response 75 of 117:

Mar 29 14:15 UTC 2002

I kind of like this summary of the Supreme Court decision on the 
Florida election:

http://hometown.aol.com/marklevineesq/myhomepage/election.html

One snippet:

Q:  Does this have something to do with states' rights?  Don't 
conservatives love that?

A:  Yes.  These five justices have held that the federal government has 
no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade 
secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law.  Nor does the 
federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar 
guns in schools.  Nor can the federal government use the equal 
protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence 
against women.

Q:  Is there an exception in this case?

A:  Yes, the "Gore exception."  States have no rights to control their 
own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected 
President.  This decision is limited to only this situation.

Q:  C'mon.  The Supremes didn't really say that.  You're exaggerating.

A:  Nope.  They held "Our consideration is limited to the present 
circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election processes 
generally presents many complexities."

Q:  What complexities?

A:  They didn't say.

Q:   I'll bet I know the reason.  I heard Jim Baker say this.  The 
votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the 
rules of the election after it was held."  Right?

A.  Wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme 
Court did not change the rules of the election.  But the US Supreme 
Court found this failure of the Florida Court to change the rules after 
the election was wrong.

Q:  Huh?

A:  The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting 
vote is "clear intent of the voter."  The Florida Court was condemned 
for not adopting a clearer standard after the election.

Q:  I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the 
Legislature's law after the election.

A:  Right.

Q:  So what's the problem?

A:  They should have.  The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme 
Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for 
determining what is a legal vote"

Q:  I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.

A:  Right.

Q:  So if the Florida Court had adopted new standards, I thought it 
would have been overturned.

A:  Right.  You're catching on.

Q:  Wait.  If the Florida Court had adopted new standards, it would 
have been overturned for changing the rules.  And since it didn't do 
it, it's being overturned for not changing the rules?  That makes no 
sense.  That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, 
legal votes could never be counted if they would end up with a possible 
Gore victory.

A:  Right.  Next question.

...

Q:  Whatever happened with Seminole and Martin counties?


A:  As you know, Republicans in those counties corrected thousands of 
absentee ballot applications that were going to be thrown away due to 
improper completion.  The supervisors of elections in those counties 
allowed Republican ballot applications to be corrected but not 
Democratic ones.  The Florida Supreme Court -- consistent with its 
opinion that every vote counts and acting according to law rather than 
partisan dictates -- condemned the supervisors but decided not to throw 
away any votes.  I've never met a Republican able to square the view 
that clear-intent Democratic-leaning votes with the "voter error" of 
failing to completely remove a chad should be thrown away while the 
Republicans who erred in completing their absentee ballot applications 
should still have their votes counted.

response 77 of 117:

Mar 29 18:09 UTC 2002

                <blinks>

response 79 of 117:

Mar 29 18:43 UTC 2002

<blink>I WONDER</blink>

response 81 of 117:

Mar 29 20:48 UTC 2002

Handle Identity Crisis, it does not blink, although I can see that you 
were trying to make it do so.

I would like to add that all politicians are manipulative cheats.

response 83 of 117:

Mar 29 21:54 UTC 2002

Re #74:  Jazz, the misleading butterfly ballot WAS DESIGNED BY A DEMOCRAT!

That little thing was a completely self-inflicted wound.  (The design
violated Florida law too, but the Democrats aren't arguing to indict the
county clerk.  That speaks volumes about the hypocrisy among the Dems.)

response 85 of 117:

Mar 29 22:59 UTC 2002

why, democrat of course!

response 87 of 117:

Mar 30 00:58 UTC 2002

I should mention to be fair, that there are a few republican politicians
who seem to have some integrity and backbone.  McCain, for instance, who
is currently championing campaign reform in the face of stiff opposition
from his own party.  I should also mention that I don't think
democractic politicians are much better.

response 89 of 117:

Mar 30 03:43 UTC 2002

(e)ballot designer

response 91 of 117:

Mar 30 04:16 UTC 2002

And butterfly ballots were used here in illinois in primary last week.
The butterfly ballot per se was not the problem, and it is a fact that
all parties signed off on the layout of the ballot prior to the election
in question.  It was interesting that this last election each ballot was
scanned and would tell the voter if there was under/over and detail on
a running print out and if mistake, the voter was allowed to correct
under or apparently given new ballot for over.  (Potential for
systematic voter fraud on part of democratic machine noted...)
(And if the scanner also takes your picture....)

response 93 of 117:

Mar 30 04:38 UTC 2002

'condidates'?  Oh, and so both parties signed off on it figuring
they would be the ones to benefit?

response 95 of 117:

Mar 30 06:46 UTC 2002

Everybody didn't see the consequences. That is not uncommon, in fact,
for lots of seemingly OK, but untested, options. How often  do you
write something that you think is clear and  concise - and people
misunderstand?

response 97 of 117:

Mar 30 14:19 UTC 2002

Allow me:  "Everyone who looked at the ballot thought that it would work as
intended; no one who looked at it thought it would confuse people.  This is
very common, in fact, for lots of options thought to be fine but not actually
tested."  I leave the last as it stands.

response 99 of 117:

Mar 30 21:24 UTC 2002

 .. and everyone running for office had the intention of confusing people.