Click here to print this page

Wasn't Gore just trying to get a fair count of the votes?

No.  In Florida, canvassing boards counted all of the votes twice using their normal tabulation systems, and Gore lost.

The outcome was essentially decided on Election Day and Bush was the winner.  However, Gore then launched a campaign to overturn the results by targeting four Democrat counties in which he could find additional votes through manual recounting.  The four counties he selected (Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Broward, Volusia) are overwhelmingly Democrat counties and constitute nearly 25% of Florida's six million ballots.

To justify this the Democrats quickly implemented an aggressive campaign in which they said more people voted for Gore than did for Bush, even though Bush had more votes.  They claimed that Gore voters were targeted and disenfranchised.  They said if the "will of the people" was truly known Gore would be the winner.  Americans were told to just ignore the results of the election because Democrats knew in their hearts that Gore won.

Just hours after learning of Gore's loss his team quickly organized and prepared for their alternative recounting plan.  They began by claiming voters were victims of serious election mishaps or breakdowns.  They complained about "anomalies" that needed to be investigated before victory was officially declared for Bush.  They claimed the election was severely flawed, broken to the point where voters were helpless victims unable to participate in our Democracy.  (Interestingly, before local Democrats were able to get on board with the plan, some were quoted in newspapers about how well the election had proceeded.)

Democrats needed to destroy the integrity of the election in order to implement manual recounts.  Their plan was to immediately propagate extreme accusations and reach wild speculative conclusions, thus quickly building public outrage and support.  This would buy them time as they collected and solidified evidence in order to implement their recounting plan.  This would allow Gore to submit his request for manual recounts before the Thursday deadline without obviously appearing to be hunting for additional votes.

What anomalies were they referring to and how should they be "investigated"?

The feverish outcry began with broad accusations and general hysteria, designed merely to convince citizens they were victims of an evil conspiracy or election breakdown.  Over time, Democrats have tried to weave a broader canvas of complaints in order to justify Gore's behavior and discredit the Bush Presidency. 

Yes, there were normal election glitches, such as a computer malfunction in one precinct that was resolved on Election Day.  Long lines frustrated some voters and like all elections some people were not properly registered, thus were unable to vote.  Some were told they were at the wrong precinct and should go to their correct location.  (This happened to me on Election Day.  But I don't think it was a conspiracy - I was at the wrong location.)  The large turnout caused phone lines to be jammed, frustrating workers as they tried to verify voters.  And of course the Democrats would eventually sink their teeth into the Butterfly Ballot in Palm Beach County.  This gave them tremendous momentum in their quest.

Elections are large undertakings that involve a lot of people and procedures.  In every election, in every county, there are problems that arise and are usually resolved sufficiently by local canvassing boards.  But after the 2000 election, it was not local canvassing boards who were gravely concerned and trying to resolve supposed election problems - It was Al Gore who desperately needed to find additional votes.  He came barreling in, claiming he was the true winner and that he was going to save the day for voters in Democrat counties!

He was going to "fix" the broken election that supposedly local Democrats couldn't manage by themselves.  (And he was going to do this by having manual recounts!)

Interestingly, although it was fellow Democrats who administered the elections where Gore wanted recounts, the Gore team still managed to convince people it was Republican manipulation that prevented him from winning.

The broad and ambiguous nature of their accusations allowed the Gore team to perpetuate fear - to convince citizens the election was broken in a sinister and systemic way.  Yet they did not allow themselves to be pinned to a single issue that could be identified, resolved and moved past.  If they were more specific, the problem would simply be addressed, the election would merely end, and their quest would be over.

Gore was not interested in solving "anomalies" and ending the election.  Rather, he was interested in creating grave and ambiguous concern over its integrity in order to convince America it was flawed, broken, and inaccurate.  And the ambiguous complaints worked as Gore wanted.  They sufficiently masked his real intentions, his last-ditch effort to implement manual recounts in Democrat counties.

Gore needed to setup manual recounts in Democrat counties.  It was his only hope to overturn the election.

Eventually Gore's team focused less and less on so-called anomalies and more on the importance of recounting - manual recounting.  They claimed they were seeking was a "fair count of the votes", that machine tabulation is flawed and incomplete (apparently just in Democrat counties.)  He claimed Florida needed a new voter protection remedy, one that would triple-check ambiguous ballots in case votes could still be determined upon them.

His clever efforts made their way to the Supreme Court of the United States, who then trumped the Florida Supreme Court for taking an aggressive and managerial role in the election.  The Florida Supreme Court was found to have violated the Equal Protection Clause of constitutional law.

Gore's real plan was to change the counting methods in Democrat counties, after Election Day, after he learned he lost.  He needed to find more votes.

Today the Gore legacy lingers on.  Many of his supporters still seek out problems in the 2000 Florida Election, hoping to justify his disruption and somehow prove he was the winner.  Over time their arguments have evolved into a variety of themes such as Supreme Court decisions, voting rolls for felons, unequal voting systems for minorities, etc.  But it is important to understand that these post-election complaints have little to do with the real story in Florida - How Democrats tried to overthrow the election. 

Ask yourself this question - How exactly was Gore trying to resolve "felony voting rolls" by having manual recounts in Democrat counties? - And you'll get the idea.  If Gore was truly seeking to resolve election anomalies, he sure had a funny way of doing so. 

Most of these so-called problems had nothing to do with Gore's real efforts in Florida, his desperate quest for manual recounts in Democrat counties.

Part 2

Are you saying there was a conspiracy?

Yes.  Gore's team developed a deliberate and premeditated plan to reverse the election.

The core of the plan was basic "recount strategy", the process of delaying the finality of the election and implementing as many recounts as possible until the desired outcome is reached.  This was the process that America was dragged through for 35 days following the election.

However, I believe this plan was more elaborate than just post-election litigation and manual recounts.  Some groundwork needed to be done.  First, the election results needed to be very narrow.  Gore would not have proceeded with this plan if Bush's lead were much larger.  (He actually conceded the election when he thought he lost by 150,000 votes.)

Secondly, there needed to be a seed of doubt about the results, the strong impression that Gore was perhaps the true winner.  This impression would suggest Bush stole the election and that fraud may have taken place.  As we all remember, this impression began on election night before the polls were even closed.  The networks (who received their information from The Voter News Service) mysteriously declared that Gore was the winner of Florida, a state where Bush had more votes and the race was extremely narrow.

Finally, there needed to be a mobilization of angry and confused citizens who would be ready to fight for an election that was apparently undermined by evil conspirators (the Bush "Regime").  The sheer power of this mobilization could propel counties into manual recounting.  This would be created by a massive campaign that claimed the election was broken and that Gore was the true winner.  The Butterfly Ballot, and subsequent fostering of hysteria, was Gore's primary tool to achieving this objective.
 

PLAN B:

You may recall William Daley announcing to an enthusiastic crowd on Election Night, "Our campaign continues."  This was a prophetic choice of words because it is exactly what took place in Florida, an orchestrated campaign. 

Immediately following the election (and perhaps on election day itself) Democrats began to foster hysteria.  They claimed that something terrible and sinister had taken place.  They claimed that "investigations" must be done before George Bush was granted victory.
 

Very quickly, they mobilized an army of lawyers and operatives who could find anomalies, no matter how slight, and try to use them to invalidate the election.  They demonized Republicans, raised suspicion and fear about their behavior, and claimed that our Democracy was being trampled upon.

Within two days, amidst the chaos, Gore filed a request to implement manual recounts in four Democrat counties.

The Democrats decided they could overturn this election if they just worked hard enough at it.

We know for sure this plan was in progress just a few hours after Gore learned he had lost on election night.  Around that time, William Daley (Campaign Chairman) convinced Gore not to concede, that it was too soon.  The Gore team then held a panic-driven meeting with their top advisors and lawyers.  After quickly reviewing Florida's election laws, they decided the election was close enough to proceed with "plan b".

Within a few hours, approximately 70 anxious Democrats boarded a plane for Tallahassee.  The tired workers (many still wearing the same wrinkled clothes they were in all day) listened to instructions given over the loudspeaker.  The instructions outlined the general principles of recount strategy.  Their orders were to prolong counties from certifying vote counts, seek-out anomalies for litigation, and most importantly, implement manual recounts in Democrat strongholds.  (They were hoping to land in Florida secretly, like a covert military team on a mission.  However, as their plane pulled to a stop and they began to unload, Jeb Bush was departing his own plane just fifty feet away.  Embarrassed, they exchanged waves, ending their hope for a covert operation.)

 

Remember, these are professional politicians who only have one objective, to win by whatever means necessary.  In big politics, millions of dollars change hands.  There is tremendous competition.  It is their job to mobilize people, shape public opinion, know the ins and outs of election laws, and manipulate the process as much as possible to their advantage.  Although dimpled chads and manual recounting were new to most Americans, they are known among veteran politicians.  Recount-strategy had been used before.

What we saw in Florida was recount-strategy on a massive scale.  It was a grand scheme that involved orchestrated chaos.  It was a modern-day coup d' etat, an attempt to overthrow an election.

Gore had nothing more to lose.  He already lost the election.  Doing nothing would end any hope he had to become President.

Part 3

Wasn't the election really too close to call?

No.  George Bush never trailed Al Gore by a single vote, even after a variety of recounts.  (This is a fact that seems to elude most Gore supporters and the media.)

Long after the disruption ended, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has scrambled in order to justify Gore's behavior.  They have anxiously waited for any type of revelation that would somehow prove Gore was the "true" winner of Florida, or that some impropriety took place on behalf of the Bush team.  They would like to validate their extreme behavior in Florida.

In the meantime, ironically, there were two messages that were born from Gore's campaign, each contradicting each other.

First, when addressing the nation at-large, the Gore team claimed that the election was "too close to call".  That is, we shouldn't be so quick to conclude that Bush was the winner, even though he has more votes.  Al Gore said to the country, "We shouldn't rush to judgment."  How could we declare that Bush was the winner if the results fell within the margin of error?  Therefore, manual recounting in Democrat counties were just an effort to arrive at the truth.  Besides, there were all these so-called "anomalies" that needed to be ironed out.

Then the Democrats fed their constituency a much more powerful message, one that contradicts the "too close to call" theme.  This message is often heard today on radios, television, the Internet, in books, etc.  It is the one that I find to be the most disturbing.

They claim that Republicans were "afraid to count the votes".  They say if we truly had an accurate tabulation Gore would clearly be the winner - by thousands of votes. 

Democrats apparently believe that the election was thwarted and that there were votes still yet to be counted, despite the automatic recount and subsequent manual recounts - And those uncounted votes were Gore votes!   Joe Liebermann said this on national television in the midst of Gore's quest.

And how do the Democrats know this?  Well, I guess we were just supposed to take their word for it.

As you can see, we have been given two very contradicting messages.  First, we were told, "The election was too close to call".  Then we were told, "Gore was clearly the real winner in Florida." 

But Democrats don't mind this contradiction because confusion has worked to Gore's advantage.  It is a required element in a coup d' etat.

 

The Norc Study (An important update)

Democrats anxiously awaited a study conducted by the University of Chicago, known as the NORC study, in hopes that it would reveal Gore was the true winner of Florida.  Again, they hope to somehow justify his behavior.

The study empirically looked at all of Florida's disqualified ballots and categorized them according to dimples, hanging chads, etc.  Using the study, people have attempted to deduce what would have happened under a variety of manual recounting scenarios.  That is, what would have happened if Florida counted dimples as votes?  What if we manually recounted the entire state?  What about just the counties Gore targeted?  The idea is, if Gore would have been allowed to manually recount as many times as he wanted, in any county, using any standard he wanted, perhaps then he would have found enough new votes to overturn the election.  To Democrats, this study could somehow prove Gore was the rightful winner of Florida's election.  They were hoping the study would demonstrate that Gore actually received thousands of votes over Bush and that the election system is broken in Florida.

Even if we go along with this reasoning (to manually recount wherever the Democrats wanted and include ambiguous ballots as votes), most scenarios still would have gone in Bush's favor.  However, Democrats are clinging to the few scenarios that suggest Gore may have squeaked out a victory.  They are mostly excited about the scenario of manually recounting the entire state while including dimples and pregnant chads as votes.  They believe Gore would have picked up enough new votes to win the election.

But the study serves only to give false hope to Gore’s supporters and has been misused.  The research only categorized and tabulated the number of dimples, pregnant chads, markings, etc.  It does not conclude that these ambiguous ballots were actually votes.  It does not make judgments upon them other than placing them in their proper categories.  The NORC study has made a strong point to say;

·         "...the project does not identify “winners.”  Its goal is to assess the reliability of the voting systems themselves, using the highest standards of scientific accuracy and reliability."

If Democrats would like to argue that Gore received more dimples or hanging chads, by all means, they are welcome to do so.  But instead, they would like to say he received more votes, something the study does not reveal (just like the tabulation machines in Florida). 

The study perpetuates the myth that dimples must be included as votes and that counties were obliged to manually recount wherever Gore wanted.

If the study proved anything, it demonstrated how close the election truly was.  Neither candidate would have won by a significant margin under any counting or recounting scenario.  Further, there is no connection between Gore's hunt for more votes in Democrat counties and what the study "revealed".    People who rely on the NORC study to justify Gore's behavior fail to consider how elections are held in Florida, how votes are tabulated, what constitutes a vote, which counties recounted, Florida law, etc.

·         "...the ballot examination includes not only the undervotes (ballots with no registered vote for president) but also the overvotes (ballots with more than one vote for president)."

I encourage everyone to visit the NORC website, read about their research, and examine their data - http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/

On a historical note, on the very day in which the NORC study was to be revealed to the media, just months following September 11, there was a horrific plane crash out of JFK International Airport in New York City.  Many suspected that this plane crash was terrorist related.  As a result, the NORC study was rightfully buried within the newscasts.

Faced with fewer votes, Gore needed to convince everyone that the election was not yet over.  It was as if he was saying, "Hold on everyone.  I realize Bush has more votes.  But something terrible has happened.  There has been a big mistake.  I am really the winner of the election and I need more time to prove this.  I think if we take a closer look at the ballots (in democrat counties), everything would become perfectly clear, and I will be the winner.  Just be patient and let me do my thing."

And the Democrat army quickly rallied to his help.  Within the first two days following the election, there was stunning unison as they claimed, "We don't really know who won.  We don't have a true count!"

It was paramount for the Democrats to maintain and build public support.  They were trying to reverse an election.  And luckily for them, there was a groundswell of emotional citizens ready to believe that the election was stolen from them.  Very soon there would be rallies of people demanding "justice".

And the media passively assisted Gore by continually relaying his message to the country.  For weeks following the election, America heard the phrase, "too close to call".  In other words, even though George Bush had more votes, we still didn't know who won the election.

Apparently, having the most votes no longer indicates who the winner is.

This line of thinking struck me as particularly odd and dangerous right from the beginning.  On the morning following the election, I awoke (with perhaps two hours of sleep) only to hear Katie Couric exclaim, "Good morning, we don't have a winner!"

Really?  But I thought George Bush had more votes?

Perhaps it would have been more accurate if Katie would have said something like the following, "Good morning America, we do in fact have a winner, but, well, uh, we're not quite ready to accept it.  So for now we are going to simply say it's too close to call.  We'll get back to you in a few days."

It was simply inaccurate and misleading to say the election was "too close to call", when George Bush had more votes.  It gave false hope to the losers of the election and helped Gore setup his plan.  I sensed immediately that the message was coming from the Al Gore camp and that he was positioning to de-legitimize Bush's victory.  Upon reviewing election night coverage, I discovered William Daley was among the first to begin pounding the message.  Shortly after he apparently convinced Gore not to concede, he approached the podium in Nashville Tennessee and spoke to the rain-drenched crowd.  He said, the race in Florida is "too close to call" and their campaign continues.  The crowd's hope was reborn.

In the long run, Gore's strategy has apparently given him a psychological advantage.  Even though he was unable to reverse the outcome of the election, he has successfully convinced many people that he was the true winner of Florida, even though he had fewer votes.  Many people still don't quite admit that George Bush won legitimately.  Instead of questioning Gore's desperate quest for manual recounting, people now focus on everything else, especially the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that finally put an end to Gore's disruption.

I continue to hear many examples of this desperate logic on television, radio and the Internet.  There continues to be a Gore legacy, ongoing residual from his disruption, that he was somehow held back from winning Florida.  For example, I heard Michael Moore (Liberal activist film maker) say on television, "Gore won Florida and most investigations prove that."

But which investigations is Moore referring to?  He's clearly not referring to the investigation by Florida's 67 counties who counted the votes twice using their normal tabulation methods.  Does that investigation count?

Michael Moore has fallen in line with Gore's plan.  He thinks we should just forget that Bush had more votes.  We should just believe that Gore had more votes because, well, he said so.  Like many Anti-Republicans, Moore is only interested in creating the appearance that the election was fraudulent, broken, and illegitimate.  Moore will say anything to demonize Republicans and to make a dollar.  So once again we have heard falsehood blasted on national television, "Gore had more votes", "Gore was a victim", etc.

Sorry Mr. Moore, your lies are running thin.

Once Gore got this publicity roller coaster moving within hours of losing the election (or as I believe, on election day itself), it worked perfectly.  With all the fear and hysteria that quickly grew in Florida, Gore easily requested manual recounts in four Democrat counties by the Thursday deadline, just 2 days following the election.  Like a stealth aircraft in war, he submitted his protest with little public awareness of his true intentions, to convert ambiguous ballots into new votes and hopefully overturn the election.

All the while, he cloaked his actions under the guise of "fairness" and "truth".

Part 4

What other efforts went into Gore's plan?

I am concerned about the scope and magnitude of Gore's quest to overthrow the election.  I believe more investigation is needed to fully understand the actions of his team, before and after the election.  Clearly, most of their behavior stems from the all-out desire to implement manual recounts in order to find more votes.  But I wonder how much of Gore's strategy was in place prior to the election?  To what extent did they go in planning and implementing their plan?  Is it possible that the events in Florida were a premeditated coup d' etat by the Gore team?  What other behavior was there that we don't know about?

While most people think the Florida disruption began when the networks mistakenly declared that Gore would win Florida, in reality something very profound had taken place earlier that day.  I believe this event is the first clue that Gore's recount plan was in place prior to Election Day and perhaps was more elaborate than what meets the eye.

The Democrats had hired a telemarketing company to call voters in Palm Beach County (the home of the butterfly ballot).  The "polling company", named Telequest, quickly called as many citizens as it could before the election ended at 7:00.  They used a push poll that contained a very suggestive statement and motivated listeners to take action.  The language of the message confirmed the chatter that was already spinning around the county, that there was a problem with the ballot.  The message served to confirm what citizens were already concerned about, that there was an election breakdown that placed votes in jeopardy.

