|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 216 responses total. |
log
|
|
response 75 of 216:
| 
Nov 10 16:17 UTC 2000 |
One big problem with letting the Palm Beach folks vote again
is that they already know how the rest of the country voted.
Maybe the best thing is just to toss out ALL of the votes from
contested areas and let the election stand as it is.
Another unbelievably stupid aspect of this election was giving
the congressional seat to the wife of the dead guy. What kind of
logic is there in that? It should go to his assistant or somebody
that worked under him, who would know what he wanted. I'm assuming,
and correct me if I'm wrong, that with his salary, his wife was
a homemaker. How is she qualified to serve in congress?
|
eeyore
|
|
response 76 of 216:
|
Nov 10 16:22 UTC 2000 |
What I'm really amused about is that *SHE WON*. People knew that that would
be who got the seat, and she won!
|
keesan
|
|
response 77 of 216:
|
Nov 10 17:48 UTC 2000 |
The man ahead of me at Miller Manor (at the special low wheelchair booth,
which was used by three wheelchair occupants while I was waiting), was told
he filled out his ballot wrong (the type with the magic marker) and asked to
do it over, after the machine rejected it. Everyone's ballot was therefore
presumably legitimate with the scanner system.
|
senna
|
|
response 78 of 216:
|
Nov 10 18:44 UTC 2000 |
I would have voted for her.
|
log
|
|
response 79 of 216:
|
Nov 10 18:49 UTC 2000 |
I think she won because people wanted to vote Democratic
and there was no other Democratic choice. It's too bad that
when we vote we can only vote for one candidate, it would
be better if we could aslo name a second choice, say, "I'd
like candidate A as a first choice and candidate B second."
I don't know, maybe she's qualified, but it just seems
kinda dumb.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 80 of 216:
|
Nov 10 18:55 UTC 2000 |
>Another unbelievably stupid aspect of this election was giving
>the congressional seat to the wife of the dead guy. What kind of
>logic is there in that? It should go to his assistant or somebody
>that worked under him, who would know what he wanted. I'm assuming,
>and correct me if I'm wrong, that with his salary, his wife was
>a homemaker. How is she qualified to serve in congress?
So who do you think would know more about his ideas and ideals, and
remain faithful to same--his partner of almost 50 years, or an underling
with political aspirations of his own? And, by the way, being a
homemaker (which she isn't) does not make one an idiot.
|
log
|
|
response 81 of 216:
|
Nov 10 19:09 UTC 2000 |
As I said, correct me if I'm wrong, maybe she is qualified.
And I was just waiting for someone to assume that I implied
that being a homemaker is trivial. It's not and I never said
that. You aparantly know more about this situaion than I do
so what does she do?
My point is this, if I'm working on something important and I
die, I'd rather have my coworkers continue where I left off.
My wife, (who is neither a homemaker or an idiot :-) ), wouldn't
know the first thing about my job unless she was in the same
field.
So I'm not knocking her or her husband, I'm just saying the
system doesn't make much sense on the surface.
|
birdy
|
|
response 82 of 216:
|
Nov 10 19:25 UTC 2000 |
The reason the ballots in Palm Beach were so screwy, according to the lady
who designed them (paraphrase): "I made them a larger print since I figured
it would be easier for the seniors to read. This must have led to confusion
with the holes for Gore and Buchanen. I'm terribly sorry, and I regret this
mistake."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 216:
|
Nov 10 19:39 UTC 2000 |
For those against the electoral college - are you also opposed to state's
rights, and "powers not granted the federal government are reserved to the
states" (that's paraphrased from memory)? The electoral college system
with electoral votes in a state being the sum of their senators and
representatives promotes states rights. This is found in other parts of
the government. For example, two senators per state. *That* is certainly
not proportional to the population. Do you propose to abolish the senate?
Their votes are arguably more important than the popular vote for the
president.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 84 of 216:
|
Nov 10 19:40 UTC 2000 |
I respect the fact that she did try to make them easier to read in a place
where that is a necessity.
|
log
|
|
response 85 of 216:
|
Nov 10 19:42 UTC 2000 |
no rane
http://www.carnahan2000.com/jean.htm
|
rcurl
|
|
response 86 of 216:
|
Nov 10 19:56 UTC 2000 |
What's that URL have to do with the issue?
|
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).
|