Liberal Bias -- A test

[W&M]

If you havent' already read the Supreme Court Decision deciding the election between Bush & Gore ... don't do it just yet.

I want to test your recollection/perception. I'm curious what everyone thinks the final outcome was: 9-0; 7-2; 5-4; 3-4-2.

My hunch is that the poll results will substantially differ from reality. We did this poll to our new associates, who are very talented, and were surprised that even they were fooled. It's a good exercise in how the media can mold public opinion ... perhaps not for the sole purpose of promoting a cause (though in many cases I think they do) but simply to create a newsworthy, decisive issue.

So what's your opinion? What was the decision!

[gbear]

One of the ones seems right, but I thought there were two opinions set forth by the majority side. As I recall, the two opinions used SIGNIFICANTLY different reasoning. Now that I've voted, are you giving the answer, or do I have to go look it up?

[PCS]

Man. I hate pop quizzes.

[W&M]

GBEAR, You are right, there were several opinions, and within the main opinion that formed the basis for the decision, there were several sections and different numbers of judges joined (i.e., signed onto) each section.

So some sections carry the weight of 3 judges, some carry the weight of 5, some have 7, and one section has 9 (though people argue whether Ginsburg backed out of this one).

Yeah, I'll give the answer on Wednesday. Actually, I'm pleasantly surprised by the results so far, our Skins fans are not only smarter than the general population, but they are better then many students fresh out of the top schools.

[W&M]

I see the thread is starting to be pushed down, so I'll just give the answer now. It was a 7-2 decision, yet for some ridiculous reason the media reported it as a 5-4, party line vote.

7 Justices found that the process of doing recounts in select (democratic strong hold) voting districts (along with having no discerable standard for distinguishing a vote from an undervote) violates the equal protection clause of the constitution, because it dilutes the voting power of other districts. Ginsburg didn't join because she felt this was a state matter and the Federal courts shouldn't intrude (yet oddly she voted to accept jurisdiciton), Siutter was the only he disagreed in substance.

Also, 7 justices briefly laid out a permissible process for setting standards, and for doing state-wide recounts (7 Judges), and all judges agreed that the recounts had to be completed within the statutory safe-harbour (comes from the 9-0 enbanc decision).

As for the plurality opinions, only 5 Judges voted to end the election that night, on the theory that a state wide recount couldn't be completed in 18 hours. Apparently 2 of the judges (Stevans and Stone) were open to letting the State try and meet the deadline, thus they wouldn't have a hand in actually ending the election. I guess this is what the media grabbed onto, but that is horrible.

But only 5 Judges said the election is over because a state wide recount couldn't be completed in 36 hours

[KevinthePRF]

In my humble opinion, this has more to do with media bias and less to do with liberal bias, even though the two cross lines often.

It's as simple as 5-4 looking more intriguing to potential readers than 7-2. $$$$$ leads media bias down the road of most contreversy, when given the choice.

I think the bottom line though is all 9 judges would problably vote that the original system of counting ballots in Florida was f****** from the start, and it is the state who originally messed it up. Anyone have Jeb's home number?

[Art]

Had the Florida Supreme Court simply ruled as it should have in the first place, that a recount meant the whole state gets recounted, it would have been perfect. But, to have said you can only count undervotes in select counties, ignoring all others, including overvotes in select Republican counties, simply shows the political nature of those decisions in Florida. Clearly the U.S. Supreme Court knew the Equal Protection clause was in violation and voted to stop it. The decision is absolutely unquestionable despite spin.

[W&M]

Liberal Bias or Media Bias ... I didnt' know you distinguish the two. I guess you are saying sometimes the media sckews the story for ratings, and sometimes to promote their political goals. Nonethless, your "media bias" explanation doesn't answer all questions. Everyone in the media still points to that decision as a party line vote, and uses it as a sounding board to prevent more "conservative" judges from making it to the court.