The polling firm also gathered data on voters in case they needed to be contacted again for legal affidavits and a protest.  (Clearly, Democrats were preparing for litigation.)

By utilizing Telequest, the Democrats told citizens that some people have accidentally punched the wrong hole for the wrong candidate.  Yet how did they know this was true if the county had not yet looked at the ballots?  What evidence did they have?  Did people come out of the voting booths saying, "The ballot made me vote for the wrong candidate"?  Even if this was the case, was it proper for Democrats to jump to wild conclusions, take matters in their own hands and alarm the public?  What made them think Gore was the victim of the ballot design?  Also, in what election did someone NOT punch the wrong hole for the wrong candidate?  Voter error is regular election phenomenon.

What were Democrats hoping to change by calling citizens in the last hour of voting? 

The Democrats also told listeners to return to the polling center and report the problem to election officials "so that the problem can be fixed." 

The language and purpose of this message is alarming and astounding.  First it told voters there was an election "problem".  It told them they were victims of an election breakdown or scheme.  It asked them to return to the polling centers (to mobilize).  And it further suggested that the "problem" could be somehow be "fixed".  That is, with their strong effort and determination they could somehow unite and overcome this supposed scheme.  The worst thing one could do under such circumstances, as a patriotic citizen who cherishes the right to vote, would be to sit there and let this injustice go unopposed.

Keep in mind; at this point no one knew it was a Democrat who had created the butterfly ballot.  This campaign took place on Election Day, where the "fog of war" was still strong.  Excitement, high emotions, and confusion are the usual states of mind on Election Day.  As a result, people quickly suspected that some sort of impropriety had taken place, especially since Jeb Bush was the Governor of Florida.

With Democrats broadcasting this powerful message citizens easily concluded that Republicans had manipulated the election process.  It was time to stand up and protect the American way of life!

Further, the idea that citizens were told to return to the polling center is quite revealing.  Democrats were suggesting that the county could somehow offer a remedy such as letting them vote again or changing the ballot in some way (these are preposterous notions.) 

Remember, this was done before Gore even knew he was the loser.  To tell citizens to return to the polling station is quite extreme and bizarre.  What were their motives?  What were they trying to achieve?  What evidence did they have for their claims?

Why were they creating hysteria?

One can only conclude that the Democrats were mobilizing.  They were shaping public opinion in preparation for "plan B".  They decided to intentionally foster outrage and concern.  They were building their case and preparing for a protest right in the middle of Election Day before anyone even knew the outcome.

Democrats anticipated their eventual course of action.  They were going to rely on manual recounts and they needed to lay down the foundation, to get the public on their side.
 

One college professor quickly spoke to the defense of Democrats by noting; "The fact that they raised concern early in the day indicates the legitimacy of their concern."

The idea is, since Democrats were responding before the election ended, without yet knowing who the winner was, they were likely just reacting to legitimate concerns regarding the ballot design.  They were just responding to the overwhelming concern of citizens.  They had no ulterior motive.

I'm not convinced.  I suggest they were not acting in "concern".  Rather, they were interfering with the election process.  They were independently broadcasting a message and alarming the public.  At best I would call their behavior irresponsible, extreme, and wanting for more information.  There was no benefit in scaring citizens on Election Day other than to create hysteria and to mobilize a protest.  They were not providing a public service.  Rather, they were seeking some sort of strategic edge. 

Further, there was no basis for their actions other than pure speculation and fear.  In particular, Congressman Robert Wexler and others had reached inaccurate and extreme conclusions in a preemptive strike to disqualify the election in Palm Beach County, just in case they needed to.  Ask yourself, what was their ultimate goal?  What were they trying to achieve?  The more you look at it, the more bizarre it appears.  I do not take their actions at face value.
 

Telequest contacted around 5000 Democrats and was intent on calling 75,000 before the polls had closed.  They were serious about getting their message out.

But oddly, once the polls were closed Telequest was done with its mission.  It was no longer needed to call citizens any more.  Whatever the Democrats were trying to accomplish could apparently only be done on Election Day itself, before the polls were closed.  They were urgently trying to mobilize people before the deadline of 7:00. 

Why was this time frame so important?  One could reasonably argue that the Democrats were just using the ballot issue as a "get out the vote" opportunity.  But as it turns out, 98% of the people called had already voted that day.  Further, the polls were only open for about an hour longer.  Seems awfully extreme for a last minute vote push.

I suggest that they needed to strike while the fire was hot.

Whether or not Telequest and local Democrats were aware, something was in the works.  Momentum was building that would lead to an outcry, a protest.  It was the beginning of Gore's new campaign, to convince citizens the election was broken and that their votes were not going to be counted.  It was the beginning of the coup.

The timing and speed of this behavior begs a question, is it possible that someone hired the polling firm prior to Election Day?  When exactly was Telequest instructed to phone people in Palm Beach County?

The "official" but non-detailed story is that Telequest was instructed on Election Day to make the calls, in response to concern over the butterfly ballot.  But there has been some mystery surrounding the company.  They have been quite silent and unavailable about their role in the election, other than a couple of brief statements. 

(I have made many attempts to contact Telequest but have been turned away every time.  Although I was first able to speak with a person, it is now difficult to make any contact at all.  The Essar Group, a large Indian company, apparently acquired Telequest within weeks following the election.  Telequest has also changed its name to Etelequest.)

I also ask, is it possible that Telequest wasn't an independent company at all?  Is it possible that Telequest and the DNC were one in the same?  This is pure speculation, but suppose the DNC had created a company, a marketing firm, whose sole purpose was to "gather election data".  On the surface, the company could act as if it were independent and unbiased.  Yet, in reality it could be used as a powerful tool to shape public opinion (which is how it was used in Palm Beach County).  I'm not saying Telequest didn't exist.  I am just saying it was clearly one tool in the Democrat's arsenal of political weapons.  Perhaps Telequest was a creation of the DNC.

Either way, it is still evident that the Democrats were preparing for a loss, building their post-election defense, early on Election Day.  They began creating public fear, convincing voters that they voted incorrectly and their votes would never be counted, well before the county began to even look at the ballots.

Part 5

More on Palm Beach County:

As I proceed further, it is important to keep in mind the relationship between Al Gore's efforts for manual recounts in four Democrat counties and the case of the butterfly ballot. 

Gore never directly challenged the butterfly-ballot and he didn't seek manual recounts on that basis.  Rather, he claimed he was concerned about tabulation methods, saying manual recounting was better than machine recounting.

But the ballot "issue", and subsequent hysteria, was a perfect setup for Gore's larger plan.  Democrats could exploit the issue in order to create confusion, possibly invalidate the election, and shape public opinion.  As a result, many citizens believed the election was a disaster and that manual recounting or even re-voting were logical remedies, just to be on the "safe" side.

Palm Beach County was the perfect place for Gore to implement his plan.  For starters, it was loaded with Democrats.  There were nearly a half million voters, which by sheer numbers would lead to tons of disqualified ballots.  (This was also the case with Miami-Dade and Broward Counties.)  Also, the canvassing board was comprised of sympathetic Democrats who would be willing to adapt to Gore's plight.  After all, it was they who created the butterfly ballot in the first place.

But the merit of the butterfly ballot case has proven to be quite weak, as I will show.  In fact, it never even made it to court and likely wouldn't have mattered if it did since it was a legal ballot.  Gore never fought a ballot issue in Florida.  Likewise, he was never awarded recounts, or any relief at all, on the basis of the butterfly ballot.  In addition, the butterfly ballot doesn't explain why Gore wanted manual recounts in three other counties, where that type was not used.

It wasn't until several weeks later that his case began to take legal shape and gain momentum, when he began to focus nearly entirely on undervotes.  At this point, the Florida Supreme Court stepped in, rewrote Florida law, and mandated that all counties sift through undervotes, triple-checking the ambiguous ballots.  Again, this had nothing to do with the butterfly ballot unless you believe it prevented people from selecting even one candidate.

Thus, we had a strange juggling act by Democrats as they tried to get their stories straight.  One minute they claimed they wanted manual recounts because of tabulation machines that supposedly left ballots uncounted.  They claimed, "All we seek is a fair count of the votes!"  But they also claimed that voting devices are outdated and inadequate.  Further, they said they were concerned about so-called anomalies, such as glitches on Election Day.  Putting it all together (voting machines, tabulation machines, the butterfly ballot, and so-called anomalies), they convinced people there were systemic breakdowns that prevented Gore from winning. 

They managed to put Florida's entire election system on trial.  Naturally, they claimed the best way to resolve all of this was to implement manual recounts in Democrat counties.

Ultimately, the Palm Beach County canvassing board buckled to this pressure and proceeded with manual recounting.  They proceeded to hunt for more votes for Gore.

Therefore, most people overlook the real significance of the butterfly ballot; how it gave Gore some shelter.  It was the tool that created the most hysteria and public outrage.  It enabled Gore to request manual recounts without appearing to be hunting for votes, without the public barely blinking an eye.  It was a symbolic launch pad for confusion and chaos.

I ask the question, could the butterfly ballot have been a strategic component of Gore's overall plan?  Could the ballot have been intentionally in place in order to setup the recounting plan?

To answer this, we must take a closer look at the behavior by Democrats on Election Day, particularly in Palm Beach County.

Part 6

The exact sequence of events on Election Day is still uncertain.  But it is clear the Democrats were panicking in Palm Beach County (or, as I believe, implementing an alternative strategy.)

