Voter registration data could provide the key to the 2004 Ohio election

[Time for change]

Much anecdotal information suggests that new voter registration (prior to the 2004 election) in Democratic areas of Ohio vastly exceeded new voter registration in Repbulican areas of Ohio: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... . Indeed, this was a major reason why many believed that Kerry would win Ohio in 2004, and why many still believe that he did in fact win Ohio.

Yet, official figures show that votes cast for president in Democratic Ohio counties in 2004 exceeded those cast in 2000 by no more than the increase in presidential votes from 2000 to 2004 cast in Republican Ohio counties.

The recently released DNC report on the 2004 Ohio Election claimed that their analysis strongly suggested that there was "no widespread fraud" in that election. This was based upon the demonstration of a strong correlation between Kerry's share of the vote and some other variables, such as percent vote for Eric Fingerhut, the Democratic Senatorial candidate. Yet, this analysis did not even consider the possibility that fraud was committed by electronically eliminating votes in highly Democratic precincts or counties or adding them in Republican areas, which could have occurred without interfering with the above noted correlations.

The absence of any difference in the increase of votes cast for President in Democratic vs. Republican counties, despite the apparent massive increase in voter registration in Democratic areas of the state suggest that election fraud could have occurred in the manner noted in the above paragraph. The DNC report finding that voter turnout in 2004 increased in precincts where new voter registration was up further adds weight to this possibility.

If it can be shown by actual data that the reports of massive increases in voter registration in Democratic areas of the state (compared to Republican areas) did indeed occur, that data could be used to show the extreme implausibility of a Bush victory in Ohio in 2004, by virtue of its incompatability with the officially reported election results.

I cannot find this data. Could someone please point me towards it?

On edit: I think that if the registration data is consistent with what we've heard, it will have added significance, because then we can use the analysis in the DNC report to make a strong case against their own conclusion.

[quaway]

1. Kerry lost Ohio...

move on to the 2006 elections where something can be done. you can't change the past !

[Time for change]

4. Yes, you can't change the past

But you can study the past and you can expose the past. It's called HISTORY, and it's a required course in most primary and secondary schools. It's a tool that civilizations use to prevent making the same mistakes over and over.

[Raster]

7. Don't move on and don't get over it. I believe Kerry won Ohio. By

"getting over it" we just set ourselves up for the same fraud in 2006. Common sense tells me that the huge amount of new voters DID NOT wait in lines for hours to vote for *.

[nashville_brook]

32. this is key -- the evidence points to tampering/fraud -- we MUST

correct this or else face the reality of never "winning" and election ever again. this should bother anyone who cares about fairness and democracy. if there is fraud, everyone loses.

[TruthIsAll]

68. Why is it that low-posts come to DU saying move on, get over it?

It's so predictable.

They get what they want. DUers to spend valuable time telling them why we won't. Like I'm doing right now.

[Time for change]

69. Well, quaway received about 15 responses to his comments

He didn't come back with any substantial response.

So maybe we convinced him.

If not, maybe it was a good exercise anyhow. I saw a lot of really good responses to him. Think of it as good practice for responding to people in the real world who have comments like that.

[fasttense]

6. Sound like you are saying "get over it" quaway

Very similar to what the repukes told us immediately following the 2004 election. It's just a way of intimidating you so that you wont look into it. So much better to have stupid dems not even consider election fraud then when it happens again in 2006 or 2008 repukes can continue to use illegal and fascists methods to win bogus elections. It is not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.

[mopinko]

17. sorry, not getting over theft of american democracy

or war crimes, either. you'll have to peddle those papers somewhere else, pal.

[Jo March]

22. What an odd post.

Hmm. I don't want to "move on" because Kerry didn't lose Ohio - it was STOLEN from him. So, unless you think that we should let a theft go unpunished, then I'll continue to fight.

Thanks anyway for the advice. I've heard "move on" and "get over it" before and I ignored it then. Probably I'll ignore it now.

[nashville_brook]

33. amen! it's a not a fight for Kerry -- it's a fight for democracy and for

the future. get over it? i don't think so. i care too much about my country and our values. these are worth fighting for. they are worth questioning. they are worth everything we can do to solve the problems and THEN we'll move on.

[Jo March]

40. Yep.

How many times have we heard "get over it" and "move on" and "sore loserman"? Too many to count.

