Skip to main content

View Diary: Sandra Day O'Connor: Regrets, she has them (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it is Anthony Salvado (0+ / 0-)

    not De Salvo, my apologies. Also, researchers at U Penn who examined the consortium also concluded Gorelikely won. So pick the one you want. It's not even clear to me the NYT is disagreeing; it rather seems like the ABC piece and the NYT emphasized the outcomes favorable to Bush ( not disputed that some outcomes favored him, but the majority favored Gore ) actually the ABC piece completely fails to mention any of the outcomes most favorable to Gore, mentioning only the one that gave him 3 more votes. your liberal media at work.....

    •  Sigh. Once again, it supports exactly what I said. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, VClib

      One more time.  The Florida Supreme Court only ordered a recount of undervotes.  See the decision itself here.  So, if the SCOTUS had not stepped it, that recount of undervotes -- in that decision -- would have gone forward.  If that recount of undervotes would have gone forward, the study says Bush likely would have won.  

      No one ASKED  for a recount of overvotes.  The Florida Supreme Court never ORDERED a recount of overvotes.  (Read the decision for yourself.)  Nonetheless, the study I cited -- the one that says if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme court had proceeded, Bush likely would have won -- also  that says if a recount of overvotes -- which never was requested and never ordered to happen -- would have taken place, Gore likely would have won.  

      My point was that if the SCOTUS had not stepped in, Bush would have won.  Which is absolutely true, because nobody had asked to count overvoters and the Florida Courts did not order a recount of overvotes.  So, if the SCOTUS had not stepped in, overvotes would not have been counted under that Florida Supreme court decision, and Bush likely would have won.

      So, with that in mind, here's what Salvago said:  

      According to the study, only 3% of the 111,261 overvotes had markings that could be interpreted as a legal vote. According to Anthony Salvado, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine, who acted as a consultant on the media recount, most of the errors were caused by ballot design, ballot wording, and efforts by voters to choose both a president and a vice-president. For example, 21,188 of the Florida overvotes, or nearly one-fifth of the total, originated from Duval County, where the presidential race was split across two pages. Voters were instructed to "vote every page". Half of the overvotes in Duval County had one presidential candidate marked on each page, making their vote illegal under Florida law. Salvado says that this error alone cost Gore the election.
      Including overvotes in the above totals for undervotes gives different margins of victory
      In other words, Gore wins only if you do a count that the Florida Supreme Court did not order and no one requested -- a recount that included overvotes.  His statement is consistent with what the study says in the links.

      Now let's look at what YOU originally said:  

      According to the consultant to the consortium. Anthony DeSalvo [Salvado], of UC Irvine, Gore won under most scenarios.
      That's blantantly untrue.  The study -- including Salvado -- said Bush won under every scenario (recount all counties, recount only certain counties; counting undervotes using various standards) except one -- counting overvotes, which no one ever requested and no court ever ordered.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (61)
  • 2016 (46)
  • Elections (38)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (35)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (24)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Economy (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site