In the early morning, a Democrat lawyer contacted Teresa Lepore, Democrat Supervisor of Elections, and began complaining about the butterfly ballot.  He insisted that people were confused and were likely casting their votes improperly.

Soon, Florida Congresswoman Lois Frankel and U.S. Congressman Robert Wexler also began pleading with Lepore.  They insisted that something was terribly wrong and that action must be taken to prevent people from making mistakes.  They claimed that the butterfly ballot was causing confusion and hysteria.

Robert Wexler Lois Frankel

As such, Teresa Lepore (who was actually the creator of the butterfly ballot, working in her first year as Supervisor) felt overwhelmed and sent a notice to all precincts.  She instructed workers to help citizens, to go the extra mile and remind them how to vote.  They were to tell voters only to select one candidate for President.  (This would indicate Democrats were concerned about overvoting, selecting more than one candidate.)

Later, even though Lepore was acting in response to this pressure, Robert Wexler decided to use this to his advantage by saying, "If that doesn't indicate there's was a problem, I don't know what does."

Wexler convinced Lepore into sending out the notice to precincts, then acted as if she had done it all on her own.

(Keep in mind; this was done in the middle of Election Day.  What did Wexler, Frankel, and others want to happen?  What else could be done to correct the so-called ballot "problem"?  Did they want to stop the election?  Did they want to change the ballot?  What evidence did they have there was a breakdown or that voters were confused?  Why did Wexler, Frankel and others raise a storm in Palm Beach County?)

I also ask, what made Wexler, Frankel, and Lepore think that citizens were overvoting?  Did people come out of the voting booth saying, "The ballot made me vote for two candidates"?  Also, without yet viewing the ballots, how did Wexler know people were having trouble selecting Al Gore (even though his name was clearly written on the left side under the word, "Democratic" and there was a big arrow next to his name)?

Did they believe that the ballot was so confusing that citizens couldn't select even one person (creating undervotes)?

What exactly did they believe was happening in the voting booths?

Robert Wexler was raising hell in Palm Beach County before anyone even began to view the ballots, before there was any real empirical evidence to suggest there was a significant breakdown or problem.  He muscled Lepore into believing that the election was a disaster and that citizens were so confused they were impeded from voting correctly. 

And Wexler knew all of this without reviewing a single ballot.  Tabulation had not yet begun.

Rather than waiting to see if there was any legitimacy to the idea, Wexler launched his campaign for Gore right then and there in the middle of Election Day.  He, along with several other Democrats, began to foster a key ingredient that is traditionally found in a classic coup d'etat.  They were creating fear and chaos.

As you can imagine, Wexler was waiting anxiously to see if his prediction would bare any results.  And as the numbers came in, he quickly seized upon them, seeking to validate his claim and save the election for Gore.

 Wexler continues
 

But despite the way in which Democrats have characterized the results in Palm Beach County, there was nothing truly significant about them that justified Wexler's behavior.  According to their level of hysteria, you would think the results were disastrous in Palm Beach County.  But they were not.

Over 400,000 people managed to vote correctly in Palm Beach County.

16 counties had a higher percentage of disqualified ballots than Palm Beach County.

10,000 of Palm Beach County's disqualified ballots were undervotes.  Surely Democrats are not suggesting the ballot was so bad that citizens couldn't select even one candidate.  Are they?

19,000 ballots were overvotes.  This means voters first selected one candidate, then continued to make a second selection.  Is Wexler suggesting that the ballot made people vote twice?  Is overvoting caused by voter error, or is this ballot error?

Also, according Wexler and other Democrats, voters were tricked into voting for Pat Buchanan.  Apparently, none of the 3,400 Buchanan votes were legitimate.  They were all accidents.  This despite the fact that he received over 4000 votes just four years earlier.
 

But Wexler is a seasoned politician.  He knows that overvotes and undervotes are created in every election.  They are regular phenomenon of punch card balloting.  Therefore, he could raise concern early in the day, anywhere, and know he was correct in that assumption.  In fact, Florida had over 100,000 overvotes throughout the entire state, even in counties where the butterfly ballot wasn't used.

Miami-Dade County, a Democrat stronghold, had 28,000 disqualified ballots, even though it didn't use the butterfly ballot design.  (This is consistent with the percentage of disqualified ballots within Florida counties, as I will show later.)

Duval County, a Bush county, also had 26,000 disqualified ballots, not using the butterfly ballot design.  (Gore didn't seek recounts in this county as it might have lead to more votes for Bush.)

Of course, Wexler and Frankel claim they were merely concerned about the welfare of their citizens.  They claim that people came out of the polling booths bewildered and confused, not sure if they voted properly.  That is, it was so challenging to vote for Gore, people were never sure if they managed to get it right.  They were helpless.  They tried to vote for Gore but were held back from doing so.

I believe the storm in Palm Beach County is not something that came from within.  Rather, it came from the outside and was imposed upon the county.  The behavior by Democrats in Palm Beach County was reckless and deceitful, especially that of Congressman Robert Wexler, who fought dauntingly to overturn the election for Gore.

 

While Democrats were feverishly whipping the public into frenzy, another example of unusual behavior appeared out of nowhere.  This behavior came from a local Democrat named Irving Slosberg.  Like Wexler, Slosberg was dedicated to the "cause".  At one point, he assembled a rally that would be headed by Jessie Jackson, and thus gather plenty of national television.  (Supposedly, Jackson would only attend the rally if there were at least 300 people in attendance.  Slosberg managed to gather nearly a thousand people, something he was outwardly proud of.  Naturally, on television the rally would appear as it were a grass-roots assembly that developed on its own.)

But as Slosberg was working the crowd, displaying a butterfly ballot to demonstrate how confusing it was, he didn't think anyone would question where it was that he obtained the balloting device from.  Upon investigation, Irving Slosberg was caught with a voting machine in the back of his car.  But given the chaotic state of their county, officials decided they didn't need another hassle on their hands. They didn't want to make a big deal of it.  Rather, they confronted him privately and demanded that he return the ballot immediately.  But oddly, Slosberg refused.  It was only after being warned of legal consequences that he finally decided to return the ballot.  It is still not exactly clear from where, when, why, or how he obtained the voting device.

At this point, Democrats were out of control.

Part 7

What role did the networks have in Gore's plan?

The networks played HUGE role in how this election played out and significantly aided Gore in his quest for Florida.

All of the major networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX News, compete to be the first network to declare a winner in an election.  However, they all make their projections based upon data collected by one source, the Voter News Service, a joint venture company who conducts exit polls.

As it turns out, the VNS was grossly ill prepared for the election in Florida (they admit this.)  In addition to being understaffed and thereby collecting only a small amount of data, they paid very little attention to the nearly 600,000 absentee voters.  In fact, the VNS now explains it expected only half as many absentee ballots.

Remember, the VNS does not tabulate actual votes.  Rather, they look at exit poll data, surveying voters as they leave their polling centers.  Of Florida's 5,845 precincts, the VNS had workers stationed at only 45, less than one percent. 

Out of six million voters, the VNS managed to collect data from just 4,356 people.

Since the election, the VNS has tried to overhaul its system, spending millions of dollars in the process.  Networks have also established new policy regarding their behavior on election days.  At one point, CNN declared they would stay with VNS "if, and only if" the company made significant changes to their systems.

News update - On Monday, January 12, 2003, the VNS went out of business, unable to recover from its lack of integrity in the 2000 election.

As it turned out on election night, the VNS and networks were mysteriously anxious to declare states on behalf of Al Gore, even if the polls were not yet closed in the state, even if the state had a narrow race.  And that is what happened in regards to Florida.

Looking at a small amount of data, NBC was the first to jump the gun and declare that Al Gore would be the winner of Florida.  They did this with 11 minutes still left on the clock, as voters were still on their way to the voting centers in the Western Panhandle (which falls in the central time zone).  As always on election night, the other networks frenetically jumped on-board as quickly as possible.

Within minutes, the message was out.  Florida was already decided and Al Gore was the winner, likely to be our next President.  Along with Florida, the networks also quickly declared that Gore would take Michigan and Pennsylvania, thus winning the "big Trifecta" and sticking a dagger in the heart of Bush's campaign.  At this point, there were still several hours left on the clock for voters in Western America, sending them a powerful message.

In contrast, hurting Bush even more, the networks decided to wait longer to declare states for him, even the states where he won handedly.

In Florida, anyone who was standing in line by 7:00 pm would be allowed to vote.  But why would they even bother at this point?  There was no longer any reason to drive to the polling center, stand in line, and vote for our next President.  It was too late.  The decision had been made.  Gore won Florida and was the next President of the United States.  The networks said so.

This initial perception planted a seed of confusion for millions of people.  Once they were told that Gore won Florida and thus the national election, it would be hard for them to change their minds, to accept that Gore was actually the loser.  This ultimately fed the confusion that would follow in Florida and helped Gore implement manual recounts.  It allowed Democrats to say that Gore was the true winner in Florida and that "investigations" (manual recounting) should be done.

Al Gore also benefited from another powerful yet deceitful impression created by the VNS and networks.  That being, exit polls are somehow more accurate than the actual vote tabulations.

For some reason, people were more likely to believe television broadcasters, such as Tom Brokaw, reporting the erroneous story than they were to believe actual tabulations that were submitted by county officials in Florida.  They believed this despite the VNS admitting they completely botched their forecast.  Further, exit polls are like predicting the outcome of a sports game.  The prediction means absolutely nothing.  It's the actual score of the game that ultimately matters.

