Gore or Bush?

[Jedieb]

No, this is not the title of a Wes Craven porn film. It's the inevitable presidential thread! Since the powers that be have decided that John MaCain won't be running for president I'm voting for Mr. Internet himself, Al Bore. I'm also of the belief that whoever wins this election will be a one term president that's going to get stuck with a recession. This is the closest election we've had since 1960 and I for one welcome a tight race. I think there's even a legitimate chance we may see Bush win the popular vote but win the election in the Electoral College. Ooooh the excitement!

[Jedieb]

I meant Bush wins the popular vote but Gore wins the 270 votes in the Electoral College. Sorry.

[Darth Turbogeek]

Nader is scum. Someone shoot him.

Personally, as an Aussie I look at all the canditates and I get scared. Your best choice is to allow Clinton another term. Whatever the scandals he's been in, he HAS done a good job from what I can tell.

[ReaperFett]

I like Clinton a lot. He has personality, and makes me laugh


I really to hope and pray that Gore wins. I dont want a man who spends 15 minutes decided whether to kill people and regularly leaves early, who wont let interviewers ask questions, so they cannot see how scripted he is with spin doctors, to be controlling nukes and such

[Jedieb]

No can do on a Clinton 3rd term my Aussie friend. The Republicans got tired of FDR and Truman keeping them out of the White House and tacked on an amendment to our Constitution limiting an American President to 10 years in office. The irony is that soon after the amendment was passed the Republicans had a President (Ike) who was so popular that he could have easily won a 3rd or possibly 4th term. It's a safe bet that Reagan may have been able to win a 3rd term as well.

[DaBoSsNaStY]

I would kill myself if Clinton would hold office for another 4 years ... what he has done is purely lip services ... and did not do hardly anything that he went into office for .. and the only people he help are the rich ... he talks about all these jobs that were created under his administration ... they were mostly single mothers that are forced to work jobs that barely pays the minimum wage ... it's purely symbolic about unemployment in the USA ... Clinton climed on the backs of single mothers(mostly) to lower the unemployment rate here in the states ... Gore .. give me a break ... he is part of the big money party just like Bush ... Nader I do somewhat like .. and Buchanan can burn in hell for all I care ... but the man I really like it Harry Browne of the libertarian party .....
http:// http://www.lp.org/images/camp2000_box.gif

[DvdJervs]

... tacked on an amendment to our Constitution limiting an American President to 10 years in office.
I thought it was 2 terms (8 years), or does the 10 year thing take into account the possibility of a Vice President becoming President when the President bows out (like Truman did with Roosevelt, Johnston with Kennedy, and Ford with Tricky Dicky :) )?

I agree it was a silly thing to do - if a person gets voted in over and over again they must be doing something right.

I say Gore - Bush looks too much like a Daddy's boy. :)

[Jedieb]

Yes Jervs, the 10 years takes into account the possibility that a Vice President could come into office in the middle of a President's term. LBJ could have run for a second term and he would have been just under the 10 year limit, but he chose not to run. And there was Democratic support for the amendment as well. (I'm pretty sure we're talking about the 26th Amendment, a quick reference check or a word from Doc could set us straight.) Until FDR there was a sort of unwritten rule that Presidents would limit themselves to 2 terms in the tradition of Washington. Although there were a few Presidents who tried unsuccessfully to run for 3 terms. Teddy Rosevelt is one I can think off the top of my head, I believe there were at least 2 others.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I picked Gore myself, I don't like Bush, he scares me mostly because I think he doesn't know anything about foriegn affairs, I am afraid he will screw something situation up by his incompentience. I also picked Gore because of his environmental record, I know Nader is the bigger environmentalist but he has no chance in hell of winning, and a vote for him would be a vote for Bush. SO I would have to take Gore.

[Jedieb]

The sad thing is that there are a couple of issues on which BOTH Gore and Bush are full of crap on.
Social Security
Education

Social Security
Both their Social Security plans are unfeasible and neither one of them can save the system. There are only 3 things that can save the system; 1) a huge tax increase or 2) reduced benefits, or 3) a combination of both. What most people don't understand is that you don't pay into the social security system. The social security taxes you pay today get spent TODAY! That's why the system is going to crash when the Baby Boomers start retiring. There won't be enough workers to pay for their benefits. Many people think that their SS taxes get stashed away in some account they'll get to draw on when they retire and that's simply not the case.
Education
Again, both candidates need to shut up on this issue. Educaiton policy and finance take place at the LOCAL level in the U.S. The Federal government provides less than 7% of funding for public education. The impact the Federal government can have is minimal at best. Even if Federal funding is withheld from certain schools they'll survive. On the other end of the scale, Federal funding can't save your school either. It's really just a drop in the bucket.

Just some food for thought.

[DaBoSsNaStY]

well both Bush and Gore would not be were they are today ... with out help of their fathers ...

[Doc Milo]

(I'm pretty sure we're talking about the 26th Amendment, a quick reference check or a word from Doc could set us straight.)



I'm staying out of this debate (although I did vote in the poll) except to "set you straight."

It's the 22 amendment:



ARTICLE XXII
[PROPOSED 21 MARCH 1947; DECLARED RATIFIED 3 MARCH 1951]

Section 1.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

[jjwr]

I'm going for Gore, McCain I would have voted for in a second, he seems like he would make a great president. Bush....I really don't like the thought of him as president.

[Darth23]

duh..... Nader!

(oh, my special Green party Sig isn't set up on ezboard. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/embarassed.gif ALT=":o"> )


Remember: A vote for Al Gore is a Vote for Geroge W Bush.

;)

[Itala Marzullo]

Bush, I could use that tax money...

[Hart Kenobi]

I'd be very afraid if Gore doesn't win. Very afraid. I'd probably cry.

[Jedi Master Carr]

You will never get that tax money probably only those who make more than 100,000 will ever see any of it. IMO if Bush becomes president the nation will go into the crapper.

[Jedieb]

Thanks Doc, I was just too lazy to look it up myself. I knew I could count on my fellow constitution lover. :)

[DvdJervs]

Teddy Rosevelt is one I can think off the top of my head, I believe there were at least 2 others.
I believe Woodrow Wilson (President during WWI) was one - his first term he kept the US out of the war, the 2nd term he went to war and then helped setup the League of Nations. He then ran for a 3rd with US involvement in the League of Naations as a major policy but he was suffering health problems (even collapsed while on campaign) and ended up losing.

Testing my knowledge of US history. :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Wilson didn't run he was going too but his health was so bad he just didn't do it. I know Grover Cleveland ran three times first time he was elected the second time he lost to Benjamin Harrison the third time he beat Harrison. That is the only other time that I know of that it happened.

[DvdJervs]

I knew of Cleveland, but he didn't run for a 3rd term - he only ran 3 times as Carr pointed out (the 2nd and 3rd times he ran were for a 2nd term).

[Hart Kenobi]

I thought Wilson didn't run for a third term. He might've considered running, but didn't go thhrough with it when he became paralyzed. He hated being president.

[Darth23]

Bush, I could use that tax money...


Just how much tax money does a 17 year old (18?) Sith Lord have to pay anyway?

;)

[DvdJervs]

I thought Wilson didn't run for a third term.
Sorry - you and Carr are right. I confused Wilson's 1919 nationwide campaign to get acceptance of US involvement in the Legue of Nations as a presidential campaign for a 3rd term (that didn't occue until a year later). He suffered a stroke(?) whilst touring and was an invalid for the rest of his life. He didn't run for a 3rd term.

[ReaperFett]

THe US once had a paralysed President? How long was in power for after the stroke?

[DvdJervs]

Only a year or so. Apparently (if my knowledge of history is correct) the government was in a dilemma after it happened because there was (maybe still is?) no law stating who took charge if the President was ill and incapable of leading government.

[Jedieb]

If I remember right, I think Wilson's wife took a prominent role in his care and in many White House duties. I believe the government was basically being run by a select few members of Wilson's cabinet with the Secretary of State playing a major role.

[Jedi Master Carr]

There are some historians that believe that Wilson's wife did more than just take care of him. I have read in a few books that she signed presidential documents and did a few other presidential duties, nothing really major but still she played a major role while he was paralized. Realize it was a huge secert there was no CNN to uncover the truth, almost no one knew except for a few key people in the white house like the Sec of State and members of cabinet, the rest of the country was basically in the dark.

[Jedieb]

That's an interesting theory and one I've heard before. I wouldn't be surprised if she did take an active roll. But I wouldn't go out on a limb and say it's true especially since I can't even remember her name off the top of my head. But I can see a wife working behind the scenes and making those kinds of decisions. Especially back in 1918, a time when secrets like that could be kept. That would never be possible today. Unless your watching an Ivan Reitman (sp?) film; Dave.

[DvdJervs]

Especially back in 1918, a time when secrets like that could be kept.
I've heard that President Harding had an even busier private life than Bill Clinton. :)

[Doc Milo]

the government was in a dilemma after it happened because there was (maybe still is?) no law stating who took charge if the President was ill and incapable of leading government.

There currently is a law governing such an occurance. Amendment 25 of the Constitution:



ARTICLE XXV

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office; the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.


Makes one wonder. Wouldn't the Vice President taking charge make the most sense, even without the amendment outling such an occurance?

I mean, it does say this in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution itself:



In Case of Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation, or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

[ReaperFett]

If the Redskins win today, Gore will win


GO REDSKINS!

[CMJ]

...myself. Going back to the whole who ran 3 times thing U.S. Grant ran for a 3rd time as well. Not in a row though....he took like a 4 year hiatus after his second term. Teddy Rosevelt didn't run for a 3rd term in a sense...he finished up McKinley's term(McKinley dies within his first year in office) so in a sense he just had one term of his own.

[RHJediKnight]

Hey, I just found this quiz on the web. It's called the World's Smallest Political Quiz, and it shows you where on the political diamond (the new figure they're using--determines whether you're a libertarian, authoritarian, liberal, conservative, or centrist). It also eliminates that stupid left/right-only spectrum, thank goodness. Anyway it's pretty interesting, thought you guys would like to check it out.

www.self-gov.org/wspq.html (http://www.self-gov.org/wspq.html)

[Jedi Master Carr]

On the point about Harding, He easily was the greatest womanizer of all our presidents the man had his mistress come into his white house all the time and they had sex in the oval office he constantly was trying to keep his wife from finding out. The mistress even fathered a child by him. There are rumors, not sure if they are true, that he died in the arms of his mistress. They might be lies but still it shows how much of a sexually driven man he was. On a side note the Harding administration was the most corruption presidential administration in our history. There were at least 10 scandles including the huge Tea Pot Dome scandal in which the Sec. of Interior stole millions from the government. No one knows how much Harding knew, but still all the scandals were commited by people he had hand picked so it was his fault in the end.

[JonathanLB]

...but you have to be a total idiot to vote for Nader. That guy is a retard, he is a communist piece of trash. Are you really that liberal that you would vote for RALPH NADER?!?! THE GREEN PARTY?!

You have got to be kidding me. Damn. This forum is extremely liberal if Nader is tied with Bush.

Clinton was a horrible president, he didn't do much of anything right, the only reason it seems as though things are going well for our country is because the Republicans control both houses. THAT is the key, the president is merely symbolic when he has no power.

If Bush is elected, or more like when he is elected, finally this country can begin a turn around and start becoming more like AMERICA, less like the socialist piece of crap that Clinton and the liberal democrats would love.

I cannot stand liberal views, they make me want to puke.

