posted on December 7, 2000 12:30:54 AM
HCQ and Dr. Beetle - Since both of your questions can be answered in one statement I will address both now. Between rallies and informal meetings its been a busy day.
First and foremost you have to understand why the electoral college exists and why it was created. The purpose of the college is to preserve a sense of equal representation among the States of the Union in choosing the president. The number of college members is equal to a States Representation in The Congress.
As such HCQ there exist a possible legal remedy to reduce Florida's representation in the college. Since the number of representatives to the college is based on the States Representation in Congress. Theoretically the location of the electors is based on the location of the Congressional Districts. Since the number of electors from a State is determined by the number of congressional districts plus two for the Senators. Most States have provisions in their respective constitutions that the winner of the popular vote wins all the college ballots. No State has language that the elector must vote that way.
Dr. Beetle since your vote is part of the popular vote you are not disenfranchised if Florida were to loose electoral college votes in areas of voting irregularites. Because you didn't vote for electors you voted for President. Your States electors should follow the popular vote. As I said before no State has language that says an elector must vote that way. So it is possible for an elector vote any way they choose.
Which is why the Florida legislature which is Republican wants to meet and nominate a slew of electors to vote for Bush. They are using their power I assume under the Florida Constitution to deliver the State to Bush. And in all this talk of stealing the election. The Florida Republican Legislature meeting in special session to nominate electors for Bush would comprise stealing the election. Because the popular which would dictate how the electors are to vote is the subject of Court action to determine who wins them normally.
I hope I answered both of you to your satisfaction.
posted on December 7, 2000 01:16:00 AM
On the same note about the electoral college. Since its existence is solely to preserve a measure of equal presidential decision power among the States. I hope it is never abolished. If there wasn't an electoral college given the current demographics of the United States. The presidency could possibly always be decided by the residents of just 12 or so States. Especially given the recent trend of reduced voter turnout in elections.
posted on December 7, 2000 04:35:06 AMI hope I answered both of you to your satisfaction.
No, because you don't point to anything in Florida's statutes or constitution that would permit the sort of apportionment you're recommending. Florida statute 103.011:
"....The Department of State shall certify as elected the presidential electors of the candidates for President and Vice President who receive the highest number of votes."
As I said, yours is a nice idea, but I don't see how it's anything but setting aside law in order to enforce another.
Edited to add: NW67, you state that number of a state's electors is based on the number of Congressional representatives that state has, but then go on to suggest that each elector has a "theoretical" "location" based on Congressional district. If that were the case, each elector would need to be chosen by majority vote in that particular Congressional district - a version in miniature of the national election. Thisk of course, is not the case; although we may see county-by-county reports of vote totals, the winner of a state's electors is determined by the TOTAL votes that candidate recieved STATEWIDE - and as you noted, "most states have provisions in their respective constitutions that the winner of the popular vote wins all the college ballots."
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Dec 7, 2000 04:44 AM ]
posted on December 7, 2000 08:22:46 AM
Hart Cottage Quilts - First and foremost the apportionment issue is secondary to the Constitutional Question of whether under the 12th Amendment of The US Constitution. Can a State lose electors to the college without losing representation in Congress. Since afterall The Constitution without question links the electoral college representation of a State to its Representation in Congress.
Since in Florida we have a situation where under the Florida Constitution language which you quoted. Who ever receives the most votes receives the electorate. In this particular election we have a certified candidate George Dubya. Which there is significant creditable legal challenge whether they legally received the most votes.
The issue of reducing electors is a remedy that does not disenfranchise individual voters. And stops a Partisian attempt to disenfranchise voters before the legal questions can be resolved whether George Dubya is the candidate that should have been certified.
With that said striking electors is remedy that voids disenfranchising voters whose votes have not been counted. And voids a partisian legislature from disenfranchising those same voters by meeting to nominate a new slate of electors partial to the candidate of their party.