Studies also show that the early projection cost George Bush quite a lot of votes, considering that the Florida Panhandle tends to vote 2 to 1 in favor of Republicans and there were at least 500,000 registered voters in these precincts.  Also, there are many military personnel in that region who often vote on their way home from work.  One study claims as many as 11,000 people changed their minds and decided not vote after the networks declared the election to Al Gore.

As it turns out, of course, Bush already had enough votes to win the state.  However, the extra votes may have prevented Gore from his disruption.

I ask, is it possible that the early projection was part of Gore's broader plan to take Florida?  This may seem like wild speculation, but consider what would happen if the Gore team was able to apply pressure on networks, and the VNS, thus inducing them to make an early projection for him, before polls were even closed.  The impact of this would be enormous.  It would manipulate the process in favor of Gore.  It would squelch voters in the Panhandle and shave votes from George Bush's lead, keeping the election at a hair-splitting margin.  It would also setup the impression that Gore was the winner, even if he ultimately had fewer votes.

Perhaps their thinking went something like this:  First, campaign like mad in Florida just before election day, bringing the gap between the two candidates to a narrow margin.  Second, somehow get an early projection by the VNS or networks on Election Day, thus shaving votes from Bush's total and creating the appearance that Gore was the winner.  Third, launch a campaign to create the appearance of impropriety and that the election was a disaster.  Fourth, implement manual recounts in Democrat counties.

Perhaps this was their only hope!

As much as a stretch as this may seem, consider the following:  Al Gore spent the last few days of his campaign in Florida, operating nearly around the clock.  Before Election Day, the Democrat numbers indicated that he would likely take Pennsylvania and Michigan, but would be guaranteed a victory if he could somehow take Florida.  They knew it would be close and that one final push might make it a nearly even match. 

At one point Gore exclaimed, "This is the last official stop of campaign 2000.  It's not an accident that I am here, because Florida very well may be the state that decides this election."

Secondly, ever since networks made an early prediction in 1980, taking an enormous amount of heat from Democrats, they were no longer in the habit of projecting winners before the polls have closed.  In fact, they are loosely bound by a congressional agreement to do otherwise.  But oddly, they were very anxious to jump the gun and declare the state of Florida for Gore, a state where the results were extremely narrow.

Wouldn't it be logical that this state would take even longer to project considering neither candidate had a substantial lead, not to mention the complexity of Florida's voting base and the miniscule amount of data collected by the VNS?

Further, what about other states?  How quick were networks in projecting winners in states where one of the two candidates was almost guaranteed a victory, where the outcome was lopsided?  It turns out, unlike the Florida projection, networks weren't so quick to project a winner in these states, especially for the states were Bush was predicted to win.

For example, it took networks two hours and forty-five minutes to project West Virginia, where Bush won by a comfortable 6 percent.  In Ohio, it took them an hour and forty-five minutes, where Bush won by 4 percent.

They waited at least thirty minutes on a variety of other states where Bush won handedly, such as Georgia and Virginia.  In North Carolina, Bush won by 13 percent but the networks said it was "too close to call" for 35 minutes after the polls closed.  This caused Tom Brokaw to exclaim, "The idea that North Carolina is still too close to call does come as a surprise this evening."

Shouldn't the opposite have happened?  Wouldn't it make sense for the networks to declare the lopsided races early while holding off on the tight races like Florida?  Again, keep in mind that they were not using actual tabulations as their guide.  Rather, they were supposedly using the data collected by the VNS.

I ask, who was it that decided it was safe to project Al Gore as the winner of Florida before polls had even closed, yet decided more time was needed to project other more lopsided states?  Is it possible that campaign operatives were in place in order to manipulate the process?

Thirdly, one month before the election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris seemed to be concerned about networks possibly making an early call.  She submitted a letter urging them not to declare a winner before the polls had closed.  The message said, "The last thing we need is to have our citizens in the Central Time Zone think that their vote doesn't count - Because it certainly does!"

While most people assume that the botched network projection for Gore was merely an act of aggressive carelessness, I am skeptical.  Considering the extent that Al Gore went to overturn the election in Florida, I am under the impression that the early erroneous call was part of his plan.

Part 8

What is so wrong with manual recounting?  Didn't Gore have a right to implement manual recounts?

Florida overwhelmingly uses machines to tabulate votes.  Gore needed that changed.  But according to Florida, he did not have the right to implement manual recounts as he saw fit.  Only counties had the right, as an option, if they discovered an error in their original tabulations.

Remember, after Gore lost the election, he selected 4 Democrat counties and asked if they could review the ballots one more time, manually.  He wanted to use the recounts in Democrat counties in order to convert ambiguous ballots into more votes.  Despite the impression that he was trying to resolve anomalies, he was merely hunting for enough votes to overturn the election.

(Note - I have received many emails from people claiming that Gore actually wanted a statewide manual recount and that somehow he wasn't able because Bush wouldn't "go along with it".  This is ridiculous and indicates how little people understand the Florida disruption.

In a public-relations move after he lost the election Gore said he would welcome a statewide manual recount (a third count) if Bush would agree to it.

First, candidates don't tell counties how to go about running their elections.  Just because Gore wanted to change the tabulation methods and have a third count, doesn't mean he could have, even if Bush agreed.  But Gore made it appear that the candidates were in control and that he could do anything he wanted, provided Bush would have gone along with it.

Secondly, this was a little like a losing football team asking the winning team to extend the game, to play a fifth quarter.  But there was no reason for changing the tabulation methods, counting six million ballots by hand, other than to find more votes for Gore (In fact, everything that happened in Florida was an attempt to find more votes for Gore.  What other reason was there for the disruption?) 

Further, even if Gore wanted to manually recount only the discarded ballots, the ambiguous ballots where no vote for President was registered, there wasn't any provision that gave him the option to do so.  Gore knew his "offer" was absurd and that it put pressure on Bush only from a public-relations point of view.  Democrats then easily made it appear that Bush was "afraid to count the votes", even though they were counted twice already and the law didn't fully support manual recounting.

Thirdly, Gore was not impeded from protesting the results on his own.  If he thought the results were in error, he could have written a formal protest in any county of his choosing.  But he only selected counties where he thought he would gain the most new votes.  If he truly wanted a statewide manual recount, he could have pursued it.  But he didn't.  In hind-sight, with the Florida Supreme Court taking a managerial role and fully supporting his quest, many of Gore's supporters think this was his biggest mistake.)

According to Florida law (102.166), Gore could protest the results in any county by submitting a written request asking the board to review their systems and tabulations for errors.  An error could be something like newly found ballots, broken machines, a clerical error, fraud, etc.  The law gives recourse for candidates in cases were the original tabulation has been botched.  If a problem is found the board must resolve it and submit the correct tabulation.  Also, the law states "the canvassing board may recount the ballots on the automatic tabulating equipment" (Title IX, 102.166, paragraph C).

But a candidate may also submit a request for a manual recount as part of the review (title IX, 102.166, paragraph 4a).  The important word here is "request".  Counties do not have to agree to a manual recount.  "The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount."  (title IX, 102.166, paragraph 4c). 

What if an error is found?  The law says they "shall correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system."  (Title IX, 102.166, paragraph 5a).

Clearly Florida made these laws for instances when a county simply goofs when tabulating votes.  That is, if an error is committed in the process of tabulation that error should be properly fixed.

But Gore never proved there was anything wrong with the first two tabulations, other than he lost.  There was no reason for counties to implement yet another recount let alone a manual recount.  There were no errors on behalf of canvassing boards that were not already addressed.

This is why Gore's case would eventually change (during the contest phase) into a voter-protection remedy, claiming that machines are not adequate enough to count votes, something he could have done before the election in any county across the country.  He decided he wanted to "save" Florida from the inadequacies of machine tabulation.  And the Florida Supreme Court would share in his vision.

Gore abused Florida law and essentially tricked canvassing boards into manual recounting.  He knew that if he could get them to implement manual recounts they would begin applying their own subjective interpretation on ambiguous ballots, ballots that were previously discarded from the machines.  Thus, a discrepancy would automatically be created with the original tally.  Once the discrepancy was created, he could then claim that the original tabulation was "botched" and full scale manual recounting was warranted.

In other words, Gore never needed to prove there was error in the original tabulation.  Rather, there were errors on ballots created by voters.  Gore managed to create the impression of tabulation error by using manual recounts.

Interestingly, even if counties had discovered errors in their tabulations, they had the option to fix the error and recount using the counting machines.  Manual recounting was completely optional for counties.

But once counties began manually recounting, thus triple-checking their original tally, confusion set in.  They were suddenly faced with the decision whether or not to conduct the full-scale manual recount, even though there were no real errors in their original tabulations.


(Note - Florida has changed much of its election law since the disruption.  Very often, people will mistakenly read the new codes and apply them to the situation that occurred in 2000.  To accurately understand the events in Florida, it is important to read the law on the books at the time of Gore's quest for manual recounts, not the law as it exists today.  In my opinion, the law has become even worse, buckling to the notion that Gore was somehow entitled to manual recounts, a flawed tabulation method.)

Part 9

Weren't there an enormous amount of disqualified ballots in Florida?

No.  The number is consistent with national results and previous results in Florida.  Every state had at least 2% of their ballots disqualified as undervotes and overvotes.  Some states had as much as 3%.  Florida falls into that range.

