• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The truth about voter fraud and intimidation in the 2004 election

2000 Election Night
Deceits 1-2

Fahrenheit 9/11 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown Al Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The conspicuous sign on stage reads "Florida Victory." Moore creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida. Moore's voiceover claims, "And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy, like a miracle had taken place." The verb tense of past perfect ("had taken") furthers the impression that the election has been completed.

Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day, before polls had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election day, but went home to Tennessee to await the results. The "Florida Victory" sign reflected Gore’s hopes, not any actual election results. ("Gore Campaigns Into Election Day," Associated Press, Nov. 7, 2000.)

The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"

We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."

Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.

In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.

About an hour before the polls closed in panhandle Florida, the networks called the U.S. Senate race in favor of the Democratic candidate. The networks seriously compounded the problem because from 6-7 Central Time, they repeatedly announced that polls had closed in Florida--even though polls were open in the panhandle. (See also Joan Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television's Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001.)

The false announcements that the polls were closed, as well as the premature calls (the Presidential race ten minutes early; the Senate race an hour early), may have cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided; some last-minute voters on their way to the polling place turned around and went home. Other voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the west coast, the early concession was blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West, such as that of 20-year incumbent James Corman. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while west coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West; Congress even held hearings about prohibiting the disclosure of exit polls before voting had ended in the any of the 48 contiguous states.

Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold. Most of Central Time Zone Florida is in the 1st Congressional District, which is known as the "Redneck Riviera." In that district, Bob Dole beat Bill Clinton by 69,000 votes in 1996, even though Clinton won the state by 300,000 votes. So depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes. A 2001 study by John Lott suggested that the early calls cost Bush at least 7,500 votes, and perhaps many more. Another study reported that the networks reduced panhandle turn-out by about 19,000 votes, costing Bush about 12,000 votes and Gore about 7,000 votes.

At 10:00 p.m., which networks took the lead in retracting the premature Florida win for Gore? They were CNN and CBS, not Fox. (The two networks were using a shared Decision Team.) See Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations" (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)

In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until 2 a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

None of this should've happened....If the networks kept their mouth shut and waited, Bush would've won by a few grand, not a few hundred...
 
cnredd said:
None of this should've happened....If the networks kept their mouth shut and waited, Bush would've won by a few grand, not a few hundred...
So you're saying that there were thousands of people who were Bush supporters, but since the networks said he wasn't going to win, they didn't vote at all? Which would mean that they didn't even vote for their US congress or local candidates or local referenda. I would really wonder about these people who wouldn't vote for the other races and only want to vote for the president. Of course, I can't imagine a couple thousand people admitting to that, but I'm open to being proved wrong. Do you have a cite?
 
shuamort said:
So you're saying that there were thousands of people who were Bush supporters, but since the networks said he wasn't going to win, they didn't vote at all? Which would mean that they didn't even vote for their US congress or local candidates or local referenda. I would really wonder about these people who wouldn't vote for the other races and only want to vote for the president. Of course, I can't imagine a couple thousand people admitting to that, but I'm open to being proved wrong. Do you have a cite?

It's pointed out above...

The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the west coast, the early concession was blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West, such as that of 20-year incumbent James Corman. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while west coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West; Congress even held hearings about prohibiting the disclosure of exit polls before voting had ended in the any of the 48 contiguous states.
 
cnredd said:
It's pointed out above...

The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the west coast, the early concession was blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West, such as that of 20-year incumbent James Corman. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while west coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West; Congress even held hearings about prohibiting the disclosure of exit polls before voting had ended in the any of the 48 contiguous states.
Sorry, missed that before. That's pathetic on both counts that people give up because they perceivably lost one race.
 
shuamort said:
Sorry, missed that before. That's pathetic on both counts that people give up because they perceivably lost one race.

Agreed...

People care less about the Senate & House races, even though they are Federal, than they do in the Presidential one.

Every non-presidential(Senate & House)voting year has produced AT LEAST 19,000,000 less votes than in the upcoming Presidential election...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

So if the Presidential race is called before the polls close, like in the Florida Panhandle in 2000, which is a Republican stronghold, then people who were ONLY there to vote for the Presidential race stopped going, or dropped out of line thinking their vote became irrelevant...

