Bush wins

Nov 8 07:52 UTC 2000

Well in the real world outside the Grex universe Bush wins, now what?

response 2 of 216:

Nov 8 09:13 UTC 2000

Hmm I spoke too soon, Florida just went back into limbo. gore retacts his
concession speech. What a nail biter.

response 4 of 216:

Nov 8 10:24 UTC 2000

Hee hee hee...

response 6 of 216:

Nov 8 12:29 UTC 2000

(I think it helps to show how out of touch the "Grex community" is
with the rest of the U.S.... not that that's necessarily a bad thing.)

response 8 of 216:

Nov 8 17:27 UTC 2000

Shoe's on the other foot...

response 10 of 216:

Nov 8 18:35 UTC 2000

re #7: Do you think Bush is going to be weaker than Clinton was after 
1994, when he lost both houses of Congress, and 1996, when he was 
re-elected but didn't have the support of either house?  I think Bush, 
with a majority of both houses, will have the same opportunity as any 
other 1st term president.  Provided he wins.

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).