In fact, with the hysteria Democrats created in Palm Beach and other counties, you would think these counties had the highest percentage of disqualified ballots.  But it turns out; the counties with the highest percentage of disqualified ballots were "Bush counties".  Below is a list of these counties.  Notice that Palm Beach County falls well below the highest.  Also, notice that Gore's highest counties were not a part of his quest for manual recounts, simply because they wouldn't yield enough new votes (they had the highest percentage but low numbers of actual ballots.)


Counties Where Bush Won:
    

     All of the above counties had a higher percentage of disqualified ballots than any of the counties where Gore sought manual recounts.

*  These counties used optical scanning devices, not punch cards, yet still had higher percentage of disqualified ballots than any of the counties where Gore wanted manual recounts.

** Duval County had over 26,000 ballots invalidated, but Gore didn't seek recounts here because he thought it might lead to more Bush votes.  Apparently he wasn't concerned about "disenfranchised voters" here.

Counties Where Gore Won:
    

(Bold counties are where Gore sought manual recounts.)

*   Of the counties where Gore won, Jefferson had the highest percentage of discounted ballots.  But Gore didn't contest here, apparently because it wouldn't yield enough new votes.

**  Palm Beach County had a moderately high percentage of disqualified ballots, but had among the largest number of total votes cast, making it an ideal county for Gore to find more votes.  In all, there were 16 counties that had a higher percentage of disqualified ballots than Palm Beach.

*** Due to the sheer number of voters, Miami-Dade County produced a large number of disqualified ballots.  Yet it did not use a butterfly ballot design.  Gore hoped to find a lot of new votes here.

**** Volusia County had a mechanical problem with a tabulation machine on Election Day.  Officials conducted a manual recount and it later became a non-issue.  Volusia County used an optical scanner voting device, not punch cards.


(This data comes from the Florida Sentinel Newspaper, 11/14/00.  CNN election archives also support it.)

Part 10

Didn't the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County cause people to vote incorrectly?

Any person who took a moment to read the butterfly ballot could see the big arrow that leads from the candidate's name to the hole.  If anyone voted for the wrong candidate it was "voter error".

But Al Gore and the Florida Supreme Court have taught America one very significant lesson; That being, as a voter you have no responsibility at all.  You can cast your votes in any manner you would like and it is the job of canvassing boards to manually examine each and every ballot in order to interpret what your intentions were.

Democrats seriously exaggerated the supposed problems in Palm Beach County in their attempt to disqualify the election.  They desperately claimed that voters were unable to express their will because the ballot was confusing and illegal (which is a lie).  They then hired statisticians to micro-analyze the results in hopes to prove that voters were either tricked into voting for Pat Buchanan, or overvoted, or were so confused that they couldn't register a vote at all.

The Democrats claimed that Palm Beach County should be afforded a revote.

Let's a closer look at the results in Palm Beach County:  The more you look, the sillier the Butterfly Ballot issue becomes.

Supposedly, the 3400 votes for Pat Buchanan were intended to be votes for Al Gore.  That is, no one voted for Buchanan on purpose, despite the fact that he received over 4000 votes in the 1996 primary. 

They also believe that the 10,000 undervotes were Gore votes, but it was just too hard for voters to select even one person.

Finally, they claim that the 19,000 overvotes were also votes for Gore, but were created because voters were confused.  That is, the ballot made people vote twice.

As you can see, Democrats believe that citizens wanted to vote for Gore but just couldn't figure out how because the ballot was so confusing.  They want us to forget that over 400,000 people were able to cast their votes without a problem in Palm Beach County.  They also want us to forget that overvotes and undervotes were found in all of Florida's counties, even though they didn't use a butterfly ballot.  For example, Miami-Dade County had over 10,000 undervotes alone, with almost 30,000 disqualified ballots.

Discarded ballots occur in every city, in ever county, in every election.  For example, the city of Chicago had over 123,000 disqualified ballots in the 2000 Presidential election.

They also want us to forget there were 16 other counties with a higher percentage of disqualified ballots than Palm Beach County.

As to be expected, some voters were very anxious on Election Day.  Thus, perhaps some people voted too quickly, sloppily, and may have entered a wrong choice.  Also, there were many people voting for the first time.  Perhaps they weren't exactly clear what to do (Florida had a large influx of first-time voters in 2000.)  And yes, perhaps the butterfly ballot even caused a nominal amount of confusion.  But it wasn't an illegal ballot.  It didn't create a disaster.  It didn't impede voters from registering their selection.  And as you know, once voters turn their ballot cards in, there is no turning back and there is no way of proving whether or not they voted for the wrong candidate.  Likewise, if one casts his votes improperly and then turns his ballot in, he essentially forfeits his opportunity to be heard.

But Democrats wanted to have a revote in Palm Beach County.  Ok, well, perhaps a revote would not be possible.  But how about having a recount?  According to Democrats, the least the county could do was to review the ballots one more time, a third time, manually, to see if canvassing boards can detect what the supposedly duped voters intended.

Democrats, particularly Robert Wexler, saw the butterfly ballot as an opportunity.  They could use it to invalidate the election.  Wexler would claim on national television that 19,000 "votes" were thrown out as a result of it, a blatant lie.  He was banking on the butterfly ballot to be Gore's saving grace.  Therefore, in an odd way, Gore was able to use the butterfly ballot to his advantage.  It enabled him to create the hysteria he needed to implement manual recounts.  The butterfly ballot is the glue that holds Gore's whole case together.  Without it, there wouldn't be a semblance of justification for his actions.  Gore needed the butterfly ballot to implement manual recounts.

Is it possible that the butterfly ballot was the Democrat's "ace in the hole"?  That is, perhaps the ballot design was part of larger plan, one in which Gore could fall back on in case he lost by a small margin.  He could use the ballot to build his case, as a prelude to manual recounting.

It must be noted that the butterfly ballot was a legal ballot that was created by a Democrat.  It was sent to all of the candidates prior to the election for their inspection.  The butterfly ballot was used in other states as well.

Even today we hear stories about elderly citizens who struggled to figure out how to vote in Palm Beach County.  Democrats want us to believe that citizens are completely helpless victims, unable to figure out the demanding challenges of casting a vote.

In light of the Democrat's hysteria, it takes courage to admit that the butterfly ballot was a perfectly acceptable and valid design.  It did not impede voters in any way.  I believe that people make mistakes and that voter error is a normal election phenomenon.

Part 11

How was Gore able to convince so many people that the election was a disaster?

Like most national elections, there was a great deal of emotion and excitement on Election Day.  People felt this would be a close and important election.  Republican supporters viewed this as an opportunity to cleanse Washington D.C. from an exhausting eight years of Clinton politics.  Democrats were hoping to hold onto power and validate the Clinton legacy.

Things began to get very confusing when the networks mistakenly called Florida for Al Gore, based upon inaccurate data, before the polls had even closed.  Finally, when it became clear that Gore lost Florida, and thus the national election, many people simply couldn't accept it.  They needed to believe that Gore was the "good guy" and that something terrible, such as fraud, had taken place.

Worse, the Democrat leadership told citizens the election was stolen from them and that "justice" must be pursued.  As a result, I believe there was a group-psychology taking place known as hysteria.  

The Democrats took advantage of this psychology.  They fostered it.  They used it in their quest for manual recounts.  They enabled it by going door to door, holding rallies, pounding the media, recruiting lawyers, demanding recounts, etc.


Why did you write this article?

Because there are people who still believe Gore was justified in his disruption of the election.  I believe what happened in Florida was a premeditated attempt to overthrow a legitimate election.

I am also disgusted by the effort of Democrats to de-legitimize the Bush Presidency.

For example, I heard James Carville (The bald guy on CNN's Crossfire and former Clinton campaign strategist) say the following on November 22, 2002, two years after the election:

"You know what Bill Clinton's done and George W. Bush has never done?  He actually won a presidential election.  No, he won two. George W. Bush has never won one. So when you want to talk about political prowess, have your guy win an election and then come back and talk to me...  Bush never won... But Clinton won in the presidency.  George Bush never did that.  George Bush has never won a presidential election."

As you can see, two years into the Bush Presidency the Democrats are still claiming that Bush is not a legitimate President.  But the truth is, President Bush has only lost a single election in his life, that being his 1978 bid for Congress.

Why don't you print your real name in this article?

I am accusing Gore's team of attempting to overthrow the election.  I believe these are bad people.

Aren't you just another "Right Wing" propaganda mouthpiece?

No.  This article is entirely focused on Gore's behavior.  It has little to do with the Republican Party or even their behavior in the election.  I have no affiliation with the Republican Party.  I am focusing on the Democrat's behavior because it was Gore who tried to overthrow the election, to take away George Bush's victory.

Isn't it the responsibility of counties to make sure that every ballot is counted?

In Florida, every ballot was counted.  No ballot can be arbitrarily disregarded.  Every ballot must be afforded fair consideration and equal treatment.

But Gore's team wanted ballots to be triple checked.  They wanted to go back and review ballots in Democrat counties one more time, using new procedures and subjective standards.  (Of course, all the while they would chant a mantra that says, "All we seek is a fair count of the votes", as if the first two counts, which used the lawful and normal methods of tabulation, were not fair.)

Isn't it true that some counties didn't conduct the automatic recount as they should have?

I spoke with the Florida Department of Elections regarding this issue.  Their position is something like the following (not an exact quote), "As far as we know, all counties conducted the recounts as they were supposed to.  If any county did not conduct the recount, the elected officials would have broken the law.  All counties were instructed to conduct the recount.  In the end, we can only go by tabulation results that are turned in by the county supervisors."

