A Chat with Lance deHaven-Smith: Al Gore really did beat George W. Bush

[Wilms]

From Research in Review Magazine, Florida State University, Fall/Winter 2005:

Battlefield Florida

A Chat with Lance deHaven-Smith

Al Gore really did beat George W. Bush in 2000. Six years on, this is still a problem?

by Julian Pecquet

snip

RinR: One of the most interesting points you make in the book is that the focus on undervotes (ballots containing no vote for president)—the hanging, dimpled and otherwise pregnant chads—was misplaced. Instead, you explain that a study by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, which looked at all the ballots that were initially rejected on election night 2000, revealed a surprise: most of these uncounted votes were in fact discarded because they were over-votes, instances of two votes for president on one ballot. What do you think the NORC study tells us about the election?

LdHS: It’s an embarrassing outcome for George Bush because it showed that Gore had gotten more votes. Everybody had thought that the chads were where all the bad ballots were, but it turned out that the ones that were the most decisive were write-in ballots where people would check Gore and write Gore in, and the machine kicked those out. There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called “spoiled ballots.” About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a candidate’s name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much attention. Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there’s not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they’re unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida’s eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000.

snip

RinR: So, what’s the overarching theme of The Battle for Florida?

LdHS: It really tells a simple story in some ways. It essentially says that the people responsible for administering the election had a conflict of interest and that they, in a variety of ways, prevented the recount from being conducted.
I go into explaining…why would it operate like this? One factor that drove it this way is essentially that the Republicans are on the losing side of a huge demographic trend in this state: an increasing minority population. And they know this—it’s not a secret. One reason there was administrative sabotage of the recount was because a number of steps had already been taken to try to lock in the Republican control of Florida in the face of these demographics that are running in the other direction. The other thing the book looks at, in addition to the long history leading up to this event, is also what came out afterwards, what was done, were problems corrected, what investigations were conducted? And the story there is, gee, there was really very little investigation, amazingly little, given the importance of the election and the controversy. Frankly, I would never have written this book had there been any careful investigation done afterwards. That was what shook me after the election, I was expecting people would go into it, find out what had happened and straighten out the problems so it wouldn’t happen again.

snip

http://www.research.fsu.edu/researchr/winter2005/features/battlefield.html

[wakeme2008]

1. Very good

LOL, I was looking for the name of the book, I remember reading something like this on here a couple days ago.

Sad part is if this had been part of the limited recount, Bush's numbers would have tanked.

But I still believe there was votes for Gore destroyed in select counties.

[ClintonTyree]

2. Every time I read an article like this........

I want to cry. Just think of what might have been if all the votes were counted. Then think of things the way they are now......FUBAR, because george bush was installed as president by a conservative supreme court. :eyes:

President Gore would have been SOOOO much better! It boggles my mind how different this country would be right now under his leadership. 9/11 would probably never happened, we wouldn't be in an illegal, never ending war in Iraq. We'd be respected throughout the world, Americans would have universal healthcare...... the list goes on and on. Instead, we have a giggling murder monkey with a room temperature IQ pissing off the planet. :eyes:

Oh, what might have been! :cry:

[wavesofeuphoria]

3. This sums it up ... its when our democracy started to erode

"It really tells a simple story in some ways. It essentially says that the people responsible for administering the election had a conflict of interest and that they, in a variety of ways, prevented the recount from being conducted."

[KoKo]

4. I wish that a RICCO Suit could be brought against the Repugs for

"Conspiring to tamper with an Election." The problem is that we don't really have a law that gives us the right to vote. Jesse Jackson, jr., Conyers and others were going to try to get one through Congress right after the "basement hearings" after Election (?) 2004...but it seems to have died away for lack of interest.

So, if we don't truly have a "right to vote" I suppose it means that political parties can do whatever they want.

This interview is a great read! Brings up alot more issues about what America has become than just the 2000 Florida analysis. He talks about the "elitism" in America and how that influences elections. Good Stuff!

[Kurovski]

5. Recommended for Al Gore fans everywhere.

[philb]

6. There were thousands of legal Gore votes not counted due to manipulation

the thousands of "legal in Florida" Gore votes with Gore voted for twice(once Gore, once Gore written in) because of
poor design(likely intentional)Butterfly ballot in Duval and Palm Beach counties were not counted, even though they were known
about the day of the election. Voters in Duval county good bad instructions that was a factor in the double votes along with the
poorly designed ballot.
But there were also lots of legal Gore double votes in other counties such as Hillsboro and Gadsden.

Duval county irregularities were even more than Palm Beach which was more heavily publicized.


votes in Florida are legal as long as the intent is clear

the intent of the thousands of double Gore votes was extremely clear. There was no ambiguity.
But a decision was made to not look at the overvotes, even though the voters knew that they had voted for
Gore twice in Duval and Palm Beach counties. There instructions were a factor in this happening.
FLCV was aware of the problem the next day, and informed officials about the problem. But a decision was made not
to look at the ballots, since it was clear if they did Gore would win by a lot.

[nicknameless]

7. Yep.

K&R