thought at first that Gore would step aside once he had made it clear as to who was fighting the local boards. But I guess he has more snapping turtle blood in him than I thought, he isn't letting go until it thunders.

Side note about absentee ballots here, the counting of absentee ballots nationwide has not gone for Bush as Republicans had hoped. Gore is now over 50 million votes, Bush is not, last I saw the Gore lead has pulled out to 300,000 or more.

Bet on one thing, election changes and changes in the electoral college will be high on the list of items being considered next year, all over the country. Least change I expect is for several states to switch over to electoral vote splitting, but it is possible we might even be voting on an amendment to the Constitution before next fall.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2000

Paul, didn't know you listened to Rush. Try your own frothing on this:

"The accumulaation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands ...may justly be pronounced the very defination of tyranny" J. Madison, Federalist 47.

Stole that from Will's OP-ED this morning.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2000

Carlos, I wonder if Will (and subsequently, you) are going to stick with that if/when Bush finally takes office and appoints Republican Supreme Court Justices. Remember those majorities in both the House and the Senate :-)

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2000

Nobody wants to answer my question.

And the Florida governorship plus the Legislature are all heavily Republican. The Supreme Court of Florida is seated by a process very unlike the Supreme Court of the US, which pretty well guarentees an appointee will be acceptable to both sides of the aisle.

So, yes, you are right. Concentration of power in Florida in Republican hands, is a very dangerous thing to the democratic process in Florida. As we are now seeing, with the threats against the court and its judges.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2000

Moreover, you will soon see all the power of the US Federal Government held in Republican hands.

By the rules, Democrats should be the majority party in the Senate, however, after seeing this mess in Florida, I have no doubt whatsoever that Senate Republicans have a plan to prevent Democrats from becoming the majority party. I expect they intend to delay the first meeting of the Senate until after January 20, on some procedural grounds.

And I certainly do expect to see Bush as president.

So we will soon have a very dangerous situation indeed. And I don't think you will be as happy with it as you expect.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2000

Paul, I have to agree with your assessment that there will be many whose idea of a Republican-controlled White House and Congress initially will be very appealing, but will quickly turn sour.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000

Well, Julie, last time around, in the name of deregulation, Republicans did away with the Fairness Doctrine, the 7-7-7 rule and some other limitations on who or what or how many types of media and media outlets could be owned by a given organization or person.

As a direct result of these policy changes, the media in the US is now primarily owned by highly conservative groups, many with old ties to the CIA or religous organizations, or both.

Murdoch, Scaife, Capitol and the Unification Church - those names just don't make me feel secure at all. No wonder the press is losing respect at a record pace.

Here is a somewhat biased history of ABC. Worth a read, as nearly as I can remember, the history is accurate, though the commentary is a bit rough.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm

So, no, I don't trust either party with full power. And neither should anyone else.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000

Anita, incidentally, I guess I didn't make myself clear.

Bush carried the bulk of the smaller counties. Many of those counties use paper ballots, which are hand counted.

In six larger Republican counties, that do use punch card ballots, there were hand recounts.

In terms of counties that do hand counts, Bush is way ahead. I do not have a figure for that, unfortunatly.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000

Paul: The only counties for which I'd heard hand recounts were done were the six I mentioned. Seminole is the only big one, and it doesn't use punched cards.

Stephen: There seems to be some confusion over whether the Florida decision used Pullen vs. Mullegan or Roudebush vs. Hartke, or both. BOTH are mentioned in their recent decision.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000

Well, maybe I've gotten confused then. As much contradictory information as is flowing out of Florida, it would not be much of a surprise.

Anyhow, I'm tired of the whole subject.

If Bush doesn't come out as president (maybe not on the usual inauguration day, but eventually), I'll be one surprised fellow.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000

Paul:

Regarding your post further up, you might be interested in checking out this site.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000

Paul:

I got a lot of my information from the following three sites:

Machines used by county in Florida

The votes received in Florida counties

Differen ces in first count versus second [when actually recounted]

I think it was the LA Times who queried 63 of 67 counties and found that 16 of them had never done any automatic recount at all.