Understand that No State has provisions regarding their Electoral College representation. Because that representation is linked to their Congressional representation under the Constitution. Since the number of votes in the electoral college is determined by Congressional Representation. It is implied and my interpretation that the electors to the college must within the State come from where the representation in the Congress itself comes from. With that said whether than continually address the individual votes which even if every court decision were to favor Gore after all appeals exhausted. The Florida legislature still has the power to meet and nominate its own partisian slate of electors over the outcome of the Florida popular vote due to the time that legal action and appeals take.
That action is a larger crime to disenfranchise voters since it is a known fact that the electors actually vote for President.
My remedy which is being researched right now. Merely allows the legislature to exercise its discretion under the Florida Constitution. And still not have the power to make the vote of the people come down to a legislature who recognizes that although Florida is a Republican State Democrats have strong representation within the State and their representation happens to also be in the areas where the electors come from. The representation of the State in The Congress.
To further the theory this all theroretical I hope you understand. That Miami-Dade is where Florida picked up two additional electoral votes after the 1990 census. Miami Dade and Broward is where Florida picked up two electoral votes after the 1980 census. And Miami-Dade is where Florida might pick up yet another Congressional Seat after the 2000 census.
Since the law doesn't specifically address the issue of my theoretical remedy that means it is possible to be implemented making it subject to Constitutional Challenege under the grounds can a State lose its college representation without losing its intrically linked Congressional representation. That question is beyond my mere 33 years of life experience which includes study of the law as a hobby and life love not as a profession or life endeavor. Which is why it is before the lawyers to see if it can advance past the theory stage under current legal interpretation.
If you haven't figured it out I must be a liberal to advance such a liberal idea to solve the problem on all fronts to include partisian legislature ursurping the vote of the people. Which by the way has been certified in a partisian manner but doesn't include all the votes but somehow happened to include some questionable votes in both Seminole and Martin Counties.
When the Bush team rejected Gore's willingness to end all court challenege if they just manually recount the whole State. I knew there was a rat in the rafters. I had no idea that the party has received numerous votes under highly questionable absentee ballot irregularities.
posted on December 7, 2000 08:43:48 AM
HCQ - Many many years ago you used to vote for electors no for the presidential candidates. The States found that cumbersome and burdensome especially given the I hate to say it. The ignorance of matters of State of the Average joe. So they instead have you vote for a candidate of a party and use gentlemen's agreements that the electors will vote according to that popular vote.
There is no penalty under no State staute if an elector fails to vote that way. Why do you think the Florida legislature wants to nominate its own slew of electors for Bush. Because half of the current electors are pro Gore and without a resolution or if they feel the voters have been disenfranchashed might actually vote in the college for Gore. See Gore doesn't need all of Florida to win. All he needs is 15 plus either New Mexico or Oregon for icing. Bush on the contary needs all of Florida. If he doesn't get the actual electorate of all of Florida. He can't win unless he gets a minimum of 20 Florida electors and Oregon. Which would give him 271, 20 in Florida plus New Mexico only gives him 269.
If the Florida electorate splits and let's say Gore gets only 5 and wins both New Mexico and Oregon. He has 272 and wins. Why do you think the legislature wants to meet and just nominate its own slew of electors and not wait for the court challenges and appeals. Because they know that the current electors with all of these voting irregularities might not actually vote for Bush and split along party lines. Florida is an all or none electoral state. But nothing in the law says the actual electors have to follow that. That premise scares the Florida Republicans and should it happen Bush still wouldn't win. Because I say again, Gore doesn't need all of Florida. But George Dubya needs all twenty-five.
posted on December 7, 2000 08:51:51 AM
So I misunderstood your original suggestion, and you're not talking about apportionment, but about actually reducing the number of electors Florida sends to the Electoral College?
How does your suggestion that the Florida legislature "exercise its discretion under the Florida Constitution" and reduce the number of electors stand against your assertion that the number of electors a state sends to the Electoral College "is linked to their Congressional representation under the Constitution. Since the number of votes in the electoral college is determined by Congressional Representation"?
Are you saying that the Legislature has the discretion whether to send all, some, or NO electors at all? Where do you find that in Florida law? I understand that the US Constitution delegates the METHOD (with certain limitations) of choosing its electors to the state legislatures; but isn't there a constitutional question that arises if a state legislature decides to change the number of electors?