Bush will win.

[DvdJervs]

Interestingly the Melbourne Cup (Australia's richest horse race) will be on the same day as the election.

You Yanks can do whatever the hell you want - I know what I'll be watching. :)

[Jedieb]

I wouldn't say voting for Nader would make you a complete idiot, just one who's allowed to vote. The sad thing is Nader will more than likely end up tipping the balance in favor of Bush in some key states. Much the same way Perot did in 92. How exactly is Nader a communist? I don't recall him calling for the state to take control of production, religion, and speech. I must have missed something. The guy opposed NAFTA for goodness sakes; something George W. didn't do.

As for Clinton not doing anything I can think of something concrete that my family has benefited from while he's been in office; The Family Medical Leave Act. Can you think of a specific way he's screwed you or are you just spouting Republican rhetoric? And saying the executive branch is irrelevant is just plain silly. When your veto can force the opposing party to go BEYOND their simple majority you still have the upper hand in writing and passing legislation. Since the Republican Revolution of 94 and the Clinton Health Care debacle the Republican congress hasn't had much to cheer about. They took the heat for the government shutdown, the Impeachment scandal cost them 2 Speakers, and in the Congressional elections of 98 they lost seats. The party controlling the Oval Office hasn't gained seats during a mid term election in almost 40 years.

Liberalism is no more a dirty word than conservatism. Give me a moderate Repubican like John McCain or Colin Powel and I'll vote for him. You know what makes me sick? People at EITHER ends of the politcal spectrum. Ultra conservative Christian Coalition nimrods who think Pat Buchanan's hate filled diatribe at the 92 Republican convention was a political revelation on par with the Gettysburg Address make sick to my stomach. Show me a ultra active environmentalist PETA freak and I'll shove a burger right down his throat.

As for this board, 13 votes for Nader and Bush show liberal sentiment is alive and well on this board. Thank goodness, the last thing the world needs is more tight ass conservatives. ;P

[ReaperFett]

I personnally think Clinton has done a good job for you. While Bush was never respected too much over here, Clinton has, despite the Monica Fatchicksky situation. He has helped other countries out well, and has never done anything too stupid. He has also come across as having a good personality, unlike Mr Cue cards Bush. In a way, I wish he could stay on.

[Hart Kenobi]

Is anyone gonna watch the SNL Campaign special tonight?

[Jedieb]

I was going to mention that SNL special. I doubt many will see it because of the X-Files premiere. It's definitely worth taping though. I'll have my VCR ready to go. They also had an online vote for your favorite SNL presidential impersonation. I'd have to go with Carvey's George Bush. I even played Carvey/Bush in a college fraternity talent show. I was basically doing an impersonation of Carvey's impersonation. 3 of us were up there having a mock debate between Bush, Perot, and Clinton. We were hilarious. At least people told us we were. I was so nervous I had to down a few shots before I could get on stage. Much of the night is hazy...

[Jedi Master Carr]

Way to go Jedieb I am glad you told him off. He knows nothing about politics. If Bush gets elected he will be a one term president, I guarentee it just like his father. He knows nothing about anything he is a puppet for his handlers, what wories me is he will go to another country and say or do something really stupid and then we will be the laughing stock of the western worl or worse he could pull us in to a situation that is terrible. I don't like the man more because he is incompenitent than anything else. Sure I consider myself semi-liberal at least that is what that survey that I took on this same thread. I just believe certain things mostly about the environment/ free speech and free choice/ and for us to have some kind of decent health care system like they do in Europe and Canada well that is the end of my rant lets see if Jonathan bombs me back

[flagg]

C'mon, his name ryhmes with Vader. He's gotta be better than Bushy-Gore. :)

[Hart Kenobi]

WHOA Jedieb! John McCain is an EXTREMELY conservative Republican, moreso than GW.. It's a huge misconception that many people fell into that he wasn't because of his "rogue" status. The Bush Camp also tried to give him a "centrist" title so that the core Republicans would be tricked into supporting W instead.

[wookie boy 2000]

There's an election this year??????I think ill get my nails done that day.




buffjedi/wookieboy

[Jedieb]

Thanks JMC, but I have a feeling that Gore will be a 1-term president if he wins as well. Both of these guys will probably have to deal with an economic downturn or a recession and they'll take the blame for it.

I really don't think McCain is as conservative as you point him out to be Hart. He's cosponsered several bills with Democrats and just this weekend he was on Meet the Press with the Democratic senator (Kerry?) who he had recently sponsored a bill with. They were each representing their party and stumping for their guy but you could see the willingness to work across party lines there. And one of the things that the Republican primary showed was that McCain did a better job of reaching independent voters than Bush did. He also appealed to many of the "Reagan Democrats" who voted for the Old Gipper in 80 and 84. If Gore were running against McCain today he'd be a lot further behind in the polls.

[jjwr]

Election day....gotta get out there and vote for Gore....doesn't Bush have something in the works to give the rich a tax break(like they need it)..no wonder he likes him so much.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Who Jonathan?

[jjwr]

What was that? I wasn't mentioning names :)

[DvdJervs]

I've changed my mind. Vote Bush - he'll probably slacken off the US trade restrictions giving us Aussies a bit of a break. :)

[jjwr]

My only real beef with Bush is I think he'll majorly screw up our international stuff, I can see him screwing up Nato now :)

[Jedieb]

It's about 11:30 PM EST and the election is still too close to call! I'll probably be up until the wee hours of the morning following this. This is THE most exciting Presidential race we've had since Kennedy V. Nixon. Florida has been pulled back into the undecided column by all the Networks and the AP.
The Florida Debacle will be talked about for years to come. I've never seen such irresponsible reporting in my life. Whoever is responsible for calling Florida that early should be held accountable. It's obvious that whoever wins the state will do it by the narrowest of margins. I can't even begin to imagine how the state could have been called so early. The damn state was called BEFORE the polls even closed in the panhandle! I lived in Dade County for years (my parents still live there) and it seems like that could be the last county reporting in the state. That one county could very well decide the presidency. BTW, both my parents voted for Bush.

Back to MSNBC and the pretty blue and red maps!

[Jedieb]

Well, it's finally over. Bush has finally won Florida and thus the Presidency. Some may be expecting Gore to challenge the results but I don't see that happening. At one point Gore had narrowed the margin in Florida to 20,000 votes out of over 5 million cast, but Bush pulled ahead with the help of thousands of absentee ballots. In fact, the Republican party and Jeb Bush helped generate close to 1 million absentee ballots and that was the key to the state.

The way I see it, there were 3 main factors that swung this incredibly close election to Bush:
1) Jeb Bush and the Republican party delivered Florida.
2) Ralph Nader! In virtually every state in which the election was decided by 1 to 2 points you can see that Nader drew anywhere from 3 to 4 points, thus costing Gore the state. This was especially true in states in which Bush won by 1 point.
3) Debate #1
GORE SIGHED AND POUTED HIS WAY OUT OF THE PRESIDENCY!

For me, that last one was the key. Many, including Bush's advisers, thought Gore would dominate the debates. Instead, Bush held his own. Some would say that Gore may have won 2 out of 3 of them, but NO ONE would say that he dominated them. And his behavior during the first debate turned many independents off and gave Bush momentum.

We have a new President and I congratulate him. Let's rally around the flag and see what we can get done. The Republicans will have a majority on both sides for the first time since Ike. It'll will probably only last for 2 years, but they'll have it nevertheless. Let's see what happens.

All Hail The Chief.
:(

[Darth Turbogeek]

It NOT over yet. Florida is in recount.

Damn, this is sooooooooo exciting

[Dutchy]

Amazing... Florida in recount and Gore could still win!

What's also amazing is that nationally Gore LEADS by 250,000 votes right now. So the guy with the most votes will not become the president. Funny country :)

All though it's not yet been decided of course...

[jjwr]

Can't believe its tied..wow! I was up till about 2 watching when it was tied at 242 but I didn't figure Florida would get figured out so I just went to bed.

If Bush wins looks like the Electoral Vote and Popular Vote won't be for the same. Though it seems everyone was predicting Bush would win the Popular vote easily and Gore would get the Electoral but now its the other way around.

I voted for Gore but I don't think Bush would be a bad President if he had more experience. He's only been in office for like 6yrs and has no foreign affairs experience, which could lead him to make some big goof ups.

Guess we just gotta wait and see.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I do not think Bush will be a good president, I think the country will go into a recession and Bush will get blamed for it and be out in four years like his father. If Bush does win we need to seriously think about scrapping the Electoral college. When a candiadate gets more votes but still loses there is just something wrong with that. this would be only the third time this has happened. The other two took place in the 1876 I think Hayes beat Greenly(sp) in the Electoral college, though it was only because the Republicans bribed the south to give Hayes his electoral votes and they would be let back in the Union. And way back in the 1824 when Andrew Jackson got the most votes but not a clear majority of the Electoral college and the race was thrown in the House where by one vote John Quincy Adams became president. But that one vote was cast by Speaker of the House Henry Clay, who had worked out a deal with Adams where he would cast his vote for him and he would be named Secretary of the State Jackson's people called it the corrupt deal and in the next election Jackson easily beat Adams to become president.

[Doc Milo]

I'd just like to know, if it went the other way, if Al Gore won electorally and Bush won popularly, would you be singing the same tune about scrapping the electoral college?

I think we all have to remember, America is not a Democracy. The people do not directly choose the President. America is a Republic. The states choose the President. This is how it was set up in the Constitution. America chooses its representatives. The States choose the President. (In fact, originally, the people didn't choose their Senators; originally, the State legislators choose the Senators. But that has changed with an amendment to the Constitution.)

The reason for the electoral college is to give each State a more fair voice in the chosing of the President. With the electoral college system, it gurantees that a city doesn't have more say in who is President than an entire state. For example, NYC has more people in it that the entire state of Rhode Island. But with the electoral college system, the state of Rhode Island's voice is not drowned out by a large metropolitan city.

This was the intent of the Founding Fathers. We should not be tempted to screw around with that system that has worked for over 200 years just because we don't like the outcome of one election.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think I would. I would not have wanted Gore to have won without winning the popular vote because I would have felt he did truly deserve to be president. I do not like the Electoral College I never have I never will. And I am not the first person to say this. I was watching C-Span and John Zogby was on there he said this might be the end of the Electoral College. I know we are not really a democracy but we should be I don't like this elitist crap and that is what the electoral college was set up as a way for the elites to keep in check democracy.

[Doc Milo]

Actually, as I understand it, the "checks" of the electoral college is very important.

The electoral college could, in fact, be what separates our country, theoretically, from electing a Hitler-type dictator. Because the electors don't meet until six weeks after the general election; if something happens in that time that convinces an elector for a certain candidate that the candidate they represent is a danger to the Republic, that elector could, conceivably, vote against that candidate. It's goes with the system of Checks and Balances that the Founders set up with the Senate, House, Judiciary, and Executive. This check is a check on the population.

[Jedi Master Carr]

But that could happen anyway, if charasmatic figure rose like that no one would suspect what his true intentions was until the very end, and plus those electors would never go against their party, they are party people and would back their party's candidate probably regardless if they suspected anything. I really do not see them as checks because they way I see it now my vote did not count, being from SC, which went to Bush easily, it makes me feel meaningless in the whole process. I am not saying we go to a completely popular election but we could up with something new that would help to end this confusion.

[Doc Milo]

Being from NY, my vote ends up not counting either.

