The elderly tended to, overwhelmingly, vote for Gore, so the majority of the votes so recovered will favor Gore.
Not in Florida.
You're talking about a county that is a Pat Buchanan stronghold (in fact, he lives there), and that voted majority Republican in the 1994 elections.
And, yes, those over 65 voted majority Republican in many races in that election. Look it up.
Palm Beach County voted for Connie Mack in 1994, by nearly 60%. There has been a widespread feeling among seniors in that county that Clinton betrayed them by concentrating on things like gays in the military instead of the things he promised them. They do not all believe Gore's attempts to get back in their good graces, and they remember seeing "that nice young man" his brother on TV a lot.
A lot of old folks in Palm Beach county voted for Clinton because he reminded them of JFK. Nobody's making that comparison to Gore.
Your Republicanism is showing through. Among people who are not Devout Republicans, RR is generally considered to be a clueless luser almost in the same category as GuuB.
Then how come so many Democrats voted for him? How come he won so many majority-Democrat states, including Oklahoma, which was something like 70-75% Democrat at the time?
How come he won as governor of California, arguably the most heavily Democrat-dominated state in the union?
There is ample legal precedent for counting dimpled ballots. Counting the voters' intent is even the law in backwards places like Texas now, thanks to a law supported and signed by none other than GuuB himself.
And what if the ballot is dimpled because the voter started to vote for Gore, then had an attack of conscience and voted "none of the above" by not continuing the motion?
A lot of those ballots have clear votes on every single race except President. Almost none of the "dimpled chad" votes are going to Bush.
Are we really supposed to believe that the voting machines all jammed up only on Gore?
-
Re:What is the diff between a Firby & a Gremlin ?
on
Furby Bounty Paid
·
· Score: 2
Tiger Electronics also has the Gremlins license.
In fact, they make a Gremlin that speaks Furby-protocol.
What should we call that? SIFP? Simple Infrared Furby Protocol?
"Researchers said that in the filter of a high-flying balloon operated by the Indian Space Research Organization, they found a strain of bacteria unlike anything on Earth."
I rest my case.
Your case is only taking a nap, jitenpai; just because they said this doesn't mean it is actually unlike anything on Earth. We haven't seen even a significant fraction of all the bacteria that likely exist on this planet, and they haven't had enough time to determine if it even matches one we have seen, much less one we haven't.
This is a wonderful book about completely unworkable bullshit utopian ideas.
But doesn't that describe *ALL* great utopian books?
One can love this book without following it's ideas, just like one can love Star Trek: The Next Generation without believing we should quit "interfering" in Ethiopian cultural development by giving them food.
Let Gnutella split into multiple networks. It worked for IRC, it will work here, and it will work for similar problems in the future. Any problem that doesn't lend itself well to subdivision is probably badly specified. Don't forget that the Internet is a network of networks, and it works well for a reason.
Yes, the Internet works for a reason, and that reason is that I can inject my TCP/IP packet into it and any point and reasonably expect it to reach any other point.
This is why IRC is less popular than, say, AIM or ICQ, and always will be.
The Internet is the opposite of subdivision; if subdivision were the right approach, we'd all be using BBSes again, and even Fidonet wouldn't exist.
The problem was easily delt with by using authenticed binaries to prevent code modification.
That wouldn't fix the Counter-Strike Aimbot problem, it would just make it orders of magnitude harder to write, assuming they also turned off the ability to replace the models.
Does any of the money generated by the browser get back to Mozilla?
Paying for the hosting of an extremely high volume web and ftp site isn't putting money back into the community?
BTW, if you don't like Netscape 6, use Mozilla or Galeon. Neither of those would exist if Netscape hadn't seen a way to continue to make money; they would have just disposed of the source code and payed those people to do something else instead of cleaning it up.
Ever seen one where the AI can beat a skilled human player?
Yeah; Counter-Strike aimbot.:-)
Seriously, though, one thing people are forgetting is that most of the time when a human being makes a mistake in a battle and shoots a missle at the wrong Bradley (happened in a friend of mine's unit, and you all saw it on CNN), it's because a piece of complicated technology they were relying on failed.
A computer wouldn't even have the option of verifying that the hardware didn't fail. At least a human has a chance.
-
Re:Problems with the system
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
Um, no -- spending money on advertising to try and persuade you is not "contracting" -- no matter how much money they blitz on you (as evidenced by this campaign where both spent tons of cash) you still don't guarantee anyone at all is going to vote for you.