Edited to add:
Many many years ago you used to vote for electors no for the presidential candidates. The States found that cumbersome and burdensome especially given the I hate to say it. The ignorance of matters of State of the Average joe.
Actually, you STILL vote for the electors rather than the candidates themselves.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Dec 7, 2000 08:53 AM ]
posted on December 7, 2000 09:59:26 AM
HCQ _ I do not know if you are intentionally mixing and matching my statements. or if it is accidental or if I present them in manner that allows them to mixed or matched.
First off this has nothing to do with the Florida legislature. They would be meeting to nominate a slew of 25 electors to vote Bush in the college.
My remedy would be before the United States House and Senate itself to put forth legislation to that would stop any partisian attempts of the Florida Legislature to nominate a slew of electors before the court challenges to the popular vote that decides who would ordinarily receive the electors from Florida is decided.
So don't confuse the two first off. And next each State has representation determined by its congressional representation. And since it is given to the State, nothing in United States Law says you have to exercise your rights. Every State in the Union has a representation in the College. A State for whatever reason could choose to not send anyone to the college. Why a State would do that is another issue, I see no logic in that.
My premise is, How do you allow a lawful action that is being done. From having the effect of making a court contested popular vote have no meaning. If the challenges to the ballot didn't exist and the Florida legislature met to nominate a slew of electors to decide a 50/50 popular vote. I wouldn't say word and would have to accept the partisian electors.
But for the Florida legislature to say hey our guy might lose votes in Seminole and Martin county; that even if the current appeal before the Florida Supreme is denied. He will lose, so we better just meet before the decision is rendered and just name some people to the college to vote for him and not wait for the Judicial Process.
My remedy allows them to do just that but it not serve its objective because they will lose the electorate that represents the contested popular. In short Gore doesn't get them and neither does Bush. They just are lost due to disenfranchisement of the portion of the electorate that they represent. I've said this 20 times its all hypothetical, and now I have to find a Congressman to introduce the bill to one time reduce the college membership of Florida due to disenfranchisement of voters and partisian action by the legislature.
Let's face if the Florida legislature meets and names a new slew of electors absent the disqualification of the current electors. They are acting within their jurisidiction under the Florida Constitution but they would be actng in a Partisian manner. Because although Bush is the Secretary of State certified candidate. His certification is under question if votes are lost in Seminole and Martin County. And his certification is under question if votes are counted in Miami Dade.
The legislature is calling the special session under the premise of not disenfranchsing the voters. But they are in effect disenfranshing the voters under the guise of a tainted current electorate due to the court actions. What is really going on is hey we can't be sure all 25 electors will vote for Bush with all the court action ongoing. So we will meet and get rid of all the questionable electors and replace them with our people.
That is their right under the Florida Constutution but is it being done to preserve the Florida electorate for Floridians or for the Republican party. My solution preserves it for Floridians regardless of party. And still affords Bush or Gore a chance at victory when the College meets. I might be a Democrat but I am totally against the American premise of majority by partisianship because of loyalties to general ideas that make one forshake views on right or wrong because of the party's leadership decision.
In short I like some democratic policies and some republican ones. In my State in the last two govenors elections I actually voted for the republican candidate. I don't vote along party lines I vote for the guy who I strongly beleive will do the best job. Which is why I voted for Bush in 1988 and then voted for Clinton in 1992. Bush would finish up the remnants of the Cold War and when it ended time for the Nation to move forward economically and end the deficits that stemmed from the military buildup. I decided time for a change and voted for Clinton.