If we do do something about the electoral college, it would have to be some kind of compromise between popular and electoral.

Perhaps changing it to where a half of electoral college votes go to the winner of the state, and the other half are elected based on the popular vote of each district -- sort of the way Maine does it.

This way the population as well as the States have a voice in the process -- where a small state's voice will not be drowned out by a large city.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That I think would work, it would be an interesting compromise and would be better than the way it is now. The only problem is how long would it take for it to get constution get ammended to get in place. My understand is that 2/3 of states have to agree on it. I guess a lot of it would depend on how big of issue it becomes and if a lot of the population is dissatisfied with it enough to make this change.

[DvdJervs]

Australia suffers from a similar dilemma. For instance in the last election in 1998 Kim Beazley (leader of Labor) won more votes but John Howard (leader of the Liberal-National Coalition) won the seats in the House of Reps and therefore became Prime Minister, despite not getting as many votes.

Not only that, but One Nation (another party) won almost 10% of the national vote but didn't even get a single seat in the House of Reps and only 1 or 2 in the Senate. Democracy in action eh. :)

Unlike the US though this occurence is fairly common in Australia. The thing I really hate about the Australian system is the preferential voting system. It's this system that enables Labor and the Coalition to maintain power all the time whilst smaller parties and independants miss out.

[buff jedi 2]

who won ?





buffjedi/wookieboy

[Jedieb]

I mentioned this possibility early on in the thread. I for one, was hoping that this would come to pass. (Yes Doc, I really was.) I was just surprised it was Gore that won the popular vote. The Electoral College is an antiquated system and ill-suited for today's society. You're talking about a system that was put in place when only a small minority of primarily white male property owners were allowed to vote in the first place. And don't forget about the slavery issue. The Electoral College allowed large slave holdoing states like Virginia to receive electoral votes for the slaves without having the slaves actually vote.

And for the most part, we do live in a democracy. At the local level we elect our politicians directly. We even vote on everything from referendums to bonds. As Doc mentioned, we've already amended the constitution to directly elect our Senators. The Presidency should be no different. Our founding fathers did not envision an inclusive society in which women, minorities, and the poor would be allowed to vote. The Constitution should be amended and I for one welcome the change. It's about time. I believe that the PEOPLE should have the final say in who occupies the White House, not a system that tries to give an edge to states and rural areas.

I would also disagree that this system has worked that well for 200 years. The other 3 times this has come to pass there were outcires and movements to amend the constitution but the country wasn't ready for it. Again the slavery issue played a role in this. It wasn't the only issue, but it was a factor. Over the last 200 years we have steadily moved toward a more representative Democracy and many of our Constitution's amendments have reflected this. It's time to scrap the Electoral College and bring the election of the President directly to the American people. I could give a rat's butt what our founding father's had in mind in this regard because they lived in a time when less than 30% of the population could even vote. I've always believed their greatest achievement was crafting a document that could be amended to adapt to a changing world. The world has changed. It's time to put the Electoral College to bed.

On another note, a legal challenge has just been issued over the Palm Beach fiasco. I was hoping that this WOULDN'T HAPPEN. We've never had a Presidential Election legally challenged in modern times and I'm not too crazy about how this will play out. I feel for those seniors who couldn't read their ballots correctly. But I honestly can't figure out a solution to their to their plight. The jagoff who designed that voting card needs to barred from the election process for the rest of his/her life! Putz!

[Doc Milo]

I understand what you're saying, Jedieb, but the simple truth is, without the electoral college system -- if the popular vote were to determine who is the president -- most of the states of the Union would be totally ignored by candidates for President -- they would concentrate on trying to woo the voters in big cities. Those rural states would have their voices drowned out by the concerns of a few large metropolitan areas.

This already happens in states such as NY where most of Upstate, and most of LI did not want Her Royal Highness elected as their Senator, but their (our) voices were drowned out by the concerns of the smallest portion of our state which just so happens to be the most populous.

So, that means that a President doesn't have to represent anything but the most populous areas of the Union to get re-elected, and candidates can just ignore the concerns of the more rural areas and concentrate on the big cities to win elections, which would only serve to further divide us as a nation.

[Darth23]

That argument doesn't really hold up.

I was in favor is scrapping the Electoral College when I though Bush would win the polular vote but not the electoral college - and I'm still in favor of scrapping it - not that Gore has apparently won the popular vote and Bush will quite possibly win the elecotral vote.

My Home state - Pennsylvania went for Gore. Gore KILLED Bush in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, closely won many suburan counties, and lost a lot of rural outlying counties. But he still won the state. You can win an entire states votes by inly concentrating on large urban and suburban ares with the most people, and ignoring vast areas with smaller populations.

Both candidates concentrated on several larger 'swing states' and pretty much ignored most of the southern states and smaller midwest and western states. If Gore wins, he'll do it because he picked up the Pacific Coast states, and the large midwestern and eastern, and northern states.

There could be a candidate who appeals more to rural people in many different states, who would have an advantage by going after all their votes to make a majority and largely ignoring big cities.


As far was what the Founding Fathers originally indended- they also defined slaves as 3/5 human - for voting purposes, and they didn't give women the right to vote. But 'in order to form a more perfect union' these things were changed.

Perhaps it's time for the US to actually BECOME a Democracy. :)

[jjwr]

I don't like the idea of a strictly popular vote, you get a hometown LA guy running and that right there would give him a huge advantage due to the population of his home city(odds are they would be with him). I like the electoral college but think it needs tweaking. I like the idea of splitting them up like Maine does. Say Gore won California by 51% to 49%, he would get all 54 votes even though only half the state wanted him, that doesn't seem right.

[Jedieb]

As of Thursday morning the recount has cut Bush's lead to half with just over half of the counties to go. I think that Gore may get with a couple of hundred votes, maybe even pass Bush. However, the absentee ballots should Bush back out in front. Those ballots can be counted as late as 10 days after the election provided they're post marked before or on the day of the election. Florida is going to be decided by an incredibly narrow number of votes. Over 5 million cast with the outcome being decided by a few HUNDRED votes!

This is what makes the Palm Beach fiasco so disturbing. When the votes were recounted over 19,000 were eliminated because of double punching. This usually happens when a voter mistakenly selects one candidate and then punches a hole to choose another candidate. This happens in every election but 19,000 is an unusually high number. And it's obvious that a majority of the votes in question were potential Gore votes. I for one am glad the ballot in question was designed by a Democrat. This should eliminate any Democratic claims of Republican wrong doing. But it still doesn't solve our problem.

What do we do about Palm Beach? These votes could easily determine an election hinging on the votes of HUNDREDS. Can Gore walk away from an election when there's evidence he actually won it? Will the Republicans fight to keep the Florida county in question from voting again if voters or Democrats call for a revote? 4 voters have already filed a lawsuit regarding the ballot and their vote. This has the potential of getting very ugly. Gore could conceed and spare the country the trauma, but how do you conceed something that you may have rightly won? What about the people that voted for him? Shouldn't they get the President they voted for?

In the next few days we're all going to learn more about Florida election laws than we ever thought we would.

Doc, as always it's a pleasure to have a CIVIL disagreement with you. Wouldn't it be great to see some of that in Congress for the next 2 years?

[Jedieb]

Here's a NY Times editorial on the Electoral College. It's an interesting read, but remember this is the NY Times. It's going to have a liberal slant to it, but even yale professors should be allowed to voice their opinions. ;)

The Electoral College, Unfair From Day One


By AKHIL REED AMAR

NEW HAVEN — As we await results from the Florida recount, two things should be clear. First, if George W. Bush, having apparently lost the popular vote, does indeed win at least 270 electoral votes when the Electoral College meets, he is the lawful winner, who played by the Constitution's rules and won.
Second, we must realize that the Electoral College is a hopelessly outdated system and that we must abolish it. Direct election would resonate far better with the American value of one person, one vote. Indeed, the college was designed at the founding of the country to help one group — white Southern males — and this year, it has apparently done just that.
In 1787, as the Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed direct election of the president. But James Madison of Virginia worried that such a system would hurt the South, which would have been outnumbered by the North in a direct election system. The creation of the Electoral College got around that: it was part of the deal that Southern states, in computing their share of electoral votes, could count slaves (albeit with a two-fifths discount), who of course were given none of the privileges of citizenship. Virginia emerged as the big winner, with more than a quarter of the electors needed to elect a president. A free state like Pennsylvania got fewer electoral votes even though it had approximately the same free population.
The Constitution's pro-Southern bias quickly became obvious. For 32 of the Constitution's first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency. Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800 against John Adams from Massachusetts in a race where the slavery skew of the Electoral College was the decisive margin of victory.
The system's gender bias was also obvious. In a direct presidential election, any state that chose to enfranchise its women would have automatically doubled its clout. Under the Electoral College, however, a state had no special incentive to expand suffrage — each got a fixed number of electoral votes, regardless of how many citizens were allowed to vote.
Now fast-forward to Election Night 2000. Al Gore appears to have received the most popular votes nationwide but may well lose the contest for electoral votes. Once again, the system has tilted toward white Southern males. Exit polls indicate that Mr. Bush won big among this group and that Mr. Gore won decisively among blacks and women.
The Electoral College began as an unfair system, and remains so. So why keep it?
Advocates of the system sloganeer about "federalism," meaning that presidential candidates are forced to take into account individual state interests and regional variations in their national campaigns.
But in the current system, candidates don't appeal so much to state interests (what are those, anyway?) as to demographic groups (elderly voters, soccer moms) within states. And direct popular elections would still encourage candidates to take into account regional differences, like those between voters in the Midwest and the East. After all, one cannot win a national majority without getting lots of votes in lots of places.
Direct election could give state governments some incentives to increase voter turnout, because the more voters a state turned out, the bigger its role in national elections and the bigger its overall share in the national tally. Presidential candidates would begin to pay more attention to the needs of individual states that had higher turnouts.
The nation's founders sought to harness governmental competition and rivalry in healthy ways, using checks and balances within the federal government and preserving roles for state governments. Direct presidential elections would be true to their best concepts — democracy and healthy competition — rather than to their worst compromises.

Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale, is author of "The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction."

[jjwr]

Have you seen the ballot from Palm Springs? A guy at work found one on the net and it does look a bit confusing though I don't think I would have messed up on it. I think it definetly could have been laid out better but as long as the voter took their time with it I don't see how that many could have been taken by it(if anyone's interested I can email it to them) just email me at jjwr2@yahoo.com.

Makes you wonder what Gore's gonna do. The country would benefit from this getting over quickly and a winner being declared but as Jedieb said how can Gore just let it go when theres ample proof that he should be president. When Bush wins by less than 2000 votes and 19000 votes, most of which are for Gore, go uncounted then its obvious he would have won easily. Assuming Gore does challenge and this gets dragged out it could be very ugly and whoever gets in the whitehouse afterwards is gonna have a lot of people out there who are unhappy with how they got in office.

[Doc Milo]

I have seen the ballot, and I frankly can't understand how someone could be so confused as to mess up the ballot -- especially since the arrows point right to the circle you're supposed to punch, and that election workers are there to answer any questions. About punching two holes in the ballot: if you mistakenly punch the wrong hole, there is a proceedure to go through to get a new ballot to cast. If people didn't go through that and instead invalidated their vote, that is their loss.

There cannot be a re-vote. If you think about it, now that that one county knows that they will definitely choose the next president, people who voted for Nader, for example, can now change their votes, even though they didn't make a mistake in their votes? That is unfair to the rest of the country. Maybe someone in Iowa wants to change their vote from Buchanan to Bush because of how close Iowa is, or how close Wisconsin is, or how close New Mexico is...

Either the entire country revotes or no one revotes.

Now, about how one walks away from something they may have won: There is a precedent. Richard Nixon had reports of voting irregularities when JFK was elected president and that was a very close race that could have been contested and he chose, for the good of the country, to concede the race even though there was a good chance that the results could have gone his way in two states that had gone for JFK, due to voter fraud allegations.

If the recount goes Bush's way, I believe Gore should concede and save the country the lawsuits. (Of course, I have no problem with waiting for the absentee ballots from overseas for this to happen, either.) (BTW, I believe the same for Bush; if the recount + absentee ballots go against him, he should concede.)

I just found out that there is a legal precedent in a similar case where a party wanted to have a re-vote due to the ballot being "confusing." In that precedent, the final ruling was that there is a responsibility of the voter to know for whom they are voting. That as long at the candidate is on the ballot, and can be reasonably voted for correctly, then there is no way there can be a re-vote on a challenge occuring after the election has taken place. If you look at the ballot, you'll see that Gore is on the ballot, and can reasonably be voted for correctly.

Furthermore, about the 19000 two punch votes that were thrown out (and that is the way the law reads), in previous elections there have been 15000 votes thrown out (in Florida) in the same manner, so that seems par for the course there...

Just found another thing out: There are still votes coming in from Oregon and absentee ballots overseas from other states. FOX News is reporting that Gore's lead in the popular vote is now less than 100,000 votes nationwide, and Bush can still end up winning the popular vote nationwide.

[jjwr]

Its kinda funny how Buchanan got some 3500 votes in Palm Springs when he didn't get much more than 200 votes in any other county in that state. On the news they talked about the ballot and mentioned that the law stated that the hole next to the person they are voting for(which is also within the box of the person they are voting for) needs to be punched to vote for that person. Regardless of the arrow both boxes for Buchanan and Gore are within the box for Gore. If it had been a few people thats one thing but you figure 3200 of those votes for Buchanan are Gore's, thats enough to win the Presidency. When you have proof like that that you should be president its hard to just concede.

[Jedieb]

Doc, anytime you have to go to Nixon for an example of moral authority you know the nation is in DEEP trouble! ;) As a side note, the Nixon example doesn't really apply here. First of all, the story being circulated is one that Nixon himself wrote in his auto-biography titled Six Crises. Yes, his advisors told him he could challenge the vote, but challenging the votes that Richard Daly helped manufacture in Chicago would have led to the exposure of voter fraud in the conservative southern part of the state. So it wasn't simply a magnanimous act on Nixon's part. He knew his campaign's dirty tricks would be exposed as well.

Petty Partisan Politics
What transpired yesterday made me sick to my stomach. The sad part is that it's only a sign of what is to come. Make no mistake, if the situation were reversed the Bush camp would be doing EXACTLY what the Gore camp is doing right now and vice versa. Baker and the Vulcan look alike Warren Christopher were suppose to bring an air of legitimacy and dignity to their respective sides. That notion is now simply laughable. Each party has unleashed their attack dogs and both candidates are now keeping a safe distance while the dirty work gets done for them. This election will not be decided for days, probably weeks.

What I Would Do If I Were A Senior Gore Aide
Here's the little speech that I would give Gore if I had his ear;
Mr. Vice President, we face an extraordinary moment in our nation's history. You have an opportunity to show the world and history an example of true leadership. While it is true that an inadvertent ballot mishap may well have cost you the Presidency, we cannot take up a fight which is not ours. If voters from Palm Beach want to legally challenge the ballot we have no right to stop them, but we should NOT provide them any legal or financial aid. This is THEIR fight, not ours. Our representatives only job now is to ensure that there is a fair and equitable recount. They should NOT take part in ANY legal action on behalf of the voters of Palm Beach.

I suggest this course of action Mr. Vice President. Wait until the final absentee ballots have been tabulated on November 17th. When the results have been announced we must then accept their results and move forward. We must encourage the voters of Florida to accept those results as well. If they choose to fight then I suggest that for the good of the nation and our democracy that you concede the election and allow the transition of power to move forward. We have a chance to make history Mr. Vice President, let us make an honorable one.

Would this be a hard pill for Gore to swallow? You bet your ass it would. Can you imagine walking away from the Presidency of the United States when you know in your gut you won it? Hell, I get pissed when my football team loses a game because of lousy officiating. Something like this would push me over the edge.

Unfortunately, no one is going to advise Gore or Bush to take the high road this week. Get use to what you're watching, because you're going to see more of the same in Washington D.C. for the next four years.

[Darth23]

The Recount in Florida happened automatically. It's part of State Law.

The results of the recount show that Bush is winning by 327 votes - considerably less than the 1700 vote margin he was winning by after the votes were initially counted.

Democrats in Florida have requested a manual recount in 4 Florida counties - most of all of which were won by Gore and 3 of which showed differences after the recount. The Democrats have the right to make this request under Florida law. Those counties have to then decide whether or not to go ahead with the manual recount. I believe that after a manual recount of 3 precints - they make there decision based on whether or not there were further changes in the totals.

The State Of Florida cannot certify the election results until Nov. 17 - giving the overseas ballots enough time to be counted.

There are legal challenges to the results in Palm Beach County, based on the 'Butterfly Ballot' and, though the Gore camp said yesterday that they support these efforts, they are NOT the plantifs in these cases. Voters in those counties are the one's bringing these suits, and began the process before the Gore team gave their public support to this effort.

One case filed in Federal court yesterday was withdrawn, but a judge in a State case has issued and injunction to keep Palm Beach County from certifying the results until the results of a hearing on Tuesday.


-----------------

Right now the Bush team is basicly trying to portray the entire protracted effort as being Gore's fault. They obviously want the nation to think of Bush as being the President-elect - even though the there are still votes beign counted in many states, and even though Florida cannot officially certify the results until next Friday.

The Gore team has requested the manual of the 4 counties, and this COULD cause some delay, but they have every legal right under the rules governing election to make this request. Given the 80% drop in Bush's lead in Florida after the recount, I don't think it's conpletely unreasonable to request a manual recount for some counties.

The Gore team has also said they 'support' the legal efforts in Palm Beach, but they are not the one's bringing suit. Even if they publicly withdrew their support - the plantiffs are under no obligation to withdraw the cases. I don't knwo who the plantiffs are, but I would suspect that they are more pissed of that their votes might have gone to Buchanan than they are than Gore hasn't won yet. One reporter stated that many Palm Beach residents would view a vote for Buchanan as a vote for Hitler.

--------------

What I think should happen: Both the Bush and Gore teams should publicly state that they will accept the results of the election after the manual recounts and the absentee ballots have been counted, and that this should be done by the Nov 17th deadline.

Bush should stop trying to have himself declared the winner before the results are officially certified, and the Gore team should publicly withdraw their support for the legal challenge, and make clear that they themselves have no plans to involve themselves in any other processes in Florida.

If there are any other Automatic recounts that will happen in any other state, they should happen and if they affect the outcome - then the American peole should just wait for the results. Neither party whould REQUEST a recout in any other state.

I also think the media should stop trying to make the process be over ASAP. If it turns out that Bush won the Electoral College by 327 votes out of over 98,000,000 cast, it shouldn't be too surpising that it might take several days to confrim this result.

[Doc Milo]

If it had been a few people thats one thing but you figure 3200 of those votes for Buchanan are Gore's, thats enough to win the Presidency. When you have proof like that that you should be president its hard to just concede.

The thing is, no one can prove that 3200 votes should be Gore's. There is no way to prove that. Historical statistics show that Buchanan does very well in Palm Beach. In the 1996 primaries, Buchanan got 8000 votes in Palm Beach. Reform Party membership in that county is up 110% compared to 38% Florida-wide. The Reform Party in that county has a membership of 16000 people. Is it really hard to believe that 1/4 of them turned out to vote Buchanan? Also, just because the number of votes is so high in that county, the percentage of the vote that Buchanan recieved in that county is not very much higher than what he received Florida-wide.

Just to correct the record of my previous post: I said the 15000 double-punches were for Florida in 1996. It was 15000 double-punches in Palm Beach in 1996 (as compared to 19000 this year with a larger turn out this year) and 143000 double punches Florida-wide in 1996.

Also, there are reports of polling and voter fraud in Iowa and Wisconsin. (In Wisconsin, democrat officials purchased the vote of homeless people using cigarettes.) Those races are so close that they may also fall into automatic recounts. Florida may yet not end up choosing the winner. (If Bush ends up winning Wiconsin and Iowa, he can get the electoral votes he needs without Florida.) And there are enough reports of irregularities from those states that Bush can bring litigation. I just think any irregularities tend to balance each other out, and that the best thing for the country would be to not drag this through the courts. Whoever loses should concede, in my opinion, and live to fight another day.

[Doc Milo]

Jedieb's speech

I agree whole-heartedly. I'd say the same to Bush. Both should just accept the final tally, whatever it is. In fact, I'd say that if your speech were made, it would leave a lasting impression and make that candidate viable for the next election cycle.

I think if either one of these candidate drags us through court battles, they can kiss their political careers goodbye. Gore can still be viable in 2004 if he shows true integrity. Likewise for Bush. This election shows that both were pretty evenly matched. Their pure self-interest and the interest of the country should persuade them to take the high road and abide by the final tally.

I also think any legislation would be doomed to failure on all sides. The courts do not want any part of over-turning elections. They will throw it back to the election officials of the states.

Yes, it will be hard for any of them to walk away, with now voting irregularities being charged in four separate states with razor thin margins of victory. But for the good of the country these candidates should show that they are truly worthy of the presidency and do what is in the interests of the country and not in the interests of themselves.

[Doc Milo]

The results of the recount show that Bush is winning by 327 votes - considerably less than the 1700 vote margin he was winning by after the votes were initially counted.

Is this 327 vote the Official vote or what the AP is reporting. I did notice a discrepancy in the reporting by the AP. Yesterday, they announced the official recount after 53 counties and it was over 1700 votes. The AP earlier in the day had their count after 53 counties at just over 900 votes. I'm not saying the AP is wrong, but given the most recent track record, I will wait to see what the Official Recount tally is before believing ANYTHING reported by the media at this point. :)

I do agree, Gore has every right to demand manual recounts and we must wait until all absentee ballots are in. It seems we all agree (regardless of our politcal tilt) that the losing candidate, whoever that may be, should abide by the final tally whenever that is made. Now, if only we can get the parties and their candidates to stop the madness!

[Jedieb]

Darth23 made some really good points that I wanted to comment on. Yes, the Florida recount was triggered automatically by the unbelievably close margin of Bush's apparent victory. The narrowing of Bush's margin in the recount gives the Democrats every right to demand a manual recount. These are all legal and reputable courses of action for Gore's camp to take. The Bush camp has no business insinuating that it's Gore's fault this recount is taking place. It's Florida state law that's dictating the recounts.

What I was specifically referring to was the politically bickering that went back and forth on Wed. MSNBC, CNN, etc., each had Republican and Democratic mouth pieces going back and forth each crying foul of the other side's actions. Bush should have backed off and withheld any leaks of his cabinet and transition team appointments. The Presidency isn't his yet and he shouldn't act like it. As for the Democrats, Daley should have toned down his language some and let the recount take its course.

West Palm Beach
Some Democrats are hoping for a revote, or a reapportionment of the votes based on exit polling or some other method. There is precedent for the overturning of a Florida election. A couple of years ago a the results of a mayoral race were overturned by a judge when evidence of voter fraud was discovered. The judge overturned the election and the losing candidate was named mayor. I don't think the West Palm Beach ballot would qualify as voter fraud. Most legal experts I've heard from think the Democrats are likely to lose this legal battle. But I think it should be a battle that the voters of Palm Beach should wage. Gore, Daley, and company should try to stay out of the fray.

Even if the manual recounts give Gore the lead, the absentee ballots counted on Nov. 17 are more than likely going to give Bush the lead right back. Then what? Will that be the end, or will the Gore camp then aggressively go after the Palm Beach votes? At some point one of these candidates is going to have to show some leadership and make the tough decision. The longer they BOTH wait, the more tainted this election will become.

What's really interesting is that we're in virgin territory here. We've never had a modern presidential election produce such close results and such controversy. I don't think either side knows just how far to push things and they certainly don't know what consequences their actions are going to take.

[Doc Milo]

From what I've come across, the legal precedent on "confusing" ballots was that "confusion" was not enough to overturn results or call for a new vote regardless of whether or not the ballot conforms to state law. Courts are very reluctant to screw around with elections when there is no evidence of actual fraud. Rulings in two cases in FL have said that as long as the ballot was approved by all parties and no one complained before the day of election, then the election stands. (And all parties signed off on this ballot, and it was mailed to all registered voters before the election.)

My research also caused me to discover that the statuted that says the ballot has to have the hole to the right of the name is for paper ballots only. The second section in that same statute is for counties with electronic ballots (which Palm Beach is) says that the hole punch or button can appear on either side of the name.

In short (too late) any challenge by Gore or the Democrats will most likely fail; and with such precedents, any cases brought by the citizens will probably fail as well.

On a side note. It has been discovered that the judge hearing the case that placed the injunction on the board of elections was an active Gore supporter, and had contributed to his campaign. I don't think Florida can stand any further appearance of impropriety; just as Jeb Bush recused himself from overseeing the recount, I think it is in Florida's best interest for this judge to recuse herself due to possible conflict of interest charges.

[Darth23]

I will wait to see what the Official Recount tally is before believing ANYTHING reported by the media at this point.

This is one of the points I was trying to make. The tally so far shows Bush winning by 327 votes, that's the AP's report of all 67 counties. The UNOFFICIAL Florida tally shoes Bush winnign by about 900 votes in 66 of 67 counties. Right now there is an injinction which keeps Palm Beach from certifying the count - at least until the judge has a hearing on Tuesday.


Florida law states that the counting process should be over by Friday Nov. 17. On that day the votes from all the counties are certified and become official. This includes may manual or machine recounts that may be requested and granted.

Apparently there are severe financial penalties levied against the INDIVIDUALS on a county's Canvasing Board (1 dem, 1 rep and 1 county official, I believe), if the votes are not received in Tallahassee by Friday Nov. 17.

[Jedieb]

I agree with Doc. Legal challenges by either Gore supporters or Palm Beach voters are more likely than not going to fail. Which is why I would urge the Vice President to concede once the recount is officially over on the 17th. But here's a nice twist, the Republicans are trying to ge an injunction to stop the manual recount in Palm Beach. Baker is insisting that a manual recount would be more susceptible to error than a machine tally. The truth is they're probably weary of what a manual recount will uncover. Did anyone here think the first recount would trim Bush's lead by so many votes? It's just another surprise in a long list of shockers that this election has generated. If the Democrats do get the manual recounts that they've asked for in those 4 Democratic counties they we could easily see Bush's lead cut down even further or even eliminated alltogether.

Here's something else to consider. Let's say these manual recounts put Gore ahead and Bush isn't to able to overtake him when the absentee ballots are counted on the 17th. Does anyone here doubt that the Bush camp will then start challenging the votes in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Oregon, and Iowa? You bet your ass he would.

Both sides are doing things that I find unseemly. Bush's attitude that because he was ahead by 1,785 votes early Wednesday morning he should be immediately handed over the keys to the White House reeks of arrogance. It's as if he's trying to steal the damn Presidency. Someone needs to remind him that the vote in Florida hasn't been certified yet and he has to WAIT LIKE THE REST OF US! Did you know that even if Gore concedes but the absentee ballots were to miraculously put him ahead then he would win the Presidency? Someone needs to remind George W. of that little fact.

As for the Democrats, having a Gore lawyer and a representative from the DNC in West Palm Beach overseeing a drive to gather affidavits from Palm Beach voters is shady to the extreme. Both sides are showing their worst tendencies and I foresee the American public getting fed up with this whole mess.

Again, let the recount proceed and then let the votes fall where they may. If you lose, be a man and put your country's interests ahead of yours; CONCEDE!

On a more pleasant note, salutations to all of my fellow veterans on Veteran's Day! If any of you have relatives or friends who are veterans I give them my heartfelt thanks and appreciation for their sacrifices.
HAPPY VETERAN'S DAY! :)

[Doc Milo]

Can anyone forsee a situation that, because of this big mess, invalidates the entire state of Florida, meaning no one gets the 270 needed, throwing the election to the House of Representatives (one vote per state)?

[Jedieb]

Yes, that could happen. If Florida doesn't get its act together before the Electoral College meets on Dec. 18th then the Presidency would be decided by the House. The House members that would vote would be those that were JUST elected. Despite Democratic gains during the election the Republicans would still hold the edge but you can bet the Democrats would start going after both Independents and moderate Republicans. The Republicans would do the same however. If it goes to the House then Bush will more than likely be elected.

Florida Recounts
Palm Beach will continue their manual recount right up until the Federal judge hears Bush's motion for an injunction. Valousa(sp?) county will begin recounting their votes tomorrow morning. The irony is that the Republicans have lost ANY chance of similiar recounts in Republican dominated counties. Why? Florida state law says a recount must be requested within 72 hours of the election and that deadline has come and gone. Bush could have benefited from one as well. I heard earlier today that in a Republican county more than 27,000 votes were discounted! Bush probably would have picked up a few votes there. I really think that Gore may pick up the votes he needs to win in these 4 counties. It may even be enough to counter the gains Bush will receive from the absentee ballots. I can only imagine that Bush will then try several legal challenges if that comes to pass. This is just getting messier and messier. :(

[Dutchy]

Did anyone here think the first recount would trim Bush's lead by so many votes? It's just another surprise in a long list of shockers that this election has generated

Exactly. You'd expect the exact same result, but there wasn't a county that did. Makes you think huh?

Anyway, I absolutely LOVE this. It's very interesting to follow.

I'm curious what's in that box they found just today. Amazing where that came from all of a sudden! These elections rule. It's a like a soap, but then good.

[Jedieb]

Hey Dutchy, how does this mess look from your side of the Atlantic? Is all of Europe laughing at us? I know the French are snickering, but I never pay attention to pointless musings of people who refuse to bathe.

[ReaperFett]

To be honest, yes, we do find it funny :)

I think it is more the way how such a small thing is causing such a problem

More people find Bush funny though. Anyone who says 'Have you noticed how more and more of our imports are coming from abroad?' deserves to get laugher at

[Jedi Master Carr]

I read in some newspaper that Russia, Mexico, and Italy all find it funny. I guess those are the three countries that people say have the most corrupt elections. I remember reading a few jokes something about a Russian reporter saying that Petain(sp) was coming over to straighten it out and in Mexico they were comparing our election to one of theirs a few years ago where the current President was trailing in his brothers destrict and the computers then abrutbly crashed. Then I read that China snickered that is why we don't have a democracy. I must admit it is embarrassing that we do not have a president elect this late Sure this is probably not the latest we have gone without one but those elections all took place in the nineteenth century. Does anybody know the longest time it took them to find out, I was thinking it was 1824 when the thing went into the house but that would be a guess.

[DvdJervs]

In my local newspaper on Saturday there was a cartoon inspired by the election:

* A donkey with a 'Democrats' sign around its neck.
* An elephant with a 'Replublicans' sign around its neck.
* A horse's arse with a 'US Electoral System' sign hanging from its tail.

:)

[Darth23]

I believe that if Florida's Electors aren't in DC on Dec 18t, they Florida doesnt count, and the winner is who ever has a majority of the remaining states.


Looks at it this way - we're all gettign a greatr Civicas lesson. :-)

Electoral college, Dec. 18th, Rules and procedures for picking a president under different circumstances....

:-)

It's pretty weird living in Tallahasse Fla. - I'm tempter to go downtown to the Capitol Bldg to hang out behind the reporters doing their live spots.

[Doc Milo]

Darth23, I'm not so certain that is true. The Constitution in both the original article, and in the amended article says that each state's electors shall vote for both a president and vice president, and the votes shall be forwarded to the seat of government where it is to be counted. I think that means that each state must be represented, so if one state is not represented, then no one will recieve a majority (at least in this case) of electors.

At least, that's how I read it. Admittedly, it's late so I haven't given it my greatest of attention.

[Jedieb]

Well the results from the manual recount of 4 Palm Beach districts are in. Bush lost 3 votes and Gore gained 36. Based on this they've decided to go ahead and manually recount the ENTIRE county. If this pattern continues than Gore could easily pick up a couple of thousand votes. This could give him enough votes to offset the gains Bush will make with the absentee ballots. And let's not forget that we have 3 other Democratic counties that will be recounting and Gore will more than likely pick up votes there as well. The Republicans are desperately trying to stop the recounts because they know that more than likely the recounts will go against them. At the same time they're getting ready to demand recounts in other states where Bush may benefit from a recount in THE EXACT SAME WAY GORE HAS IN FLORIDA.

It looks more and more that this election is going to be decided by whose lawyers do a better job. If the Republicans can't get recounts in Republican counties because they failed to meet the 72 hour deadline then I don't see how they can win Florida. They may face similiar time constraints in these other states. I don't think this has happened because DNC lawyers are better than GOP lawyers. I think the GOP put itself in the position of trying to walk with the election results as soon as possible because they favored their candidate. Conversely, because the Democrats were behind, they tried to extend the game as much as possible. Each side gambled and now it looks the the recount strategy has paid off for the Democrats and the Bush side is a sense playing catch up. And don't think for a minute that if the situations were reversed that we wouldn't see each side doing EXACTLY what the other is doing. This is partisan politics at its worst.

I want to restate one point that I've made before. NONE of this would be happening if EITHER of these candidates had made a CONVINCING case to the American people. We've had candidates in the past who've been able to lure independents and non-party voters before. In fact, this situation is so rare because we usaually have a candidate that manages to garner enough to render recounts moot. The votes are so close because neither one of these men has convinced the American people that they're the man for the job.

I can't believe the Chinese are ragging on us. Commie bastards! >(

[Jedi Master Carr]

What i am wondering is why after every recount the count keeps changing? Now I am not suggesting corruptin, at least I do not think there is any, but instead I question the accuracy of the punch cards that are used in elections. I think we need to change the way we vote, not necessarly even the electoral college even though I despise but instead we need scrap the punch cards. We are in the computer age and instead of using a computer like machine to vote we use an archaic 1950's punch cards. Even employers don't use these things anymore. I am not sure what kind of machine we could use, I am not even sure if every state still uses the punch cards, I know SC does and FL, I read somewhere that Massatchettes has banned theres I am not sure what they replaced it with, does anybody know? I know this might not be easy or cheap but we probably should change it to help avoid this problem from ever happening again.

[Doc Milo]

To the Chinese: I'll take this situation than living in tyranny any day of the week, week of the month, or month of the year.

I also think if we're really interested in a fair and accurate recount, those deadlines should be waived and they should be fair and recount four conservative counties as well.

After all, it's about the people and their voice, not about any one of these candidates, or even some arbitrary deadline written into law. I know this is going to sound partisan, but I don't believe it is fair that manual recounts only take place in four Liberal strongholds. If we are really interested in a fair and accurate count of Florida, then we should take four conservative counties large enough to equal (or come as close as possible to equaling) the amount of voters in those four liberal counties and do recounts there, regardless of any deadline. IMO if things are not done fairly (and that doesn't necessarily mean by law or based on some legal technicallity) then the results of Florida will forever be in question, and the next president will find himself so weak he may not be able to govern effectively (as if that can be stopped now :( )

And what does the law say? How can 72 hours have passed if the count isn't over yet?

[Jedieb]

"I also think if we're really interested in a fair and accurate recount, those deadlines should be waived and they should be fair and recount four conservative counties as well."
The problem with that is you're picking and choosing which state laws to enforce. I'm fairly certain the 72 hour deadline to request a recount began once the polls closed, not once the recounts started. The GOP put their legal eggs in one basket, the DNC in another, and now both sides have to live with it. You could say that for things to be done fairly we would not only count 4 Republican counties, but some magical solution for the Palm Beach voters would be found as well. It would be great if we could have Solomon himself come and show us the way, but this has to be done under the rule of law. We all know that doesn't necessarily mean we'll get a fair outcome. Whoever ends up winning this is going to have a cloud over their head.

I don't see how either of these men are going to be able to effectively build coalitions and maintain bi-partisan support over these next four years. The make up of the House and Senate are ripe for one political battle after another.

[Doc Milo]

Just heard this:

The Florida Secretary of State said any manual recounts not concluded by Tuesday (when by law the results of the counties have to be registered with their office) they will not count. This prompted Volusa (sp?) to file for an injunction against their own state!

Also, it is said that Oregon is still so close that, even though it's been called for Gore, it may fall into a mandatory recount. Apparently there are still more ballots to be counted there and Gore's lead is less than 1500 votes, and a mandatory recount occurs if there is a less than 2800 vote margin.

Then I heard Iowa and Wisconsin may still end up in recounts. Could you imagine the Electoral College meeting without electors from Florida, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Iowa? And in Wisconsin from what I hear, there is actual video-taped footage of democrat officials "buying" the votes of homeless people with food and cigarettes.

Methinks someone has opened Pandora's Box.

On changing the way we vote. I think that something has to be done. Doing things by computer can be dangerous if it's hooked up to the Internet -- hackers would just have a field day. But if they have a closed intranet at each polling place, where people vote on touch screen computers -- where when you press the "button" on the screen, the name lights up so you know who you are voting for, and it can actually print out a "receipt" for you once you hit the send vote button so you have a record of your vote, and that vote is sent to the central computer controlling those voting terminals, a computer that would be on site, and the vote is tabulated. When the polls close, hard copies of the results of the polling place are printed out and placed in a lockbox (little Al Gore lingo there) with the hard drive of the computer (this process would be video taped and supervised by all parties represented on the ballot) and sent directly to the state's board of elections. Of course, you would have to get an activation ticket or something when you sign in, so that you wouldn't be able to stand in there and send a bunch of votes unchecked. The activation ticket would be read by the computer, it will let you vote, and once the vote is sent, the computer goes into inactive mode until another activation ticket is fed into it...

Let's get High Tech here with the voting!

[Jedi Master Carr]

Thats a great idea Doc, but I guess the major question is how much would it cost? I think regardless of the cost we should do it we are living in the past here we need to modernize our elections and move into the 21 century which is nearly upon us anyway.

[Jedieb]

That's right Doc, the Florida Secretary of State has set a deadline of Tues. 5PM for all 67 counties to have their ballots in to Tallahasee. Why? Because she's a Republican silly rabbit! In fact, since overseas ballots aren't due until the 17th everyone assumed this was the cut off date for all ballots. Is this unfair? Yes, but under state law she does have the power to set the date and time. So that’s two court cases: one from the Republicans to stop the recount and one from Democrats to extend the deadline so it can go on. The case to stop the recont will probably go in the Democrats favor but that "extension" case is much more difficult to predict. If it fails then Bush may easily win the state by either having the first recount be the final outcome, or having all of Palm Beach's votes discounted. That would really cause an uproar if all of those voters had their votes thrown out, but the law is the law.

And get ready for even more legal action if the recounts are allowed and the deadline extended and Gore wins the state. Then the GOP will start filling cases in Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico to try to win without Florida. And they'll be using the same arguments that the Democrats used in Florida.

The wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'...

[Doc Milo]

Actually, the deadline for Tuesday was not set by the Secretary of State. It was set by Florida State Law. The statute was read on the news by Bob Crawford, Comissioner of Elections for Florida (democrat) -- he also said they examined the law to see if there was room for discretion and concluded there wasn't any room in this case according to the language used in the statute (the only time discretion can be used is for "natural disasters"); essentially the statute says "all counts must be in by 5:00pm seven days after the election; if not, all missing counties shall be ignored." (This deadline does not include absentee ballots from overseas, which must be in ten days after the election (Friday))

It's not an arbitrary deadline that the Secretary of State made up. She's going by Florida Law.

So, if it is argued that this deadline written into law should be extended, could it not also be argued by the Bush camp that the deadline dictating that they can't ask for a manual recount because of the 72 hour deadline should be extended as well? The Rule of Law must prevail, as you pointed out to me in an earlier post, Jedieb.

On a side note, from what I garnered, the manual recount finds votes for one candidate or another by examining the ballot and, for any vote that was not punched fully through, or if there is a piece of the punched hole hanging thus causing the ballot to have been ignored by the machine, and determing the "intent" of the voter in those situations. It has been reported that in a county that is not being recounted -- a Bush stronghold -- that uses paper ballots, there are 800 ballots that were thrown out for "double voting" where the voter filled in Bush on the top of the ballot and then wrote in Bush on the bottom of the ballot (could it not be argued that the "intent" to vote for Bush is on those ballots? It's not like they voted for two separate candidates, like the double-punched ones in PB.) And as you pointed out before, Jedieb, there were 27000 votes thrown out in one of the counties that is a Bush stronghold, and they would probably find some votes for Bush there as well.

So if one deadline is waived, the other should be too. And the deadline of the electoral college should be changed to wait for all states to be in...

So you were right the first time, Jedieb. The Rule of Law should apply, and all deadlines should be enforced.

[Jedieb]

I've always believed that the most important thing here is the rule of law, regardless of which party or candidate it favors. We just can't make this up as we go along. We do have procedures for these things and they should be followed. I read the statute governing deadlines earlier today. It states that the dealine is 7 days after the election. There is no mention of natural disasters as a reason for delay however. In fact the statute makes it clear that there is room for interpretation. Here's a copy of it;

102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department of State; penalties.--

(1) The county canvassing board or a majority thereof shall file the county returns for the election of a federal or state officer with the Department of State immediately after certification of the election results. Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns MAY be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department.

(2) The department shall fine each board member $200 for each day such returns are late, the fine to be paid only from the board member's personal funds. Such fines shall be deposited into the 1Election Campaign Financing Trust Fund, created by s. 106.32.

(3) Members of the county canvassing board may appeal such fines to the Florida Elections Commission, which shall adopt rules for such appeals.

History.--s. 30, ch. 89-338; s. 7, ch. 99-140.

1Note.--The trust fund expired, effective November 4, 1996, by operation of s. 19(f), Art. III of the State Constitution.

As you can see it doesn't say the votes MUST be ignored, it says they MAY be ignored. And there are no guidelines as to what can extend a deadline. Again, this will have to be argued in front of a judge. I had a pretty good hunch that the GOP injunction was going to be shot down this morning and it was. This is much more difficult to call. Valousa has filed suit to extend the deadline and Palm Beach will have their papers filed by the end of the day. Valousa has said they will rescind their suit if they finish their recount before the 5PM deadline tomorrow. But you can be sure palm Beach will make sure they get their hearing. The matter may be settled before the end of the day, tomorrow for certain.

So again, we have to wait and see how this plays out in the courts. I've tried to be as objective as possible because the partisan bickering I've seen from BOTH sides has made me sick to my stomach. I for one don't believe that there are legal grounds for a revote or partial allotment of votes in Palm Beach. As bad as that ballot was, I don't think it meets the burden necessary to make it illegal and force a revote and I don't think any Florida or Federal court will either.

Aren't you glad you stayed out of law school Doc? I am. :)

[Doc Milo]

That statute was read by Bob Crawford at at the press conference where they announced the deadline. Except, the word MAY was not in it. Instead the word "SHALL" was in it. Reading: "If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns SHALL be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department."

But regardless of whether or not they "shall" or "may" ignore the results, I find the following the most telling as to whether or not there is discretion on the part of the Secretary to extend the deadline: "Returns MUST be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election..."

I find no discretion in the word "MUST."

I was mistaken on the natural disasters. That was bad reporting by one of the media people. That statute about natural disasters was regarding delaying an election, which has no bearing on this whatsoever, since the election is over. (We think. Are we even sure the polls have closed at this moment in time? :) )

On a side note: The lead for Bush has gone up by 100 votes due to the recount in Volusia, so far.

[Jedieb]

Elizabeth Harris's quote again;
"Returns MUST be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election..."

She certainly is drawing a line in the sand isn't she? Whatever wording she uses, she can still be compelled to accept the recounted votes by the judge tomorrow morning. A motion will be heard on the deadline tomorrow between 10:00-10:30 A.M. Florida counties have certified votes past the 7 day deadline in the past so there is precedent supporting that course. What you have is 2 statues in conflict with each other. The statute outlining recounts and the one setting a deadline for vote certification. It will be interesting to see the arguments presented tomorrow.

Here's something interesting. Harris can refuse to certify the votes, but she can't STOP the process. Can you imagine if tomorrow's deadline passes and Palm Beach and Dade keep counting (Broward has decided not to recount) and they uncover the votes to give Gore the state? You'll have the state go to Bush but the entire country will know what the final numbers are. I wouldn't wish that on ANY candidate. Except someone like Buchanan of course. ;)

The Gore camp is stepping up their attack on Harris now. I've heard reports on her campaign efforts for Bush in New Hampshire and the fact that she was the co-chairman for the Bush campaign in Florida. There's even a report that she's been actively seeking an Ambassodor ship in the next administration. Now I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt but this is certainly going to call her impartiality into question. I really thought Jeb Bush did the right thing when he recused himself from the Florida election process. In retrospect, it may have been wise for the co-chair of the Bush campaing to do the same but I don't know if it would have been fair to ask her to do so. I mean who the hell would be left to run things if you ask everyone with a party affiliation to excuse themselves? The lawyer? SHUDDER...

[Jedieb]

Well, Judge Leon Terry upheld Harris's 5PM deadline. This could pretty much signal the end of all this. The Democrats are going to appeal to the Florida state Supreme Court. It's made up of 6 out of 7 democrats but I don't see them changing Terry's decision. He basically said that Harris has the authority to accept or ignore the ballots. He did say that counties could continue their recounts and submit their votes and then Harris may consider them if she employs "proper exercise of discretion." To me this implies that she has the authority to extend the deadline. She's not enforcing this deadline because the law says she HAS to, she's doing this because she WANTS to. As the the law states, she doesn't have to ignore them, it's HER discretion. It's obvious she's against the recounts and wants them stopped. If the state Supreme Court agrees with Terry, which I think they will, then I think that is pretty much the end of all this.

If the recounts do not go forward then I really think Gore should concede. Let Bush win his tainted election. (It would have been tainted regardless of who won.) He'll be in a prime position to run again in 2004. At least that's what I would tell him to do.

[Doc Milo]

Okay, here's where the mix-up is on the statutes.

There are two separate statutes: 102.111 and 102.112.

According to a lawyer I heard interviewed on the radio, the portion that applies to the Secretary of state is 102.111 and the portion that applies to the counties is 102.112 (what you quoted, Jedieb.)

In 102.111, the statute says that the Secretary of State "Shall" ignore the results of any counts that come in after the deadline.

102.112 states that the Secretary "may" ignore the results.

Now, according to this lawyer, the judge who heard the case applied 102.112 and ignored 102.111. (Which will probably be grounds for appeal on the Secretary of State's part if she chooses to ignore the results that come in after the deadline.)

According to this lawyer -- and I wish I could remember his name! -- the statute 102.111 (which says shall) is the guideline for the Secretary of State. It gives her no discretion. She "shall" ignore the results that come in after the deadline.

The statute 102.112, which is directed to the county officials is pretty much a warning saying, essentially, "look, you county officials, if you don't have your results in they may be ignored, and you can be fined, etc..."

The judge, with his ruling, has shifted the burden from the counties to get their results in to the Secretary of State to prove she is not acting arbitrarily. He essentially, according to this lawyer, re-wrote the election law -- legislated from the bench.

Now, Brouard County decided, after recounting 1% of their results, not to do a full recount of the county. Al Gore is now suing to make Brouard County do a full manual recount.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Looks like this will never end know the sec of state is considering allowing the counties to turn their ballots late she said that the requests must come in by 2pm on Wed and if they have a valid reason they can go on with the recounts, so I think now these recounts probably will continue and I think Palm Beach has a valid reason for doing it because of the mess they are currently in. If she allows them to turn them in by Friday Midnight this could cause an even bigger mess and make the winner even more tainted.

[Jedieb]

"Now, according to this lawyer, the judge who heard the case applied 102.112 and ignored 102.111. (Which will probably be grounds for appeal on the Secretary of State's part if she chooses to ignore the results that come in after the deadline.)"

From what I've heard 102.112 basically updated and replaced 102.111. The first statute was written around 1978 and the second was written in the 80s. The judge was referring to the newer and more current statute. If you read Terry's statement from yesterday you can see that he is NOT writing legislation from the bench. He simply interpreted the law. He had to say SOMETHING didn't he? I thought he came up with a fair and just interpretation of the statute. He didn't ORDER Harris to accept the recounts, he merely said she could not arbitrarily ignore them. Which is exactly what the statute says. If the statute (.112) referred solely to the counties then it would have concurred with .111 and told them they HAD to have the votes returned by 7 days. If he were simply acting on partisan grounds then he would have sided solely with one side and not the other. He would have said the votes MUST be accepted, or they WILL NOT be accepted.

Doc, here's a quick question about the lawyer you were listening to, who was he working for? Every legal opinion I've heard about Terry's decision has said it was fair. But I wouldn't even begin to take seriously what a GOP or a DNC lawyer had to say about it.

Both Miami-Dade and Broward have decided not to recount leaving Palm Beach alone again. I thought they gave legitimate reasons for not recounting. The votes they discovered were not significant enough to mandate a county wide recount. The Palm Beach recount though uncovered a higher number of missing votes and I think they have reasonable grounds for a recount. The decisions of these BIPARTISAN boards should be respected by BOTH sides.

Does anyone here think Harris is being objective? In my opinion she's coming across more and more as a Bush ally. Everything from her tone and her actions. I don't see how Bush can possibly give her the ambassadorship that she was seeking now. It'll look like he bought her off.

Remember this, WHOEVER wins will probably be out of there in 4 years. In all likelyhood Bush will take office in January and have to deal with a hostile Congress and a recession. The economy has already started its inevitable slow down and he's going to take the blame for it. It will be unjustified, but he'll take the blame nevertheless.

[Doc Milo]

The lawyer wasn't working for either party, or any candidate. He was the host's "Legal analyst."

The last I heard, Gore was successful in "bullying" Broward county into going forward on a manual recount. And they are now taking Miami-Dade to court in an attempt to bully them to do a manual recount.

Now the question I have is what does "arbitrary" mean in that judge's opinion? Does it mean she needs a valid reason to ignore the results that come in after the deadline, or does it mean she can't accept one late county but deny another?

Here's an interesting column I read in the Washington Times. It's a bit alarmist:



Democracy in peril
Tony Blankley


We may be watching the deconstruction of democracy in America. Yes, you can put me down as an alarmist. The streams of relativism, irony, ignorance, ridicule, ahistoricism, media fatuity, excessive lawyering, hyper-partisanship and power-lust have formed a mighty river of deconstruction that — before our teared eyes — is washing away, at a frightening pace, 200 years of American self-government.

Academic deconstructionists take pride in disassembling the parts of a whole in order to reveal that the whole was never a real thing — but only the pointless object of our pathetic effort to invest meaning into the meaningless. Deconstruction reveals our juvenile faith in reason, truth and the knowability of things.

We fools thought that votes could be fairly counted, that elections measured and formed the popular will, and that the law was a shield to protect our elections, not a sword to shred them. We thought we were most Americans. But others, dangerous strangers, people alien to our sense of ourselves, have homegrown in our midst. They have usurped us in our own country. They are Americans by birth, but they might as well be Martian reptiles for all the moral kinship they have with us.

Al Gore and his band of terrorist lawyers are plundering our innocent laws, and are cynically using those very laws to render meaningless the election those laws were meant to protect. In the past week it has become quickly fashionable to claim that we have plenty of time, that they just want a full and fair count of the votes, that no harm can come from these little manipulations of the process. But to paraphrase Albert Camus: No one should think that an election victory torn from such convulsions will have the calm, tame aspect that some enjoy imagining. This dreadful travail will give birth to a monster.

Defensively, inevitably, as Al Gore has tried to use the law to defeat the election, the Bush camp has responded in kind. What else could they do? Sit by while their victory was stolen? And yet, we now have two bands of roving lawyers, both attempting to game the system. George W. Bush has been forced to imitate Al Gore in order not to die politically. But the Bush camp, in its effort to defeat Mr. Gore's growing electoral power, risks mutilating its own honor.

Abraham Lincoln once noted that through most of his career, he felt that history had driven him more than he had driven history. So, today, we see both the good and the bad being driven by events they can no longer control. Now that the litigation has started, it will, like the mighty Mississippi, just keep rolling along. Even if one of the candidates should concede for any reason, he will only add a feeling of contempt and betrayal to the sense of impending theft that already roils the blood of his supporters. Nor will he gain accolades for statesmanship. That window closed about last Friday. Now it will be characterized as merely yielding to the inevitable.

The deconstructionists have done their job. Having seen an election close-up for the first time, with all its human imperfections, will the American public ever again look on election returns as we always have until a week ago? Just as a raped virgin, though still innocent in her heart, has yet lost her innocence, so American elections will hereafter be looked upon with a worldly foulness, an indelible stain.

And, in future elections, we can be sure that no self-respecting political campaign will lack a post-election legal strategy. Every nasty new political trick one party comes up with inevitably is adopted by the other side in future campaigns. We have something to look forward to. A precedent has been established.

The corrosive cynicism of the last half-century, the deep sense of irony that sees all things at an angle instead of straight on, abetted by the swift and massive flow of supporting evidence in our information age, has remorselessly undermined respect for our great institutions — religion, church, parents, the military, business, Congress, the courts, the presidency, heroes. We have seemingly taken these blows in stride. Now this denigrating impulse is hitting bedrock — our fundamental organizing mechanism, the elective process itself. It is time for wise men to tremble.

[Jedieb]

I couldn't even finish reading that article Doc. George Will had his "larceny" article this week and that was enough for me. I'm sure you could find commentaries from the other end of the political spectrum charging Bush with trying to run away with the election. Both sides are boring me.

Here is something I found on the Broward situation;

"The three-person Canvassing Board had earlier decided against a recount but Judge Robert Lee said he had changed his mind. He said he was swayed by the legal interpretation of Florida election law from state attorney general Bob Butterworth, a Democrat.
``His opinion was well-reasoned and researched, something lacking in the secretary's,'' Lee said, referring to Florida's top election official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who opposed any recount."

Frankly I was floored when I heard the Broward Canvassing Board had reconsidered it's decision. Lee doesn't sound like he was "bullied" to me. I don't like the idea of the board changing it mind one bit. They should have stuck with their earlier decision not to recount.

What amazes me is how each side can be so adamant in their position. I gaurantee you, if Bush were behind by 300 votes he'd be doing the EXACT same thing Gore is and vice versa. Of this I have no illusion. The only good news is that I think this may finally be settled by this weekend or the next, depending if the recounts are allowed to be certified. The State Supreme court is hearing arguments tomorrow. Gotta go, late for a meeting!

[Darth Turbogeek]

The problem with the US system is that there is NO standardisation
on how you vot across the country. Why cant this happen? Why
is it, each county decides how it is to be done? No wonder this
whole situation is a mess.

Find one way to do it across
the country and enforce the one set of rules for everyone. Why
cant you do that?

[DvdJervs]

The ancient Egyptian architect Imhotep (no, not the Imhotep out
of 'The Mummy', the Imhotep who designed the Stepped Pyramid)
) once said:

<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> Advancement is mankind's ability to complicate
simplicity.[/quote]
And seeing
how the US is supposed to be one of the world's most advanced
nations, well you get the idea. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/
smile.gif ALT=":)">

I've
just heard on the radio that the Supreme Court has overruled
the Secretary of State's decison (or something like that) about
not accepting anymore hand counted votes but the Republicans
are now saying that the Supreme Court has no authority to do
that.

[Doc Milo]

Actually, the Flordia Supreme Court ruled that there is no impediment in the law to stop a hand recount, that case had nothing to do with the Secretary of State's ability to not count those recounts because they are past the deadline.

That case was argued before Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, who ruled originally that the Secretary of State had to use discretion but not be arbitrary.

His decision came down today and he ruled that the Secretary had complied with his ruling, that she did exercise proper discretion, and that Florida does not have to count the results of the manual recount in those counties that did not have the results in before the deadline this past Tuesday.

Gore is now appealing that decision to the Florida Supreme Court. I don't see them overturning the lower court's decision -- although anything in this mess seems possible. In all likelyhood, the Secretary will certify the results tomorrow afer all the overseas absentee ballots are counted, and then the Gore team will probably contest the certification.

[Jedieb]

I only have a couple of minutes to spare so I'll be brief. Like Doc said, Judge Terry refused to compel Harris to accept the recounts. I agreed with his first decision and this one as well. He doesn't have the authority to compel her to do anything. All he did in his first ruling was tell her that she couldn't abritrarily ignore the recounts. She got together with her lawyers and provided ample grounds to not count the recounted votes. If she were a Democrat she would have had lawyers provide her with ample reasons to accept the votes. I think it's that simple.

Gore's lawyers are not going to appeal his decision and find a judge to compel her to accept the votes. Meanwhile Bush's lawyers are desperately trying to stop the recounts. I'm guessing that BOTH of these measures will fail. Gore's recounted votes will not count and Bush will win the state and the election. The recounts will get done and the whole country will know that if they had counted Gore would have won by anywhere from a couple of hundred votes to a few thousand. So Bush will probably end up in office having lost the Popular Vote and the ignored recount vote in Florida. This is rather unfair but if the Democrats are going to lose, this is how they want to lose. They want that stigma hanging over Bush's head for the next elections in 2002 and 2004. This is hardball politics at it's worst.

Why different counties have such different methods of voting
is simple. We're a nation of 50 states and almost 300 million people. States and counties have tremendous power and discretion in the daily lives of their citizens. People go on and on about the big bad Federal government but your traffic lights, sewers, and schools are all handled LOCALLY. Elections fall into this category as well. Most counties don't want the Feds running every election they have because MOST of their elections deal with local matters. This isn't going to change any time soon. One of the best things that will come out of this mess is that states and counties will address some of the problems they have with ballots and voting machines. But they'll do it on their own, without Washington's help. Although I do see a scenario where some Federal money may be made available, but this should and will be a local issue. If a county doesn't want to spend money on new voting machines it won't.

In-laws are coming to town tomorrow so I doubt I'll dropping by much next. Great thread, see you all in a week or so!
MTFBWY

[Doc Milo]

You're right, Jedieb. The election laws and regulations governing elections is and should be a local issue -- for, just as you said, the majority of elections are local elections. In fact, the only non-local election is for President. All other elections are local -- even if they are elections held to decide upon federal representatives and senators for the individual states.

Now, I'd go so far as to say that for the Federal Government to claim any authority, there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment giving them that authority; since the Constitution is silent on the issue, except to outline how federal officials are elected, and it is clear by the Tenth Amendment that any authority not given to the Federal Government by the Constitution is reserved to the States and People respectively. Therefore, for the Feds to claim any authority in creating election laws and regulations to uniformly govern elections, it would need an Amendment to the Constitution.

I do disagree, though, on the claim that the recounts might put Gore in front, and thus the people would know that Gore would have won Florida had they counted. You may be right that the manual recounts would put Gore ahead (although I'm not so certain on that) but I don't think the conclusion that he would have won Florida had they counted would be a fair one. After all, there would have been a heavier scrutiny on the votes of four democratic stronghold counties, that, if the same scrutiny would have applied to republican strongholds would probably produce enough votes for Bush to balance out any gains by Gore through that process. And to say, well, "Bush missed the 72 hour deadline" would be equivalent to Bush people saying, "well, the counties missed the 7 day deadline."

But of course, the Gore people will try to paint the picture differently, they will try to undermine the governing effectiveness of a Bush presidency by doing so, and probably succeed in it as well, because in politics Truth doesn't matter. Perception does.

[Jedi Master Carr]

If I was Gore I would go ahead and succeed, in reality he won because in four years he can run again and this time he probably will win. I say this because whoever became president would have a terrible four years anyway and would be declared in the press the Faux Pas (the pretender for those who do not know french) and then as jedieb said the country will probably go into a recession anyway mainly because it is doomed to happen. With the recession the next presient will be in bad shape because he will get blammed for like Martin Van Bureun, Herbert Hoover, and George Bush Sr. all did when they were elected in economic termoil. Then Bush is going to be looked at as being corrupt by some even if it is not true, it would look even worse if he still apoints Katherine Harris as an ambassador which has been rumored he will. That would be just as stupid as in 1824 when JQ Adams when he won a close election appointed Henry Clay Sec. of State because Clay casted the deciding vote that made Adams president and it would become known as the corrupt deal a slogan that propelled Jackson into the white house just four years later. Also, Bush is in bad company because the other three presidents who won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote all lost the following term that includes Jackson betting Adams, Hayes who did not even seek a second term and Benjamin Harrison who defeated Cleveland in 1888 but lost 4 years later by Cleveland. I think because of these reasons Gore has good chance of unseating Bush in 4 years which would make one of the few rematches in presidential history, I can only think of four others which the election before was also desputed, Adams vs Jefferson, JQ Adams Vs Jackson, Van Bureun Vs. William Harrison and Benjamin Harrison Vs Grover Cleveland in all four oof these the loser of the first bout defeated the incumbent in the rematch which I believe will happen again. Just so I do not leave them out Bryan ran against McKinley twice and lost both times but Bryan constanlty ran for president and from what I have read was really the only candidate the democrats could find back then. Then there was Eisenhower versus Stevenson but both times Eisenhower the very popular and famous General from World War Two easily beat Stevenson in elections that I might add that were not at all controversal. So regardless of the outcome Bush will not win a second term in my opinion and if Gore decides to run in 2004, which I think he should then he could use the clouded picture of this election along with the economic termoil that is about to hit to defeat Bush in 2004.

[BristerM]

This is incredible, guys, @#%$ incredible. Certainly one of (if not THE) most historic, educational, and downright hilarious things to happen in my lifetime. I came into this thread kind of late, so where do I begin...? Well I guess with what's happening today.

Before I go any further I'd like to say that my views on this election are mainly Republican, so that's why I say what I say.

Today it was announced that Bush is now ahead by 930 after most of the absentee ballots were counted. 1,400 of these absentee ballots were thrown out for whatever reason.

I doubt it but hopefully this will end all this racket. It was educational and historic at first, but now it's like THE WATERBOY: hilarious, but incredibly stupid.

The way I see it, and my views are echoed by people on this board and off, Gore should concede this election and end this nonsense. He'll almost certainly get elected (by another slim margin) in four years. Besides, he did his job: he won the popular vote, and if this country had its head screwed on straight that would have been enough to get him into office.

I want to address people's comments on the democracy of the US. The US is not a pure democracy. A pure democracy is a system where the people have a say in EVERY DECISION THAT IS TO BE MADE. We don't have that in this country; we have presidents, governors, and mayors. Currently, I don't think there is one single country in the world that can claim to be a pure democracy. Personally, I don't like the idea of a pure democracy; there would be so much bickering and division among the people that nothing would ever get done.

Yet the US is not a pure republic: we have a Senate, a House of Representatives, Chambers of Commerce, and a Supreme Court. THE SENATE, HOUSE OF REPS, AND SUPREME COURT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF OUR COUNTRY hands down. Without these THREE parts of government working together, our nation's decision making ability would crumble. We need all three--one or two will not do.

The Presidency is an interesting institution. At times, the president has so much power it's scary. At other times, he is utterly powerless to do anything and must yield to the wishes of Congress. It's odd, and although I don't fully understand this whole system (I'm sure no one does), I like it.

In fact I think it's remarkable that our whole country can be built on a document produced 210 years ago and only amended 27 times. Well I gotta jet, I'll finish this thought later.

[DvdJervs]

The closest a democracy every got to being a pure democracy was in ancient Athens, but even it didn't quite make it. All citizens were allowed to attend government meetings and help make decisions, but women and slaves were excluded. Came close though.

As you said Brister a pure democracy would probably never work in today's society. With your average country having millions of citizens (at least) it would almost be impossible unless the information age goes forward a few steps and enables us to help run the country from wherever we want, but I doubt that'll happen. If it did there would be no need for politicians and the politicians don't want to give up their perks just yet.

Back to the election - well they're still hand counting the votes in Florida and they reckon it won't be finished until Tuesday (at least). If Gore still trails after the recount it would make him look an idiot but if he leads and they just ignore it there'll be hell to pay. The Republicans of course want manual counting stop since they consider it to be prone to human error and bias. They fail to mention that machine counting is just as prone to error (at least it looks that way from all the lovely computerised examples of how machine counting works that the news bulletins are showing us).

[Doc Milo]

The only problem with that is that machines are not democrat or republican. So the error will be "fair" to both sides. Yes, there will be more errors against democrats in democrat strongholds, but there will also be more errors against republicans in republican strongholds. Those machine errors would pretty much balance each other out.

The human error, though, also comes from the fact that the people who are counting the votes have a specific affiliation. And the people running the recount and making the rules for the recount have party affiliations.

In fact, the democrat statisticians discovered the other day that at the rate that Gore was gaining votes in the counties recounting, he would not overtake Bush's lead. What did the canvassing board of Broward county do after they found that out? They changed the rules mid-stream as to what counts as a vote. Before they were using a standared that the "chad" had to be punched through at least one corner. Then they changed the rule that the chad merely had to be dimpled -- a more subjective standard, because a chad could have been dimpled for any reason, a person who changed their mind mid-vote, but before punching it through...etc...

This seems to me that the counties are not merely recounting votes. They are looking specifically for Gore votes. That, in my mind, screams fraud.

[Darth Horus]

Umm... Henry Clay cast the vote because he was in the same party as Adams and both of them had pretty much the exact same ideals, the only real problem is that they both disliked eachother, even though politically they had the same views. Clay was pissed he wasnt elected, he was always pissed about that ("If there were two Henry Clays, one would make the other the president"), but he liked Adams better then someone whose veiws didnt so closely resemble his own...

[Jedi Master Carr]

Everybody disliked Henry Clay except for people in kentucky that is why he never became president.

[Jedieb]

Well the Florida Supreme Court deadline has come and gone and Harris has just certified the election for Bush. I believe the certified margin was somewhere in the 530s. She ignored some amended returns from Palm Beach, around 130 votes, because she felt she couldn't accept the manner in which they were turned in. Palm Beach has around 1,000 votes left to go through and it's anybody's guess as to whether or not they'll come up with the 400 or so needed to overtake Bush. There are at least 3 court challenges looming tomorrow. This next week will be a legal festivus. Frankly, I'd like to see Gore concede, but it looks as if both sides are continuing to dig in for their legal trench warfare.

I'm not sure what will happen next. Even if ANOTHER extension is granted how can either side live with the results? If Gore pulls ahead, will Bush walk away or ask for recounts in Republican counties? If Gore still trails after Palm Beach will he seek yet another round of recounts in Broward and/or Miami? Pay attention to this next week, because this is a preview of the next 4 years. I just wish they'd hurry up and certify our next 1 term president and be done with it.

[DvdJervs]

I think David Letterman summed it up best:


Gore isn't President. Bush isn't President. Let's just leave it that way.
I think BOTH candidates have shown off their true colours and I'm just glad that this is occuring in the US and not down here.

[BristerM]

When Jedieb started this thread, he said "Gore or Bush? No, not the title of a Wes Craven porn film..." Well, it looks as if someone picked up on his idea. Yesterday I got an e-mail titled "Gore or Bush" from WetSexyMonica@hotmail.com (or something) and inside it said:

Want Bush?

and proceeded to name all sorts of porn that you'd get when you join the site

Want Gore?

and proceeded to name all sorts of sick @#%$ you'd see when you joined the site (leather, whips, etc.)

Forget the election and get an erection!! (which I thought was pretty clever)

[Jedieb]

Damn, that was my idea!! Maybe I should ask Gore if he could spare a lawyer and sue? ;)

[DvdJervs]

New update: I'm not 100% certain but I believe the Supreme Court has ruled in favoour of Bush.

Gore's chance of becoming President are fast slipping away.

[Jedieb]

I heard an interesting tidbit on MSNBC yesterday. Right now courts across the state of Florida and the nation are dealing with no fewer than 44 cases involving the election. To put this in legal terms;
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$

Every time I think I see light at the end of the tunnel I see a lawyer open a briefcase instead. ;)