|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 216 responses total. |
flem
|
|
response 87 of 216:
| 
Nov 10 20:04 UTC 2000 |
The thing that amuses me about this whole thing is that it brings to light
just how non-rational elections are. I mean, elections, especially
presidential elections, always seem to be prey to tons of completely
irrelevant factors. Big percentage point shift because Gore kisses his wife?
Because Bush has a slip of the tongue? Campaigns are vulnerable to all kinds
of bizzare, random influences, from the weather to the makeup artist to the
speechwriter's girlfriend's dog. How many times have we heard about female
voters being won over by a candidate's looks (the worst part about that kind
of sexism is that it somehow seems *plausible*)? Not to mention all the times
we hear people on TV saying intelligent, rational things like "I'm voting for
X because I trust him." I confess, I was against W. from the start because
he kinda looked like Bobby Ross, who can't seem to win a big game to save his
life. :) We live in a country where it is possible for a newsperson to
say, with a straight face, "This election is going to be about the issues,"
and not only is it not a completely stupid thing to say, it's *news*!
Stuff like this Florida thing is just another brick in the wall, but
a very visible brick that lots of people are making a big fuss over.
As if the elections weren't a nearly random process anyway.
|
richard
|
|
response 88 of 216:
|
Nov 10 20:43 UTC 2000 |
mrs. carnahan didnt win, her husband did. even though he died, his name
was still on the ballot (it was too late to take it off) The GOP is going
to challenge his posthumous victory on the grounds that, since he was
dead, he was no longer a resident of Missourri and therefore ineligible to
run. Ashcroft, the republican incumbent, was in a bad position, because
he was essentially running against a woman who had just lost her husband
and son, and there were doubtless sympathy votes from folks who felt,
"well she doesnt have a family anymore, so she should at least have a
career" But I heard her interviewed after the election, and she seems to
be a substantial woman-- remember she's the longtime first lady of
missourri-- and I there's little doubt she can do the job.
|
drew
|
|
response 89 of 216:
|
Nov 10 20:52 UTC 2000 |
Hey, if dead people can vote in Chicago, why can't a dead person run for
Congress in Missouri?
|
log
|
|
response 90 of 216:
|
Nov 10 20:55 UTC 2000 |
I visited congress once when I was a little kid.
I remember being shocked at how few people were
actually there, and at how nobody was listening
to the speaker. Looked like a high school classroom.
|
birdy
|
|
response 91 of 216:
|
Nov 10 20:56 UTC 2000 |
'So she should at least have a career.'
I thought she was employed...
Maybe she had the same view on issues as her husband and promised to serve
just as he would. Maybe she actually *earned* the votes. Since I am not a
resident of Missouri, however, I didn't see the ads or read much about it,
so I don't feel qualified to judge it. <shrug>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 216:
|
Nov 10 20:56 UTC 2000 |
Wasn't Carnahan buried in Missouri? If so, he is still "resident".
|
albaugh
|
|
response 93 of 216:
|
Nov 10 21:23 UTC 2000 |
> Frankly, states like Hawaii and Alaska might as well not be in the country
> at all if there's no electoral college.
What kind of happy horseshit is that, senna?! If only the popular vote were
used, then every person's vote would *directly* determine the outcome of the
election, which would mean that it would be more important than ever for
everyone to vote.
As far as states rights, that works just fine for state internal matters and
the federal legislature. But the executive branch is responsible for the
entire country, and should not be beholden to states rights matters.
Therefore the EC having states rights connotations doesn't hold any water
for me.
|
aruba
|
|
response 94 of 216:
|
Nov 10 22:44 UTC 2000 |
Me either.
|
janc
|
|
response 95 of 216:
|
Nov 10 22:45 UTC 2000 |
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. If someone
is going to win on a "technicality," it might as well be the person who
actually got the most votes.
But it's not a technicality. If the news reports are accurate, then
it seems clear that a plurality of voters in Florida intended to vote
for Gore. It will take some careful work to determine if this is really
true, but we should be willing to wait for that. We aren't really in
a hurry to figure out who the next president will be.