Now we have it all military superiority, and economic superiority. Its time for national unity and bonding. Its time for building new schools, fixing social security once and for all, its time for stirring the melting pot because the seasoning seems to settling on the botom so to speak. And I do not think a Bush Presidency represents any of that. Heck to be totally honest a Gore presidency doesn't represent all of that either IMHO. But its close enough to it for me to give it a shot.
posted on December 7, 2000 01:02:41 PM
Back to the Seminole case: At last we're in closing arguments. I haven't seen such painfully inarticulate lawyering since I had to paralegal an associate through his first trial. I'm not supporting the Democrats in the election, but boy, do I miss Boies's face (and elocution) in this matter! Thank God Richard is at least there; it certainly proves that you get what you paid for. I'm kind of surprised Plaintiff didn't spring for somebody a bit better than Richman, who didn't resort to saying e.g. "anywheres", referring to evidence as "stuff," and SHOUTing throughout his reading deposition testimony into the record. If Plaintiff prevails, it'll certainly be on the merits, not on his ability to coherently argue a point.
I admit to being deeply confused by your proposition, net67. It was obviously not clear to me that your proposal involves writing Federal legislation. Are you suggesting that this bill be enacted into law within, say, the next 2 weeks? And that its effect be retroactive, i.e., affecting the 11/7/2000 election? And that it in effect amends the federal law that permits the states to determine, in their discretion, how to choose their own electors?
You seem very upset at the prospect that the FL Legislature may, under this part of the US Code http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/2.html, decide of its own accord which candidate gets the state's electors. How is that usurpation of the "will of the voters" any different from Congress passing the retroactive legislation you suggest?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Dec 7, 2000 01:04 PM ]
posted on December 7, 2000 02:02:19 PM
HCQ - The legislature actions and intent regardless of the Grandstanding before the media today. Is for the express purpose of nominating a new set of electors which will without question render votes for Bush. What you fail to accept is Florida already has choosen its electors to vote the State in the electoral college according to the popular vote outcome.
Well the popular vote outcome with the legal challenges to it. May or may not be decided by December 12, 2000. The problem that the republican legislature fears is with the current confusion and legal battles over the popular vote. The current slate of electors might ignore the questionable certification by the Secretary of State. And vote however they feel, as krs pointed out and I checked it out Florida's current slew of electors are 10 Republicans and 15 Democrats. With the republicans having one alternate and the democrats have two alternates.
As I pointed out before Bush has to win at least 20 of the Florida electors and Oregon to win the electoral college. Since I also pointed out that nothing in the law says an elector must vote according to the popular vote. They just historically do. If the current slew of electors split the Florida electorate Bush cannot win the electoral vote.
Which is why the Republican Florida Legislature wants to act to name a new set of electors which are guranteed to vote according to the current with many questions certified by the Republican Secretary of State Candidate George Dubya. The are actingwithin their Constiutional Rights under the Florida Constitution, but why can't they wait for the courts to finish?
They can't wait because even you admitted that on the merits the Plaintiffs in the Seminole case have merits but the remedy is IMHO and most other equitable Americans opinion is a little extreme. Judge Clark has the discreation to accept the Statistical numbers presented by the Plaintiffs and just wipe out 1200 or so Republican votes in Seminole County. Which shifts the election back to Gore no matter what the Florida Supremes rule on the current appeal.
But the Bush lawyers did everything within their power to force the remedy to be throwing out all 15000 votes. That places a tremendous burden on Judge Clark.
But since the case has legal merits and factual discovery to substantiate the allegations of the suit. Does Judge Clark grant a remedy of striking 1200 or so Republican votes. Which will certainly be appealed by the Bush team since they have grounds on how do you decide which votes to strike. Or does she strike all 15,000 votes which is the remedy the bush team has forced because of their failure to accept the statistical numbers presented by the plaintiffs to resolve it. They couldn't accept that remedy because that remedy would certainly shift the election back to Gore. Provided the Judge accepts the facts in the matter and rules for the plaintiffs.
Keep in mind this case will also go to the Florida Supreme no matter which way the gavel falls. And timing is everything, if Judge Clark rules pro plaintiffs and takes the moderate route of striking just 1200 or so votes. How will Bush's team look arguing whether these votes should count in one case and others not be counted ever in another.
My remedy makes it possible for everyone to have their cake and eat it too. Since under my remedy Florida and the two other states still undecided form a three State triangle for the White House. If the legislature would just place faith that the current slew of electors will do their job. We wouldn't have to consider such history making remedies. But they want to change the electors to make sure that they through partisian politics deliver the State to Bush. That is wrong seeing that the courts will ultimately settle the matter.
posted on December 7, 2000 02:51:34 PM
I understand what the intent of your proposed legislation is. I disagree with both your intent and the effect such a law might have. But let's set that aside for now.
I'm trying to figure out:
(1) How you expect to get a highly political bill through Congress in less than 2 weeks;
(2) Whether you intend your legislation to be retroactive to 11/7/00, and if so, how you reconcile that with Title 3, Section 5 of the U.S. Code (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/5.html
), which requires that state laws governing a federal election must be in effect at least 6 days before the election;
and
(3) How you reconcile your intention to reduce (or apportion) the number of Florida electors with Art. II, 1, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution, which requires that
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress....
posted on December 7, 2000 05:28:38 PM
HCQ - Will answer you numerical order. Stay with me it gets interesting and has a little constitutional controversey attached.
1. Tough one there since the current Congress is partisian towards Republicans. But since America is the land of play on the technicalities until the courts rule otherwise. Why not take the position that since no specific law is in place from the congress that forbades it, which means no court interpretation as to its constiutionality. Why not deal with the issue similar to Affirmative Action. In case you don't know Affirmative Action is in place by Executive Order. Since Congress has yet to enact laws either way. And the courts until very recently never bothered to render any interpretations. The Executive Branch of the Government under the Constitution has the duty to Enforce and Defend The Constutition.
With that said, who says the President can't issue an executive order to preserve the right of the people to choose its President under the Constitution. It could read like this.
"In order to preserve the people's intent in choosing its President and Vice President outside of political and partisian malfeasance. It is important that Americans have faith in their elections and the power that said elections have on the future of this nation. Therefore under executive order deem it neccassary to disallow any electors to the Electoral College whose prescence comes from where there exists any confusion or contest of the popular vote. Any State which this order effects their electoral count can remedy this situation by resolving the conflict or contest to its popular vote. And Not by any act which would not be consistent with the outcome of the popular vote. This order is enacted to preserve the people's right to choose their President and Vice President. And not have those choices upset by the unilateral unfairness of partisian intervention to the same to resolve matters favorable to a partisian candidate. This power is that of the president under the duty to enforce the constitution. And I painfully enact this order to preserve the people's vote and not have a partisian controlled legislative vote which I strongly beleive will not reflect the will of the people.
How's that for you, don't need no congress, and all we have to do is wait for the partisian challenge before the Supreme Court as to Constutitionality of such an order as they pertain to States Elections. Guess what until the courts rule Executive Orders are effective from the time signed. How quickly do you think Republicans in Congress can answer the challenge to the president. As you said before it takes time for Congress to do anything. We get a electoral college that is duly appointed consistent with how they have always been appointed. And the Florida republicans can nominate their whole slate of new electors for Bush Just instead of 25 it will be a number like I think something like 16. He won't have enough for 270 gore won't have 270 and we can all wait for Oregon and New Mexico. If Bush wins both Oregon and New Mexico he is President. If Gore wins both it goes to the reduced college for a simple majority. neither candidate is handicapped due to the unreslved and questionable ballot in Florida and the voter irregularities of the State. The will of the people is preserved and the electoral system is allowed to work without the help of partisian politics handing the Highest Office in the land to someone just because of party affliation. Everybody can be happy that democracy worked. Democracy isn't partisian in nature and it isn't disrupted to preserve or take advantage of a partisian view point. We had impeachment hearings wasting time and money over partisian politics. Time for that crap to end and the will of the people prevail over the will of a party.
2. You must be from Florida. Because the law quoted says in accordance with State Laws in place 6 days before the election. We are going to take the matter out of partisian states legislatures hands since they can't seem to do it right. Thus negating that defense.
3. Depends on how you wish to interpret the intent of that language. It could be argued that the clause you specifical point to means not to exceed the number of Senators and Congressmen. Not it can't be less than that number.
Now your pointing to clause three. Why all of sudden you wish to acknowledge that electors to the college from a state is intricately linked to the amount of Congressional representation when you spent two posts saying they had nothing to do with one another.