These include: Baker, Bay, and Walton. Calhoun, Okaloosa, and Polk just checked their tapes to their computer memory, but when Polk encountered such extreme discrepancies, they recounted.

I agree with you that I think Bush will ultimately win. I've even HOPED for that for a while now, since I feel the presidency has been so tainted. My only reservation in that conclusion is that I fear that the far right will feel they succeeded in their "blackmail" endeavors, and I don't think that's healthy either. That reservation holds a lot of weight in my mind. I compare it to the Israeli position on responding to the demands of terrorists.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000

I think Gore probably feels the same way. But he won't give it away, he is going to make Bush show his mettle first.

Already, in this first public crisis, Bush has reached out, not as a uniter, but a total divider. And his backup is the hard right.

Of course, everyone who isn't blind has been reminded about Baker's little faux paux re the Florida Jewish community a few years back.

Have you seen the ABC news item about the 'Bush Squad'? The team of paid protestors, who are traveling in each county down there, protesting the recount? Who try to get into the counting areas, and scream at people?

Real uniter, yep, real compassion.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000

Paul:

Yes...I HAVE seen that. You might want to give this one a look if you haven't seen it before.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000

Hadn't seen that, pretty much the way I feel about it. If Florida had the exact same laws Texas runs under, which specify exactly the resolution Gore has asked for, this mess would have been resolved last week, and Gore would probably be picking cabinent members right now.

Never in my life did I ever expect to see Americans urging election officials not to count the votes.

If the spirit of fair elections falls by the wayside due to partisan hardball, what do we have left, except a snake pit? The third American Revolution may be closer than we think.

Going by the history of Rome, Greece and other places, countries that allow their citizens to vote seem to have a revolt about eighty years after their first complete formulation, then about 120 years after the end of that conflict, then another 120 years after that one, ad infinitum. We are actually a bit past due. This may well be the opening shot.

And I think I know how that one would wind up. America would become balkanized, probably split into three parts, a far western area, a western and southern area, and a northeastern/northern area.

I hope it doesn't happen, but I am not nearly so confident that it will not happen, as I was only a few weeks ago.

And I am now officially weary of this subject. Until something new happens, like a finish to the counting and/or the whole thing going to the legislature, I'm done with it.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000

Paul:

I wish I could put it all aside as easily as you. For ME, I've never experienced such suspense and excitement over a presidential election. For ME, this only comes once in a lifetime, and I want to savor it. I want to see each side and BE part of history, not just READ about it 10-20 years down the road.

I want to know what I learn to be true so that when my grandchildren look at me and ask I can share true knowledge. OTOH, I want to pass my exams next week, so I must temper my zealotry on this one.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000

Well, Anita, I don't know what else I could find out, that would make me change my mind about any part of this.

Prior rulings, statutes, fact newspaper articles, web research, I've done this one to death. Voters are held by the courts to be the interested parties in this sort of dispute, always and forever.

The whole 'dimple' thing was just a slam back at Bush for the weirdness he injected into the process. Same goes for a couple of other things.

Anybody who thought a neutral court would let the co-chair of a political campaign have the deciding voice as to the counting of votes, was just nuts, IMHO. This is America, not some banana republic, and we DON'T DO THINGS THAT WAY!

What could be new? What more can I say? Anyone who thinks I will ever uphold the letter of the law over the spirit and intent of the body and mass of law, in such a circumstance, simply has no clue about who I am or what I believe. We do not live under the code of Hammarubi, with the law carved into stone and administered by a more or less mechanical application, we live under a code that is designed to adapt to changing circumstances, and is meant to allow judges room to apply rational reasoning to the process.

How many times have you seen certain people posting that they want the jury always informed that the LAW is always on trial in the US? That a jury/judge has the power to strike down an unfair law?

How many of those same people have you seen getting mad because they didn't like this decision since it went against Bush? And asking for the removal of judges, since they didn't follow the letter of one sentence of one section of the law exactly, without looking at anything else?

Can't have it both ways. Either the law is malleable, or it is not. If it is, then you are going to have decisions that you don't like. Plenty of decisions I didn't like over the years, and I've swallowed hard and kept my gorge down, and moved on.

So, I'm not letting it go entirely, just waiting for something new before I get interested again.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000