There you go making assumptions again. I'm talking about the "contracting" that goes on face-to-face by the party organizations and at fund-raisers.
I am a relative nobody, but candidates and/or their organizations have made me promises to my face in return for my vote and support.
That's a contract. Because they didn't actually cut me a check, it was legal; but agreeing to fund a project is a lot worse than agreeing to fund my Counter-Strike habit, because the former uses everybody's tax money and the latter only uses campaign money freely given.
And please, your transparent attempts to turn this into a partisan battle are sad, this has nothing to do with Gore or Bush or Clinton.
Documenting a recent example of a specific campaign isn't partisan, it's news.
If I had had an example of another party doing it floating around in the forefront of my brain, I'd have included it.
Yes, giving someone cigarettes for a vote is illegal, and anyone doing it should be prosecuted for vote buying -- amazing you're no longer arguing that the homeless people are entitled to
sell their votes for cigarettes, though.
You're evidently not reading what I'm writing; I'm arguing that it should *NOT* be illegal, and that the law that says what Gore did is illegal is itself an unConstitutional law, and it should be abolished.
I feel that what he did was immoral (taking advantage of people who don't have the mental ability to make a rational decision because they're starving and mentally unstable), but I absolutely do *NOT* think anybody should be prosecuted over it, contrary to your assertions.
-
Re:Problems with the system
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
But you just seem to be ignoring the fact that your vote does not existly solely for your sake -- it is something that affects hundreds of millions of other people.
And you are continuing to forget that rich people ALREADY can contract for my vote; the law just prohibits one particular arbitrary way of doing so.
They can and do (White House phone transcripts show Gore doing this in Clinton's name) promise multi-million dollar pork barrel projects in return for money that is then spent on anti-the-other-guy television commercials. Isn't that the same thing? Nobody's getting prosecuted over it.
They can and do promise "vote Democrat, and we'll keep taking 47% of the income of the rich and give it to the lower 40%, and if you give us Congress we'll extend that to the lower 60%". Isn't that contracting for a vote?
Cigarettes are a lot cheaper, and have the advantage (to Gore) that he makes money off their sale, since he's a tobacco grower.
-
Re:Problems with the system
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
That is not selling a vote, that is voting based on an issue/campaign promise, etc. That is simply using your vote to achieve a goal that the person you are voting for can achieve while in office. Thats the entire point of voting -- to vote for those who will achieve your goals while in office. And frequently in a tit-for-tat fashion as in congress, you will vote one way on an issue to achieve cooperation on another issue -- essentially acieving a policy comprimise -- another purpose of voting, not a circumvention.
But by direct sale or transfer of a vote, you most definitely circumventing the purpose of voting, which is to represent the policy desires of the people.
Oh, please; what if the policy you're voting for is welfare, and you're on it? Then you're exchanging your vote for thousands of dollars of somebody else's money.
In any event, show me where in the Constitution it says I can't sell my vote.
Please spare me the Ayn Rand hyperbole -- your vote is not a peiece of property.
Sorry, I'm Libertarian; you're thinking of Objectivism. That's two aisles over, next to "Anarchist" and "Patrio-psychotic Anarchomaterialist". I have never quoted Ayn Rand in my life, and wouldn't even if she happened to say the best example of something that proved a point I held dearly.
Your vote is a social contract, and forcing you to use it or not (without sale or transfer) is only a limitation in the influence others may have over you.
No, it's a limitation in what I can freely decide as an adult to do with my own freedom. Who asked you to protect me?
I don't need your protection in this case. If I do, I'll ask for it. Until then, stay out of my mind.
My vote is my basic inalienable right, not a "social contract" or privilege. That's why we got along just fine for 200 years without a law against selling it.
-
Re:Problems with the system
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
You're right -- you don't own your vote. And you can't sell it. And no one is extending the privlege to use it -- it is not yours to "use", or to transfer or sell or loan or otherwise dispose of as personal property. It is yours to vote with,
or not, as you see fit. But no other choice exists -- you vote, or not.
Again, false. You are allowed to contract for your vote, and it's done every day.
You just aren't allowed to have a direct transfer of goods in return for a verified vote.