Apparently the department did express some concern during a court hearing about counties not recounting as they were supposed to.  It was thought that some counties might have only checked the machines to make sure there were no problems with the first tabulation.  If this occurred, it was likely because of the phrasing of code 102.166 which says counties merely have to check their machines for errors (the law that Gore abused.)

I have heard Democrats claim, as many 18 counties did not conduct the automatic recount.  But this is impossible since there were only 12 counties that didn't show a change between the counts.  In other words, twelve counties turned in results that were exactly the same as their first tabulation.

If counties did not recount, that would have been improper.  But this had nothing to do with Gore's behavior in Florida.  He never sought any legal relief for this and it probably wouldn't have mattered if he did.  (Recounts almost always verify the original results.)  Gore was determined to implement manual recounts regardless of anything else that occurred in Florida (unless of course the first recount showed him to be the winner.)
 

Isn't it true that the ballots have been reviewed by independent sources and that Gore really did win Florida?

No.  The NORC study, funded by news organizations, reviewed the ballots that were disqualified in Florida (over 160,000) in order to categorize and analyze problems that exist with voting systems.  Democrats point to the study in an attempt to justify Gore's behavior.  They say that he would have won under a "variety of tabulation scenarios."  

This is a little like saying, "The St. Louis Rams would have won the Super Bowl under a variety of scoring scenarios."  That is, if we go back and change some of the rules, such as scoring field goals as five points each, they could pick up enough points to win.

The NORC study does not say who won Florida.  Rather, it categorized and tabulated the number of dimples, hanging chads, overvotes, undervotes, etc.  (Remember, these are the ambiguous ballots that Gore wanted to convert to votes.)  Democrats hoped the study would shed light on the fiasco and somehow prove that Gore was the "true choice of Floridians".  They insist that if Gore would have succeeded in his quest for manual recounts, he could have picked up enough dimples and hanging chads to win the election.

But, unfortunately for Gore, a dimple is not a vote.  It is merely a dimple.
 

Can you really blame Gore for all of this?

Yes.  Al Gore was Vice President of the United States when this occurred.  He made the decision to try to win Florida through litigation and recounts.  He had the power to put an end to the disruption.  Instead, he followed his power-hungry advisors and pretended as if he and his voters were victims.

CNN - Provides comprehensive documentation and archives of the election.  They also provide transcripts of interviews with key figures.

The Miami Herald - The Herald is perhaps the leader in election coverage.  They have stepped-up and have provided day-to-day coverage, even well after the disruption ended.  However, even though they have worked hard at remaining fair to both sides of the "disputes", I have found many instances of biased reporting and inaccurate conclusions.  On the whole, they have been sympathetic towards Gore and like most of the media have followed along with the Democrat's disruption.  Nonetheless, they are to be commended for their coverage and obvious attempts to be impartial.

State of Florida Board of Elections - Their web site provides complete election law and some statistical information.

"36 Days - The Complete Chronicle of the 2000 Presidential Election Crisis" - The New York Times - This is filled with articles written by the Time's and AP reporters.

"At Any Cost" - By Bill Sammon - This is a stunning book, a must read!  This book offers detailed information not reported in mainstream media.  It combines behind the scenes insight with real life testimonial from people directly affected by the election.

Palm Beach County Board of Elections - Although they have mysteriously deleted much of their election data, they have been helpful and provided some statistics.  I have requested an interview with Theresa LePore, designer of the butterfly ballot, but have not heard back yet.  Hopefully soon!

Telequest - The Texas-based telemarketing company who was hired by Democrats on Election Day.  I have attempted to contact them via email and phone and have not had any response what so ever.
 

Before Election Day
Democrats create a safety net in case the election is narrow in Florida.

• Democrats realize they must win Florida in order to win the national election.  Meanwhile, Republican polling data indicates George Bush will win Florida and thus they confidently spend the last days campaigning in "long-shot" states such as California.
   
• Democrats create a recounting plan in case of a close election in Florida (and possibly in other states as well).  Among other things, the plan calls for manual recounts in Democrat counties in order to convert ambiguous ballots into new votes.  The plan also calls for setup-activity, such as fostering hysteria, protests, etc.
   
• Palm Beach, Miami Dade, Broward are selected as the best recounting locations due to their large numbers of voters who overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
   
• Theresa LePore, Democrat Supervisor of Elections for Palm Beach County, creates the "Butterfly Ballot".
   
• Democrats infiltrate the Voter News Service in order to manipulate the network projections.  (VNS was the main company that fed exit poll data and projections to all major networks.)
   
• Democrats hire Telequest, a phone bank from Texas, to be used as a broadcaster of their messages on Election Day.
   
• Kathryn Harris alertly sends a letter to all networks reminding them not to "declare" a winner for Florida until the polls are closed, mindful that the western panhandle of the state falls in the Central Time Zone and that many military personnel vote on their way home from work.
   
• Al Gore spends the last several days campaigning around the clock in Florida.  He explains, "It's not coincidence I am here.  Florida may very well be the state that decides the election."

Election Day/Night
Democrats begin creating the impression that the election is flawed and that Gore is the winner.

• Early in the day Democrats (such as Congressman Robert Wexler) begin raising a stir in Palm Beach County over the butterfly ballot.  They pressure Teresa Lepore into taking some sort of action.  She responds by sending a notice to precincts instructing workers to assist citizens in voting properly.  Chatter begins to spread throughout the county about a "confusing" ballot.
   
• Telequest begins calling voters in Palm Beach and fostering hysteria, convincing voters they are victims of an election breakdown.  This was done before the polls were closed, before tallying, before any reviewing of any ballots.
   
• At 6:50 p.m. the VNS, and thus the networks, declare that Al Gore will win Florida.  They do so before polls are closed, while people were standing in line or on their way to vote in the "panhandle".  The panhandle has many military personnel and these counties strongly vote Republican.  The early call shaves votes from Bush and create the impression that Gore was the rightful winner of Florida.
   
• Despite the Democrat's efforts, George Bush wins Florida by less than 2000 votes.
   
• Gore concedes the election when he thinks he lost by over 100,000 votes.  He later then withdraws his concession.  Finally, he is prepared to concede yet again when William Daley stops him from doing so.
   
• The Gore-team hurriedly meets to discuss their next move.  They review Florida recounting laws and decide they can proceed with the recounting plan - to overturn the election through manual recounts in Democrat Counties.  They assemble a team to fly to Florida and "hit the ground".
   
• William Daley, Gore's Campaign Chairman, tells the crowd in Nashville the election is "too close to call" and the Gore "campaign continues".

Day After Election Day - Wednesday, November 8th, 2000

• After a night of confusion, Katie Couric, along with most other major networks, exclaim to America "We don't have a winner", thus fostering the notion that Bush was not the winner, despite having more votes.
   
• Robert Wexler appears on Larry King to convince America that the election was a "disaster" in Palm Beach County.  He says that 19,000 people had their votes "thrown out".  He later said that Pat Buchanan received over 3000 votes and "I know that that's incorrect".
   
• Florida counties begin a recount using their normal tabulation processes.  George Bush once again wins the State and thus the national election.
   

Quest for Manual Recounts

• Lawyers take over for Gore and begin the process of forcing manual recounting in Democrat counties (a 3rd count).
   
• Democrats launch a massive campaign to discredit the election and justify manual recounts in Democrat counties.  In doing so, they vary their messages between concern over "anomalies" and seeking a "fair count of the votes."  In other words, they claim that the only way to deal with so-called anomalies was to change tabulation methods.
   
• Democrats begin confusing citizens by dramatizing the phenomenon of undervotes and overvotes.  These are ballots upon which voters make mistakes and thus are disqualified.  Democrats come to believe that they can find many new votes in the undervotes category.  They are very excited about this.
   
• Democrats begin alternating the terms "ballots" and "votes" in order to make them appear to be the same.  For example, if a ballot is disqualified they would say, "a vote is disqualified".
   
• Democrat counties continue through a variety of manual recounts, some complete, some halted.  George Bush maintains his lead throughout.
   
• The VNS admits they completely destroyed the election, but say networks are also to blame.  They later go out of business unable to recover.
   
• After 35 days of legal wrangling, Gore runs out of time and is forced to end his disruption.  Seven U.S. Supreme Court Judges vacate a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court on the grounds it violated principles of Equal Protection.
   
• Democrats turn their efforts into discrediting the Bush Presidency by claiming he was "selected, not elected", even though he had more votes.

·         Bush received more votes than Al Gore in Florida and never trailed by a single vote, ever.

Florida had approximately 6 million voters in the 2000 election.
George Bush received around 50% of them - nearly 3 million votes.
Al Gore received around 50% of them - nearly 3 million votes - but fewer than Bush.

170,000 ballots throughout the entire state were disqualified as overvotes (voting for two Presidents) or undervotes (not clearly selecting even one candidate.)

Gore went after the ambiguous ballots in Democrat counties (Miami Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward).  He was hoping to convert enough of them into new votes and overcome Bush's victory.  This is known as "recount strategy", where one candidate changes tabulation methods (employing manual recounting) and recounts until he gets the desired outcome.

Gore thought he could find many new votes in the "undervotes" category within Democrat counties.

·         The networks declared that Al Gore would win Florida based upon insufficient exit-polls, not actual vote tabulations.  They did so before the polls were closed in Florida, despite the fact that the race was extremely close and George Bush never trailed by a single vote.