The irony of the whole process is that if the Florida Courts would have done it correctly from the get go, and implemented objective standards for recounting votes, and done so on a state-wide basis ... I believe Al Gore would have been the president. Wasn't that the conclusion of an accounting organization that recounted all the votes.

And Art, good point about the Florida's refusal to allow recounting of "overvotes" in the republican strongholds. That was the focus of the three judge plurality (Renquest, Scalia, Thomas), when they pointed out a million more equal protection violations that the Florida Court skipped past. It's hard to figure why the other 4 Judges from the majority didn't join this, other the fact that it had scorcing tone and really fired a few at the Florida court.

PRF .... I know the Flordia voting system wasn't great, but I believe the incidence of voting irregularities (under and over votes) fell right into the main stream. Even Dade county was about right with a 1% margin of error ... it's just that election was so tight, that the difference margin (0.1%) was smaller then what the voting system could project.

[Art]

W&M,

The independent recount of all Florida votes as ordered by the Florida court found several things. First, if the votes were recounted as the Florida Supreme Court mandated, Bush would have won, as he did. Had the counting method been the one favored by Gore, being the most inclusive standard possible, Bush would have won, as he did. Had the counting method been the one favored by Bush, being the most restrictive method possible, Gore would have won.

I do not know of a study of ALL votes in Florida, either in actual ballots cast to include overvotes or studies in the Republican central time zone of folks who didn't vote because they were told it was over. You'll have to show the studies regarding all Florida votes, as I don't know of one, but, I stopped following this story some time ago and it is very possible and even likely that there was a study done of every Florida county rather than just the study I know about that followed the Florida Supreme Court rules for counting and where to count.

[W&M]

yeah, I don't know much about the follow-up studies either. Given that they weren't well hyped, and paraded on the front page, makes me think it didn't bode well for Mr. Gore.

Nonetheless, I'd like to know the results, if for no other reason, I'm sure we'll soon start hearing policital adds about how "Bush stole the election", now that the mid-term elections are nearing.

[gbear]

Yeah, my recollection about 7-2 was correct. The comment earlier about how there were side opinions was about the vote to end the election.

I think Art was right that there was a study about a month and a half ago of all the counties that showed Gore winning. However, I don't know how they could ever tell about the effect of calling the race so early.

What's more, I have severe doubts about any count favoring either canidate. In my experience, there is simply no way to count that many of anything accurately enough to determine for sure who "should" have won. At my work we're happy with a 1% error rate, and our equipment and processins procedures are much tighter than those used in the election in FL.

[Romo]

Ok not to sound insulting but one thing i never got about the whole vote scandal is why does it take you guys so long to count votes and why dont you have a uniform voting system?

My parents and sister have worked during several elections as poll clerks up here in the cold north. We have a uniform hand written ballot and hand count all the votes. I know you are going to say "you dont have the population we have down here". Well Canada has more people then all of Florida and we manage to count our votes in one evening. I think there needs to be some reform as to how voting works down there. Make it more uniform, hire more people to work at the ballot stations..etc.

Simply put NO MORE HANGING CHADS. (for those that cant remember those are the not quite punched in holes).

[W&M]

Romo sits to pee,

I think you are confusing matters a bit. The US also counts all of their votes in one night, but that is with the benefit of voting machines, card readers, optical scanners, etc.

The reason the Florida recount was so slow was because they were inspecting each punch card to see if it was an undervote, overvote, or legal vote. And unfortunatley, inspecting the dents in a punch card is a little more difficult to count then a hand ballot with big old check boxes.

Anyway, a nation wide ballot isn't a bad idea, but the problem is our general elections for president and senator coincide with elections for: representatives, governors, local counsel, school board, and bond referandums. Thus, each state and each locality would have different needs.

Finally, some localities are loaded with 3rd party nominees. If a candidate gets enough signatures to get on the ballot, then you can't deny him/her his slot. I believe I heard that Dade county had 9 presidential nominiees on the ballot, which is why they had the butterfly design.

Nonetheless, you are correct that improvements can and should be made, but it's not as easy given the automony of the state level process.