It is perfectly kosher, however, to say "I'll vote for you if you'll vote to lift restrictions on encryption", followed by the candidate saying "ok, I'll do that, vote for me." It's even legal to follow that up by showing him your absentee ballot with his name on it, and letting him mail it for you, although that part of the exchange doesn't happen in practice.
It is in fact common practice to say "vote against Right to Work, and we'll recommend all our members vote for you", followed by thousands or millions of people voting as their union has requested. Few will go against their union's wishes in that situation, although again they don't yet take that extra step of verification. (Because they don't have to.)
I reiterate what I said; if I don't own my vote, and am not free to contract it in any way I choose, I am a slave, not a free man.
You can't see the forest because you're a tree.
-
Re:Problems with the system
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it is a federal offense to sell or buy a vote.
I'm aware of that. It's yet another in the vast pile of unConstitutional laws that enslave every American.
-
Re:Problems with the system
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
The difference is that now, you can certainly contract to sell your vote (though such may not be legal), but if I pay you for your vote, I have no way of verifying that you have voted as I directed, and therefore that I have 'received' the vote I paid for. Hence, at present, any vote-buying scheme is fraught with uncertainty.
That is completely false. What they (the Gore campaign did it this election, for instance) do currently is drive you down to pick up an absentee ballot, have you fill it out and give it to them for verification, then they mail it in for you.
It's just as verified as it would be in the scheme proposed here.
-
Re:Problems with the system
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
2) As well, because the mail-delivered passwords are the only identifying feature, they could be bought, sold, traded, etc. Maybe not by me, but what if you are low-income, no HMO, little daughter is sick, etc. How much is the going price for a vote?
Why is that a problem? That can be done now, and if I own my vote, how can anyone else prevent me from entering into contracts regarding it?
If you can dictate under what terms I can contract my vote, then I don't own it, you own it and are just extending me a privilege to use it.
Votes are a right, not a privilege, ergo it cannot be illegal to trade them.
Buchanan got 8,000 votes in the republican primary...which indicates 8,000 people would have rather seen him than Bob Dole. There is a gap here that still isn't bridged (especially considering the statistics related to this. If you check the election results of 96 primary, the 8,000 people in Palm Beach doesn't stand out in relation to general voting...it is more than normal, but statistically unimpressive.
From this, I can only conclude that you HAVEN'T checked the stats.
In Miami-Dade county, he got 10% as many as Dole.
But in Palm Beach, he got 25% as many as Dole.
Palm Beach is a Buchanan stronghold. There are few places where he did as well as he did there in '96, if you just count large counties.
This doesn't even take in to account the people who were told that they couldn't have another ballot.
Has there been a SUBSTANTIATED report on that? Because those election workers are told MANY times during their training that people can have as many other ballots as they want, as long as the spoiled ones are returned, and both major parties have observers in the polling place throughout the entire election.
When somebody steps up to the plate and is willing to say under oath that this happened to them, not to "a friend", I'll consider believing it. Until then, it's a rumor that's vigorously denied by the elected Democrat in charge of our elections.
Voting ballots should be made for the lowest common denominator.
The lowest common denominator can't read and doesn't have a picture ID.
BTW, these same style of ballots were used in Daley's home county to elect judges. He voted on one, unless he voted absentee. I don't see him bitching about it.
alright...someone has to call BULLSHIT! Not trolling here but: where did you get your "facts"?
With the exception of the "15,000 in 1996" stat, I got them all from the Florida Election Commission web page. I got the 15,000 from a conflicting report on CNN. It may very well be wrong.
Fact: the reform party in 96 was a FAR different animal that the reform party in 00 (source: simple analysis)
Fact: Over 8,000 people in that county voted for Buchanan in the 1996 Republican primary. (source: Florida Election Commission web page.)
Another fact: the person doing the complaining for the Gore camp, Mr. Daly, is from Cook County, Illinois, which also used a "butterfly ballot" this election, for their judges.
Slashdot Mirror
The elderly tended to, overwhelmingly, vote for Gore, so the majority of the votes so recovered will favor Gore.
Not in Florida.
You're talking about a county that is a Pat Buchanan stronghold (in fact, he lives there), and that voted majority Republican in the 1994 elections.
And, yes, those over 65 voted majority Republican in many races in that election. Look it up.
Palm Beach County voted for Connie Mack in 1994, by nearly 60%. There has been a widespread feeling among seniors in that county that Clinton betrayed them by concentrating on things like gays in the military instead of the things he promised them. They do not all believe Gore's attempts to get back in their good graces, and they remember seeing "that nice young man" his brother on TV a lot.
