response 12 of 216:

Nov 8 19:02 UTC 2000

Isn't this situation more interesting than just an ordinary popular vote?
In any case, the electoral college system is more consistent with the
constitutional balance between federal and state's rights. The slightly
greater influence of votes of small states (due to the electoral strength
of each state being the sum of senators and representatives), is consistent
with the similar imbalance between representation in the house and the
senate. In the end, the President presides over a nation with a division
of rights between the federal government and the states, not just a
nation of homogeneous people. If you think "stae's rights" are important,
you should also support the electoral college system.

response 14 of 216:

Nov 8 23:02 UTC 2000

"One man (person), one vote" supersedes any possible "state[s] rights"
argument when you're talking about the election of the president of the entire
nation.

response 16 of 216:

Nov 9 01:23 UTC 2000

*That* would be a constitutional crisis.  Changing the rules later may make
sense, although I have mixed feelings about it.  Changing the rules during
the decision making process is a very bad idea, for what I hope are obvious
reasons.

response 18 of 216:

Nov 9 02:33 UTC 2000

Well, now we at least know that Gore had the popular
vote. Bush will win, and this will mean that we live
in a country where a minority can elect the President.
 
It also looks like we'll have four more years of fighting
in congress, but this time Hillary will be the target.
 
Ralph Nader really screwed things up for the Democrats
too. Like a bad stubborn kid spoiling a party.
 
After watching the news tonight (Thurs) I see that the
media didn't learn from their mistake, in an effort to
boost ratings they were still making predictions based
on assumptions and stating them as if they were facts.
 
If the candidates really care about the welfare of the
country, they should choose to handle this in a way
that prevents more political infighting. In my opinion
the looser of the popular vote should conceede, and
we should eliminate the electoral college. The constitution
is a living document and should change with the country's
needs. However, Gore, being the more honorable of the
two, will be the one who ends up conceeding.
 
In an era when we are making some of the greatest advances
in in science, George W. will appoint justices to the supreme
court who will base their decisions on religious convictions.
 
After seeing the raw numbers of the popular vote, I can
rest assured in the knowledge that most of the country
rightfully is probably very angry about the way this is being
handled. And hopefully people will want to do someting about
it.
 
Maybe I'm being suspicious, but I believe that the ballots
in Florida that were difficult to read, so that the voter
mistakinly voted for Buchannin when they intended to vote
for Gore, were set up that way purposfully. The Bush campaign
was just a little too quick to chalenge the announcement
that Gore had won Florida.
 
In any case, when Bush makes his acceptance speach, I'm sure
he'll say, "The country has spoken" and yes we have, we elected
Gore.
 

 
 
 

response 20 of 216:

Nov 9 03:04 UTC 2000

I think from the sounds of it, the Palm Beach Fla residents have a real
case.  I think it's also perfectly fair to rehold it - preferably with
some different style of voting hardware.  I don't think there's any
reason at all why this should affect any of the election except in that
one county.  If Bush were real presidential material, I'd even expect
him to be for this as well.  It's simple, fair, and above board.

response 22 of 216:

Nov 9 03:25 UTC 2000

  re #18:  When the supposition was that Gore would probably take the
  electoral vote and Bush the popular vote, were you as anxious to grant
  the election to the winner of the popular vote?

  As far as the theory that Republican operatives deliberately sabotaged
  the election by printing complicated ballots in a county in primarily
  Democratic county in Florida, I think a little realistic assessment of 
  that theory should be sufficient to dispel it.  If it's not, then I would
  refer you to the following from the on-line magazine Salon:

    (http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/07/results/index.html)

  > Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore, a Democrat, insisted
  > any confusion was unintentional and defended the layout of
  > the cluttered ballots as necessary to get all the presidential
  > candidates on facing pages while making the type large enough
  > for voters to read.
  >
  > "I was trying to make the print bigger so elderly people in
  > Palm Beach County can read it," said LePore.
  >
  > She also said that if it was so confusing, someone should have
  > pointed it out to her earlier. "We sent out sample ballots to
  > all registered voters, and no one said a word," she said.

  Whether or not the ballots were invalid remains to be seen.  Several
  stories I've read cite a Florida law saying that ballots must be marked
  with an "X" to the right of the candidate's names (or similar wording)
  which might technically invalidate these ballots (which had the space
  to mark to the left of some candidates' names and to the right of others.)

  Wilder accusations and conspiracy theories are already flying around
  (e.g.:  the charge that Florida police set up a roadblock near a polling
  place in a predominantly black area, or various stories about "misplaced"
  ballot boxes turning up unexpectedly..)  I plan to take a "wait and see"
  attitude rather than make any rash conclusions based on new coverage that's
  already been revealed to be sensationalistic and of dubious accuracy.

response 24 of 216:

Nov 9 08:56 UTC 2000

Do those of you who are suggesting getting rid of the Electoral College in
mid-election, or suggesting that Bush should declare Gore to be the President
anyway, really want to change the rules in mid-election?  That gets seen a
lot in other parts of the world, as leaders seaking to legitimize themselves
make up the most favorable rules as they go along.  It tends to result in the
results being decided by force, rather than by an agreed upon system. 
Governmental stablity, which seems to be the only realistic alternative to
civil war, depends on the process being agreed upon before the election and
honored.  If people want to change the electoral college system before the
next election -- preferably far enough before that we don't have polling data
for the election yet, that might be worth discussing.

That said, I'm not convinced that the electoral college is a bad thing.  In
most elections, it makes no difference.  In this election, the vote is close
enough that the electoral college may affect the outcome, but it's also close
enough that random chance probably played a big role.  Every traffic jam that
caused some voters to not make it to the polls probably made a difference in
one direction or another.  The weather probably made a difference.  Which
people were sick and decided they couldn't leave the house to vote probably
made a difference.  I think for most purposes we could say we have a tie here,
but the Constitution, the rules that were agreed to in advance, doens't
recognize this as a tie.  Instead, the Constitution says to get the most
accurate vote possible and make a decision, whcih is what's being done.

So what does the electoral college do?  Obviously, it can sway the decision
away from the popular vote.  It also prevents any single state from weilding
a huge amount of power, insead forcing geographic diversity in a
support.  I assume it also makes the vote easier to manage in most cases,
since the US doesn't really have a provision for National elections (elections
are run by the states).

response 26 of 216:

Nov 9 15:42 UTC 2000

(one was found.  it contained supplies.  news sources.)

response 28 of 216:

Nov 9 15:59 UTC 2000

On the night of the election, some people became confused with regard to
when ballot boxes were supposed to be turned in, and that escalated into
a rumor of ballot boxes going missing. In fact, they were being accumulated
in a single location, under police guard, to be transported en masse when
voting was complete. They were never actually missing.

While Fla Stat 101.151, requires the following instruction to be placed on
the general ballot:

"To vote for a candidate whose name is printed on the ballot,
place a cross (X) mark in the blank space at the  right  of the
name of the  candidate  for whom you desire to vote...."

that statute does not apply in counties using voting machines. I do not know
whether that means voting machines to tabulate punchcard ballots, or the old
"pull a lever" kind, but either way it is apparent that you don't mark an
"x" on a punchcard ballot.

response 30 of 216:

Nov 9 16:13 UTC 2000

with 32 of 67 counties reporting in the recount in Florida, Gore has
picked  up a net of 1,189 adidtional votes, Bush has picked up 346
additional votes.  The difference is now down to approx. 940 votes.  This
is getting very interesting.  Also apparently they threw out thousands
of ballots in Palm Beach County because more than one hole was punched,
something that happened when Gore voters punched the Buchanan hole by
accident, and then also punched the Gore hole thinking this would 
somehow fix it.  If this comes down to a few hundred vote difference, and
all those ballots were disqualified, the only fair thing to do would be
to throw out all the ballots in Palm Beach county and re-hold the 
election there.

Also, if the recount should end up with Gore ahead, the GOP is prepared
to request a new statewide election on the grounds that the networks
projected Florida for Gore before all the polls closed there.  The
Florida panhandle is central timezone and polls in that part of the state
close an hour later.  And the panhandle is a staunch republican area.  So
the networks projecting Florida for Gore could have caused voters in
the Panhandle heading to vote to turn around.  

response 32 of 216:

Nov 9 16:56 UTC 2000

this is not silly...palm beach county officials announced today that
19,120 ballots were disqualified there on election night.  This is a
heavily democratic county, and the number of ballots disqualified there
was, by their own admission, extraordinarily high (much higher in percentage
basis than any other county in the state)  There is almost certain
to be lawsuits flying, and it may be weeks before we know who the next
leader of the free world could be.


It is far far far from being silly...its silly like a bullet in the head

response 34 of 216:

Nov 9 17:39 UTC 2000

Exactly.  And, as we've seen so far, what America chose (Gore with more
popular votes) might not end up with Gore in the White House.  What's up with
that?  The majority loses because big states have all the pull?  How does that
make it fair in population standpoints?  That's like saying, "Well, that
candidate got a billion votes, but since they only got three in California,
Florida, Texas, and Michigan, they lose."

Since it is a national election, they should make it a *national* vote, not
a state-separated vote.

(I know state-separated isn't a term...I'm tired).  =)