response 126 of 409:

Nov 11 07:54 UTC 2000

If the pamphleteer was more than 100 feet from the entrance, he was
fine.  If not, they would have chased him across the line. :)

As we were walking out, Cindy asked where my "I Voted" sticker was.
I said it was in my pocket.  As we cleared that magic line, I out my "No
on 1" button and affixed the sticker so that it read "I voted no on 1".

response 128 of 409:

Nov 11 20:09 UTC 2000

Yeah, I'd have them move that car, too.  However, it *is* difficult when the
only available parking is within the 100ft limit, as at Pittsfield Elementary
School.  Can't make employees take off their bumper stickers for just one
day, y'know.  Same for poll workers: they've a right to advertise everywhere
else.

response 130 of 409:

Nov 11 21:10 UTC 2000

Digressing:  The rule that the ballots are to be marked in private, and 
not displayed publically, exists for a very good reason, and Valerie's
vote as described in resp:125 should have been rejected by the election
workers.
 
The principle of ballot secrecy is to protect voters from intimidation.
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Valerie had a spouse or 
an employer who said, I own you and you're going to vote the way I want,
and you're going to show me your ballot so I can be sure.

response 132 of 409:

Nov 12 04:11 UTC 2000

Since I've been out of the loop, I'd just like to share my vision of what
should have happened this week...

Bush on Thursday says, calmly and publicly, that what happened in Palm Beach
County was clearly an error, that it is obvious that some sizable number of
voters intended to vote for Gore but instead voted for Buchanan or "both"
(either because they caught their error and tried to correct it, or because
they thought they had to vote for both Pres and VP). However, there are errors
all over the country of people who are less educated than they should be about
their local voting process than they should be, and sometimes we have to live
with the consezuences of our carelessness. The official count, like it or not,
favors Bush, and the electors should go to Bush, but he will strive to meet
the needs of all citizens, as we has always said he will. As a good faith
effort, he will appoint at least one Democrat to his Cabinet, to promote the
sense of good will and non-partisanship that the American people have so
clearly voted for.

Gore, hearing this reassurance from the duly (if accidentally) elected leader
of our country, concedes Florida and suggests that his supporters remain
vigilant in keeping President Bush to his commitment to everyone. He goes on
to say that, while it may seem unfair to the 20,000 voters in Palm Beach
County that their votes were miscast, it would be likewise unfair to the
100,000,000 voters around the country, the vast majority of whom voted for
the candidate they intended to vote for, to give Palm Beach County residents
special treatment.

Florida Governor Jeb Bush, seeing that the two people that American voters
decided were the most appropriate choices for leading the most powerful
country in the world can act as mature and responsible as that role would
dictate, commits publicly to a thorough review of the Florida election
process, so that this sort of error doesn't happen again.

I'm ashamed of both George W. Bush and Al Gore. I'm more saddened that Bush,
who has been selected by the people through the voting process they devised
to lead this country, is allowing himself to be goaded into retaliatory
nonsense by threatening recounts in IA, WI, and NM, and suing to block legal
hand counts in FL, rather than stepping up to the leadership role that he's
been given and acting like the freakin' President.

I don't like Bush. I was willing to give him a chance, though. The way he
handled himself in the debates, and in recent months in general, has indicated
that MAYBE he could pull himself together enough to be a true leader. The way
he's acted in the last week has demonstrated that he's a child and Daddy's
brought him in on Take Your Son to Work day.

Gore isn't behaving much better, but the chances that he'll be the one in the
White House are much slimmer anyway.

response 134 of 409:

Nov 12 04:39 UTC 2000

A boy can dream... ;}

response 136 of 409:

Nov 12 15:46 UTC 2000

So she was sitting far away from everyone else but not so far
away that the election monitors couldn't see here, which they'd
be obligated to do to make sure she was the only one marking the
ballot.

I think this probably worked just fine because she was the only
one pressing the point.  But if everyone in line decided to take
their ballot to wherever they wanted to in order to cut their
wait short then it would probably not be a good thing.

But I understand the frustration with lines.  I too dislike them.
Which is why I always ask for an absentee ballot, which, according
to the rules, is not quite right either.

response 138 of 409:

Nov 13 21:15 UTC 2000

I'm puzzled as to why anyone
1) would object to the actions of the candidates to sway things their
   way,
or

2) think one of them has been behaving better or worse than the other.

1) The candidates have spent the last 2 years or more, and around $60 
million each, to win the election.  It's all come down to 300 votes, 
give or take a couple of dozen, out of around 100 million votes total.  
Obviously it would be a shame for either candidate to lose such a close 
vote, from his own perspective and that of the people who devoutly 
believe he's the better candidate.  If there are existing rules to 
exploit, I would certainly expect either of them (and their respective 
parties) to exploit them to the maximum possible extent.  Anything they 
can say or do to tip the balance the most miniscule of amounts is pretty 
understandable under these circumstances, as long as some theory can be 
constructed that asserts that action is legal.

2) After all this time, effort, and money, and with the enormous amount 
of power (and possibilities) at stake, either candidate obviously *will* 
do anything he can to come out the winner.  Wouldn't you?  It's nutty to 
say one of them "should put the country ahead of his own interests".  
They both think the good of the country would be best served if they 
won.  The other guy could make decisions leading to a nuclear war, ruin 
the economy, unbalance the Supreme Court, and keep himself and the 
devils who work for him in power for 8 years.  Not just as hyperbole, 
but these things really could happen and really are supremely critical 
things.

I'll bet, to the candidates, it would be unethical to *not* take any 
chance that might give them the presidency.

response 140 of 409:

Nov 14 00:12 UTC 2000

Okay, so Bush has Gore offed.  I mean, he owed it to those who
voted for him.

Sorry, but I think if either candidate does something really
nasty and manipulative here they they could end up being 
a sitting President without the respect of anyone.  What
an honor.  There are worse things than losing this bid.

response 142 of 409:

Nov 14 01:40 UTC 2000

I'm afraid I don't entirely agree with #138.  I can understand the
candidates making *some* effort to sway things their way.  If nothing
else, they have a responsibility to their voters to do so.  I'm afraid I
*don't* agree that they've been behaving "equally badly".  The
responsible thing to do would be to press forward with an effort to
count those votes as accurately as possible.  It's what the majority of
americans want, it's what any responsible voter would want, and it's
almost certainly what the courts will order in the end anyways.  The
Bush campaign has been consistently against this from the start, and I
suspect the only reason they're not frothing at the mouth on TV about
this is that someone pointed out to them this wouldn't play well to the
american people.  The gore campaign has been, if anything, a bit
stand-offish, but I think they are quite willing to leave it to the
local voters and officials to get that accurate recount done, as indeed
they should.  It is an interesting question whether the Gore & Bush
campaigns would have adopted each other's positions had the situation
been reversed, but as things stand, I think the Gore campaign has come
off smelling a *lot* nicer than the Bush campign.  Even Buchanan came
off smelling better than Bush, and that takes some doing!

response 144 of 409:

Nov 14 17:34 UTC 2000

Another perspective:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/home/all-stores-ballot.html

response 146 of 409:

Nov 15 18:46 UTC 2000

it also appears that the voters in some of the precincts have been complaining
about the methods used in their districts for years, and they have been
ignored for just as long.  Several suits have been filed, but procedures have
not changed under the democrat board.  But Now that they might lose, they want
to change things.       

response 148 of 409:

Nov 15 19:03 UTC 2000

re #142: At the start, Wednesday after the election, I thought Gore was 
sounding very statesmanlike.  Since then, he hasn't said anything, but 
his campaign has vigorously pursued any kind of advantage he could get. 
I think that's what they should be doing; it's also what the Bush 
campaign is doing and should be doing.

If at some point the Florida recount shows Gore is ahead, then the Gore 
campaign is going to want to stop the recounts, declare the election 
finished, and finalize things in every possible way.  In that case, Bush 
is going to challenge votes in Florida, and is also going to pursue 
further recounts in New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa and Wisconsin.  I 
understand the law in Iowa and Wisconsin is that a challenge has to be 
requested within 3 days of the election.

A lot of people who tend toward Gore now are saying "recount until it's 
*right*, never mind laws saying the votes have to be finalized by a week 
after the election".  If they do not continue to say that as the Bush 
campaign asks for further recounts in other states but Florida, it'll be 
purest partisan hypocrisy.  If the courts do not enforce recounts in all 
other states where either side has a dispute, then it will be an unfair 
election.  The Gore campaign is, right now, getting hand recounts in 
Florida counties despite the passing of the Florida deadline for 
certifying results.

Whatever wrangling goes on, in courts, in the press, or in the states 
and counties, it's understandable, and it's not unethical.  Re #140, 
certainly no reasonable person is suggesting that an assassination is 
ethically justifiable.  I'm not suggesting the legal process is 
aesthetically pleasing; it's not, and it's not going to be while this 
whole thing is being decided.  But... isn't it better than civil war?