A lot of old folks in Palm Beach county voted for Clinton because he reminded them of JFK. Nobody's making that comparison to Gore.
-
Your Republicanism is showing through. Among people who are not Devout Republicans, RR is generally considered to be a clueless luser almost in the same category as GuuB.
Then how come so many Democrats voted for him? How come he won so many majority-Democrat states, including Oklahoma, which was something like 70-75% Democrat at the time?
How come he won as governor of California, arguably the most heavily Democrat-dominated state in the union?
-
Well, he certainly hasn't done a good job in Texas and no matter what happens: He didn't win the election - the people didn't want him.
Then why do 60% of them want Gore to concede defeat and stop the lawsuits?
a well-educated, intelligent, proven person who's been part of the most successful administration for decades
That's a good description of Bush, considering his 95th-percentile SAT, multiple college degrees, and proven excellent environmental record in Texas.
and a not very bright, but "likable", person with a very bad track record
And that's a good description of Gore, considering his zinc mine's multiple fines for environmental violations.
-
There is ample legal precedent for counting dimpled ballots. Counting the voters' intent is even the law in backwards places like Texas now, thanks to a law supported and signed by none other than GuuB himself.
And what if the ballot is dimpled because the voter started to vote for Gore, then had an attack of conscience and voted "none of the above" by not continuing the motion?
A lot of those ballots have clear votes on every single race except President. Almost none of the "dimpled chad" votes are going to Bush.
Are we really supposed to believe that the voting machines all jammed up only on Gore?
-
Tiger Electronics also has the Gremlins license.
In fact, they make a Gremlin that speaks Furby-protocol.
What should we call that? SIFP? Simple Infrared Furby Protocol?
-
Well, the article says:
"Researchers said that in the filter of a high-flying balloon operated by the Indian Space Research Organization, they found a strain of bacteria unlike anything on Earth."
I rest my case.
Your case is only taking a nap, jitenpai; just because they said this doesn't mean it is actually unlike anything on Earth. We haven't seen even a significant fraction of all the bacteria that likely exist on this planet, and they haven't had enough time to determine if it even matches one we have seen, much less one we haven't.
-
This is a wonderful book about completely unworkable bullshit utopian ideas.
But doesn't that describe *ALL* great utopian books?
One can love this book without following it's ideas, just like one can love Star Trek: The Next Generation without believing we should quit "interfering" in Ethiopian cultural development by giving them food.
-
So don't use NSI.
I used DomainZero (when they were still free) to register fucknut.org, they didn't bat an eyelash.
-
Er, last time /I/ checked, if I were running AIM and ICQ /on the same box/ I still couldn't talk to myself.
This tells me you missed my point; with AIM you can talk to all AIM users, not just Efnet AIM users or Dalnet AIM users or etc.
(Or to more than one person simultaneously.)
This tells me you don't know how to use AIM or ICQ.
-
Let Gnutella split into multiple networks. It worked for IRC, it will work here, and it will work for similar problems in the future. Any problem that doesn't lend itself well to subdivision is probably badly specified. Don't forget that the Internet is a network of networks, and it works well for a reason.
Yes, the Internet works for a reason, and that reason is that I can inject my TCP/IP packet into it and any point and reasonably expect it to reach any other point.
This is why IRC is less popular than, say, AIM or ICQ, and always will be.
The Internet is the opposite of subdivision; if subdivision were the right approach, we'd all be using BBSes again, and even Fidonet wouldn't exist.
-
Maybe the Puritans need their OWN COUNTRY.
Uhm, you do realize, the last time somebody said that to them, they left England and formed a colony in what is today the USA?
-
At Wang Global we had 20K users on 7 Exchange servers.
And at FedEx, we have 145k users on 3 Lotus Notes mail servers.
And we were nearly immune to the Melissa virus; except for a couple of executives who had installed Outlook.
-
The problem was easily delt with by using authenticed binaries to prevent code modification.
That wouldn't fix the Counter-Strike Aimbot problem, it would just make it orders of magnitude harder to write, assuming they also turned off the ability to replace the models.
-
Does any of the money generated by the browser get back to Mozilla?
Paying for the hosting of an extremely high volume web and ftp site isn't putting money back into the community?