All because of the media....
 
shuamort said:
So you're saying that there were thousands of people who were Bush supporters, but since the networks said he wasn't going to win, they didn't vote at all? Which would mean that they didn't even vote for their US congress or local candidates or local referenda. I would really wonder about these people who wouldn't vote for the other races and only want to vote for the president. Of course, I can't imagine a couple thousand people admitting to that, but I'm open to being proved wrong. Do you have a cite?

The Senatitorial and Presidential races were the main issues, I don't even know if the House race was even contested nor if any local measures were on the ballots, do you? But yes it is very concievable that someone driving to the polls to vote for Bush heard that the polls were closed and turned around and went home.
 
shuamort said:
Sorry, missed that before. That's pathetic on both counts that people give up because they perceivably lost one race.

In Florida it's not pathetic if the person is being told that the polls are closed or that Nelson had already won or that Gore and Nelson had already won.
 
Stinger said:
The Senatitorial and Presidential races were the main issues, I don't even know if the House race was even contested nor if any local measures were on the ballots, do you? But yes it is very concievable that someone driving to the polls to vote for Bush heard that the polls were closed and turned around and went home.
And my contention would be, people that dumb, shouldn't vote.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
The Senatitorial and Presidential races were the main issues, I don't even know if the House race was even contested nor if any local measures were on the ballots, do you? But yes it is very concievable that someone driving to the polls to vote for Bush heard that the polls were closed and turned around and went home.


shuamort said:
And my contention would be, people that dumb, shouldn't vote.

I'm sorry but I'm missing the dumb part, what is smart about driving to a polling place that has just been announced as closed?
 
Stinger said:
I'm sorry but I'm missing the dumb part, what is smart about driving to a polling place that has just been announced as closed?
I don't remember any poll stations being announced as pre-maturely closed. If they were, one could easily argue that people of both parties would hear that (of course, it'd be more liberals since they own the media. :roll: )
 
shuamort said:
I don't remember any poll stations being announced as pre-maturely closed. If they were, one could easily argue that people of both parties would hear that (of course, it'd be more liberals since they own the media. :roll: )

Agreed...

The polls in the Republican Panhandle were NOT closed early...The people there were just TOLD through the media that the state was already decided BEFORE they were closed...costing Gore a few grand and costing Bush a few grand more than that....

And possibly changing the smaller races...
 
shuamort said:
I don't remember any poll stations being announced as pre-maturely closed. If they were, one could easily argue that people of both parties would hear that (of course, it'd be more liberals since they own the media. :roll: )

Already mentioned early in this thread and the Panhandle section which was effect by the announcement that the polls were closed because some dingbat forgot that the Panhanle is Central Timezone in way perdominately conservative Republican. So one can more easily argue that this slanted the vote towards Gore and away from Bush.
 
cnredd said:
Agreed

The polls in the Republican Panhandle were NOT closed early...The people there were just TOLD through the media that the state was already decided BEFORE they were closed...costing Gore a few grand and costing Bush a few grand more than that....

And possibly changing the smaller races...

...

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/index.php?columnist=wambough&date=050107&print=1

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"I live in the Panhandle of Northwest Florida where Democrats and Republicans in Presidential elections tend to vote Republican. In 2000 the ratio was 2:1 and 2004, 3:1. In Election 2000, with a voting ratio strongly favoring George W. Bush (GWB), announcements were made by the National Networks that stopped or curtailed voting in the Florida Panhandle. The National Networks helped the Democrat Party at a critical point on Election Day by: (1) Declaring the polls closed all across the state of Florida when in fact there was still a full crucial hour of voting left in the Panhandle and (2) Declaring Al Gore winner of the state and national election before Florida polls closed.

[/FONT]
  • [FONT=arial,helvetica]Given the closeness of the election, these inappropriate network announcements could have resulted in an Al Gore Presidency. Both of these declarations were made under dubious circumstances: (1) Florida's Secretary of State reminded the National Networks one week prior to the election that the polls in Florida's Central Time Zone did not close until 8 pm EST and (2) Pre-election polling and actual voting indicated an extremely tight race, one too close to call. There was no "ethical" way either Presidential candidate could be declared winner of Election 2000 without a total vote count.