The early projection helped setup Gore's quest for manual recounts by leaving the impression he was the true winner and that exit polls are somehow more accurate than actual vote tabulations.  (I believe the early call was part of a larger conspiracy to take Florida.)


 

·         The early and false declaration for Al Gore cost George Bush thousands of votes.  Many people were standing in line or on their way to vote when Gore was projected to be the winner.  They didn't see the point in continuing since their votes apparently no longer mattered.

Even still, Bush received enough votes to win Florida and thus the national election.

 

·         Because the election was so close, Florida automatically conducted a statewide recount.  Once again, George W. Bush was verified as the winner.  Despite this, the Gore camp, as well as the media, continued to claim that the election was "too close to call".

 

·         Florida overwhelmingly uses machines to tabulate votes, which is a uniform, consistent, and unbiased method. 

Manual recounting is used only as on option under limited scenarios.  Candidates are not entitled to manual recounts.  Counties have the option to manually recount if they find an error in tabulation.  But counties were never concerned about "errors in tabulation".  Rather, they were helping Gore fix errors on ballots (undervotes and overvotes) that were created by voters, errors that are typically found in every precinct, in every city, in every election.  Further, even if an error in tabulation were to be found, counties could still use the machines to recount the votes.

 

·         Once the Democrat counties began to manually recount, they began applying subjective interpretation on the ambiguous ballots.  As a result, a discrepancy was automatically created between the newest tabulations and the original machine tallies, thus supplying the "error in tabulation" that Gore was looking for.  This was all part of Gore's plan to work around the meaning and intent of the law that was in place on election day.

 

·         Throughout the manual recounting in Democrat counties standards shifted a multitude of times, creating a reckless and inconsistent process.


 

·         While Democrats waged a campaign to destroy the character of Katherine Harris for upholding Florida election law, their own officials were strong-arming canvassing boards and county Judges.  They pressured county officials into manual recounting and making decisions that would be in favor of Gore.  One such operative was Florida's Attorney General, Bob Butterworth, who served as Al Gore's campaign Chairman for Florida.


 

·         Even though Palm Beach County (where the butterfly ballot was used) was the primary location of protest and chaos, there were sixteen other counties who had a higher percentage of disqualified ballots.  For example, Duval County had 26,000 disqualified ballots.  But Gore didn't seek recounts here because it may have led to more Bush votes.

 

·         The butterfly ballot used in Palm Beach County was a legal ballot that was created by a Democrat.  The ballot didn't impede voters from selecting any candidates and Democrats have exaggerated the case in order to justify Gore's quest for recounts.  Democrats also thought they could possibly invalidate the election in Palm Beach County and somehow save the Presidency for Gore.  Despite the so-called ballot problem, Gore won overwhelmingly in Palm Beach County, making it a prime county for his manual recounting plan.  (I believe the ballot fiasco in Palm Beach County was used to setup Gore's recounting plan.  Democrats intentionally created fear, confusion and chaos in order to mask Gore's quest for manual recounts.)

The case of the butterfly ballot never made it to court and Gore never sought direct relief on the issue, partly because it had no merit.  Over 460,000 people voted in Palm Beach County and Gore received over 268,000 votes.  10,000 ballots were undervotes, where no candidate was selected at all.  19,000 ballots were overvotes, where two candidates were selected for President.


 

·         Before Gore even knew he lost the election, the Democrats were mobilizing in Florida.  They hired a company to call citizens in Palm Beach County and convince them there was a problem in the election process.  People were told that something terrible had happened.  They were told that their votes were not going to be counted or that they selected the wrong person by accident.  The Democrats launched this campaign before the county even began to tabulate votes.  As a result, panic and confusion set in.

This was the beginning of Gore's quest to overthrow the election.  Just a few hours later, the networks would mysteriously declare him the winner of Florida, before the polls were closed, with George Bush never trailing by a single vote.

Deceptive Language

Democrats carefully crafted language designed to de-legitimize the election in Florida and deceive citizens.  Below are samples.

1. "The election in Florida was too close to call."
   
   Truth - George Bush received more votes than Al Gore and never trailed by a single vote, even after a variety of recounts.  Democrats want you to think that the outcome of the election was ambiguous - and it wasn't.  Florida counted the votes as it normally would and Bush won.  Counties then recounted the votes using their normal tabulation methods and Bush was verified as the winner.
   
   Gore wanted to change tabulation methods in Democrat counties and have yet another recount in order to find more votes and overcome George Bush's victory.
   
   
    
2. "Florida had discarded votes"
   Ballots vs. votes
   
   Truth - Democrats intentionally combined these terms in order to confuse you.  Discarded ballots occur in every election, in every city, in every state, due to voter error or confusion.  Democrats began calling them "discarded votes" in order to suggest that citizens had their votes thrown out.  Yet not only were votes counted twice in Florida, there were additional recounts in Democrat counties (all in an effort to find more votes for Gore.)
   
   
    
3. "George Bush was selected - not elected!"
   
   Truth - After Al Gore lost the election, he tried to manipulate the tabulation process in Democrat counties in order to find more votes.  His efforts lead to 35 days of legal wrangling that ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court of United States.  The court admonished and overturned the Florida Supreme Court for taking a managerial role in the election and altering Florida's election laws in order to find more votes for Gore.
   
   This phrase is designed to convince you that Bush's "buddies" saw to it that he was elected, even though Bush had more votes and it was Gore who was disrupting the election process.  It also implies that if Gore would have been able to take over the election as he wanted, he surely would have found enough new votes to win, something that is not certain by any means.

4. "Most investigations show Al Gore won Florida!"
   
   Truth - There is not a single investigation that concludes Al Gore received more votes than President Bush in Florida.  In fact, the ultimate investigation, that being the tabulations by Florida's counties, proved otherwise.  After counting the votes a variety of times using normal tabulation processes, George Bush had more. 
   
   Democrats anxiously awaited a study conducted by the University of Chicago that reviewed all ambiguous ballots in Florida, not just the one's in Democrat counties.  The study categorizes the number of dimples, hanging chads, types of voting machines, etc.  The study does not determine "winners" or "losers".  But Democrats want you to believe that all overvotes and undervotes were supposed to be Gore votes (dimples, hanging chads, pregnant chads).
   
   
    
5. "More people intended to vote for Gore than did for Bush!"
   
   Truth - Democrats began pounding this message as soon as they found out they lost, before ballots were even reviewed once by the human eye.  Democrats somehow know in their hearts that more people voted for Gore than for Bush, even though Bush received more votes.
   
   Oddly, they simultaneously claimed the election was "too close to call".  That is, on one moment they said the election was so close a winner has not yet been determined.  Yet in the next breath they claim they know more people intended to vote for Gore.
   
   Again, Democrats want you to believe that if the disqualified ballots were somehow counted it would reveal a Gore victory.  That is, all dimples, pregnant chads, etc., were supposed to be votes for Gore but it was just too difficult for voters to indicate so.
   
   
    
6. "All we seek is a fair count of the votes!"
   
   Truth - Al Gore wanted to find more votes.  As such, he selected the top Democrat counties to conduct manual recounts.  He ignored the rest of the state, which included many counties that had much higher percentage of disqualified ballots than any of the counties he selected. 
   
   (This brings up yet another point of confusion.  Gore wants you to think he requested a statewide recount, but he didn't.  If he really wanted a statewide recount he could have made requests to all counties, just has did for the Democrat counties.)
   
   Further, Democrats never proved there was anything wrong with the original tabulations other than that Gore lost.  They were never concerned about a "fair" count.  Rather, they wanted manual recounts in Democrat counties in order to employ subjective interpretation on ambiguous ballots.  Eventually, Gore and the liberal Florida Supreme Court focused only on undervotes, leaving overvotes out all together (100,000 ballots!)
   
   
    
7. "Florida voters were disenfranchised!"
   
   Truth - In order to convince you that voters were disenfranchised, Democrats began saying that they were concerned about election "anomalies".  Yet, not a single anomaly has risen from the chaos to disqualify the election.  Even more ridiculous, Gore suggested that he wanted to fix so called anomalies by having manual recounts in Democrat counties.  Democrats sent an army of lawyers and operatives who could exploit normal election happenstances through litigation and hysteria. 
   
   
    
8. "Some ballots were never counted in Florida, not even once!"
   
   Truth - This was said by famous liberal lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, just days after the election.  Dershowitz appeared on national television in order to begin priming America for manual recounts in Democrat counties.  He deceived citizens by saying some votes "haven't been counted even once".
   
   This is an example of Democrats deliberately combining the terms "ballots" and "votes".  Dershowitz wanted you to think they are same and that somehow citizens had their votes thrown out, a frightening scenario that suggested fraud.  But Dershowitz failed to mention that disqualified ballots do not properly indicate a choice for a candidate.  Likewise, they occurred in every county throughout Florida, not just the counties where Gore thought he could pickup additional votes.

9. "Bush refused a statewide recount"
   
   Truth - After losing the election, Gore appeared on national television and said that he would welcome a full statewide recount as long as "Bush would go along with it."  This disguised his quest for manual recounts in Democrat counties.  He also made it appear as if any candidate was entitled to a recount anywhere and anytime they wanted.  (This is also an example of how Gore barnstormed into Florida and took over the post-election, where locals were fully capable of managing on their own.)
   
   Further, given the chaos that Democrats had created in Florida, Gore's suggestion seemed to be "fair" and "logical" to many Americans at the time.  Meanwhile, he was positioning to overturn the election that George Bush had won.