BTW, if you don't like Netscape 6, use Mozilla or Galeon. Neither of those would exist if Netscape hadn't seen a way to continue to make money; they would have just disposed of the source code and payed those people to do something else instead of cleaning it up.
-
Ever seen one where the AI can beat a skilled human player?
:-)
Yeah; Counter-Strike aimbot.
Seriously, though, one thing people are forgetting is that most of the time when a human being makes a mistake in a battle and shoots a missle at the wrong Bradley (happened in a friend of mine's unit, and you all saw it on CNN), it's because a piece of complicated technology they were relying on failed.
A computer wouldn't even have the option of verifying that the hardware didn't fail. At least a human has a chance.
-
Um, no -- spending money on advertising to try and persuade you is not "contracting" -- no matter how much money they blitz on you (as evidenced by this campaign where both spent tons of cash) you still don't guarantee anyone at all is going to vote for you.
There you go making assumptions again. I'm talking about the "contracting" that goes on face-to-face by the party organizations and at fund-raisers.
I am a relative nobody, but candidates and/or their organizations have made me promises to my face in return for my vote and support.
That's a contract. Because they didn't actually cut me a check, it was legal; but agreeing to fund a project is a lot worse than agreeing to fund my Counter-Strike habit, because the former uses everybody's tax money and the latter only uses campaign money freely given.
And please, your transparent attempts to turn this into a partisan battle are sad, this has nothing to do with Gore or Bush or Clinton.
Documenting a recent example of a specific campaign isn't partisan, it's news.
If I had had an example of another party doing it floating around in the forefront of my brain, I'd have included it.
Yes, giving someone cigarettes for a vote is illegal, and anyone doing it should be prosecuted for vote buying -- amazing you're no longer arguing that the homeless people are entitled to
sell their votes for cigarettes, though.
You're evidently not reading what I'm writing; I'm arguing that it should *NOT* be illegal, and that the law that says what Gore did is illegal is itself an unConstitutional law, and it should be abolished.
I feel that what he did was immoral (taking advantage of people who don't have the mental ability to make a rational decision because they're starving and mentally unstable), but I absolutely do *NOT* think anybody should be prosecuted over it, contrary to your assertions.
-
But you just seem to be ignoring the fact that your vote does not existly solely for your sake -- it is something that affects hundreds of millions of other people.
And you are continuing to forget that rich people ALREADY can contract for my vote; the law just prohibits one particular arbitrary way of doing so.
They can and do (White House phone transcripts show Gore doing this in Clinton's name) promise multi-million dollar pork barrel projects in return for money that is then spent on anti-the-other-guy television commercials. Isn't that the same thing? Nobody's getting prosecuted over it.
They can and do promise "vote Democrat, and we'll keep taking 47% of the income of the rich and give it to the lower 40%, and if you give us Congress we'll extend that to the lower 60%". Isn't that contracting for a vote?
Cigarettes are a lot cheaper, and have the advantage (to Gore) that he makes money off their sale, since he's a tobacco grower.
-
That is not selling a vote, that is voting based on an issue/campaign promise, etc. That is simply using your vote to achieve a goal that the person you are voting for can achieve while in office. Thats the entire point of voting -- to vote for those who will achieve your goals while in office. And frequently in a tit-for-tat fashion as in congress, you will vote one way on an issue to achieve cooperation on another issue -- essentially acieving a policy comprimise -- another purpose of voting, not a circumvention.
But by direct sale or transfer of a vote, you most definitely circumventing the purpose of voting, which is to represent the policy desires of the people.
Oh, please; what if the policy you're voting for is welfare, and you're on it? Then you're exchanging your vote for thousands of dollars of somebody else's money.
In any event, show me where in the Constitution it says I can't sell my vote.
Please spare me the Ayn Rand hyperbole -- your vote is not a peiece of property.
Sorry, I'm Libertarian; you're thinking of Objectivism. That's two aisles over, next to "Anarchist" and "Patrio-psychotic Anarchomaterialist". I have never quoted Ayn Rand in my life, and wouldn't even if she happened to say the best example of something that proved a point I held dearly.
Your vote is a social contract, and forcing you to use it or not (without sale or transfer) is only a limitation in the influence others may have over you.
No, it's a limitation in what I can freely decide as an adult to do with my own freedom. Who asked you to protect me?
I don't need your protection in this case. If I do, I'll ask for it. Until then, stay out of my mind.
My vote is my basic inalienable right, not a "social contract" or privilege. That's why we got along just fine for 200 years without a law against selling it.
-
You're right -- you don't own your vote. And you can't sell it. And no one is extending the privlege to use it -- it is not yours to "use", or to transfer or sell or loan or otherwise dispose of as personal property. It is yours to vote with,
or not, as you see fit. But no other choice exists -- you vote, or not.
Again, false. You are allowed to contract for your vote, and it's done every day.
You just aren't allowed to have a direct transfer of goods in return for a verified vote.
It is perfectly kosher, however, to say "I'll vote for you if you'll vote to lift restrictions on encryption", followed by the candidate saying "ok, I'll do that, vote for me." It's even legal to follow that up by showing him your absentee ballot with his name on it, and letting him mail it for you, although that part of the exchange doesn't happen in practice.
It is in fact common practice to say "vote against Right to Work, and we'll recommend all our members vote for you", followed by thousands or millions of people voting as their union has requested. Few will go against their union's wishes in that situation, although again they don't yet take that extra step of verification. (Because they don't have to.)
I reiterate what I said; if I don't own my vote, and am not free to contract it in any way I choose, I am a slave, not a free man.
You can't see the forest because you're a tree.
-
Actually, it is a federal offense to sell or buy a vote.
I'm aware of that. It's yet another in the vast pile of unConstitutional laws that enslave every American.
-
The difference is that now, you can certainly contract to sell your vote (though such may not be legal), but if I pay you for your vote, I have no way of verifying that you have voted as I directed, and therefore that I have 'received' the vote I paid for. Hence, at present, any vote-buying scheme is fraught with uncertainty.
That is completely false. What they (the Gore campaign did it this election, for instance) do currently is drive you down to pick up an absentee ballot, have you fill it out and give it to them for verification, then they mail it in for you.
It's just as verified as it would be in the scheme proposed here.
-
2) As well, because the mail-delivered passwords are the only identifying feature, they could be bought, sold, traded, etc. Maybe not by me, but what if you are low-income, no HMO, little daughter is sick, etc. How much is the going price for a vote?
Why is that a problem? That can be done now, and if I own my vote, how can anyone else prevent me from entering into contracts regarding it?
If you can dictate under what terms I can contract my vote, then I don't own it, you own it and are just extending me a privilege to use it.
Votes are a right, not a privilege, ergo it cannot be illegal to trade them.
-
Buchanan got 8,000 votes in the republican primary...which indicates 8,000 people would have rather seen him than Bob Dole. There is a gap here that still isn't bridged (especially considering the statistics related to this. If you check the election results of 96 primary, the 8,000 people in Palm Beach doesn't stand out in relation to general voting...it is more than normal, but statistically unimpressive.
From this, I can only conclude that you HAVEN'T checked the stats.
In Miami-Dade county, he got 10% as many as Dole.
But in Palm Beach, he got 25% as many as Dole.
Palm Beach is a Buchanan stronghold. There are few places where he did as well as he did there in '96, if you just count large counties.
-
This doesn't even take in to account the people who were told that they couldn't have another ballot.
Has there been a SUBSTANTIATED report on that? Because those election workers are told MANY times during their training that people can have as many other ballots as they want, as long as the spoiled ones are returned, and both major parties have observers in the polling place throughout the entire election.
When somebody steps up to the plate and is willing to say under oath that this happened to them, not to "a friend", I'll consider believing it. Until then, it's a rumor that's vigorously denied by the elected Democrat in charge of our elections.
Voting ballots should be made for the lowest common denominator.
The lowest common denominator can't read and doesn't have a picture ID.
BTW, these same style of ballots were used in Daley's home county to elect judges. He voted on one, unless he voted absentee. I don't see him bitching about it.
-
alright...someone has to call BULLSHIT! Not trolling here but: where did you get your "facts"?
With the exception of the "15,000 in 1996" stat, I got them all from the Florida Election Commission web page. I got the 15,000 from a conflicting report on CNN. It may very well be wrong.
Fact: the reform party in 96 was a FAR different animal that the reform party in 00 (source: simple analysis)
Fact: Over 8,000 people in that county voted for Buchanan in the 1996 Republican primary. (source: Florida Election Commission web page.)
Another fact: the person doing the complaining for the Gore camp, Mr. Daly, is from Cook County, Illinois, which also used a "butterfly ballot" this election, for their judges.
He's never complained about those ballots.
-