70+ election reform groups and growing. Yeah, I think that we'll fix things and then we'll focus on the next elections.

[riqster]

44. I agree except for the sequence

We can't wait until '04 is fixed to move forward. It is obviously important to bring the guilty to justice and I am glad that so many people and groups are working on this matter: but the '06 primaries are less than a year away, and the Kleptocrats are busily consolidating their control of the electoral process.

We have seen what happens AFTER an election is stolen-Jack Shit is what. We have to lock the door, protect the horse while she is still in the barn, or she'll be lost forever...

[Jo March]

47. I didn't mean that everyone should focus on '04 and not '06

I meant "we" as in "election reform folks." There are many others who are working on getting good candidates for '06.

Election reformers can't "move on" until we've ferreted out all of the corruption and reformed the laws.

I've posted many times about people who don't believe there was fraud trying to discourage those of us who do. It's silly and a waste of time for both sides.

[riqster]

50. I meant to watch out for electoral fraud that is being built now

For instance, did you know that Diebold (for example) owns a voter registration software company as well as two voting equipment lines?
And how many people know that HAVA requires counties to have their voter registration databases linked to the central votter database in each state's capital?

Now, take Ohio...Diebold owns the voter reg databases in quite a few counties. They also have a lock on providing machinery for the upcoming elections, and provide the interface to Blackwell's voter registration database in Columbus.

IOW, Diebold controls the election in a large part of the state, including some of the most populous counties; and the local officials have no ability to see what is being done to their data. And the hell of it is, it isn't even illegal.

They are implementing this in Georgia as well. We must stop this from happening now, before it is too late.

[Jo March]

52. Yes and there are many groups out there working on this

I don't have my list now but I'll post the groups by state when I get home.

And yes, I know all about Diebold and Ohio and many, many other election scams/fraud.

Andy taught me well.

[emcguffie]

57. we have to arrange for real exit polls.

Ones that we have access to.

Before the elections. People say that will cost a million dollars. I sure hope some of these groups are trying to put that together.

Or maybe we should start trying to raise that here? At least a contribution to it?

[Vincardog]

23. quaway we will never get over the fraud and the cancer infecting

our government since 2000. I will concede that aWoL 'won' as soon as we examine the source code on the black boxes and all election vote counting procedures are fair and transparent.

[meganmonkey]

26. Maybe we can't 'change the past'

and I don't think people here are trying to do that...What we can do is repair our messed up election system so that we can have really have FAIR elections in 2006 and beyond.

Please read this and then tell me nothing went wrong in Ohio. It was written by longtime Congressman John Conyers. This is a link to the executive summary, at the bottom of which there is a link to the full 102 page report:


http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml

Happy Reading!

[Helga Scow Stern]

31. Can't change anything as long as they can steal the vote. n/t

[troubleinwinter]

36. A true American patriot

does not "move on" when our democracy has been cheated and stolen. The cheating and theft must be exposed to the light of day, so that it can be prevented in the future. The cheaters and thieves must be held accountable for their crimes.

[frictionlessO]

39. Are you insinuating that people who are still fighting for the Ohio

rip off are detrimental to the cause?

Sorry but I think you are. What an arrogant post for a newbie as well.

[Mister Ed]

77. So a crime, once accomplished, should not be investigated or exposed?

Interesting logic.

Imagine:

"President Kennedy's been shot!"
"Hey, move on, you can't change it now..."

"Someone's kidnapped the Lindbergh baby!"
"Hey, move on, you can't change it now..."

etc., etc., etc.

jeez!

[bullimiami]

2. massive new democratic registration and massive turnout.

everyone saw the lines on tv.

[EFerrari]

78. There you go, believing your own eyes again. n/t

[wakeme2008]

3. A side issue is the lack of voting machines in

Dem areas over Repug areas. Every Dem voter that walked away from a long line was a win for the Bush people.

[Oversea Visitor]

5. Whereas

one cant change the past it is always better to learn from it.
Light please gee so much worms.

[quaway]

8. Florida, Ohio every election is a new state

i agree that it sux to lose, but a stronger candidate in '08 is what is needed.
No more close elections, we must pick the best candidate in '08 to make sure it's not even close.
Kerry lost nationwide by several million votes, that is the problem.
We gotta get the message out, so it can't be influenced by a single state or a handful of counties.

Cripes, even the DNC has moved on from this. They know the true battle is in '06 and then '08

[Oversea Visitor]

9. Come on

get a paper verified voting process. All this not much point when you cant verified the votes hey.

Face it the guys who control the machine that counts the vote win.

[Stevepol]

10. Right on. It's impossible to get over it if the vote counting

remains the same. When an election is obviously a fraud, when all the demographics like new voter registration and the unqestioned fact of the exit polls (even Mitofsky admits the discrepancy between the polls and the "alleged" results couldn't have happened) agree that Kerry won, what's the point of getting over it? The next election will just be stolen exactly as this one was: by voting machine fraud.

Get over it just means this: Forget about having democracy, just admit that you have a fake democracy of the kind that Russia had under communism or Iraq had under Saddam. Just go on about your life and accept living in an undemocratic state.

[livvy]

12. You're singing the Rep. song when you say this.

Kerry was a very strong candidate. He wasn't perfect, but he certainly garnered a large amount of passionate support. Your position is that he lost. Many here do not believe that. If he truly did win, as I believe, than I guess the issue of needing a stronger candidate is moot. We, who believe that he won, don't know by how much. Personally, I don't think the election, if it had been legitimate, was even close. I believe, and it would take an awful lot of proof to make me believe differently, that Kerry "won" by a landslide.
If anyone has moved on, it's because the proof of the theft is, so far, unavailable. Does that mean people should stop looking. I don't think so. Sure a strong candidate is important, but it won't make a bit of difference if another election can be manipulated to the extent the last several elections have been. It is important to make people see how the elections were manipulated. Proving to people that the election was illegitimate encourages people to get involved to make sure it cannot happen again.

[Time for change]

14. Sure we have to find the best candidate for 08

I'm sure that plenty of people are working on that. Are you suggesting that our efforts to study and document what happened in 04 are hampering that effort?

And you mention the DNC report. Have you read the report, and are you aware that many of us believe that the report is woefully inadequate? Here is a recent discussion of that report, in a letter that I recently sent to Howard Dean: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=380878&mesg_id=380878. And here is the response to my questions of the researchers who wrote critical portions of the report: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=382652&mesg_id=382652

Do you disagree with our points of contention with the DNC report, or our reasons for believing that this issue is far from settled? If so, I think that it would be more constructive for you to point out what specifically you disagree with, rather than simply lecturing us that we shouldn't be spending time on this, without giving any reasons for your opinions.

[Jo March]

25. It "sux" to know that what happened in FL & OH & other states

was just the beginning of what is to come. If we don't shine the light on the cockroaches, then they will multiply.

If you don't believe that Kerry won, then perhaps you should find another forum besides this one.

FYI, we don't really care who has "moved on from this." Nope, we don't care one iota.

[nashville_brook]

35. quaway, if you have been lurking in this forum for any amount of time,

you would know that people here have been tirelessly working on this issue for months. there is a lot more to this than what you point out. please spend some time and acquaint yourself with our history and our work. we aren't hurting you or anyone else by carrying on the fight for fair, open, verifiable elections. if this upsets you, then please try and articulate why. maybe we can help you understand.

[emcguffie]

58. this one wasn't close.

Kerry won by 4 million votes. Didn't you know?

[riqster]

11. Voter Reg data is suspect

Discussed Here

[Time for change]

13. You note in your post that

"The State can modify the County database when they are online, which is 24/7/365 as soon as they go live.." Have they gone "live" yet? If not, might there not be some accurate information still out there?

Also, you refer in your post to an Ohio voter registration database. Can you give me a link to that?

[riqster]

15. All but four Ohio counties are live, last I heard

No, there is no link to the Ohio VR database. It is behind firewalls at the County Boards of Election and the SOS office.

You can get VR information from the Boards of Election-it will be a snapshot of their database at a point in time according to what type of voter information you request. Some will give you a choice of medium, others won't.

[Time for change]

18. Wow, this is amazing

One would think that in the 21 century, in the most technologically advanced country that ever existed, and in a supposed democracy, that voter registration information would be publically and easily available.

[riqster]

20. 'supposed' is the operative word.

Our democracy has been outsourced.

[Time for change]

54. Ok, I'm pursuing your lead

I've asked Ray Beckerman of the Ohio Project -- for which I do volunteer work -- to find an Ohioan to make the request to the BOEs for the voter registration information.

