Debunking the 2000 election theft CT

[boloboffin]

Oddly enough, the recent HBO movie Recount settled my mind about the whole thing. I still think that a majority of voters in Florida headed for the polls to vote for Al Gore and not George Bush. But the way it happened is the way it happened.

 

[SmartyPants]

Oddly enough, the recent HBO movie Recount settled my mind about the whole thing. I still think that a majority of voters in Florida headed for the polls to vote for Al Gore and not George Bush. But the way it happened is the way it happened.

To add to that, I've always liked Bill Maher's take on it: "It wasn't stolen...but it did fall off a truck." Of course, there was mass hypocrisy from the Supreme Court on top of it all. But you're right. What's done is done.

I've always said that the only reason Al Gore lost the election was because of Al Gore, and not because of the SCOTUS, fraud, or Nader. All he needed was one more state. He could not win Tennessee, his own state. He could not win New Hampshire or a bellweather like Missouri. He could not win another 1% of Democrats in Florida who either voted for Bush or did not vote at all. And, bad as his campaign was, he really should've had no trouble winning in any case, because he was running in almost the best possible climate for any sitting Vice President against a man who, let's face it, never showed much intellect or experience.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Oddly enough, the recent HBO movie Recount settled my mind about the whole thing. I still think that a majority of voters in Florida headed for the polls to vote for Al Gore and not George Bush. But the way it happened is the way it happened.

Watched the trailer just now, looks good. But the fact that it's called recount, is about the afterwards maneuvers and Gore's speech and problems with the numbers it misses the mark, IMO, making your settled status worthless, IMO. How did the movie explain away the unknown number (probably higher than 500) of primarily democrat voters simply turned away? Did it mention Database Technologies at all?
---
Another good video, less fictionalized - Unprecedented
Like most it muddles all complaints/allegations together, leaving one with the impression that the counting of cast votes was the problem, but along the way it shows some of the disenfranchisement info.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5972696012004214536
---

To add to that, I've always liked Bill Maher's take on it: "It wasn't stolen...but it did fall off a truck." Of course, there was mass hypocrisy from the Supreme Court on top of it all. But you're right. What's done is done.

In a sense, of course we're all the way past the other end of two terms. In another sense - have we learned our lessons and had justice been served? It was like a rape in a way - and one that led to pregnancy and the monster child we've dealt with for eight years there. Statute of limitations de darned to heck, says I. I am not a bringer of charges but one who thinks its worth revisiting.

We have a high-tech data arrangement that managed to block some number of voters, by accident they say. We have sample witness accounts of the effects (you can't vote go home), some estimates and projections on how many, all I've seen well above the threshold of making the difference. links provided throughout. Can we know these unjust denials of voting rights were unintentional? We have the contracts, the companies, no way to disprove add'l sums for unknown "answers" to tricky problems. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm

Motive, means, opportunity... right? Prove me wrong.

 

[SmartyPants]

In a sense, of course we're all the way past the other end of two terms. In another sense - have we learned our lessons and had justice been served? It was like a rape in a way - and one that led to pregnancy and the monster child we've dealt with for eight years there. Statute of limitations de darned to heck, says I. I am not a bringer of charges but one who thinks its worth revisiting.
We have a high-tech data arrangement that managed to block some number of voters, by accident they say. We have sample witness accounts of the effects (you can't vote go home), some estimates and projections on how many, all I've seen well above the threshold of making the difference. links provided throughout. Can we know these unjust denials of voting rights were unintentional? We have the contracts, the companies, no way to disprove add'l sums for unknown "answers" to tricky problems. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm

Motive, means, opportunity... right? Prove me wrong.

You have little quarrel from me, you understand. It pains me to even think about that night, the first time I ever voted in a presidential election. But, as you can see from my prior post, I feel that the dirty tricks that no doubt took place (and take place in every election from both sides, although I think the GOP is just better at it - Okay, the Bush campaigns were significantly dirtier - not necessarily inherently less "ethical") and played a role in the outcome, would likely not even had mattered had the Gore campaign simply been mediocre.

The Gore campaign, in my opinion, has taken far less blame from the left than it should've...and I think the left blaming, nay demonizing, Nader is pathetic and irresponsible. Not that anyone brought it up, but many from the same left that blame Bush and SCOTUS are also the same people who blame Nader, who most certainly was not part of any "conspiracy." (They should not be surprised when people wear shirts that say "Sore/Loserman") In my view, you cannot blame both; at some point you have to pick a side, and the most logical side is placing the blame squarely on Gore, who I admire more now than then, who also had a little help from SCOTUS and the expected dirty tricks (He had no "help" from Nader. People are, or should be, free to run and vote for whom they choose, and not be attacked for it).

But make no mistake; while the election winner may always be in question, Gore's and the Democrats' incompetence is what really spelled defeat in that election.

 

[Caustic Logic]

You have little quarrel from me, you understand. It pains me to even think about that night, the first time I ever voted in a presidential election. But, as you can see from my prior post, I feel that the dirty tricks that no doubt took place (and take place in every election from both sides, although I think the GOP is just better at it - Okay, the Bush campaigns were significantly dirtier - not necessarily inherently less "ethical") and played a role in the outcome, would likely not even had mattered had the Gore campaign simply been mediocre.

I'm seeing two ways to read this, but you mean it was less than mediocre then? I'm not disagreeing, not a huge fan. I voted nader since he was more in line with my idealism at the time and WA was pretty safe for Gore, who was the "not Bush."

The Gore campaign, in my opinion, has taken far less blame from the left than it should've...

I guess I'm vague on the details but didn't he concede right away, giving the GOP some "too late" room? That and a -meh- campaign.

and I think the left blaming, nay demonizing, Nader is pathetic and irresponsible. Not that anyone brought it up, but many from the same left that blame Bush and SCOTUS are also the same people who blame Nader, who most certainly was not part of any "conspiracy." (They should not be surprised when people wear shirts that say "Sore/Loserman") In my view, you cannot blame both; at some point you have to pick a side, and the most logical side is placing the blame squarely on Gore, who I admire more now than then, who also had a little help from SCOTUS and the expected dirty tricks (He had no "help" from Nader. People are, or should be, free to run and vote for whom they choose, and not be attacked for it).

True, there's a whiney character and sloppy thinking involved in that kind of schizo blame-pinning. I can see their point tho in that Nader votes really DID make a difference in some states that helped Bush along in the end, conspiracy not necessary, and it's only natural they should note that for future reference. Some got too loud and preachy about it (Moore at al.) but people app. took note and IIRC 3rd parties fared worse in elections since.

But make no mistake; while the election winner may always be in question, Gore's and the Democrats' incompetence is what really spelled defeat in that election.

Well, it's what spelt it's down to Florida and you're at the mercy of the dirty tricks neither of us is denying happened there (tho I'd guess we disagree on what exactly is likely). So yeah, too bad that became the deciding point.

Thanks for commenting.

 

[Minadin]

The thing that many non-Americans (and sadly, many Americans) fail to understand about the overall popular vote is that it doesn't really matter, but that, more importantly, it's by design. In our representative republic, votes are weighed by state population, through the Electoral College. Each voter in each state represents all of the residents of that state, whether they vote or not - or even if they can.

For instance, the population of Missouri (where I live) is roughly 6 million, and we have 11 Electoral votes. The population of Illinois is nearly 13 million, and they have 21 Electoral votes.

If there were some strange election where 2 million Missouri residents all voters voted against a candidate, but only one Illinois citizen voted, and voted for him, he would win, 21 to 11, even though the popular vote was 2 million to 1 against.

I also find it funny that the exact same people who were mad about the popular vote in 2000 when Bush won the Electoral but not overall Popular vote, were trying to obtain a victory via the Electoral vote in 2004 when their candidate clearly lost the popular vote.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Minadin, cool, thanks for the civics info, it helps add texture and context and is probably more needed than I'd like to admit (I keep thinking people are smarter than they seem and gettin shown wrong ).

This actually hits home a bit as in 2000 I was starting college and thinking of teaching, and was student teaching at a middle school. my lessons were Brazil and the Electoral College. I taught the kids all about, esp. the weird things like how the real electoral vote could disagree with the nationwide popular vote. Within a few months of that lesson, the election ahppened and dang if they probably didn't get the best example of paying attention in school, which still makes me smile and also sad at the same time.