For years, everyone has been saying "every vote counts". Now it is up
to the folks in Florida to count every vote, including those cast by
people confused by butterfly ballots. If a revote is the only way to
count those votes, then a revote there should be. The outcome of this
process is not random, trivial or a technicality. It's a affirmation of
what Democracy is all about. To say "let's just leave the vote stand the
way it came out the first time we counted it, because all this counting
and recounting and voting and revoting is too much of a bother" would be
a rejection of whole principle of Democracy, a statement that the voice
of the individual voter doesn't really count.
I believe the courts will stand by this principle. If they don't the
public backlash would be fierce. I back the Gore campaign in insisting
that everything be done to ensure that everyone's votes are accurately
registered and counted.
I suspect that when that is done, Gore will have won Florida, the
electorial college, and the popular vote. But I'd say the same if I
thought it would end in a Bush win.
|
aruba
|
|
response 96 of 216:
|
Nov 10 23:04 UTC 2000 |
It surprised me that there was such a large change in the spread with the
recount. It seems to me they should keep recounting until they get the same
number twice in a row.
|
log
|
|
response 97 of 216:
|
Nov 11 00:11 UTC 2000 |
re #87 whats wrong with basing your vote on emotional
reactions? it's a survival mechanism.
Unfortunatly I believe Bush will win. The repubs will claw
their way to the top.
Distort the future president at:
http://www.colonize.com/warp/
Nice little applet!
|
whatfor
|
|
response 98 of 216:
|
Nov 11 00:53 UTC 2000 |
#95:
We are absolutely in a hurry. There are many reasons, but I will give
you two: 1) Nasdaq has dropped 400 points since Tuesday and trillions
of dollars have been lost by the American public, due significantly to
the uncertainty about the presidency and a potential constitutional
crisis; 2) The US is the supposed leader of the free world and the
world, free and "unfree", is laughing at us right now because we have
an election process that is convoluted and antiquidated and we still
don't know who won -- our credibility and leadership is at risk. Maybe
Saddam and Castro will send international observers in 2004.
I don't think there is any doubt that the will of the Florida people is
for Gore to win. However, you cannot go back after a baseball game has
concluded and go over every single ball and strike call with lawyers,
replay certain innings and certain pitches, and then redecide the
outcome of the game. To do so would be to set an extremely dangerous
precedent. I am sure there were voting irregularities and screwups
elsewhere in the country and the Republicans are already starting to
call those. Going down that path would delay the decision and
jeopardize the election process.
The Democrats screwed up -- they approved of the ballot and their
voters were too incapacitated/incompetent/old to vote properly. Educate
them next time. I actually was hoping Gore would win to balance against
the Republican House and Senate, but I disagree with their legal
efforts right now.
|
scott
|
|
response 99 of 216:
|
Nov 11 00:59 UTC 2000 |
Phhhhffft.
Us Americans are so used to instant news analysis that this process is
freaking a lot of us out. So far the system is working just fine, and the
fact that recounts are happening is a good sign, not a bad sign. It would
be a bad sign if Clinton sent in troops to make sure the recount was "fair".
Nope, he's doing his job instead.
And as for the Nasdaq and other market indicators... should be base our
leaders on how the market is doing? Nope. Instead, we should hope for a
country where the variations of a business index isn't the one and only way
to make decisions. Remember, the stock market also likes when companies lay
off research staff (and therefore throws away their future).
|
mdw
|
|
response 100 of 216:
|
Nov 11 01:34 UTC 2000 |
"anonymizer.com", eh? Now there's a person who stands behind what he
says.
|
birdy
|
|
response 101 of 216:
|
Nov 11 01:35 UTC 2000 |
Ditto what Scott said.
Also, the Democrats approved of a different-sized ballot that had some minor
differences. Plus, the ballot didn't have the marking area in it yet. This
was backed up by the person who designed it. (All from NPR yesterday
morning).
There is a bit of a hurry since we inaugurate the new president in two
months-ish. It would be nice to have a smooth transition, but <shrug>. I'd
rather they get the count correct.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 102 of 216:
|
Nov 11 01:44 UTC 2000 |
The Constitution, specifically the 20th Amendment, contains provisions for
the failure to select and qualify a President before the 20th of January.