[Time for change]

59. I have some very encouraging news -- I think

Ray Beckerman's Ohio Project -- Vickie Lovegren in particular -- came up with a data file that has 2004 (I think) Ohio voter registration data for each county.

Now we need to verify the date, the source, and the accuracy of the file. And then get similar data for 2000, so that we can see what the increase in voter registration was, and whether that is consistent with the election results, in light of the DNC data analysis. If the increase in voter registration in Democratic compared to Republican areas is close to what we've read in various newspaper articles, it won't be.

[Melissa G]

61. Yea TFC! Great find! Keep us posted!

and please pm me if you get any more data on this issue!
thanks,
mg

[riqster]

70. Excellent!

Keep us posted!

[Chi]

16. How many registrations were requested.....

I know it's not conclusive, but it would be interesting to find
out how many registrations were requested, compared to how many new
registrations were received & accepted.

This would be in the case that the registration breakdowns (Dem/Rep) are unattainable.

[Time for change]

19. Yes, that would be an intereting question

If the same effort was made to prevent new Democratic registrations that was made to prevent Democrats from getting absentee ballots, then that would be just one more serious problem to add to an alreadly very long list.

[Bill Bored]

21. Please nominate!

Since we don't have a fucking FORUM anymore!

And post a link on one of those OTHER forums too.

[MelissaB]

27. I think this is what we'll have to do at this point.

Thanks for suggesting it.

:kick:

[Bill Bored]

29. Yeah, to coin a phrase, "It's HARD WORK!" isn't it? nt

[MeDeMax]

24. kick !

[understandinglife]

28. Recommended. -nt

WATCH IT; SPREAD IT http://www.bushflash.com/right.html

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - How ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists their cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."

[xynthee]

30. We should never, EVER let this die!!

Recommended!!!

[GracieM]

34. Ohio a year later...

I'm not sure if we are any closer to proving anything. Even good evidence will not grab anyone's attention because people just don't seem to care.

For me, it is not about moving on, forgiving, or forgetting. It is about choosing my battlefields and I don't think the Ohio election issue is a battle we can win even assuming there was fraud.

Our energy is currently better served going after Rove...

[nashville_brook]

38. "we" aren't one person. your energy might be better spent elsewhere if

that's where your interest and passion lies. what difference does it make to you that other people have different interests, talents and information. it's like saying everyone should be a doctor b/c that's more important than say, writing or math or music.

[GracieM]

41. Guess I've lost hope....

Don't mean to bring anyone else down

[Jo March]

48. You can't bring us down

Losing Andy - that brought us down.

Telling us to move on or ignore it or get over it or any combination of the three won't bring us down but it will tick us off. Many of us worked very hard after the election to try and fix what happened. Many of us worked ourselves almost to exhaustion (myself included) so we don't want to hear how we should "move on."

[Time for change]

51. There may be many different approaches for winning our democracy back

Exposing what happened in Ohio is just one of them, but one that many of us feel is a good one to pursue because we feel that we may yet be able to identify some very convincing evidence of massive fraud there, and because winning Ohio made the whole difference in the election.

Bringing Rove down is another good approach IMO, and one that I am very glad people are pursuing.

I like what nashville brook had to say about this. I also think that the various different approaches may have a synergystic effect -- e.g., if this Administration is humiliated, as it ought to be, then the chances that the public at large will take election fraud and election reform seriously is likely to be enhanced.

[GracieM]

55. Well said

[Jo March]

43. RIGHT and the GOP won't hire Sproul & Associates to steal registrations

Yeah, okay. You keep telling yourself that if we just run the right person, then all of our cares will be over. Okay, whatever gets you through the night.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=138956&mesg_id=138956

They don't need to control the machines if they are THROWING your FREAKING REGISTRATION IN THE TRASH!

Andy didn't die fighting this for nothing. Take your message of "move on" somewhere else. We ain't buying.

BTW, we can fight against Rove and work on this at the same time.

[Carolab]

46. Add to this Accenture's involvement in at least 5 states

"automating" the voter registration databases...

Accenture = Arthur Andersen/Enron

[Jo March]

49. Yes, we can't throw a rock without hearing about this crap

Since the election is over, some folks have moved on but we can't. Not while there are criminals walking around free.

Losing Andy just made me want to jump back into the fray. I had stepped out due to my own health reasons but the loss of Andy has made me feel the injustice of this all over again.

[bleever]

56. Amen to fighting both election fraud and Rove at the same time.

And if I read one more post about "moving on" or "refining the message" or "getting a stronger candidate"...I won't be surprised. Or persuaded to budge even a micron from knowing the truth.

To all the "reasonable" people who haven't bothered to educate themselves about this and want to move on: what's the statue of limitations on treason?

[Jo March]

73. Exactly! And are we so stupid that we can't do two things at once?

I mean, I have cranked up my website again and have started to add information about election reform to it. In addition, I've written LTTE concerning Rove. I did this as part of the DU Activist Corps. I'm cranking up the fax machine to send stuff to elected officials and I'm signing petitions, too.

So, I guess I should just pick one or the other? I don't think so! I can do both.

Treason = Election Fraud
Treason = Karl Rove
Karl Rove = Election Fraud (We just have to get some hard evidence of that.)

So, I'll just be jumping back into the fray and working on both no matter what the "reasonable" folks say or think.

[bleever]

74. Yeah! Go arnheim!

Treason = Election Fraud
Treason = Karl Rove
Karl Rove = Election Fraud


May the circle be unbroken!


:evilgrin:

[troubleinwinter]

37. Nominated this important subject, so it can be seen!

[Jo March]

42. Check out this article on the Sproul & Associates registration scam!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=138956&mesg_id=138956

Oh, and I WON'T get over it!!!

[Bill Bored]

45. Gee, maybe we should link to this place from GD more often!

Brings all kinds out of the woodwork!

Anyway, at this point it might also be useful to point out that Kerry lost NM, NV and IA by an AGGREGATE margin of ONLY 40,000 votes! That's only a 20,000-vote swing. And those 3 states would have TIED the Electoral College even without OH or FL. And not a recount to be found in any of them!

So for those who say we should "get over it", I say, we need to count the votes first! And what will you say if the approval ratings are still in the toilet and the Dems fail to win back the House in '06???

I'd ask the same question of the proponents of election fraud if the Dems win, but it probably would take a landslide to achieve that after all the hacks and dirty tricks are taken into account.

One thing we all agree on is that these elections are just too damn close, and they shouldn't be! The disagreement is about "WHY?"

If you don't believe in election fraud, you should also be able to agree on this:

We need to support candidates who WILL challenge electoral outcomes if the vote cannot be verified. How about making this a campaign issue, especially in the Primaries???

[Time for change]

53. Yes, that should be a big campaign issue as far as I'm concerned

That's why I changed my avatar.

[Time for change]

60. Some encouraging news

See post 59, above.

[liam_laddie]

62. Ohio registration files - long explanation

TFC and all - I'm in Hamilton County - Cincinnati -

The reg file for this county is a 3.9mb file with about 575,000 names. It costs $25 for a CD, in dbf format. Takes some time to convert to Excel or other easier-to-use format. A colleague with the right software converted six precincts to Excel for me to use in a project. I don't know if dbf can be easily manipulated (I'm Mac-based)

The Clermont County CD costs $1, but is in a strange format, haven't worked with it yet...about 190,000 names. This county as well as Warren surely had fraudulant activity,

I think Ohio has about 8.5 million registered...not certain, but it's close. That said, in Ohio, party affiliation is established ONLY by voting in primaries. Typically, because about 1/3 or fewer of registered voters bother to vote in primaries, 2/3 of registrants are listed as "non" (aligned) in Ham Cty. Or "ind" (independent) in other counties...thus would be of little help in comparing to reported election results.

The new registrants who voted in Nov 2004 would be listed in precinct lists, but all votes in "general" elections are recorded as
"non." That is, there is no way to correlate any votes to party affiliation. Unless comparing to party percentages of those who vote primaries...not very useful, if I understand what we'd all like to discover. In addition, those newbies may not have voted in the June14 party primaries here; in any case the reg list I bought a month ago is dated as of April 19. How could one compare those fall '04 reg's with so little identifying data?

It may be possible to compare on a precinct-by-precinct basis, the party percentages-to-reported-vote. But that assumes the 2/3 "non" voters split per the registered percentages. Not too accurate, I'm sure, but what else could be used?

I doubt that copies of earlier registration rolls are available, only the current. Here, we can access the election results online back into the mid-'80's (IIRC) but not much need for counties to keep earlier reg stats. I'll ask if the Dems have archived earlier lists, but that'd be on a county-by-county basis.
(Hope Vickie L's list helps, let me know...I'm in touch with her on occasion.)

