DVD Talk
Recount (2008) [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Recount (2008)


PopcornTreeCt
11-01-09, 10:34 AM
I watched this for the first time today. Back in 2000, it was my first time voting. Being a Florida resident, I felt proud that my state determined the election.

I was a die hard Republican at the time. I thought the whole process of Gore pushing for recounts was ridiculous.

After watching the movie, my opinion is still the same. Even with the liberal bias the movie pushed, Bush didn't steal the election.

That's my opinion.

Senor Javi
11-01-09, 11:11 AM
I remember at one point in the film when the Democrats were going to launch a raging anti-Republican campaign to drum up outrage over the Florida Supreme Court decision, one of the lead Democratic strategists said that would only delude the issue and breed resentment. He said they should launch a legal war, not a political one. The movie would have done well to follow this advice.

dhmac
11-05-09, 08:37 AM
I watched this for the first time today. Back in 2000, it was my first time voting. Being a Florida resident, I felt proud that my state determined the election.

I was a die hard Republican at the time. I thought the whole process of Gore pushing for recounts was ridiculous.

After watching the movie, my opinion is still the same. Even with the liberal bias the movie pushed, Bush didn't steal the election.

That's my opinion.
I still don't understand why anyone who truly supports the American democratic process would have opposed completing the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court in accordance to a state law that kicks in when the initial results are close. (That state decision was then overridden by the Supreme Court in one of the most questionable decisions in the court's history.) And the "liberal bias" of this movie was based solidly on the actual facts. If they really wanted to go "liberal" they would've pointed out that the statewide review released in 2001 had Gore winning Florida by 171 votes if a statewide recount was done and the standards set by each county were followed (which is presumably what would have happened if not for the Supreme Court's interference).

covenant
11-09-09, 02:25 PM
moar:

Gore's narrow margin in the statewide count was the result of a windfall in overvotes. Those ballots -- on which a voter may have marked a candidate's name and also written it in -- were rejected by machines as a double vote on Election Day and most also would not have been included in either of the limited recounts.

Florida law provided no mechanism to ask for a statewide recount, only county-by-county recounts. And although he did at one point call on Bush to join him in asking for a statewide recount, it was with the condition that Bush renounce all further legal action. Bush dismissed the offer, calling it a public relations gesture by his opponent, and Gore never took any further steps toward that goal.

The Florida Supreme Court's Dec. 8 order for a statewide manual recount of all undervote ballots also would have resulted in Bush as the winner, the study found. Gore's team protested when the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 9 agreed to the Bush campaign's request for a stay, halting that recount in midstream. But the study found that a count of all undervotes in the state would have left Bush ahead of Gore by 430 votes.

JohnSlider
11-14-09, 09:47 AM
The New York Times published an article in October of 2001 that reported Gore's victory over Bush by any measure. No matter what way you counted it, Al Gore defeated Bush. The article was over thirty or so paragraphs long and this little tidbit was buried in the 15th or 16th paragraph. For those of you that say "yeah, but it's the New York Times..." well, the LA Times and USA Today also picked it up and buried it in an unrelated article. Go to any of their sites and look in the October 2001 archives to find it. Thom Hartman from Air America just read it verbatim on his radio show.

Keep in mind, this still doesn't count the roughly 20k African American voters who were kept from voting by W's brother's private corporation who reported these people as potential criminals because their names were similar to those who had committed crimes IN TEXAS (not Florida).

Gore won that election.

covenant
11-18-09, 02:37 PM
I couldn't find the NYTimes article you're talking about but I found this one from Nov 2001:

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?pagewanted=1

Lateralus
11-28-09, 07:25 PM
Wow people are still upset at that 9 years later. :lol:

Both sides are corrupt, whowever has the best lawyers and grassroots campaings is going to win. The same bullshit that happened in the 2000 election happened in the Al Franken election this year as well.

Bandoman
11-30-09, 11:35 AM
However you feel about the results of the election, the movie was well done with some fine performances.

dhmac
12-02-09, 09:54 AM
I couldn't find the NYTimes article you're talking about but I found this one from Nov 2001:

"A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?pagewanted=1
That article also had this:

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

The right decision of the Supreme Court would've been to count all the votes. The wrong decision was the one they made, arguably one of the worst decisions in the court's history.

covenant
12-02-09, 10:07 AM
The United States Supreme Court stepped in only hours after the counting began, issuing an injunction to halt. Three days later, the justices overturned the Florida court's ruling, sealing Mr. Bush's election.

But what if the recounts had gone forward, as Mr. Gore and his lawyers had demanded?

The consortium asked all 67 counties what standard they would have used and what ballots they would have manually recounted. Combining that information with the detailed ballot examination found that Mr. Bush would have won the election, by 493 votes if two of the three coders agreed on what was on the ballot; by 389 counting only those ballots on which all three agreed.

From the last page of the same article.

dhmac
12-02-09, 10:09 AM
Wow people are still upset at that 9 years later. :lol:

The election in 2000 showed that our system has some serious problems that should be addressed. It's tough to claim to be the bastion of democracy when an election to the highest office in the land can go so badly.

I personally think the electoral college system needs to be thrown out and replaced by direct election by the people. The election of senators was changed by a Constitutional amendment (the 17th amendment) from appointment by a state's legislature to direct election by the people back in 1913, so it's long overdue for another Constitutional amendment to finally have direct election of the president by the people.

dhmac
12-02-09, 10:16 AM
"While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real-world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes."

From the same article.

Now that's just a BS opinion of the writer. It would not have been impossible to hand recount 175,000 votes and a court order to do so would have cut through the partisan political mess going on in Florida.

covenant
12-02-09, 05:11 PM
Now that's just a BS opinion of the writer. It would not have been impossible to hand recount 175,000 votes and a court order to do so would have cut through the partisan political mess going on in Florida.

:lol:

I changed the quote I used tho....

dhmac
12-02-09, 09:51 PM
:lol:

I changed the quote I used tho....

In my posting, you didn't :)

Hank Ringworm
12-03-09, 01:13 AM
The election of senators was changed by a Constitutional amendment (the 17th amendment) from appointment by a state's legislature to direct election by the people back in 1913...

A horrible mistake. A large part of the separation of powers that we enjoy is based on the election of various bodies and branches through "separate means, from the same source." (That may not be the exact quotation from The Federalist, but it is close, and in the same spirit.)

When all of government is beholden to the same exact constituency, the executive -- being the individual and most visible arm of government -- is able to influence the elections of the legislature, especially in a party-based system. The direct election of the Senate was the first lost footing in the slippery slope to executive domination.

EDIT TO ADD: "Demagoguery." The avoidance thereof was one of the key factors in the construction of our government.

DeputyDave
12-04-09, 01:56 AM
A horrible mistake. A large part of the separation of powers that we enjoy is based on the election of various bodies and branches through "separate means, from the same source." (That may not be the exact quotation from The Federalist, but it is close, and in the same spirit.)

When all of government is beholden to the same exact constituency, the executive -- being the individual and most visible arm of government -- is able to influence the elections of the legislature, especially in a party-based system. The direct election of the Senate was the first lost footing in the slippery slope to executive domination.

EDIT TO ADD: "Demagoguery." The avoidance thereof was one of the key factors in the construction of our government.
I agree with you completely. It was a huge blow to State's powers.

Hank Ringworm
12-06-09, 01:37 AM
I agree with you completely. It was a huge blow to State's powers.

And therefore a huge blow to the power of the people. A huge blow to democracy so-called.