It really *isn't* a big deal. Shoot, the Congress could easily ask Mr.
Clinton to continue to serve until things get worked out. :)
|
bru
|
|
response 103 of 216:
|
Nov 11 02:25 UTC 2000 |
The elections commission has recertified the ballots saying they meet all
legal requirements.
We need to wait for the overseas ballots to come in.
Then we have to wait for Oregon to verify it's ballots which they say must
be done by the 27th of November, unless they have to do a recount.
now New Mexico is looking at changing it's vote totals.
Missouri is looking at challenging the election results in the city of St.
Louis because several polling locations remained open in violation of the law.
We need NOT to go into legal battles. Thi needs to be settled shortly.
|
mdw
|
|
response 104 of 216:
|
Nov 11 02:27 UTC 2000 |
You elected a lawyer to the highest office this land has to offer, in a
country founded upon the right to legal challenge, and you expect it
*not* to go to court? You must be smoking something *very* interesting.
|
birdy
|
|
response 105 of 216:
|
Nov 11 02:30 UTC 2000 |
According to the news Election evening, St. Louis was in court fighting to
keep the polls open before the 8 p.m deadline. They were granted an
extension.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 106 of 216:
|
Nov 11 03:57 UTC 2000 |
It's a tie. They should share the presidency ;-)
|
krj
|
|
response 107 of 216:
|
Nov 11 04:02 UTC 2000 |
The extension was overturned by an appeals court at around 8:45 pm
and the polls were to be immediately closed.
|
janc
|
|
response 108 of 216:
|
Nov 11 04:18 UTC 2000 |
Good grief, the stock market has been jumping all over for months (generally
down more than up, if my investments are typical). If we are supposed to set
national policy by the stock market, then we are in one heck of a lot of
trouble.
The world laughing at us? If true, so what? Is there something embarrassing
about a close election? Is it surprising that it takes more than a few days
to figure out who won an election as close as this in a nation as big as this?
This kind of thing happens all the time in other nations. In parlimentary
systems, it's common to negotiate some kind of power-sharing. Our system
doesn't adapt itself well to that. Litigation is also common world wide, and
when it comes down to that in other nations elections, our advice is always
to take the time to let the legal system work. Should we be embarrassed to
take our own advice.
Castro has offered to send observers to monitor the Florida recount. So he's
having a good laugh. Is that a problem? He's a man who could use a good
laugh. We should laugh to.
It really is a mind-boggling wild situation. To have the election come within
a couple hundred votes of a tie in not one but two states, and to be almost
as close in three more is just so wildly unlikely. If the residents of
Florida had all counted off ("Gore! Bush! Gore! Bush!") you couldn't have
gotten it much closer (with a million people counting off, you'd probably get
a couple hundred screw-ups, at least). It's fantastic. I love it. I've
never enjoyed an election so much.
|
richard
|
|
response 109 of 216:
|
Nov 11 04:59 UTC 2000 |
Its important to realize that it is not the Gore campaign, but voters
in palm beach county, who are bringing this court action. And even
Bru wouldnt disagree that the voters, as citizens, have the right to
seek legal action if they think their votes werent legally recorded.
Interesting note-- the electoral college must vote on December 18th, and
if a court is still reviewing the case and disallowing florida's votes to
be certified, then Florida's electors cannot vote. The consititution does
not require the participation of all eligible electors to have a vote, only
a majority. This is because a hundred fifty years ago,the roads were bad
and they had to account for the fact that some electors might not make it
to the vote. Therefore an electoral vote could take place without the
participation of Florida's electors and a president elected. And of
course without Florida's votes voting at all, Gore would win.
|
senna
|
|
response 110 of 216:
|
Nov 11 05:18 UTC 2000 |
Now that would cause an outcry, particularly if it looked like the democrats
were stalling in order to keep the electors from being able to attend.
This *is* funny. Particularly amusing is that with the closeness of the vote
nationwide, and the near-even split in congress, neither candidate has any
sort of mandate to do the things allthe paranoid party-mongers insist they
will do to destroy the country. It doesn't matter.
|
janc
|
|
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.
|