Anyway, since each state selects its electors by statewide popular vote, every vote does count, and Bush got Florida's 25 by a margin of about 0.01% In fact let's ignore the national election and the aftermath and just think of this as the Florida vote in and of itself. If it hadn't been for unusually high electoral irregularities, overseen by Bush's Florida campaign manager (in another capacity of course), that left fouled or completely blocked from the system some unknown (thousands) number of Democrat votes, Gore would have won by whole tenths of a percent. Then he'd win the contextless Florida election thing, right?

There are plenty of possible debunks, but I'm not seeing them yet.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Looking back at George H.W. Bush's victory in 1988, and the "conspiracy buzz" of the time, can shed some light on the 2000 victory, and related conspiracy speculation.

watched it and no, no relevance to this discussion. It was interesting, better listening than viewing I suppose. But discussing it further would take us off-topic here.

At the time, conspiracy theorists in 2000 were drawing many parallels to Bush Sr's victory in 1988.

Yeah, probably since one was the other's son.

Nine years later, much of that discussion is lost or difficult to locate. This video might provide some insight into the mindset that inspires the speculation.

No, the video doesn't even mention Bush jr being Bush sr's son. But thanks for sharing it.

 

[Minadin]

My vote was most likely disenfranchised in 2000. I was overseas, voting absentee. I had to try to explain the various intricacies of our electoral system to my Danish relatives. Fun.

 

[SmartyPants]

I'm seeing two ways to read this, but you mean it was less than mediocre then? I'm not disagreeing, not a huge fan. I voted nader since he was more in line with my idealism at the time and WA was pretty safe for Gore, who was the "not Bush."

Less than mediocre, yes. Somewhere between that and bad. FWIW, I almost voted Nader, but I lived in Missouri at the time and feared a Bush win. I was not enthusiastic about Gore, although I think now he would've made a decent president. I also believe, though I have no hard evidence at hand to back this up, that most Nader voters wouldn't have even voted had he not been in the race.

I guess I'm vague on the details but didn't he concede right away, giving the GOP some "too late" room? That and a -meh- campaign.

He conceeded the first night, early morning I believe, then took back his concession shortly afterward.

True, there's a whiney character and sloppy thinking involved in that kind of schizo blame-pinning. I can see their point tho in that Nader votes really DID make a difference in some states that helped Bush along in the end, conspiracy not necessary, and it's only natural they should note that for future reference. Some got too loud and preachy about it (Moore at al.) but people app. took note and IIRC 3rd parties fared worse in elections since.

Well, yes, Nader was a slight problem for Gore, I agree. But it shouldn't have been enough to give Bush the victory in my opinion. As I've said before, Nader had every right to run in that election, and people had every right to vote for him.

Well, it's what spelt it's down to Florida and you're at the mercy of the dirty tricks neither of us is denying happened there (tho I'd guess we disagree on what exactly is likely). So yeah, too bad that became the deciding point.

Bush, at least in Florida and probably other places in South, did some rotten things. i.e. putting flyers on car windows in minority neighborhoods saying you can't vote if x,y,z is true or going into other Democratically favored neighborhoods and claiming the election was on the 8th. Stuff like that. But then again, people really should know their voting rights. Oh, and I do think the ballots were confusing...I've never understood why we can't just fill in a bubble and throw it into the Scantron...but that's hardly Bush's fault.

Thanks for commenting.

You bet.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Attempts to debunk the conspiracy to steal the 2000 presidential election have never been seriously made. There's been tiny bits here and there, but Al Gore apologists have never come up with anything substantial.

 

[SmartyPants]

The thing that many non-Americans (and sadly, many Americans) fail to understand about the overall popular vote is that it doesn't really matter, but that, more importantly, it's by design. In our representative republic, votes are weighed by state population, through the Electoral College. Each voter in each state represents all of the residents of that state, whether they vote or not - or even if they can.

For instance, the population of Missouri (where I live) is roughly 6 million, and we have 11 Electoral votes. The population of Illinois is nearly 13 million, and they have 21 Electoral votes.

If there were some strange election where 2 million Missouri residents all voters voted against a candidate, but only one Illinois citizen voted, and voted for him, he would win, 21 to 11, even though the popular vote was 2 million to 1 against.

I also find it funny that the exact same people who were mad about the popular vote in 2000 when Bush won the Electoral but not overall Popular vote, were trying to obtain a victory via the Electoral vote in 2004 when their candidate clearly lost the popular vote.

I wish that we didn't have a winner take all system. Rather, I wish it was more like the Democratic primary system or perhaps we could award an electoral vote for every congressional district won. Not that I think these ideas are foolproof, but there needs to be some kind of system where the electoral vote majority matches up with the popular vote.

I totally agree with the highlighted paragraph.

 

[Brainster]

I'm sure I misunderstood that but - voter disenfranchisement is significant when it happens and someone else is told "you aren't on the rolls, no vote, no matter how much ID you have."

Yes, but what you have is anecdotes of that type of treatment, which the Democratic party specifically solicited; they went out and looked for people who claimed they had problems. And note what is not specified in these anecdotes:

1. Whether the person had moved recently.
2. Whether the person was a felon who was purged from the voting rolls.
3. Whether the person had not voted recently and was purged for that reason (a federal requirement, by the way).

Against the anecdotal evidence, we have the fact that 5,950,000 people did vote in Florida in 2000, versus about 5,300,000 in 1996 and about 5,300,000 in 1992. The increase in the number of votes in Florida from 1996-2000 was about 12.4%, while the increase nationally was about 9.5%. Gore got about 365,000 more votes in Florida than Clinton had in 1996; the problem was that Bush got about 667,000 more votes in Florida than Dole had (third party candidates got a lot fewer votes in 2000 than they had in 1996, mostly because Ross Perot got about 500,000 in the former election).

Probably not, but it was 25 electoral votes that Bush wanted and, coincidentally, his brother was in charge and had publicly (jokingly) promised to deliver the state, and I suspect he was not joking. That everything else was decided and tied with attention on Florida at the end would then be the "oops, oh s***" point. It was supposed to be one of two or three states, which would have limited scrutiny in an "oh well, he woulda won anyway" situtation. Which is exactly what we heard anyway, based on VOTES CAST.

Of course he wasn't joking; any campaign manager in any state intends to deliver his state. That does not mean that he intends to deliver his state by hook or by crook.

Interesting... so Democrat voters then were not particularly likely to be bumped from the rolls and unable to be reinstated in time and thus not allowed to cast their votes?

We don't know how many Republicans were preventing from voting because their names were purged from the voter rolls, because the Democrats had no interest or incentive to locate them.

 

[Kestrel]

Yes, but what you have is anecdotes of that type of treatment, which the Democratic party specifically solicited; they went out and looked for people who claimed they had problems. And note what is not specified in these anecdotes:

1. Whether the person had moved recently.
2. Whether the person was a felon who was purged from the voting rolls.
3. Whether the person had not voted recently and was purged for that reason (a federal requirement, by the way).

The source of those anecdotes was Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election, an official report of the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights on the 2000 election in Florida. Quoting from the Findings and Recommendations:

While some of those denied the right to vote in the November 2000 election no doubt were legally denied that right, others who should have been legally entitled to vote were also denied that right. Indeed as this report demonstrates, Florida state law in some instances virtually guaranteed that some citizens who were legally entitled to vote would be denied that right. The statute’s silence on other instances provided tacit approval for the denial of some to vote. Not all voices were heard on Election Day, and the law provides no meaningful way for their voices to now be heard.

When Florida purged the databases, they assumed that even inexact matches were felons. Those who were purged were not notified. On election day they discovered that they were not on the rolls. To compound the error, the purged voters were not allowed to cast a provisional ballot.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The source of those anecdotes was Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election, an official report of the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights on the 2000 election in Florida.

Exactly, thank you. I suspect that most of the people gathering the evidence were Democrats but not THE Democrats. I don't know the process of selection, but a small sampling of witnesses was selected.

They spoke with “100” witnesses - Four specific accounts of those not allowed to vote since their names were excluded from the rolls for unsure reasons: Three African-American women, Cathy Jackson, Donnise DeSouza, Angenora Ramsey, and a Latina Margarita Green, and one R. Jai Howard speaks for a group of African-American students claiming similar problems.
Six Poll workers as well described unsettlingly regular irregularities that day, I think their testimonies are the most damning. Four people affected by the flawed felon purge list (it's not clear which of them were and weren't allowed to vote at election time), and others who found problems with the 'motor voter" system, etc.

Palast in the Unprecedented video calls the Felon purge list the most serious disenfranchisement. He found Ion Voltaire Sancho, supervisor of elections for the Capitol-wielding Leon County who wennt to the hassle of checking DBT's list of the county (pop only app 250,000)

“the list that we received contained 690 felons supposedly registered in Leon County. When we spent an intensive two-week computer analysis of that data, we were able to confirm thirty-three of those 690 as felons.” 10:11 in vid

That's 4.8% verified correct – either DBT was waaaay wrong, 95% wrong, or Sancho's abilities were not that great.
Palast context 10:30 in vid

“95% of the names that he checked were names of people who had never committed a crime. They just happenes to share a name and a rough birthdate with someone who had committed a crime.”

The numbers are less clear to me personally but the vide shows examples where eggregious errors did get through. Okay... that's evidence I can't take without question but it would show in one smallish county alone 657 lost votes, among people w/similar names to felons. Percentage for Gore, open to debate
12:32 Palast says statewide at least 15% of blocked felon voters were innocent. Apparently falling back on Paulson, cited on page 1.

Sorry this is incoherent, I'm researching this now and the heat is keeping me stupid. I'll come back in a bit

 

[Brainster]

The source of those anecdotes was Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election, an official report of the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights on the 2000 election in Florida. Quoting from the Findings and Recommendations:

So that must mean it's completely free of partisan hackery? Try again. The six people on the commission to sign the report were all liberal Democrats. The two dissenting opinions from the commission were not even published on the website. The liberal members of the commission were all involved a bit of skullduggery against the Bush Administration. Victoria Wilson, who had been appointed by Clinton to fill out the remainder of (the deceased) Leon Higgenbotham's term, made the novel claim that she should be entitled to a full 6-year term rather than the two years remaining on Higgenbotham's term. She was able to convince a judge, but lost on appeal.

And again, the anecdotes do not tell us the crucial information as to whether these people had moved, were felons, or had failed to vote in recent elections, all of which are grounds for being removed from the voter rolls.

When Florida purged the databases, they assumed that even inexact matches were felons. Those who were purged were not notified. On election day they discovered that they were not on the rolls. To compound the error, the purged voters were not allowed to cast a provisional ballot.

Yes. Now all you have to do is prove that this was a conspiracy, and not just typical governmental incompetence.

 

[Kestrel]

And again, the anecdotes do not tell us the crucial information as to whether these people had moved, were felons, or had failed to vote in recent elections, all of which are grounds for being removed from the voter rolls.

Are you claiming a conspiracy by the U. S. Civil Rights Commission to pass off felons as legitimate voters?

Florida assumed that having a similar name and birthdate was good enough to deny the right to vote. Then provided no notification to those purged, and no process to appeal the decision on election day when these voters first discovered the problem. They operated on the principal that the state doesn't make mistakes, therefore it did't need a process for correcting mistakes.

 

[Caustic Logic]

So that must mean it's completely free of partisan hackery? Try again. The six people on the commission to sign the report were all liberal Democrats. The two dissenting opinions from the commission were not even published on the website. The liberal members of the commission were all involved a bit of skullduggery against the Bush Administration. Victoria Wilson, who had been appointed by Clinton to fill out the remainder of (the deceased) Leon Higgenbotham's term, made the novel claim that she should be entitled to a full 6-year term rather than the two years remaining on Higgenbotham's term. She was able to convince a judge, but lost on appeal.

It looks like you've studied this a bit. Good work casting doubt, doubt's good, and everyone does have an agenda. BUT, reason for bias does not automatically invalidate one's work - professionals can still gather "just the facts"

And even with just the facts here, we can only get part of the picture from the USCCR report. They were looking for infringements of civil rights, as per the old South problems on the 1960s. There was no "we don't like black people they can't vote" decision or greeting at the polls. But the Commission does claim that "many eligible Florida voters were, in fact, denied their right to vote, with the disenfranchisement disproportionately affecting African Americans." Unless that's a lie, they did look at the whole field somehow and were able to decide which portion was Black.

And again, the anecdotes do not tell us the crucial information as to whether these people had moved, were felons, or had failed to vote in recent elections, all of which are grounds for being removed from the voter rolls.

Yes, some were felons, and many more were listed as such and denied. The anecdotes say for a couple examples:

Cathy Jackson, an African American woman, has been a registered voter in Broward County since 1996. Upon registering in Broward County, Ms. Jackson was told that if she ever experienced a problem with her voter registration card, she would be allowed to vote if she could produce a valid driver’s license. Ms. Jackson voted in Broward without any incident using her driver’s license since 1996. However, when she went to her polling place, Precinct 52Z, on November 7, 2000, she was told that her name was not on the list. The poll workers suggested that she travel back to her old precinct in Miami-Dade County to vote. Ms. Jackson did as she was advised even though she had voted in Broward County since she moved from Miami-Dade County in 1996. After waiting 45 minutes at her old precinct, the poll workers in Miami-Dade told Ms. Jackson that her name was not on the rolls and referred her back to Broward to vote.

Lost in the shuffle and on neither her old nor new roll. Ooops.

Marilyn Nelson, a poll worker with 15 years of experience in Precinct 232 in Miami-Dade County, encountered “quite a few” people whose names did not appear on the rolls at her precinct. When she called the supervisor of elections office, she was told that their rights had been taken away from them due to an alleged felony conviction. She was further instructed by the supervisor’s office that she could not inform those voters of the reason for their removal from the rolls, but she was instructed to “tell them to call downtown at a later date.”

That had better be untrue.

Unprecedented (at 14:00) features Rev. Thomas Johnson, Pastor, Gainesville “My rights were stripped.” Out-of-state felon, rights restored, who should have been allowed to vote but wasn’t. These people were supposed to get letters telling them to re-apply for civil rights. This has been called "clearly illegal," a violation of the good faith clause. I'm not sure how many people did or didn't get their letters and how many managed to get their rights back prior to the vote.

Yes. Now all you have to do is prove that this was a conspiracy, and not just typical governmental incompetence.

Prove, the way I take it, is a lofty goal. But for evidence: the company asked to make up a list of felons or deceased persons, wrongly registered, was Database Technologies, a Choice Point company, paid $4 million to make a good list to help Florida out.
From chapter five:

DBT Online advised the Division of Elections of the likelihood that a significant number of false positives existed and made recommendations to reduce those numbers, according to Mr. Bruder.[62] He further asserted that DBT Online specifically suggested to state officials that narrow criteria be used in creating the lists, which would lower the false-positive rate, and therefore, minimize errors in the number of names matched.[63] Mr. Bruder testified that the company recommended, for example, that it develop criteria requiring an exact match on the first and middle names. Thus, a Floridian named Deborah Ann would not match with the name Ann Deborah.[64] But the Division of Elections favored more inclusive criteria and chose to “make it go both ways,” as Mr. Bruder recalls it.[65] In addition, he pointed out that state officials set parameters that required a 90 percent match in the last name, rather than an exact match.[66] Mr. Bruder insisted that “the state dictated to us that they wanted to go broader, and we did it in the fashion that they requested.”[67]
[...]
Mr. Bruder testified that DBT Online “relied upon the information that was given to us by the Division of Elections, who was giving us the criteria in which to use to do the data processing.”[102] His testimony was corroborated by e-mails from the Division of Elections assistant general counsel.[103] These e-mails were produced pursuant to a Commission subpoena.

The Unprecedented Video (15:45-16:17) shows George Bruder, project manager for DBT, sounding unhappy about the election

“there’s no doubt the list included a number of what we call false positives, as the [Florida] division of election required the exceptions list to be very broad. […] “we advised the state of the likelihood of a significant number of false positives and made recommendations to reduce hose numbers. However, and I quote, “we wanted these lists to be fairly broad and encompassing,” said Emmett Bucky Mitchell, former division of elections lawyer, who headed the purge effort.”

The video (10:40) also shows a DBT internal memo where the desire for false positives is passed down to an underling also concerned about false positives. That's what we're going for, don't change the formula. From on high, from the bosses paying them. Their lists came out allegedly 15-95% wrong.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Then provided no notification to those purged,

So far I'm unsure on that point. The video has one supervisor of elections talking about sending out the letters and some they didn' bother, which I think means they just reinstated them. ?? (around 14:00). Did you have a solid source for the letters not sent?

Either way it was illegal to require that and put an unfair burden on a dispproportionately Democrat population.

ETA: To clarify, the law is in ref only to felons who had their voting rights re-instated in another state. That's supposed to follow them to Florida but Jeb decided they would have to re-register to vote in 2000. An illegal decision that might have erased votes...

 

[Brainster]

It looks like you've studied this a bit. Good work casting doubt, doubt's good, and everyone does have an agenda. BUT, reason for bias does not automatically invalidate one's work - professionals can still gather "just the facts"

And even with just the facts here, we can only get part of the picture from the USCCR report. They were looking for infringements of civil rights, as per the old South problems on the 1960s. There was no "we don't like black people they can't vote" decision or greeting at the polls. But the Commission does claim that "many eligible Florida voters were, in fact, denied their right to vote, with the disenfranchisement disproportionately affecting African Americans." Unless that's a lie, they did look at the whole field somehow and were able to decide which portion was Black.



Yes, some were felons, and many more were listed as such and denied. The anecdotes say for a couple examples:

Lost in the shuffle and on neither her old nor new roll. Ooops.


That had better be untrue.

Unprecedented (at 14:00) features Rev. Thomas Johnson, Pastor, Gainesville “My rights were stripped.” Out-of-state felon, rights restored, who should have been allowed to vote but wasn’t. These people were supposed to get letters telling them to re-apply for civil rights. This has been called "clearly illegal," a violation of the good faith clause. I'm not sure how many people did or didn't get their letters and how many managed to get their rights back prior to the vote.


Prove, the way I take it, is a lofty goal. But for evidence: the company asked to make up a list of felons or deceased persons, wrongly registered, was Database Technologies, a Choice Point company, paid $4 million to make a good list to help Florida out.
From chapter five:

The Unprecedented Video (15:45-16:17) shows George Bruder, project manager for DBT, sounding unhappy about the election

But that Chapter Five also explains why Florida was so actively purging the rolls of dead people, felons and those who had moved:

This section of the statute was passed in response to a 1997 Miami mayoral election where it was challenged in court and went up through the court system in the state of Florida. The gentleman who originally won that mayor’s race was turned out of office. There was a grand jury investigation. There was a Senate select committee appointed to investigate that election. There was [an] allegation and it was eventually proven that a large number of people who were deceased cast ballots—well, someone cast ballots in the name of some people who were deceased in that election. People who were convicted felons who had lost their right to vote under the Florida Constitution cast ballots in that election, and people who were also registered in another municipality or another county within that area cast ballots in the city of Miami mayor’s race.[20]

Discussion of the infamous 1997 Miami race is here:

Since that election, state officials have seized more than 5,000 absentee ballots--which favored Suarez by 2 to 1--in a sweeping investigation of fraud that includes allegations that voters were paid for their ballots, that votes were cast by people who live outside the city and that some who supposedly voted have been dead for years.

Manuel Yip, a Cuban immigrant who ran a Miami restaurant before dying four years ago at 75, was found not only to have voted absentee for Suarez, but to have cast post-mortem ballots in at least two other elections.

Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on Wednesday raided the Miami home of a 92-year-old political operative named Alberto Russi and seized about 100 absentee ballots intended for today's election, along with stacks of voter registration cards and absentee ballot applications.

Russi's signature appears on Yip's ballot in a space marked "witness," FDLE agents said. He said his name was forged. He was charged with three counts of election fraud.

So you set the standards for striking someone from the rolls loosely, purging more than is necessary, with the understanding that people can object. See also here, from that same chapter five:

Of those voters who contacted the FDLE to appeal the notice from a local supervisor of elections that they were ineligible to vote, approximately 50 percent were found to be convicted of felonies in Florida and 50 percent were determined to not have Florida felony convictions.[88]

Sounds like 50-50 among those purged, but those are only the people who appealed the notice; presumably among those who did not appeal the rate of Florida felony convictions was probably much higher.

Now, I don't know why those who objected weren't allowed to cast provisional ballots; that seems to have varied by polling location according to the testimony.

The video (10:40) also shows a DBT internal memo where the desire for false positives is passed down to an underling also concerned about false positives. That's what we're going for, don't change the formula. From on high, from the bosses paying them. Their lists came out allegedly 15-95% wrong.

Is that a range among several counties? As noted above, right about half of the people who appealed were found to have been guilty of a felony; among those who did not appeal I'm sure it was substantially higher.