[Author’s Note: This post is part of the 7 part series Conspiracy Check. The series factchecks
the claims of Liberal commentator Thom Hartmann concerning allegations of fraud
and treason during 5 presidential elections.]
Hartmann
began his discussion of the 2000 election by discussing the Texas felon list
that was used to take Florida voters off the roles. The stated purpose of the
list, which was used in Florida, was to prevent individuals who had their
voting rights taken away from voting illegally. However, Salon did an extensive
investigation into the list and found its implementation was riddled with
errors. Some voters who were prevented from voting were guilty of misdemeanors
rather than felonies, others were felons who had their voting rights restored,
and some were cases of mistaken identity. While the exact number of individuals
who were improperly taken off the list is unknown, Salon estimated that 7,000
voters could have been improperly taken off the roles based on the error ratio
found in one Florida county.
“Hillsborough
County’s elections supervisor, Pam Iorio, tried to make sure that that the bugs
in the system didn’t keep anyone from voting. All 3,258 county residents who
were identified as possible felons on the central voter file sent by the state
in June were sent a certified letter informing them that their voting rights
were in jeopardy. Of that number, 551 appealed their status, and 245 of those
appeals were successful. Some had been convicted of a misdemeanor and not a
felony, others were felons who had had their rights restored and others were
simply cases of mistaken identity.
An
additional 279 were not close matches with names on the county’s own voter
rolls and were not notified. Of the 3,258 names on the original list,
therefore, the county concluded that more than 15 percent were in error. If
that ratio held statewide, no fewer than 7,000 voters were incorrectly targeted
for removal from voting rosters.”
As
many as 7,000 Florida voters had their voting rights illegally taken away from
them in 2000. Salon pointed out that the
improper disenfranchisement by the list disproportionally affected ethnic minorities,
who were more likely to be Gore voters. The margin of victory in Florida was
537 votes. Therefore, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ policy of
improperly removing voters based on a Texas felon list very likely won the
election for Bush.
Thousands
of Gore votes were lost due to the confusing Butterfly ballot in Palm
Beach County. Thousands more of Gore votes were
lost in Duval
County as a result of confusing ballot
instructions. In both of these scenarios voters ended up voting for multiple
candidates for president and thus invalidated their votes. Had there been a
revote in Florida without these confusing ballots, Gore would have likely won
the election.
However,
Hartmann errs when he describes the results of a media consortium investigation
into the disputed ballots involved in the Florida recount.
So
the Supreme Court gave the presidency to Bush and it wasn’t until a year later
in November 2001 that a consortium of Florida newspapers completed a count of
Florida ballots. And when the New York Times reported on it they buried in the
seventeenth paragraph of the story the bombshell that had the Supreme Court
not intervened and had all the ballots been counted in Florida as the Florida
Supreme Court had ordered Al Gore would have won no matter how you counted the
ballots.
As
the Times reports, “If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven
single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes,
Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.”
The
truth is that the Florida Supreme Court only ordered a statewide recount of undervotes (dimpled and hanging chads) and that a recount of
undervotes alone would not have given Gore enough extra votes to win Florida.
The first
paragraph of the New York Times article
Hartmann quotes from contradicts his claim.
A
comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's
presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the
United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the
votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
The
votes that would have been necessary for Gore to win the election were those
where voters marked the oval for Gore but also wrote his name in on the write
in spot. From the Washington
Post:
The
overvotes that could have provided the margin for Gore were on ballots where
voters tried to be extra-clear in their choice and ended up nullifying the
vote. They filled in the oval next to a candidate and then filled in the oval
for "write-in" and wrote the same candidate's name again.
In
many of the scenarios where voters who voted for Gore and also did a write in
for Gore were counted, Gore would have won the election. However, disputes
among whether a chad was dimpled in scenarios where dimpled chads would count
as legitimate votes were numerous enough that the election would have been
different whether the standard was 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 3 counters agreeing
to whether a chad was dimpled. From the New
York Times:
If
all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and
combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won,
by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive "dimpled
chad" standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped,
yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory
margin.
But
the dimple standard was also the subject of the most disagreement among coders,
and Mr. Bush fought the use of this standard in recounts in Palm Beach, Broward
and Miami- Dade Counties. Many dimples were so light that only one coder saw
them, and hundreds that were seen by two were not seen by three. In fact,
counting dimples that three people saw would have given Mr. Gore a net of just
318 additional votes and kept Mr. Bush in the lead by 219.
The
2000 election in Florida was so close that different results could be obtained
by changing which undervotes and overvotes counted as legitimate votes. This is
shown quite well by the Washington Post’s interactive
applet that displays the results of the
consortium recount. Hartmann’s declaration that Gore won the 2000 election did
not adequately explain that the winner of Florida depended on what qualified as
a legitimate vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment