|
Grex > Agora35 > #124: Win the electoral college but lose the popular vote? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 409 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 178 of 409:
| 
Nov 17 23:10 UTC 2000 |
"Manipulating rules" is not "breaking rules." Gore didn't suggest a statewide
manual recount until after Bush had already filed suit to block any hand
counts; until then, Gore had only requested hand counts in heavily Democratic
counties. that's manipulating rules in one's own direction.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 179 of 409:
|
Nov 17 23:18 UTC 2000 |
the florida state supremes have enjoined the sect of state from certifying
the election on saturday. arguments to be heard by the supremes on monday.
the u.s. 11th circuit court of appeals in atlanta has just denied the
repubelicans request to ban handcounting in the florida election.
on a day that started out not so spiffy for the dems, it appears that they
have scored some winners later in the day.
|
aaron
|
|
response 180 of 409:
|
Nov 17 23:38 UTC 2000 |
re #178: That's absolute nonsense. Nothing in the statute says you have to
request a state-wide recount. You may request a recount only in
those counties where you believe there is a problem. That's not
only 100% consistent with the statute, it is precisely what the
statute *intends* for candidates to do.
|
brighn
|
|
response 181 of 409:
|
Nov 18 19:51 UTC 2000 |
Could somebody please provide the definition of "manipulate" which people are
of the impression I'm using?
Gore wants to win. He's selecting counties which he feels will benefit him
the most to that end. He's using existing rules to justify his actions.
Please select the paragraph in the last sentence which is untrue.
|
scg
|
|
response 182 of 409:
|
Nov 18 19:57 UTC 2000 |
My understanding of the vote recount process is that it is up to either
candidate to ask for recounts in areas they think were counted against them.
The Gore campaign may feel that it's the Bush campaign's role to ask for
recounts in areas where the Bush campaign claims it would pick up votes in
a recount.
Anyhow, it seems to me that Gore is doing the reasonable thing by letting the
courts decide what the law says the process is, as the courts are the right
place for that sort of decision. It bothers me that the views of this seem
so split down party lines. I think I'd feel this way about the process
no matter who it favored, but I'm certianly not unbiased, and the conflict
is making me question my objectivity.
|
brighn
|
|
response 183 of 409:
|
Nov 18 19:59 UTC 2000 |
Everybody's biased. =}
|
gelinas
|
|
response 184 of 409:
|
Nov 18 22:11 UTC 2000 |
Re #183: "manipulate" has negative connotations, especially in the contexts
you are using. It's not a denotation, it's a connotation. Words have both,
but definitions usually get only the latter; "usage notes" will mention the
former.
Using the system is not manipulating it. Appointing a Secretary of State to
your campaign is an example of manipulating the system. (Since SoS is an
partisan, elective office, the truth of the immediately preceding sentence
is not self-evident. The sentence could, in fact, be used as evidence of
bias. ;)
|
bru
|
|
response 185 of 409:
|
Nov 19 05:50 UTC 2000 |
Can anyone tell me the logic of why the Gore campaign appears to have
challenged up to 80% of the incoming overseas ballots from american service
men and women.
I don't see any fairness here at all.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 186 of 409:
|
Nov 19 06:00 UTC 2000 |
I started to say that I hadn't heard that they had. But then I remembered
seeing something about ballots not bearing postmarks as required by
Florida law. Yeah, that sounds like a legitimate reason to challenge a
ballot, before it is even opened.
Interesting that those who would prevent a legal recount would count
illegal ballots, no?
NB: I voted absentee in three Presidential elections. Only one of them
overseas, though.
|
sno
|
|
response 187 of 409:
|
Nov 19 12:21 UTC 2000 |
Interesting that those who would want a legal recount would count
felon ballots, no?
|
tpryan
|
|
response 188 of 409:
|
Nov 19 16:13 UTC 2000 |
The Gore team should fire their coach.
|
bru
|
|
response 189 of 409:
|
Nov 19 16:58 UTC 2000 |
federal law does not require a post mark on overseas ballots, Florida state
law does. So if the APO messed up, the postmark is illegible, or if the
ballot was fedex'ed, they are trying to reject it.
Hey! These guys just defend this country, they don't need to have a voice
in its operation, right?
|
scg
|
|
response 190 of 409:
|
Nov 19 20:37 UTC 2000 |
An accurate count is important, as is not changing the rules about which
ballots are eligible in the middle of the count to favor one candidate over
the other. Once agian, given the tensions involved, this is probably an issue
best decided by the courts.