    [/FONT]
  • [FONT=arial,helvetica]National Network disinformation tactics (telling the public the polls were closed when they weren't and telling the public that Al Gore had won the election when he didn't) proved highly effective in curtailing Florida voting in Election 2000. Many citizens of the Florida Panhandle know voters who chose not to vote once the networks (CBS in particular) announced that all Florida polls were closed and that Al Gore had won Florida and therefore the National Election. According to the Clerk for Elections, Okaloosa County, Florida: "In past elections, there was usually a rush of people coming from work, trying to get to vote before the polls closed" Soon after 6 p.m. in the Central Time Zone, voting volume dropped almost to zero in 361 polling places in the Panhandle.

    [/FONT]
  • [FONT=arial,helvetica]The beneficiary of the Network announcements (polls closed — Al Gore winner) was the Democrat Party. See "Committee for Honest Politics" testimony before the U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. With Dan Rather, "CBS, for example, made at least 13 explicit statements during the hour that the Florida polls were closed, a number which increases to 18 if the statements calling Florida for Gore are included. Moreover, CBS made more than 15 additional statements implying that the polls were closed ..." "With the exception of Fox, all other networks repeated the poll closing information throughout the 7 p.m. hour broadcast." Suggest Reading "Exit Polls Need More Than a Makeover" By Dr. David Hill

    [/FONT]
  • [FONT=arial,helvetica]Given the 2:1 vote advantage of Bush over Gore in the Panhandle, the minimum effect was "loss of 12,761 votes for the Bush campaign."

    [/FONT]
  • [FONT=arial,helvetica]Nationally, the loss of votes by the Bush campaign probably was very significant (nationwide) in that the retraction announcement that Al Gore hadn't won the state of Florida / National Election was not made until 10pm EST — just in time for the polls to close on the West Coast (7pm PST). This is Republican voter suppression at its best; compliments of the National Networks, VNS, and the Election Decision Team of Mitofsky and Lenski. Without the National Networks' voter suppression tactics in Election 2000, GWB may have won both Florida and the National popular vote by enough of a margin to obliterate the election legitimacy issue."[/FONT]
 
shuamort said:
I don't remember any poll stations being announced as pre-maturely closed. If they were, one could easily argue that people of both parties would hear that (of course, it'd be more liberals since they own the media. :roll: )

THey did. At 7PM EST, the networks announced that the polls in Florida had closed. They didn't say MOST of Florida, they said Florida. This is, or course, incorrect as the polls in the Panhandle were in fact still open. If it is 6PM and the evening news tells me that the polls are already closed, WHY should I go and vote at a location that I am now being told is already closed?
 
ludahai said:
THey did. At 7PM EST, the networks announced that the polls in Florida had closed. They didn't say MOST of Florida, they said Florida. This is, or course, incorrect as the polls in the Panhandle were in fact still open. If it is 6PM and the evening news tells me that the polls are already closed, WHY should I go and vote at a location that I am now being told is already closed?
One would think that they would be responsible citizens and verify that.
 
shuamort said:
One would think that they would be responsible citizens and verify that.

One would think they have verifiable news sources that announce it.

Shuey; you're better than that...
 
I live in Ohio, a key state in this last election, and some of my closest friends were denied absentee balots for no apparent reason. In fact, a few people I know didn't even recieve their absentee balots until AFTER the election was over. That aside, have you ever seen a districting map of Ohio? Gigantic chunks of the state are districted as Republican and teeny tiny ones are districted for Democrat. In fact, they were only alloted 3 districts. Does that seem fair to you?
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
I live in Ohio, a key state in this last election, and some of my closest friends were denied absentee balots for no apparent reason. In fact, a few people I know didn't even recieve their absentee balots until AFTER the election was over. That aside, have you ever seen a districting map of Ohio? Gigantic chunks of the state are districted as Republican and teeny tiny ones are districted for Democrat. In fact, they were only alloted 3 districts. Does that seem fair to you?

Napoleon, I can't believe you can be this simplistic. All districts are equal POPULATION in line with the most recent census, not equal PHYSICAL SIZE. The liberals live in urban areas, hence Democratic districts tend to be smaller.

You should see what the liberals did to districts in Georgia. Notice the SHAPE, not the size. Look very closely at district 13 around the metro area. It was custom made for Democrats. Also look closely at districts 8, 11, 1, 7 and 12. THis is BLATANT Gerrymandering!