To those posters who say "move on to '06," you just don't realize
that the vote-counting manipulation fraud committed over several
election cycles...many earlier frauds in local or regional races...is in truth the worst threat to our now-endangered experiment in participatory democracy. And not just in candidate races. What about bond issues or school boards? ANY election is controlled
by the counters and their allies - rethugs, highway contactors, land developers, whoever wants to "influence" an election. Follow the money.., HTH

[Time for change]

63. Thank you much liam laddie

If you take a look at post # 59, you can see that I apparently have obtained voter registration numbers by county for 2004. What I need now most of all is a similar set of 2000 numbers. That would give me comparative data, so that I could assess the plausibility of the official election results, in comparison with the relative increase in voter registration by Dem. vs. Rep. areas.

Do you have any idea where I can get that?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

64. Maybe from the Gore campaign?

Also, I haven't ever understood why we couldn't draft a letter and send it registered mail to every voter in a precinct, asking them who they voted for (explaining they don't have to answer because of privacy laws, etc.) but asking them to give an answer to double check the tabulating equipment.

I worked the phone banks pre-theft day, when we received the new registrants list, the new voters indicated 99 to 1 they were voting for Kerry.

[Time for change]

67. That's very interesting information you note about the 99:1 ratio

for new voters. Do you have any documentation on that? I think that could be very important.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

75. Our call sheets were thrown out by the Kerry campaign person

when the election returns were announced. She was very upset, and tossed them out of frustration. There was someone she sent reports to nightly, though. I would think someone with the Kerry campaign should have documentation.

[Time for change]

79. Would you mind mentioning this to her

to see if she could point you towards where these were sent?

This sounds like important and useful information if we can document it. And I don't have any contacts with the Kerry campaign, so I doubt very much that if I sent a letter to him he would answer it.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

83. Will do as soon as I can find her email address. n/t

[riqster]

71. Try fundraisers and interest groups

They would have had to had that data to do their jobs.

[Time for change]

72. Good idea, I'll do that n/t

[Time for change]

84. More encouraging news -- I took your advice

And this morning I received a full set of Ohio voter registration data for 2000 and 2004 from Ellen Theisen of Voters Unite!

I sure hope that this shows us what I'm hoping for.

[farmboxer]

65. I have no doubt that Kerry won Ohio and Gore won Fla!

Why did the DNC claim otherwise? It makes no sense. Republican manufactured, programmed voting machines with no paper trail says it all! Republicans don't want a paper trail? Gee, I wonder why?

[Time for change]

66. I agree, but

I still think it's very important to prove it through other means, to the extent we can. If it is possible, the more people that we can convince the better the chance for meaningful election reform.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

76. there was a paper trail in FL in 2000.

But the Supreme Court ordered a halt to the count. Then said, "Darn, we'd love to have a full tally of ballots, but there's not enough time." Then they couldn't have a recount because it would cast diminish the credibility of the president the court chose by a one (unprincipled) vote margin. Then... God, the bad logic still makes the blood boil.

[Time for change]

80. Yes, that was a terrible decision

I've read a few books on it by lawyers who know what they're talking about. And the general consensus seems to be that there was NO legally justifiable reason for that decision. It was based solely on the desire of those 5 Supreme Court Justices to see Bush become President.

Even Vincent Bugliosi has suggested that those 5 justices ought to be tried for treason for that decision. And he was one of the leading voices AGAINST the impeachment of Nixon.

[riqster]

81. That ruling was extra-constitutional, to say the least.

The constitutional process was not followed in 2000. Why did the Supremes abort it?

[Time for change]

82. I agree with Bugliosi's opinion -- this was treason

They knowingly and flagrantly abused the power of their high office, thus subverting the constitution of the United States, just because they wanted Bush to be president rather than Gore.

They even said in their formal opinion that their decision should not be used as a precedant for any other case. It is unprecedented for a Supreme Court to say in their ruling that their opinion should not ever be used as a precedent.

There is only one possible reason for them saying that. They knew that their opinion was bullshit, and they didn't want it to be used in future cases to result in decisions that would work against their ideology.

[riqster]

85. Hopefully this ruling will be overturned at some point in the future

and that it will not tear the nation apart in the process.