Is anybody else here really shocked by the Bush campaign's comments yesterday?
They now seem to have gone from questioning that fairness of hand counts to
questioning the legitimacy of the court system.
|
aaron
|
|
response 191 of 409:
|
Nov 19 21:47 UTC 2000 |
I think the Bush camp is a hoot. "You can't do manual recounts," they
squeal, "They're *inaccurate." Then when Broward County proposes to
machine sort their ballots prior to doing a manual recount, "You can't
machine sort the ballots." Whatever.
|
brighn
|
|
response 192 of 409:
|
Nov 19 22:40 UTC 2000 |
Joe> *shrug* There's a whole lot of Republicans, and quite a few Democrats,
who see what Gore's doing as a negative connotation. ;}
|
other
|
|
response 193 of 409:
|
Nov 20 05:30 UTC 2000 |
You know, no matter what any of you partisan squealers say, if the situations
were reversed, the dynamics would be EXACTLY the same, only the party
positions would be switched. In my opinion, anyone who is getting all hot
and bothered about what one side or the other is doing is either woefully
naive or just plain ignorant.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 194 of 409:
|
Nov 20 06:03 UTC 2000 |
I dunno, Eric. I don't like what Bush is doing, and I wouldn't like it if
it were Gore doing it. For me, at least, it's the actions and not the actors.
|
mdw
|
|
response 195 of 409:
|
Nov 20 07:56 UTC 2000 |
I'm really not all that fond of Gore. Remember, I voted for Nader? Even
so, I see a distinct difference between Gore's behavior, and Bush's, and
I believe part of the dynamics of the whole situation is in fact the
individual and distinct personalities of the two. For instance, we've
seen relatively little of Bush, and instead Karen Hughes has been doing
much of his speechifying and defense. In part, I'm sure that's because
Bush hates the press, and probably has little respect for the process,
so would likely say some pretty offensive things if pressed. Karen at
least manages to not look like she's saying offensive things. I think
if the situation were reversed, Gore wouldn't be hiding nearly as much
behind his campaign manager, and I think he'd be working a lot harder in
his speeches and activities of his campaign to at least *sound* like he
respects the process and the rights of the voters concerned.
How that would translate down the line is harder to say. I'm sure there
are many Democrats who would behave the same as the Republicans. I'm
not so sure the decisions made at the higher level would have been
precisely the same - would the Democrats be alleging they talked to a
Republican who claimed to have seen vote stuffing going on, or would
they have tried to collect proper evidence and gone to the authorities?
Would a Democrat secretary of state be as willing to dismiss hand counts
as Katherine Harris? A lot might depend on the individuals in question,
and the things they would do in response to their perception of the
people higher up. I keep wondering if Katherine Harris looks sad
because she realizes what she's doing is somehow wrong however much she
might stick to the law, or because she's worried about what this would
do to her political career, or if it's the pressure of the press, or she
just naturally looks that way.
|
krj
|
|
response 196 of 409:
|
Nov 20 14:17 UTC 2000 |
Radio news reports that Broward County is about 80% done and Gore's
net change is +100. This does not bode well for the recount yielding
a convincing win for Gore.
|
bru
|
|
response 197 of 409:
|
Nov 20 15:12 UTC 2000 |
Is that with or without the pregnant chads?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 198 of 409:
|
Nov 20 15:29 UTC 2000 |
I've said all along that the recount will show that Bush took the state free
and clear.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 199 of 409:
|
Nov 20 15:37 UTC 2000 |
...free and clear by...0.1%? (not disparaging the fact, just the expression).
Now, what about the nationwide popular vote, that everyone seems to be
saying we should accept, since so many don't like the electoral college?
|
janc
|
|
response 200 of 409:
|
Nov 20 16:04 UTC 2000 |
Joe's likely right - the recount won't be enough for Gore. The butterfly
ballot did him in.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 201 of 409:
|
Nov 20 17:12 UTC 2000 |
It's a shame, but then when it is decided to use a system that
can produce a 4% error with no race in recent history having less than
a 4% defference, one has to blame the humans, not the machines.
|
flem
|
|
response 202 of 409:
|
Nov 20 17:49 UTC 2000 |
All in all, I think it's just as well that we picked this year's winner by
random chance. (Butterfly ballots) Next time, we could just use dice. Or
better yet, Russian roulette. :)
|