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/pdf/gacongress2002.pdf

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/pdf/gacongress2002acolor.pdf

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/pdf/gacongress2002bcolor.pdf

FORTUNATELY, the voters of Georgia saw this for what it was and voted the Democrats out of power in Georgia. In 2001, Georgia had a Democratic governor and both houses were controlled by Democrats. Now, all are Republican. AND they have drawn a NEW map that divides fewer counties and creates for more sensible districts.

http://www.wxia.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=60643
 
ludahai said:
Napoleon, I can't believe you can be this simplistic. All districts are equal POPULATION in line with the most recent census, not equal PHYSICAL SIZE. The liberals live in urban areas, hence Democratic districts tend to be smaller.

You should see what the liberals did to districts in Georgia. Notice the SHAPE, not the size. Look very closely at district 13 around the metro area. It was custom made for Democrats. Also look closely at districts 8, 11, 1, 7 and 12. THis is BLATANT Gerrymandering!

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/pdf/gacongress2002.pdf

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/pdf/gacongress2002acolor.pdf

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/pdf/gacongress2002bcolor.pdf

FORTUNATELY, the voters of Georgia saw this for what it was and voted the Democrats out of power in Georgia. In 2001, Georgia had a Democratic governor and both houses were controlled by Democrats. Now, all are Republican. AND they have drawn a NEW map that divides fewer counties and creates for more sensible districts.

http://www.wxia.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=60643

The majority of the major cities are in Republican districts and you're telling me that it's done on the basis of population when there are only 3 districts alloted to democrats???? The 3 districts alloted to the Democrats do not have the same population as the other districts controlled by the Republicans in addition to the fact that some of the districts are irregularly shaped.

http://www.house.gov/chabot/mapall.html

http://boe.muskingumcounty.org/18th Ohio Congressional District.htm

http://www.solfopro.com/CNP/OHOH/OH17/OH17C.htm
 
Last edited:
shuamort said:
One would think that they would be responsible citizens and verify that.

They are in thier car heading there from work, it's 6:15PM and the radio announces that the polls are closed.

What are you missing here?
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The majority of the major cities are in Republican districts and you're telling me that it's done on the basis of population when there are only 3 districts alloted to democrats???? The 3 districts alloted to the Democrats do not have the same population as the other districts controlled by the Republicans in addition to the fact that some of the districts are irregularly shaped.

http://www.house.gov/chabot/mapall.html

http://boe.muskingumcounty.org/18th Ohio Congressional District.htm

http://www.solfopro.com/CNP/OHOH/OH17/OH17C.htm

I am not familar with the geography of Ohio, but ALL of the COngressional districts are REQUIRED to have about the same population based on the 2000 census. There is SIMPLY NO WAY AROUND IT! You have presented nothing that shows a significant deviation in population. I looked at that map, and it looked rather reasonable,(except perhaps for the Sixth district) ESPECIALLY as compared to that traversty designed by Georgia's Democrats in 2001. PROVE that the populations in the Congressional districts are significantly different, because the districts look reasonably compact and not outrageously gerrymandered, unlike the districts drawn by Democrats in Georgia!
 
With the disgrace the Ohio Republican Governor is bringing to his office, I doubt if Ohio will be so quick to be a red state in the next election.

As far as Stinger and the SCOTUS decision in 2000, what you fail to understand is that the Supreme court in it's ruling DID NOT find that the FL Supreme Court violated Art. II, Sec 1, cl.2 or Title 3 of the U.S. Code, Sec.5.

They simply ruled on the very weak Equal Protection Clause...the fact that differing counties have differing standards of what determines a valid vote. How you can make the jump to determine that either candidate would possibly be harmed if each is treated equally within each county, is beyond any understanding.

Plus, under the Equal Protection Clause, deliberate intent has to be proven....where's the deliberate intent of one county discriminating against a neighboring county ...where's the prejudice?

To make it simple for anyone to understand...what SCOTUS actually did was say..."We're so concerned that some of you undervoters may lose your vote under differing county standards that we're going to solve the problem by making sure that none of you undervoters have your votes counted." Isn't this exactly what SCOTUS did?

