posted on November 9, 2000 12:29:18 PM
LISTEN UP, EVERYBODY! (Caps intentional!)
Under Florida law, and because it has a Republican governor, the Republican candidates must be listed first. Under THAT SAME LAW, the Democratic candidates must be listed next. So far so good. BUT, Pat Buchanan's box had the SECOND PUNCH HOLE. How stupid is that? Furthermore, the holes were not included in the sample ballots mailed out, so people didn't encounter the confusion UNTIL they were in the voting booth.
AND (can you tell I'm riled up?!) people who voted in Palm Beach County say the holes did not line up correctly, either, and it was difficult to figure out how to get them lined up.
Just because there hasn't been a revote before doesn't mean they can't do it now. Officials there acknowledge that they know EXACTLY WHO VOTED, of course, because you sign in! So---what's wrong with just letting those folks revote? Including, of course, the 19,000 whose ballots were thrown out because of incorrect voting.
Right now, until 2 p.m. mountain time, there is a great discussion of this on CNN's Talk Back Live.
[ edited by roadsmith on Nov 9, 2000 12:32 PM ]
posted on November 9, 2000 12:41:10 PM"The ballots were approved by the Democrats before the election. And now they cry foul."
It was not the democrats who initially cried foul, it was the voters, and it is the voters who have filed suit.
I cannot see, abin, how you can maintain that the ballot was not confusing when it is so very clear that some voters were confused by it. These are presumably people who take thei r right to vote quite seriously, and they are also of a demography that is extremely unlikely to vote for Buchanon. Yet Buchanon, who's placement on the ballot is the cause of the ruckus, obtained 1/3 of his Florida vote in the county that used that ballot when as femme relayed elsewhere here, Yassar Arafat would have been more likely to receive those votes from those people than Pat Buchanon would.
posted on November 9, 2000 01:55:05 PM
roadsmith is absolutely correct. Those of you who think it's just the Democrats crying foul, pay attention. It was an illegal ballot!!! The Republicans approved it as well...does it make the Democrats more ignorant just because they approved it, along with the Republicans? Of course not. And it doesn't matter who approved it, it is an ILLEGAL ballot!
Republican first
Democrat second
Riffraff third and so on
Those of you who say it's perfectly ok for the presidency to be won based on the results of an illegal ballot I'm CERTAIN would be singing a different song if the slipper were on the other foot. But it's not. Why? Because the people have spoken and voted for Al Gore. It's just a crying shame that the person who in actuality won the election may not be the one given the office of President.
posted on November 9, 2000 02:00:27 PM
Lets just re vote on the West Palm Beach County. No no... let's re vote the state of Florida. No no no... let's have a complete national re vote. No no no no... let's have a national re vote, best 2 out of 3. No no no no... let's ______
posted on November 9, 2000 02:21:17 PMJust because there hasn't been a revote before doesn't mean they can't do it now. Officials there acknowledge that they know EXACTLY WHO VOTED, of course, because you sign in! So---what's wrong with just letting those folks revote? Including, of course, the 19,000 whose ballots were thrown out because of incorrect voting.
What's wrong with it?
Well, for starters, since it's clear that Ralph Nader isn't going to get his 5% of the popular vote, there will be a STRONG incentive for the Nader supporters to switch to Gore, possibly reversing the outcome in Gore's favor.
Next, there is no proof whatsoever that the ballots were even a little bit confusing. The only proof we have of anything is that there are more than a few people who either can't read or can't be bothered to take the time to read (or ask for help) when it comes to something as important as choosing the leader of the free world.
Second, both parties agreed to the same set of rules and the same set of ballots. As far as the ballots being illegal, this is hogwash. English is read from left to right, left column and then right column. Bush was listed first, followed by Gore. The holes are irrelevant. The voters of Florida didn't vote for a hole. The names were in the proper order. It is a simple matter to find the name of your candidate (which was in the right place) and follow the arrow to the corresponding hole. If this is confusing, I'm sorry. If a voter is so dense that they can't figure it out, they should ask for help. Apparently the Bush and Nader voters didn't have any trouble with the ballot.
To call for a re-vote is as childish as a youngster on a playground taking his ball and going home because his/her team lost. As long as both parties agree to the rules before the game, it's childish to try to change the outcome when it doesn't go your way.
I happen to agree with those who think Gore should be the President because he won the overall popular vote, and I will support any movement for a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. But the fact of the matter is that under the existing laws and rules agreed upon by both parties in Florida, unless the recount comes out in Gore's favor, Bush WILL be the next President. To try to subvert the process in such a manner as has been suggested here is disgusting. If it sounds like I'm riled it's because I am.
posted on November 9, 2000 02:34:35 PM
"Next, there is no proof whatsoever that the ballots were even a little bit confusing. The only proof we have of anything is that there are more than a few people who either can't read or can't be bothered to take the time to read (or ask for help) when it comes to something as important as choosing the leader of the free world"
Abingdoncomputers, I'm in Fl. I looked over my sample ballot very carefully. I found the actual ballot somewhat hard to read, and the punches very close together. For someone who's shaky, and with not perfect vision (like me), it was difficult. Yes it was confusing, even with the writing only to the left side of the punch.
posted on November 9, 2000 02:44:11 PM
snoweyegret:
If you say the ballot was confusing for you, I won't argue. You were there. I was not. But you are an intelligent person. I'm sure if you were confused to the point of not knowing who you were voting for you would have asked for help.
Playing devil's advocate here, lets say the ballots were confusing. Both parties approved the ballots. They obviously didn't seem confusing at the time they were approved. That being said, if they were in fact confusing, they would be confusing for all voters, not just Gore supporters, unless we are to assume that Gore supporters are less intelligent or more infirm than Bush supporters (which we all know not to be the case).
It's rediculous to try to say that a confusing ballot will be more confusing to a democratic voter than to a republican voter. Confusing or not, the playing field was level because all voters in each precinct used the same ballots which were approved in advance by both parties.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 9, 2000 02:50 PM ]
posted on November 9, 2000 02:48:47 PM
Here is a some predictions:
1) Bush will win the recount.
2) His lead will increase after all of the absentee ballots are counted.
3) The Gore clan will sue.
4) The Gore clan will lose.
5) George W. Bush will be inaugurated the 43rd President of the United States.
I have crow in the freezer ready to be thawed, cooked, and eaten if I'm incorrect on these predictions. But I seriously doubt that it will be required.
posted on November 9, 2000 03:20:12 PM
BUT...................
THE PUNCH HOLES DIDN'T SHOW ON THE SAMPLE BALLOT MAILED TO EVERYONE. IT WASN'T PRINTED, THE HOLES WERE NOT INCLUDED. HOW COULD A VOTER HAVE ANTICIPATED THE MIXUP IN THE PUNCH HOLES? AND ESPECIALLY A VOTER WHOSE EYES AREN'T GOOD? OR A VOTER WHO'S NERVOUS OR ANXIOUS?
Now i'll calm down a little. We bought the home of a popular, long-time mayor in our city. Every election night, she served a dinner of "lame duck."
As you said, legally it is supposed to be Bush first, Gore second, and riffraff third. But that is NOT how it is... voting the second punch got you a vote for Buchanon. Look at the link I supplied and you can see the ballot for yourself.
I honestly don't know how George Bush will sleep at night if he becomes President knowing that he wasn't legally elected. Actually, scrap that, he'll probably sleep just fine...he'll just have a few drinks.
posted on November 9, 2000 03:50:49 PM
Just saw Buchanan on NBC Nightly News saying that even he does not believe all of those votes were intended for him.
Thanks for the link for the revote email---I sent it to my husband who is the afternoon jock at a radio station--he gave out the URL on the air for those who were so inclined...
It's rediculous to try to say that a confusing ballot will be more confusing to a democratic voter than to a republican voter. Confusing or not, the playing field was level because all voters in each precinct used the same ballots which were approved in advance by both parties
The ballot in question was not used in all Florida counties, as I understand this. It was used in the predominantly Democratic county of Palm Beach, and I can't but wonder if that usage in that county wasn't a deliberate effort to skew the vote.
posted on November 9, 2000 04:03:51 PM
zazzie ROTFL!
Well, the latest news I just heard is that the Republican party has now called for a THIRD count! Another recount, due to start tomorrow. Probably because Gore's just too darned close on his own even without all of those additional thousands and thousands of people who voted for him that the Republicans don't want to count. Humph!
posted on November 9, 2000 04:24:52 PM
Well, I voted for a hole, and I did not have to punch my ballot! (I voted for what I felt was the lesser of 2 holes...)
edited to add that here in Volusia County, FL (one of the counties the Dem's want recounted by hand ) we had to color in the circle by our candidate's name (kinda like being back in school...) No voting booths--you stand at a little desk thingy & color in your ballot. I'm really not surprised that Florida is the state that screwed everything up. It has been my experience that to work for the state in any capacity it is a requirement that you must be a royal idiot.
[ edited by debbielennon on Nov 9, 2000 04:30 PM ]
posted on November 9, 2000 04:25:24 PM
Did anyone see the press conference a little while ago by the Florida Secretary of State regarding the recount totals? The figures she gave with 64 of 67 counties reporting are basically the same figures as Tuesday night. The big discrepancy is those totals with what AP is reporting, about which when questioned, she admitted that she was only releasing the "uncertified" totals, and wouldn't be releasing the official "certified" totals until probably Tuesday. What a bunch of hooey. WHAT was the purpose in THAT exercise of futility? Talk about spin. That "news conference" gave absolutely no news and contradicted the information they PREVIOUSLY said they would release, as the recount totals came in, county by county. Releasing the figure of roughly 1700 difference between Bush and Gore, when it is widely known that the actual difference in the recount is around 350 as independently monitored and reported by Associated Press is the epitomy of "spin". The only redeeming part of the whole news conference was the "deer caught in the headlights" look on Clay Roberts face when he was asked if the Secretary of State would mount a defense to the questioned legality of the Palm Beach ballot according to Florida election law. Almost as priceless, was the comment by the Secretary of Agriculture, who went out of his way to let everyone know that even though he supported and voted for George W., he was in fact a registered Democrat. The comment he made (paraphrasing here) with regard to the whole brouhaha, was "that if you want simple, you could go about 70 miles south (to Cuba). They have simple there". What spin. Gotta love it though.
posted on November 9, 2000 04:37:13 PM
When close to 15,000 ballots were thrown out for double punching in the Dole/Clinton race, there was none of this fuss.
In 1992, Clinton received 43% of the popular vote. 57% of the electorate voted for someone else. No one called his victory illegitimate.
posted on November 9, 2000 04:41:49 PM
Meya, the Republicans sure did point out that Clinton never received a majority (mandate) in either election. In fact, that's an old favorite that gets pulled out from time to time just to point out how America really doesn't "approve" of Clinton.
posted on November 9, 2000 04:42:27 PM
This whole thing seems so simple to me.
First, *any* state where the difference in votes between the top two candidates is less than (1/2 percent, 1/4 percent, whatever) should do a recount. That seems obvious.
Two, if Al Gore had won the popular vote but George W. Bush had won the electoral - I think George should be President. I don't think it's right BUT... that's the law. I'd work to change the law (get rid of the electoral vote totally) for the NEXT election but it should be valid for this election.
I firmly believe that if you don't like a certain law, you work to change it but you don't go breaking it just because you don't like it.
Well, the same thinking applies to the ballots. If they were illegal ballots, those people in Palm Beach County need to re-vote. Very simple.
(On a side note, I don't think Bush is handling this very well. I was brought up Republican but now consider myself Independent. The Republican party definitely is not getting any brownie points over this with me. They don't seem at all interested in what's 'right' or 'fair', they just want to win. I hate to point it out to them but they *don't* have the 'high ground' - Gore won the popular vote.)
posted on November 9, 2000 05:27:25 PM
Ok I might get flamed for this but here goes... it seems, at least to me, that Republicans will vote Republican no matter who is on the ticket. I am a Democrat but was GOING to vote for John McCain, a Republican, before he dropped out of the picture. I don't vote for a party, I vote for the candidate. If Elmer Fudd were running on a Republican ticket, I honestly think Republicans vote for him simply because he was a Republican. Look at the current Republican star...Dubya is one step up from Elmer, albeit a very small step, lol
Flame away, I've got work to do but will check my ashes later
posted on November 9, 2000 05:37:39 PMkiheicat, for the most part, the comments here have been staying on the track of the vote, the process, and the troubles therein. Smart comments about the candidate you didn't vote for just seem childish. I think it has been refreshing that the comments here have mostly stayed away from name calling and finger wagging.
It's been nice to take part in a mature adult conversation. You should be able to state your opinion without name calling. It wouldn't really matter what W's reactions were, many people won't like it. The same goes for Gore. But, those types of comments don't address the issues at hand.
The troubles in Florida are legal issues, not political. Neither candidate caused the problems at the polls.
posted on November 9, 2000 07:03:01 PMMeya - I agree with you 100%. This has been a generally nice no-name-calling discussion and I've enjoyed it tremendously. Let's all try to keep it civil.
I've checked out a few other message boards and they all degenerated quite quickly.
posted on November 9, 2000 08:13:02 PM
Not too bad And point taken.
I am not, however, against the Republican party as some might believe, or I wouldn't have wanted to vote for McCain.
And uaru, you are right, it was a generalization. My apologies. It just seems like a trend I've observed over the years.
No matter the outcome it will not be pleasant to deal with, as half of the country will be pleased and half very upset.
