CDR: Al Gore is only 630 votes away from winning the election
With 99.9 percent of the votes in Florida counted, Al Gore is only 630 votes away from winning the presidency. The Florida Department of State reports -- in numbers updated in the last five minutes -- that George W. Bush won 2,898,865 votes with Gore scoring 2,898,235. You can see the stats for yourself at: http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&RACE=PRE If Bush does not win Florida he cannot win the presidency, based on the numbers calculated by CNN and the networks. Oregon and Wisconsin, the two states still labeled as tossups, have a combined total of 18 votes, not enough to propel Bush to the necessary 270 electoral votes without Florida. A win in Florida would guarantee Gore a victory. Third parties in Florida made a difference. Libertarian Harry Browne won 15,609 votes, and the Green Party's Ralph Nader received 94,201 votes in the state. Nader occasionally claims that he lures voters who would not otherwise go to the polls. But if even one percent of Nader's voters had turned to Gore -- a certainty -- the presidential election would have turned out differently. With only a 630 vote difference out of some 6 million votes cast in Florida, a recount could go a different way. As I write this, Gore has made a concession call to Bush, but I'd imagine the Dems would want a recount. That's what Gore's supporters are chanting in Tennessee, anyway. -Declan
OK you folks on the downwind side of the Atlantic, now your election is over (even if you won't know the result for 3 weeks yet), can you take your weather back? We've had a month of egregious rain and floods over here and I'm sure it has to be your fault somehow. 5 tornadoes in Sussex (my home county) one of them even killed people. These things just don't happen in England. It must be the Americans fault. Somehow. It wasn't like this in my day... What did happen to Jim Bell? Just a search or worse? You were all posting about it then got side-tracked into polling hours. Did he phone Declan? Ken Brown As a foreigner (from your USan POV) far be it from me to try to make any suggestions about your internal politics but I never was any good at temptation so... if the recount (surely there has to be one?) & postal votes in Florida go Bush's way you may have removed the last obstacle to Hillary becoming president or VP next time round :-) You guys have political dynasties now. Like they do in India and places like that. (Was Gore Vidal named for Al's grandad?) Chelsea vs. Jeb junior in 2020? And why are both presidential candidates such bores? The received wisdom is that politics at that level is all about advertising, TV, good looks, soundbites and star quality. Doesn't this contest disprove that? Both main candidates look really, really boring on TV (though George W "Too many of our imports come from overseas" Bush sometimes says some amusingly stupid-sounding things. But then so did General Haig :-( Thinking over the men who you've had as president in my TV-watching-lifetime, only two (Kennedy & Clinton) had anything approaching "star quality" on TV. Ford, the older Bush & Carter came over as pretty normal (dull in one case, likeable in the others), Johnson sort of weird, and Nixon actually repulsive. Some Americans tell me that Reagan played well on TV but to us Europeans that just goes to show how strange Americans can be. Over here, he looked scary. Of course I've no idea what any of these people are like in real life - just how they seem through the media. Same goes with knobs on for our UK Prime Ministers. Only the present incumbent & Harold Macmillan (who you guys will never have heard of) could have been called good-looking, & MacMillan was past it by the time he got to be PM. Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Major - none of them were ever going to get to be a chat show host. Thatcher was (& is) almost universally hated, even by those who voted for her. Maybe that is why most of your states voted dam near 50-50 for each candidate. Same policies on most things that count, and where they differ nobody believes them anyway. (Is Bush really saying, as his Tory acolytes over here in Britain are, that you can cut taxes *and* increase pubic spending? Does anyone take that seriously enough to factor it in to their voting behaviour?). And neither of them comes over as more than a worthy 3rd-generation public servant. (What we call "the Great and the Good" - the sort of people that get appointed onto commissions and boards and inquiries) With nothing to choose between them, votes just came out at random. Certainly that is how Labour got in in UK. Everyone hated the Tories. Labour promised - in writing - to carry on Tory policies on most things (they even adopted the Tory budget for 2 years). So the only issue was that Labour looked like the nice guys. Landslide.
In <4.3.0.20001108034928.016a6820@mail.well.com>, on 11/08/00 at 02:49 AM, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> said:
http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&RACE=PRE
The numbers have changed giving Bush a larger lead: Bush/Cheney(REP) 2,909,135 48.9% +1784 Gore/Lieberman(DEM) 2,907,351 48.9% Browne/Olivier(LIB) 15,658 0.3% Nader/LaDuke(GRE) 94,479 1.6% Harris/Trowe(SWP) 551 0.0% Hagelin/Goldhaber(LAW) 2,240 0.0% Buchanan/Foster(REF) 16,962 0.3% McReynolds/Hollis(SPF) 618 0.0% Phillips/Frazier(CPF) 1,347 0.0% Moorehead/La Riva(WWP) 1,728 0.0% Total 5,950,069 100.0% No numbers available on Absentee Ballots which in FL are hand counted*. A recount has been called for. NOTE: In FL you are given a 2 sided ballot there are broken arrows next to each candidates name ( <== == ). In the voting booth you are provided with a black felt tip pen. To select your candidate you fill in the blank space to complete the arrow. When you are finished there is an OCR machine onto of a large box at the entrance to the polling place. You tear off a stub on the ballot, hand it to the person manning the OCR machine, then you feed the ballot into the machine which automatically tallies your vote and deposits the ballot into the box below. An interesting side note, on presenting my voter registration card I was asked for my Drivers License. I asked the attendant why she needed it. Her response was that it was required by law to present a photoID. I asked here what would happen if I didn't have one. She said that I would not be able to vote. I did not go into detail if it had to be a state ID or any photoID would work but I was left with the impression that only a state ID would be accepted. There was also some dirty politics here in FL with the various news networks. For those who are not aware FL has 2 time zones. Everything east of Tallahasse is Eastern, Tallahasse west is Central. The news media was very quick to claim FL as a victory for Gore and were broadcasting this before the polls closed in the western half of the state. One has to wonder if this did not have an adverse effect on voter turnout in the panhandle which historically is very conservative (Joe Scarboro (R) ran unopposed). I voted around 6:30pm and I am quite happy to know that my vote has had such a profound influence on this election. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net Geiger Consulting Data Security & Cryptology Consulting Programming, Networking, Analysis PGP for OS/2: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html E-Secure: http://www.openpgp.net/esecure.html ---------------------------------------------------------------
At 3:49 AM -0500 11/8/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
With 99.9 percent of the votes in Florida counted, Al Gore is only 630 votes away from winning the presidency. The Florida Department of State reports -- in numbers updated in the last five minutes -- that George W. Bush won 2,898,865 votes with Gore scoring 2,898,235.
I'm watching Jesse Jackson on CNN, saying he and others (Al Sharpton, etc.) will be rallying to investigate "irregularities" in Florida. They plan marches. Both sides are now scrambling to find the extra votes they need. I wouldn't be at all surprised if both sides don't turn up "undiscovered" votes. Or if both sides don't sue to invalidate entire blocs of votes (from certain precincts). The longer the recount goes on, the more suspect the final tally, ironically enough. The one good thing out of this circus is that neither party will have the "mandate" to push for lots of new laws. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 11:17:11AM +0000, Ken Brown wrote:
were ever going to get to be a chat show host. Thatcher was (& is) almost universally hated, even by those who voted for her.
Thatcher was respected rather than liked. Britain in the 1970s was a global joke, laid ruin by decades of socialist misrule. Fixing that was unlikely to win her many friends. But she partially succeeded and changed Britain and even her opposition from extreme socialists to more moderate, but still dangerous, social democrats. The work isn't, alas, over and leftist ideas remain as givens in English society supported by the state ran schools and television stations.
Maybe that is why most of your states voted dam near 50-50 for each candidate. Same policies on most things that count, and where they differ nobody believes them anyway. (Is Bush really saying, as his Tory acolytes over here in Britain are, that you can cut taxes *and* increase pubic spending? Does anyone take that seriously enough to factor it in
I think you mean "public". Actually this is possible if cutting taxes leads to more tax being collected. If tax cuts lead to increased economic activity then a smaller piece of a larger pie can be larger than the original piece. This is the famous "Laffer curve". If you take "rolling back the state" as a goal than this is an argument for cutting taxes to zero.
Certainly that is how Labour got in in UK. Everyone hated the Tories. Labour promised - in writing - to carry on Tory policies on most things (they even adopted the Tory budget for 2 years). So the only issue was that Labour looked like the nice guys. Landslide.
I don't think everyone hated the Tories (Conservative party). They had been in power for 18 years and I think people simply thought "give the other guys a ago". Since then Labour, although they had swung to the right, have increased indirect tax and introduced anti-crypto laws in the shape of RIP. The population is starting to wake up and Labour is looking increasingly vunerable due to popular protests on the amount of tax on fuel. Many conservatives, like John Redwood, have spoken against RIP. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott steve@tightrope.demon.co.uk abandon the search for truth; settle for a good fantasy.
differ nobody believes them anyway. (Is Bush really saying, as his Tory acolytes over here in Britain are, that you can cut taxes *and* increase pubic spending? Does anyone take that seriously enough to factor it in
I think you mean "public". Actually this is possible if cutting taxes
Yeah, Bush is a republican. It's the Democrats who are into pubic spending. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
participants (6)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Ken Brown -
petro -
Steve Mynott -
Tim May -
William H. Geiger III