Exclusive to OpEdNews:
Life Arts

Recount: The Mighty vs. the Many

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (2 fans)

They dug deep into the legal battles, suggesting that the reason Gore didn't seek a recount in all of Florida's counties was because each county had to be asked; it couldn't be done on a statewide basis. Given time constraints, and Warren Christopher's desire to avoid a messy legal battle, the Gore team finally agreed to recount only four counties.  But, Warren, democracy is messy.

During the US Supreme Court challenge, someone discovered that in Texas, George Bush signed a law requiring that dimpled chads be counted.  That position was unsuccessfully used against the Bush team in court, but speaks volumes to regular Americans watching the film: the rules of voter intent apply only when the powerful want them to apply.

Today, we all know about dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads. In 2000, we all learned about them at the same time, and the film captured this, connecting ordinary Americans with party elites.

That every vote be counted – as a matter of constitutional right – seemed lost on everyone but Ron Klain.  The reality that political operatives will do whatever it takes to win, came thru repeatedly.  The film showed how Dems didn't want Jessie Jackson or the grassroots involved, but I can't think of a bigger call to action: if Americans want their votes honestly counted, they must oversee the process.   

Alas, it failed to inform the public that when all the votes were finally counted, by the University of Chicago, Gore handily won Florida. 1 

But the main point being made is a reality I discovered in my investigations: elections are decided by administrative rules and legal proceedings that have little to do with the will of the people. 

Given that the film is about how we voters lost to the will of the powerful, it's almost shocking to realize I walked away feeling good and energized, and ready to fight another battle.  Best of all, I finally laughed, and laughed hard, about a subject that has reduced me to tears in the past four years.   

Maybe that was the real point – the subliminal message is don't give up – keep up the fight.  Democracy is something you do, and right now, election integrity is where the battle is being waged. 

Meanwhile, catch Recount; it's worth the view on many levels, even if it didn't mention the scientific recount which proved that the people of Florida did not elect Bush in 2000.


1
See "Florida 2000: Begininngs of a Lawless Presidency" by Lance Dehaven-Smith in Mark Crispin Miller's Loser Take All: Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy, 2000 - 2008.

p. 51 "However, in 2001, every uncounted ballot was carefully examined in a scientific study by the University of Chicago, which found that when all the votes were counted, more votes had been cast for Gore than for Bush.  The source of Gore's winning margin resided in an unexpected place." (7)

p. 52 "Ironically, we now know that the outcome of the 2000 presidential election did not hinge on hanging chads. (undervotes) Gore's winning margin was in an entirely different set of machine-rejected ballots---in what are now called "write-in overvotes."  These were ballots on which a selection had been made from the list of candidates and then a name had also been printed in the space for write-ins. Although write-in overvotes were automatically excluded by tabulating machines, they contained unambiguous and legally valid votes whenever the write-in candidate matched the candidate chosen form the list preceding it. In its comprehensive study of all the uncounted ballots, the University of Chicago found that write-in overvotes heavily favored Gore. Thus, a full recount would have determined unambiguously that Gore had won." (8)

(7) For a detailed review and analysis of the study's data see Lance deHaven-Smith, "The Battle for Florida: An Annotated Compendium of Materials from the 2000 Presidential Election (Gainesville: the University Press of Florida, 2005).

(8) deHave-Smith, pp. 38-42. See also, Steven F. Freeman and Joel Bleifuss, "Was the 2004 Presidential election Stolen? Exit Polls, election Fraud, and the Official Count, pp. 33-54.
 

Endnote research provided by Judy Conoyer of Missouri's Show Me the Vote.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

In 2004, Rady Ananda joined the growing community of citizen journalists. Initially focused on elections, she investigated the 2004 Ohio election, organizing, training and leading several forays into counties to photograph the 2004 ballots. She officially served at three recounts, including the 2004 recount. She also organized and led the team that audited Franklin County Ohio's 2006 election, proving the number of voter signatures did not match official results. Her work appears in three books.

Her blogs also address religious, gender, sexual and racial equality, as well as environmental issues; and are sprinkled with book and film reviews on various topics. She spent most of her working life as a researcher or investigator for private lawyers, and five years as an editor.

She graduated from The Ohio State University's School of Agriculture in December 2003 with a B.S. in Natural Resources.

All material offered here is the property of Rady Ananda, copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. Permission is granted to repost, with proper attribution including the original link.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." Tell the truth anyway.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 people are discussing this page, with 9 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Sunday's South Florida Sun Sentinel enjoyed the fi... by Rady Ananda on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 4:39:16 PM
Karen Renick of VoteRescue Radio provided this tod... by Rady Ananda on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 5:18:05 PM
but I agree a postscript concerning the final anal... by F. Vyan Walton on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 3:29:20 AM
OK, you sold me, I gotta see this movie - I am gla... by Meryl Ann Butler on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 4:20:06 PM
omg I burst out laughing at your hanging chads sug... by Rady Ananda on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 9:28:11 PM
Hi Rady,  Though it wasn't perfect I thought Reco... by David Lasagna on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 8:14:52 PM
You're absolutely right, David, and more resea... by Rady Ananda on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 9:33:28 PM
If the film failed to tell the truth about who cal... by Barbara Bellows-TerraNova on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 4:56:21 AM
is a huge issue - and worthy of its own film. ... by Rady Ananda on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 5:06:40 PM

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend


Copyright © 2002-2014, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum