response 111 of 216:

Nov 11 05:23 UTC 2000

Uh, no.  From the 12th Amendment:

   The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and
   House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall
   be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President,
   shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole
   number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then
   from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the
   the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives
   shall choose immediate, by ballot, the President.

So, if Florida's electors sent no votes, then NEITHER candidate would have
a majority, so the House of Representatives would choose the President.

response 113 of 216:

Nov 11 05:25 UTC 2000

You my decide for yourself if the House of Representatives would (1) vote for
the candidate with the highest popular vote count, (2) vote for the candidate
with the highest electorial vote count or, (3) vote along pary lines.  I'm
pretty sure however, that the Democrats would prefer not to find out.

response 115 of 216:

Nov 11 05:37 UTC 2000

I can hear Rane and Mary screaming already.

response 117 of 216:

Nov 11 05:39 UTC 2000

Jan, you overlooked an important word: "appointed".  If Florida's general
election is unsettled, Florida will not have appointed any electors, so
the total number of electors will have been reduced accordingly, which
reduces the number needed to obtain "a majority of the whole number of
Electors appointed."  Last *I* heard (and I've not heard a news program
in more than twelve hours) Gore had a majority of the remaining electoral
votes.

And in the House, each State gets one, and only one, vote for President.
I *think* that will reduce the effect of "party line" voting; how many
states have Representatives from only one party?

response 119 of 216:

Nov 11 05:42 UTC 2000

(many responses slipped in while I was typing resp:118)

response 121 of 216:

Nov 11 05:52 UTC 2000

January 20th, Jan.  Check out the 20th Amendment. ;)

response 123 of 216:

Nov 11 06:28 UTC 2000

Re #99: 

My mistake. It's obvious that Grex is full of people with expertise 
about everything but business and economy. A leader should and *is* 
absolutely judged substantially by how the market and economy does. The 
Nasdaq is at 3000 right now. If in four years the Nasdaq declines to 
2000, I will guarantee you that whomever is elected this year will not 
be re-elected in 2004 (and neither should he be) because the decline of 
1000 points over four years will mean our economy has gone to hell, 
people are unemployed, and maybe even our technology leadership is no 
more. BTW, if the Nasdaq were at 4000 instead of low 3000's at the 
beginning of November, Gore would have won without a recount.

The market is *extremely* efficient in the long-term but not 
necessarily in the short-term. It is due to layoffs -- in research or 
otherwise -- that the U.S. has the most efficient economy in the world 
right now. For a crappy and non-dynamic economy, check out many 
European countries that have strict laws and penalties against layoffs. 
And your assertion that Wall Street applauds cuts in research is pure 
BS. Most technology companies are judged by the percent of revenues 
they plow back into R&D -- usually the more the better.

Re #108:

The mentality taken by some Americans towards what happened in Palm 
Beach County is quite unique to the U.S. In the rest of the world, if 
you don't follow directions carefully and/or lack common sense, it's 
your problem; In the U.S., if you don't follow directions carefully 
and/or lack common sense, it's time to call your lawyer. This is the 
country where people stupid enough to spill hot coffee on their crotch, 
place a market order for an IPO, ride a bike at night, etc. call their 
lawyers and actually get compensation. The ballot was not perfect but 
it was approved by both parties. Those who screwed up their ballot were 
not careful enough and/or don't have the wherewithal to vote properly, 
and that's their problem. Again, I was hoping Gore would win, but there 
was *no* malice in Florida and that's the way the ball bounces. There 
are mistakes and imperfections in *every* election. There are no more 
imperfections in this election than in previous elections. Don't call 
the lawyers to argue ball and strike calls after the game is over. 
Modify and improve the game if you want, but the game is *over*.

We are already seeing the potentially dangerous effects of what Gore is 
trying to do. The Republicans are already hinting at recounts in other 
states where the Republicans lost very close races, and I don't blame 
them at all. Soon you might see voters in the very conservative Florida 
panhandle (in CST) who want a re-vote because they were on their way to 
the polling stations but turned back when every major network announced 
the race in Florida is over and Gore won. Maybe you'll even see 
millions of Republicans in Western states who claimed they didn't vote 
because the networks announced that Gore won Michigan, Penn, and 
Florida and that really means Bush has no hope. There is potential for 
dozens and dozens of similar after-the-fact lawsuits that will delay 
the results indefinitely. It's disgraceful and it's rightfully seen as 
disgraceful by the rest of the world. Only Americans are blind enough 
to think this process is normal.

I went to an extremely competitive high school and people frequently 
wanted specific questions regraded on exams. One of my high school 
teachers had a policy that if you wanted a question regraded on an 
exam, he will regrade *every* question on that exam and you might lose 
points as well as gain points. It was a fair and smart policy. Very few 
people wanted their entire exams regraded with greater scrutiny. In 
this case, the Democrats just want a specific question regraded. The 
Republicans will and should demand that the entire exam be regraded. 
Bush is not that stupid and Jim Baker is very smart and as hard-nosed 
as they come. The party of the trial lawyers needs to realize that the 
game is over.

BTW, if Bush wins, Nader's political career is over. Guaranteed.

response 125 of 216:

Nov 11 06:47 UTC 2000

Re #115: screaming? I am ROTFLOL! I agree with Jan - it is hilarious
as well as exciting. 

The XX-th doesn't seem to change the XII - but I haven't worked out
what is done between 20 January and 4 March if the House has not made
a decision.

There was a comment made about early travel problems. That was not likely
to be a problem for electors to vote, since they did that in their own
states, but it might have been a problem for the certificates to be
forwarded to Washington. But people got around pretty well in those days -
Lewis and Clark certainly demonstrated that.

response 127 of 216:

Nov 11 07:27 UTC 2000

I can do this one of two ways:  cut and paste from 

        http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/amend.html

or type in from my copy of House Document No. 93-415, which I've carried
around since '78.  The House Document brackets clauses that are affected
by later amendments.

Amendment 12 states, in pertinent part, "And if the House of Representatives
shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon
them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President
shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional
disability of the President" (House Document No. 93-415, page 33) [this
clause is bracketed, with a note that it has been superseded by Section 3 
of Amendment 20].

Amendment 20 states, in Section 1, "The terms of the President and Vice
President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, . . . and the terms
of their successors shall then begin" (House Document No. 93-415, page 37),
and, in Section 3, "If a President shall not have been chosen before the
time fixed for the beginning of his term, . . .  then the Vice President
elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and
the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President
elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall
then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be
selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified" (ibid).

So if the election is not settled by Inauguration Day, we can have an
interim President until the election *is* settled.  Note that March 4th
was Inauguration Day until the ratification of the 20th Amendment.

Section 1 set the dates that the terms of the President, Vice President,
Senators and Representatives begin; Section 2 set the date that Congress
should assemble; Section 5 stated that sections 1 and 2 would take effect
"on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article"
(ibid).  Thus, Section 3 was effective before Section 1, and was foreseen
to be likely to be such, so it had to use "the time fixed for the beginning
of his term" instead of "January 20" or "March 4".  As it happened, the
amendment was ratified on January 23, 1933.  If I remember correctly,
FDR was elected in '32, so he was inaugurated in March, 1933.  His next
inauguration was in January, in keeping with this Amendment.

response 129 of 216:

Nov 11 07:54 UTC 2000

I'm sorry, but I don't have much sympathy for people who want a quick
election result so their stocks don't fall too much on the stock
exchange.  If the loss hurts you that badly, *don't* invest.  If you're
greedy, maybe somewhere around now will be a good time to buy.

Sure, we have a myth in this country that the President is personally
responsible for the economy, and way too many people vote that way.
But, you know, it's just plain wrong.  Congress, taken as a whole,
actually has more economic clout than the president, and there are
considerable portions of the economy that are (surprise!) actually not
dependent on the president or washington DC for their revenue stream.
Remember the last time the republican shut down the US gov't?  Sure, it
hurt the restaurant and tourist trade in Washington DC, but most of
America kept right on ticking just as it should.  In the long run, yes,
the president does have *some* influence, and it's good to have someone
in that seat.  But!  The sitting president does not always deserve the
credit for when the economy goes on an upswing, and the sitting
president does not always deserve the blame when things go in the
toilet.  Just to take an example, Saddam Hussein can be blamed on a
series of bad decisions made by *many* people in the US gov't over the
past *50* years.  Our fascination on blaming the nation's economic woes
on the president seems like a revival of some ancient bizarre ritual of
sacrificing the king to appease the gods and ensure a good harvest.

response 131 of 216:

Nov 11 17:39 UTC 2000

#128: I didn't say the drop in the market was "proof" -- I gave it as 
one of two reasons why the issue needs to be resolved ASAP. Nasdaq 
futures were up over 40 on election night when it looked like Bush won. 
We have since gone down 400 points, including down 180 points on the 
day after election day -- that is serious loss of wealth for many 
people in this country. Politicians should not necessarily respond to 
short-term fluctuations, except when the potential constitutional 
crisis they caused ignited the precipitous fall. 

-Individual responsibility and Americans. The view from the rest of the 
world -- even from Canada, our similar neighbors to the north -- is 
that Americans don't take responsibility for their own actions, expect 
*everything* to be absolutely fool-proof, and are overly litigious. I 
suspect you have never lived for an extended amount of time in another 
country, Western or otherwise, and that is why you do not realize that 
this perception is generally true.

-They are doing more than ordinary recounts. Gore wants recounts by 
magnifying glass, hand recounts so ballots that don't have a proper 
hole punched can be counted, etc. Maybe Gore also will bring in 
psychics to look at blank ballots to determine if the voter really 
meant to vote for Gore?

-How were the votes in Florida "interfered with"? You're setting up a 
straw man that is simply untrue. The ballots were not "interfered 
with". The ballots were not "perfect", but I am sure there are many 
things in tens or hundreds of precincts all over the country that are 
not perfect. Go down the path of playing after-the-game referee with 
one precinct and all those other imperfect precincts will be in play 
again. How far do you go?

-If Bush wins and if Nader runs again in 2004, he will get even fewer 
votes than he got this year. Democrats who voted for Nader will see the 
damage they have *directly* helped cause and will blame Nader for it, 
and rightfully so. His political career is over -- a consumer advocate 
is not a political career. The biggest fools are the ones who think 
they can take corporate money out of politics by voting for Nader -- I 
have some swamp land in Florida for these people. The only way to take 
corporate money out of politics is through campaign finance reform, and 
that is through either McCain or even Gore. Nader can never win and 
Bush has no intentions of serious campaign finance reform. 
Congratulations to Nader voters!

Here's something by a lifelong flaming liberal. I don't agree with 
everything he says, but he always make some sense. Democrats who are 
not closely associated with Gore's campaign are starting to come to 
their senses and realize that the game is over and the right thing to 
do is not to bring in their army of trial lawyers.

http://slate.msn.com/Readme/00-11-10/Readme.asp

#129: The President has as much influence on the economy as any other 
single person, Greenspan included. If a baseball team loses 100 games 
in a season, the manager may not be 100% responsible, but he's going to 
be held responsible. Likewise with the president of the US if the 
economy goes to hell. It's a reasonable act.

response 133 of 216:

Nov 11 19:02 UTC 2000

Re #95:
> My expectation is that Gore is going to be the next president.  The
> fact that he clearly got a plurality of the votes nationwide does not
> mean anything legally, but it does give him a certain moral
> justification to be "quibbling" over results in places like Palm
> Beach.

--> I disagree.  I think Bush will ultimately win, as much as I hate to
admit that.  Also, the Republicans are already crying foul that Gore is
holding things up so long (one person I know said he was acting like a
"crybaby" and should "just concede."  This person also claimed that Bush
would have already conceded in the reverse position, though, so I think he's
dreaming.)  I think that if Gore ultimately wins, it will be a PR disaster
for him; I think he'll be seen as having bullied his way into the White
House by litigation, instead of having gotten it legitimately through a
vote.  I also wonder what this will mean for future elections; I'd hate to
see every person who lost one file a lawsuit over it.

Re #131:
> Politicians should not necessarily respond to short-term
> fluctuations, except when the potential constitutional crisis they
> caused ignited the precipitous fall.

--> How is this a Constitutional crisis?  So far I don't see any situation
happening that isn't adequately covered.  Yes, it might trigger some clauses
that have never really been used before, but that's not a crisis, it's just
unusual.

The NASDAQ hasn't fallen any more precipitously than it was likely to
anyway.  It's full of dotcom companies that have never turned a profit;
anyone investing in stocks like that probably has money they can afford to
lose.  I don't think we should start making legal decisions based on market
hiccups.

> The biggest fools are the ones who think they can take corporate
> money out of politics by voting for Nader -- I have some swamp land
> in Florida for these people. The only way to take corporate money out
> of politics is through campaign finance reform, and that is through
> either McCain or even Gore.

--> Now who's being naive?  You think that a candidate who got *elected*
using corporate money is going to turn around and bite the hand that fed
them by enacting campaign finance reform?