There were 'spoiled ballots,' yes. But if a manual handcount can show an obvious indent, or dimple on the ballot...with no other stray marks or double votes, then the voters intent couldn't be more obvious.

And Gore did have crap for lawyers, otherwise they would've put SCOTUS up against the wall by reminding them of previous "Equal Protection" decisions...like Akins v Texas 325 U.S. 398...in which SCOTUS ruled that the "Equal Protection" clause can only be invoked if the discrimination was intentional. Where was the 'intentional' discrimination in treating each candidate equally within each county?

Answer....there was none. The fact is, SCOTUS deliberately departed from the position it had taken on Equal Protection cases throughout the years, providing further evidence that they only had one purpose...to appoint
Bush president before the truth of the election could possibly harm his presidency.

The bottom line again....votes were thrown out that deserved to be counted.

As far as the chads on the floor....whoop-de-doo...I wouldn't doubt if they came from the pocket of one of the republican observors...who immediately screamed..."Stop the count! Chads on the floor! We're all gonna die!" Talk about your conspiracy theories...that one really took the cake. LOL

Don't feel bad...no republican I've ever met believes that what happen down in FL, 2000 was a bad decision. They wouldn't know the truth if it was a brick along side the head. Their guy won...it doesn't matter if the counting of votes was stopped before the will of the people was known.
 
Apparently, Hoot didn't pay attention to the Panhandle posts that have been debated for the last two days...
 
As far as Stinger and the SCOTUS decision in 2000, what you fail to understand is that the Supreme court in it's ruling DID NOT find that the FL Supreme Court violated Art. II, Sec 1, cl.2 or Title 3 of the U.S. Code, Sec.5.

In effect they did in thier first ruling and rescinded the FSC decission and demanded they explain why they were doing what they were doing and under what authority. The FSC simply ignored them and ordered the manual recounts in those select counties restarted, SCOTUS then issued the second ruling in effect saying the FSC STILL had not complied and even if they could there is not time to set standards under which to hold such recounts.

They simply ruled on the very weak Equal Protection Clause...the fact that differing counties have differing standards of what determines a valid vote. How you can make the jump to determine that either candidate would possibly be harmed if each is treated equally within each county, is beyond any understanding.

It's a statewide election and the protection of for the VOTER not the candidate.

Plus, under the Equal Protection Clause, deliberate intent has to be proven....where's the deliberate intent of one county discriminating against a neighboring county ...where's the prejudice?

It's about the voter and as was apparent at the time the ballots were spoiled the citizens right to have thier vote counted properly was being violated.

To make it simple for anyone to understand...what SCOTUS actually did was say..."We're so concerned that some of you undervoters may lose your vote under differing county standards that we're going to solve the problem by making sure that none of you undervoters have your votes counted." Isn't this exactly what SCOTUS did?

No they said was the FSC had no authority to order such a recount and even if one were order it had to be held according to predertimined standards. Don't you think a person vote should be protected from political manipulations?


There were 'spoiled ballots,' yes. But if a manual handcount can show an obvious indent, or dimple on the ballot...with no other stray marks or double votes, then the voters intent couldn't be more obvious.

And there is no way to do that with spoiled ballots. Where did all those chads come from they were sweeping up off the floor? What is more egregious someone screws up their ballot by not taking the time and care to make sure their selection is clear or someone making thier selection clear and having someone else decided it otherwise and change thier vote?

And Gore did have crap for lawyers,

No he had some of the best lawyers in the country.

The bottom line again....votes were thrown out that deserved to be counted.

No they didn't. If the person did not cast thier vote properly it does not deserve to be counted.

As far as the chads on the floor....whoop-de-doo...

That speaks volumes, clearly you are not interested in the correct result only that the Democrats be allowed to get thier hands on the ballots and make the outcome what they wanted it to be. Every one of those chads came off a ballots, ballots that were then spoiled and did not reflect the will of the person voting. But as long as Gore won that appears to be fine with you

I wouldn't doubt if they came from the pocket of one of the republican observors

And of course you have no evidence of that.

Don't feel bad...no republican I've ever met believes that what happen down in FL, 2000 was a bad decision.

Oh it wasn't the greatest decission but then the FSC's decissions were worse. But in the end the vote was protected from the manipulation Gore and the Democrats tried to engage in and the law was upheld. You seem to oppose upholding the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom