posted on November 9, 2000 06:19:22 PM
Sgtmike said: I wonder if all the sore losers singing their song of sadness here would be singing the same sad song if all alleged discrepancies were the same but Gore had won?
Yes.
I'm a Democrat. If the shoe were on the other foot, I wouldn't like it any more than the Republicans like it. Nope, not one bit.
BUT I recognize that whoever wins, the single most important thing about the current problem is that whoever ultimately wins be seen by ALL the people, and indeed the world, as the legitimate winner, however begrudgingly. This can't happen with many thousands of votes from one Florida county (Florida being the deciding factor in the electoral college vote) in question.
I wish Bush understood that. He does not currently have the popular vote. If the electoral vote is also in question, were he to assume office, he would have a very difficult time of governing -- well, beyond the normal trouble he'd have governing, that is.
In the meantime his actions speak louder than his words about whether or not he is a "uniter, not a divider." There's far more on the line here than a few thousand Florida voters. Would that he realized that.
posted on November 9, 2000 07:32:31 PM
Yep, this is undermining any credibility he may bring to office, and the condition of this election is a black mark for the nation which will outlive his term.
More news:
From an interview of a FSU student:
Today my black friends told me that Florida A&M students have always had a place
to vote on campus and when they went to vote on Tuesday they were told that they had to go somewhere else to vote this time. When they went to the precinct to which
they had been directed they were told that they were not registed to vote there and were turned away and did not get to vote. So today the FAMU students were joined
by FSU students in a march on the Capitol to protest the Highway Patrol roadblocks in Wakulla, the Palm Beach fiasco and the FAMU students who were not allowed
to vote. This FAMU story needs to get out. It's just another example of the rampant racism in Bush's Florida. 11/9/00
posted on November 9, 2000 07:42:24 PM
clevergirl, your remarks apply equally to Gore..........and I have been hearing media reports saying the same thing about him. Regardless of the outcome neither candidate will come out unscathed by this debacle. If there is to be a recount in Florida, I think there should be a recount in the whole damn country.
However, in the interest of fairness, you don't change the rules of the game midstream. If you want to change rules you do it legally before the contest begins whether it is a golf match or a political race.
If you wish to eliminate the electoral college then work toward that end. Don't just denigrate the rules & process because the outcome is not to your liking.
[ edited by dejavu on Nov 9, 2000 07:45 PM ]
posted on November 9, 2000 07:49:53 PM
I thought that Buchanan showed a lot of class(not easy for him) when he said he was sure those votes for him were meant for Gore.
If Gore didn't put up a fight I would really think he was a wimp and wouldn't have any respect for him at all. Besides this goes so much deeper then two political parties or two men and their beliefs. What is really sad is that it's dividing our country in a way similar to the Vietnam era. But this time it's between the urban and rural people of the U. S.
Maybe we should put Gore and Bush on the island and who ever survives will be president.
posted on November 9, 2000 07:53:25 PM
As long as we're talking about "rules", the Palm Beach ballot violated Florida's election "rules". As it appears, thousands of people's votes were negated because these "rules" were broken. As a result, it appears that perhaps their constitutional right to have a vote has been violated. Well, I agree let the process play itself out. Part of that process looks like a court may have to make a decision about the validity of the election. So yes, we are all going to have to wait until the process is finished, however long that may take. After all, we already have a President. And he'll be around for a couple more months anyway. What's the big hurry?
posted on November 9, 2000 08:43:34 PM
Out Constitution guarantees all American citizens (of age) the right to vote, it (Constitution) does not guarantee that all voters will be intelligent or not senile, or not both.
If a voter can not follow clear instructions why should the nation suffer? If you are unclear about the procedure, step out and ask for assistance as allowed by law.
If you cannot comprehend clear instructions or do not have the intelligence to ask for clarity, how do you intelligently decide which candidate to vote for?
posted on November 9, 2000 08:50:42 PM
Zazzie says: "If Bush does win he will probably follow in the footsteps of his father and be a one-termer." With keeping this in mind, I think the smart think for Gore to do is to shut his campaign managers up, wait for the absentee votes to be counted and gracefully acknowledge defeat if, and when, that is the case. Showing himself to be a Statesman, in effect, will set him up to be the next Democratic nominee in 2004, and probably win him the next Presidential election hands down. If he continues to send out messages of pursuing this through the courts he will never be President.
Edited to tell Sgt. Mike welcome back....
[ edited by ktsclutter on Nov 9, 2000 08:52 PM ]
posted on November 9, 2000 09:09:33 PM
once again:
Basically, voters said, the hole punch for
Gore on the ballot was so close to that of Buchanan that many voters weren’t sure who they had voted for. “By Gore there were two holes … I had to figure out which one,” said voter Lena Fransetta. I asked one ofthe ladies for help and she didn’t know
posted on November 9, 2000 10:09:58 PM"Day after day we are hampered in whatever we do by stupid people who invariably turn up in the least appropriate places."
Now, the sobbing is being elevated to a new level. I thought the original complaint was not understanding which hole to punch, not being unable to see.
It is always someone or some thing to blame with some people. (They) are never at fault.
If you are 85 have cataracts and know you cannot see very well, and you do not ask for assistance, why should all others be held to blame?
posted on November 9, 2000 10:17:47 PM
Nov. 8 — When U.S. citizens vote for president,
they’re actually voting for electors, who then
cast the only binding ballots of the election. But
what happens when electors don’t do what the
voters want them to?
The slates of electors are chosen by state political
parties, so they are usually loyal to their party’s nominee.
But there have been nine instances of “faithless electors”
refusing to vote for the candidate to whom they were
pledged to support.
The most recent case was in the 1988 contest between
Republican George Bush and Democrat Michael Dukakis.
Dukakis carried West Virginia, so the electors chosen by
the state Democratic party, and pledged to vote for
Dukakis, cast their ballots.
One of the state’s electors, Margarette Leach, chose
not to vote for Dukakis for president. Leach, who later
explained she was trying to make a statement against the
Electoral College, voted for Democratic vice-presidential
nominee Lloyd Bentsen for president instead.
“It was nice to make a mark on history,” said Leach,
now a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates.
“I wish every year somebody … would make a statement
and it would be heard.”
In 1976, Republican elector Mike Padden from
Washington state decided not to cast his ballot for
incumbent President Gerald Ford, voting instead for Ronald
Reagan, who went on to win the GOP nomination and the
presidency four years later. In 1972, Virginia elector Roger
MacBridge, also a Republican, voted for little-known
Libertarian candidate John Hospers, even though he was
pledged to support President Richard Nixon.
Ties that Bind?
The vote tally for this year’s election, now stands at 260
electoral votes for Vice President Al Gore and 246 for
Texas Gov. George W. Bush, with the outcome hinging on
an ongoing recount of the vote in Florida, and mail-in votes.
The results of Oregon’s mail-in election are also too close
to call.
With 270 electoral votes needed to win the White
House, the candidate who lays claims to the Sunshine State
and its 25 electoral votes will also lay claim to the
presidency — or will he? At final count, Bush led Gore in
Florida by fewer than 2,000 votes. If the vote there remains
in the Republican nominee’s favor after the recount, then
Bush will have captured 271 electoral votes — only one
more than a majority. If Gore were to capture Oregon (by
no means a certainty) then Bush will have theoretically
defeated him by a 271 to 267 vote in the Electoral College
— that is, assuming all the electors vote for the candidates
to whom they are pledged.
Would the Gore camp try and peel away a few
Republican electors? Not according to William Daley, the
vice president’s campaign chairman.
“I think there is a presumption that those members who
are voting, vote based upon the election,” he told reporters
at a press conference this afternoon. “I believe the vast
majority of them are legally bound. And I would assume if
you’re legally bound, you believe you’re morally bound.”
But only about half of states have laws “binding” their
electors to vote for the presidential candidate who won
their state’s popular vote. Wisconsin, for example, punishes
a defecting elector with a $1,000 fine and New Mexico
makes a “faithless” vote a fourth-degree felony. No
faithless elector, however, has ever been prosecuted or
penalized. And no faithless vote has ever decided the
outcome of an election.
State party officials on both sides of the aisle say they
have no concerns about the prospect of one of their
electors defecting.
“Our electors are bound,” said Twinkle Andress,
executive director of the Alabama State GOP. Alabama
electors, however, are “bound” only by a pledge, like their
counterparts in many other states.
“Looking down this list of people, something like that
would really shock me,” said Steve Mandernach,
Comptroller of the Iowa State Democratic Party. “These
are all longtime activists who’ve been active members of
the party.”
Then again, the same could have been said of Ms.
Leach of West Virginia in 1988.
posted on November 9, 2000 10:18:48 PM
just think Sgtmike---you complain that the voters don't know how to vote---but the officials don't seem to know how to add.
Recount found Gore 2000+ more votes and Bush 600+ more votes.
I guess the USA voting public shouldn't be relying on voting officials for information and instruction if even they can't figure out how to accurately tabulate votes that were properly made.
posted on November 9, 2000 10:19:33 PM
No, the complaint is that it was a misleading ballot. Surely, being that their is a large elderly population in that county, you can use your imagination and realize that what may be clear to you might not be clear to an elderly person, for many reasons, including common ailments that affect the elderly.
Individuals may screw up, but if a mass of many thousands screw up, the question is, did they screw up, or where they screwed?
Fortunately, this investigation is not being held in consultation with you (or me), so this is all purely academic.
Where have you been? The minus and plus factors on recounts of electronically counted ballots has been a known weakness in the electronic count system since the inception of the process.
james-o
The ballot is used in many states. It is not misleading if you can read and comprehend instructions. The ballot has an arrow pointing at the hole to punch.
Where are the facts that the ballot caused "thousands" to screw up? Where are the facts that thousands "screwed up?"
Why are the "screwed" voters, screwed by the ballot, not complaining in the areas (states) where the same ballot was used but Gore won?
posted on November 9, 2000 10:58:46 PM
The real problem here is this: Why is there no systemic, universal system for people to cast their ballots. One county does it by machine. Another does it by paper ballots. Why???
Local control, I understand. But there are no state or federal guidelines, which have led us to the morass we find ourselves in.
posted on November 10, 2000 06:43:29 AM
For the particular ballot in question, if the ballot allignment is off 1/8 th of an inch the ballot hole doesn't record right.
If you've voted in many elections, you can see how 19,000 people made mistakes.
Some ballots you vote the party as president, as well as for president and vice president.
Whether theses people were smart enough to vote is not relevant. Even dumb people deserve the right to have their vote counted and their will heard. This is not an aristocracy. These same "dumb" people fought and died in our wars, pay taxes, and volunteer in our communities. They should be heard, they must be heard.
[ edited by Reamond on Nov 10, 2000 06:44 AM ]
Regarding the "punch ballot," if the voter has the basic intelligence to insert the ballot on the pegs, misalignment should be avoided. Otherwise, the ballot will slide down and the voter would be punching holes where holes do not belong.
I agree, everyone that is qualified has the right to vote, and voters have the right to be uninformed, stupid, senile, etc. However, the minority should not negatively affect the nation. How many voters (did) process the same ballot correctly.
You also appear to know the exact data regarding the number of disqualified ballots in prior elections. How many spoiled and disqualified ballots were there in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections? What is the mean of disqualified ballots per election?
posted on November 10, 2000 09:40:09 AM
'The ballot was confusing', 'only an idiot could have screwed it up', etc etc - NONE OF IT MATTERS (legally). Both parties approved it.
Was the ballot LEGAL???? That's the ONLY thing that matters.
If the ballot was legal, then Bush becomes President (barring any unforseen changes in absentee ballots, etc.) I don't think it would be 'fair' but it would be 'legal'.
If the ballot was not legal, then a revote HAS to be done. It should just be in Palm Beach County and it should be restricted to those that voted the first time.
posted on November 10, 2000 09:53:31 AM
Florida law specifies that ballots be constructed in such a fashion that voters mark an “X” in the blank space to the
right of the name of the candidate of their choice. Well, Buchanan’s name was placed to the left. How much clearer
does that need to be?
Arguments from the Bush camp - particularly those coming from James A. Baker on Thursday - that the system has been used before, was published in the newspaper, and local Democrats did not previously object, are not relevant to this point. Baker, perhaps inadvertently, asks the right question:
Did the authorities comply with the law of Florida in conducting the election?” Well, no.
A law is a law. Laws do not change because they were not enforced once before, or because local Democratic officials did or did not object to them. This particular law never mattered before. And tough luck to Baker, Bush and company, it matters now.
posted on November 10, 2000 09:59:37 AM
CORRECT! The ballot used is a legal ballot approved by both parties and used in many other areas throughout the U.S.
Now the Democrats want to argue the wording on the ballot regarding that the ballot states the location to place yopur vote is to the right of the candidate of preference, but that the location on the ballot for Buchanan was to the left. ????????
Even (if) the argument was valid, and it is not, the spot to punch (was) to the right of Gore/Lieberman with an arrow pointing to the spot.
There is no evidence of voter or voting fraud by either party/party members.
Now where is Gore's respect and love for his country and all Americans. He is, without just cause, dragging the nation through the mud and scaring and depressing many Americans.
posted on November 10, 2000 10:13:39 AM
Ummm, once more:
Florida law specifies that ballots be constructed in such a fashion that voters mark an “X” in the blank space to the right of the name of the candidate of their choice. Well, Buchanan’s name was placed to the left. How much clearer does that need to be?
The ballot is illegal under Florida law
i swore I'd never correct ubb again
[ edited by krs on Nov 10, 2000 10:14 AM ]
posted on November 10, 2000 10:16:15 AM
The ballot spoken of is a "written" ballot. The ballot in question are not written type. There is apparently "wiggle room" in the law that pertains to the punch type ballots. Someone on the news this morning read the rest of the law, and it leaves much room on this issue.
posted on November 10, 2000 10:23:04 AM
I am trying to find the actual law, but am coming up empty handed. All the more reason to have some reform in the state laws that control the election process. And remember, the ballot was published and no one objected to it beforehand.
posted on November 10, 2000 10:24:43 AM
If the difference between an X and a bubble may cost Bush the office, then you can bet they'll quibble (can you honestly blame them?). It's sort of like if "is" means "is" or in fact means "is", but not "is".
posted on November 10, 2000 10:26:15 AM
Meya, surely you realize that whether or not anyone objected and also the party affiliation of the one who approved it is entirely irrelevant to the legality of the ballot?
posted on November 10, 2000 10:26:40 AM
Here are the latest numbers from Officials in Florida:
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Reuters) - Texas Gov. George W. Bush led Vice President Al Gore in Florida by 960 votes with 65 of 67 counties recounted, the state's elections department said on Friday.
The total vote count has Bush with 2,910,074 and Gore with 2,909,114 in Florida's 67 counties, adjusted to include recounted figures from 65 counties so far, the elections department said in a statement.
The state's latest tally did not include recounts in Hernando and Palm Beach counties, state officials said.
