If the first chapter of Greg Palast’s book, The Best Democracy Money
Can Buy, (see:      )  has any truth to it, why hasn’t there been some
kind – any kind -- of Congressional or legal investigation into the
fixing of the votes in Florida? It seems to me that the Blacks and
Hispanics and Democrats should be standing on their chairs and
screaming bloody murder, but they’re not.  Why?  Has Palast’s
information been legitimately discounted?

---

Clarification of Question by timespacette-ga on 16 Aug 2003 19:59 PDT

Sorry, I meant to include the link to Greg Palast's web page in which
he gives up the first part of Chapter One of his book 'The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy'.  Here it is: 
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=246&row=1

Dear timespacette, 

A question worded as "why hasn’t there been ..." calls upon us to
speculate why a certain event (in this case, Congressional
investigation into the Florida affair) did not occur.

First of all, we are presuming that these claims are accurate. Palast,
as well as Michael Moore and others, claim that there had been an
inclusion of non-felons in the list, preventing decent citizens from
voting. This claim echoes in other articles and academic working
papers:

Gelbart, Marcia. "Glitch Tells Hundreds in Florida They Are Felons Who
Can't Vote" Palm Beach Post 22 Jun. 2000.

King, Robert P. and Joel Engelhardt. "Credibility of Voter Purging
Questioned" Palm Beach Post 6 Dec. 2000.

Stuart, Guy  "Databases, Felons, and Voting: Errors and Bias in the
Florida Felons Exclusion List in the 2000 Presidential Elections"
Harvard University School of Government Faculty Working Paper Series,
Number:RWP02-041, 09/25/2002:
Abstract: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP02-041?OpenDocument
Full Paper in PDF format:
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP02-041/$File/rwp02_041_stuart.pdf

And in an official report: 
"Non-felons were removed from voter registration rolls based upon
unreliable information collected in connection with sweeping, state
sponsored felony purge policies;" (Source: U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL
RIGHTS, "STATUS REPORT ON PROBE OF ELECTION PRACTICES IN FLORIDA
DURING THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION"
<http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/florida.htm>).
 

So, why didn't they cry foul? 

First of all, as you could see from this investigation, they actually
did.

There are probably several reasons. The first has to do with the
composition of the Congress. The Congress might not want, in its
current and post-200 composition, initiate such an investigation.
Moreover, the Congress might also shy away of questions regarding
voting administration in states.

It seems that the Democratic Party, on its behalf, decided that most
potential voters "had enough" of the discussion of Florida's problems,
and wishes to leave this behind, in order to let the new
administration function. In this aspect, it might be beneficial to
mention, that the atmosphere regarding this whole question, and
regarding questioning the government, changed after 9/11.

Then, the potential voters who were denied this right might also form
a possible ground. They are mostly poor and belong to ethnic
minorities. They belong to the type of alienated, disprivileged strata
that is not likely to be politically active in the United States in
any case (and this had been the focus of much research). When faced
with these problems, they decide to retreat from the political field,
instead of demanding their rights.

There are, however, few who promote such enquiries, not all of them of
the "liberal" side:
Conservative Action <http://www.conservativeaction.org/resources.php3?nameid=stopfraud>
ACLU "ACLU of Florida Launches Equal Voting Rights Project to Address
Irregularities, Reform Election Practices in Florida"
<http://www.aclufl.org/vrp2-17-01.html>.

Saying that, it would not be accurate to claim that no legal or
political action was carried on, whatsoever:
"The Justice Department targets three counties for alleged voting
rights violations." (Voting rights violated: U.S. to sue over 2000
Florida election
Eric Lichtblau, Los Angeles Times (in The Smirking Chimp), 22 May
2002, <http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=6642&mode=&order=0>).

Justice Dept. Urged To Widen Fla. Probe Thomas B. Edsall, Washington
Post, 24 May 2002 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1529-2002May23&notFound=true

There had been also numerous law suits: 
http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/votehearings.htm#lawsuits

And requests for hearings: 
http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/votehearings.htm#congress


Read More
=========
Norris, Pippa. "The Accidental President: Fuzzy Math, Florida Lawsuits
and Campaign 2000." British Elections and Parties Review. Ed. Jonathan
Tonge, Lynn Bennie, David Denver, and Lisa Harrison. Frank Cass
Publishers, 2001, 174-191.
 
I hope this answered your question, given the fact that it asked for
assumptions. In order to find the answer, I used mainly these search
terms:
florida elections 2000 felons congressional investigation
florida elections 2000 felons congressional
florida elections 2000 felons congress
florida elections 2000 felons 

If you need any further clarification, please ask before you rank/tip
the answer.

If you are interested in this subject, (and it seems you are) Michael
Moore discusses it in detail in his book "Stupid White Men". Michael
is not a huge fan of President Bush. Have you looked at his web site:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Investigation?  There were four recounts.  Even the liberal media did
a recount.  All of them had Bush winning.  Screaming bloody murder? 
Gore took it to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Other lawsuits were filed. 
All were shown to be without merit.  It's kind of like Davis in
California suing to have the recall stopped because the voting method
(chads) are a problem.  Gee, they weren't a problem when he was
elected by them, twice. By the way, the democrats designed the ballots
in Florida.  They were modeled after the democrat ballots in Chicago. 
Even when they had the deck stacked in their favor they lost.  That is
what upset them the most.  They had fixed the election, but not
enough.  They couldn't believe that they had lost.

What actually stopped Gore was Ralph Nader, not some chads in Florida.
 Just like Perot cost Bush Sr. and Dole their elections.  Remember,
Clinton won the presidency with only 43% of the vote.  I didn't hear
the republicans crying foul.

Doesn't  sound like you read the above referenced article.  This
wasn't about the number of votes that were counted; I agree, they
thoroughly reviewed all of that.  This was about the 57,000 so-called
felons (mostly Blacks, mostly Democrats) who, five months prior to the
election, were listed as ineligible to vote, even though it was found
that roughly half of them had committed crimes IN THE FUTURE. The data
was made up and then obliterated.  Bush only won by 500+ votes.  We're
talking in excess of 25,000 people here. See the latest version of
Palast's book for the further shenanigans of Ms. Katherine Harris.