Reflection on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11

Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 , makes the allegation that the republicans 'stole' the election in Florida. This charge is not uncommon among democrats. Michael Moore has been heralded by many liberals as a respected 'journalist'. He uses video layering and out-of-context interviews to make political statements in a humorous fashion (at least to those who would agree with him). I recently read an article by Ellen Goodman, a liberal, who writes for the Boston Globe. She agreed to only 3 points that Moore made in his movie. Otherwise, she thought the movie was over-the-edge. I decided I would investigate the Florida election allegation to which she agreed. Here is what I found:

The national presidential election was a very close both in the popular vote and the Electoral College. Gore won (as did Nixon in 1960 running against JFK) the national popular vote by approximately 500,000 votes but lost in the Electoral College. In my research, I discovered several million absentee votes were not counted in several states where counting them would not change the outcome of who won the presidential election. For example, in California (where Gore won by a significant margin), absentee votes were not counted because they would have not affected the final results, even if all the votes went to the other candidate, Bush. This practice is done by the states to save money. However, most absentee votes have been historically conservative. Counting all absentee votes would have reduced the Gore's 500,000 vote margin, not that it matters in the outcome.

Another point to be made prior to discussing Florida specifically is concerning the purpose of the Electoral College. The way the presidential election works is that each state has a certain number of delegates based on the number of representatives they have in the US House. In almost all states, if the popular vote goes to a particular candidate, that candidate receives all electoral votes. The purpose of the Electoral College is to balance any regional influence on the national election.

As to the Florida election, after Bush won the popular vote in Florida (by 537 votes), democrats complained that the voting punch cards (butterfly ballots) were difficult to read such that many voters mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan rather than Al Gore (after examining the cards one could make the same claim for George Bush too). These ballots were designed, developed, and approved by local district state caucuses. In the four counties in question, these caucuses were chaired by democrat party representatives. Voting procedures are typically posted in the newspaper the week of the election and instructions are posted in the voting booth. Voting polls are manned by election volunteers to answer any questions if there is a problem with the ballot card. Since there was such an issue with the ballots, democrat party officials requested recounts of the ballots. For any ballots where more than one chad for a particular race was altered, they wanted them individually examined by a group of election officials to decide which chad the voter really wanted removed (voters were warned in voting instructions that any race where two chads were punched, that vote would be discarded, also known as an 'undervote'). The State of Florida has voting laws that require voting districts to report official results within 7 days in order to meet state and national voting deadlines. Gore requested that four Florida counties get an extension to have ballots in question examined individually by committee. The Secretary of State in charge of elections, abiding by state law, requested districts provide results by the deadline. The Florida Supreme Court (all democrats) made a ruling that undervote ballots in those counties challenged by Gore be hand counted. George W. Bush requested that the US Supreme Court examine the Florida findings and make a ruling. The US Supreme Court ruled if an undervote hand count was to be made, that it must be done statewide (equal treatment of all undervotes). Since the State of Florida could not accomplish this in a timely fashion, the original vote tally was upheld.

After the election, many people wanted to know the 'true' outcome of the election. In a separate independent study, findings showed that if the US Supreme Court did not intervene, Bush would have still won the election by 493 votes. If Gore got what he wanted, a hand count of votes of heavily democrat counties, Gore would have still lost by 225 votes. If Florida used the most liberal ballot counting standard, Gore could have won by a 42 vote margin.

All this voting ballot data is interesting but really pales in comparison on the Florida election results when compared to the effect the media had on the Florida election (as well as the national election). The media has a big influence on the voting public. Informed voters get their information from the media, especially television. There is a public trust that exists; the networks report truth, balanced and fair. For example, using the 2000 presidential election this is how CNN 'fairly' reported the 2000 presidential election results:

State...........Winner......Margin (%).....Time (after polls closed)
Maine...........Gore........5..............10 minutes
Colorado........Bush........9..............2 hrs, 41 minutes
Alabama.........Bush........15.............25 minutes
NC..............Bush........13.............39 minutes
Georgia.........Bush........12.............59 minutes
Arizona.........Bush........7..............2 hrs, 51 minutes
Michigan........Gore........4..............1 hr 24 minutes
Arkansas........Bush........6..............3 hrs, 42 minutes
Pennsylvania....Gore........4..............1 hr, 24 minutes
Tennessee.......Bush........3..............3 hrs, 3 minutes
Minnesota.......Gore........2..............1 hr, 25 minutes
West Virginia...Bush........6..............3 hrs, 16 minutes
Washington......Gore........5..............1 hr, 8 minutes

As anyone can see, there was an obvious CNN bias in favor of Gore to report results sooner even with less a margin of victory. If that is not enough to convince one, perhaps (and this is the real kicker) that calling Florida for Gore PRIOR to the polls closing would convince anyone of network media meddling into the election process (a violation of a 1985 US law). Three separate post-election studies conducted on the 10 western Florida panhandle counties affected (those in the central time zone) showed a dramatic voter drop-off (in ALL races). Evidently voters thought they could not change the outcome once the state had been called for Gore. Estimates of lost republican votes by the 3 separate studies (one sponsored by democrats) ranged from 8,000 - 37,000 votes.

In summary, I ask any sane person; who tried to steal the Florida election? Michael Moore's movie claims that Bush stole the election, but the facts support just the opposite. Democrats were not satisfied with the outcome. After the media dramatically affected the Florida results in favor of Gore, Gore asked the Florida Supreme Court to grant 'special privilege' with respect to four counties.

What really troubles me in my research is the unabashed attacks on our voting process and the media support for lies and disinformation. How can we have a good working democracy when those that vote base their vote on lies. Moore lies in his film and Ms.Goodman of the Boston Globe agrees, yet their conclusions are based on misperceptions and disinformation, not the facts. Perhaps that is the real comedy (albeit tragic) in Michael Moore's movie.