For the 21st time this is hypothetical theory on solving the problem without the mess of a partisian decision. Personally, I can live through 4 years of a Bush presidency. As A Matter Of Fact, I am pondering the future implications on the Republican Party in both Florida and Nationally if it ends in a Partisian handing of the State to Bush. Being a great strategist, I think the benefits to the Democrats in future elections is well worth losing the White House for 4 years.
Democrats if they act and just hand Bush Florida and the court battles favor Gore we get Florida back completely Govenor and Legislature. Should the Bush Administration not keep the economy flowing and growing well we don't even have to explain that. And if he gets to controversial with those anticipated Supreme Court nominations. Well the Grand Old Party will turn into the Grand No Influence in Nothing Party.
So if the party wants the White House so badly that they are willing to risk all of that. I hope its worth it.
posted on December 7, 2000 05:34:14 PM
Hello Networker67,
"On the same note about the electoral college. Since its existence is solely to preserve a measure of equal presidential decision power among the States. I hope it is never abolished. If there wasn't an electoral college given the current demographics of the United States. The presidency could possibly always be decided by the residents of just 12 or so States. Especially given the recent trend of reduced voter turnout in elections."
Most of the states have a winner take all approach to their electors. So the twelve most populous states, if won by the same candidate, would mean that candidate would win the Presidency regardless of the nationwide popular vote.
Here is the electoral representation of the 12 most populous states as of 1998:
54 - California
33 - New York
32 - Texas
25 - Florida
23 - Pennsylvania
22 - Illinois
21 - Ohio
18 - Michigan
15 - New Jersey
14 - North Carolina
13 - Georgia
13 - Virginia
That totals to 283 electoral votes.
In other words your conclusion about the electoral college preserving some sense of equality across the states in the Presidential election is backwards.
A candidate could win those 12 states by a razor thin margin in each and be trounced in the popular vote across the rest of the states and still become President.
The electoral college was designed to provide the winner with a sense of a mandate.
Popular votes do not necessarily provide a sense of mandate as the current election illustrates.
The election of two members from each state to the Senate (the upper house of Congress) was and is the instrument that the Founding Fathers adopted to attempt to balance the power across the States.
posted on December 7, 2000 05:41:13 PM
Networker67,
"now I have to find a Congressman to introduce the bill to one time reduce the college membership of Florida due to disenfranchisement of voters and partisian action by the legislature."
You can't be serious. You don't change the rules after the game is over.
posted on December 7, 2000 07:38:04 PM
Code - If that's what you want to think well by all means think that way. I know what the college is for and you think 2 Senators is what does it. Time for your history lesson. Please keep up and raise your hand if you have any questions. No talking during the lecture and even you might be able to learn something.
First off the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified in March 1789. When ratified The United States of America was a relatively small place in the middle of decent sized Continent. Funny thing happened in 1803. Napoleon got cash strapped and needed money to continue his wars in Europe. Well he decided Europe is a pretty big place and we haven't used that French Fleet since 1776 when we bailed out those Colonist in America. And since they speak English aren't conisseurs of Fine Wines and Cheeses do we really want to share the land with them? He decided no and decided to sell it to us. Well we bought it for 15 Million so they say. This happened in 1803.
Thomas Jefferson was president then and figured we have enough land to almost double the size of the United States. But being the superior visionary he was; figured that new States would be created from this purchase. And since he had already witnessed in his lifetime the Union grow from 13 to 17 States with one of those new ones Ohio being pretty big. He thought hey this Union might get to be pretty big and we might one day have a lot of people here. We might need to do something about Article II of the Constiution. Because if we don't the people as we grow won't be properly represented according to were they live under the Constitution. Being President I can't introduce legislation or Constiutional Amendments so I guess better get a buddy to help me out on this one. Well that gave us the 12th Amendment introduced December 1803 ratified July 1804.
Now back to the college the word in my post demographics, it is a very important word because the 12 states you just named almost never would vote the same way. This is a strange country people in the South don't view politics the same way as midwesterners. Folks out west don't agree with guys on the east. People in the mountains don't view things like folks in Texas. And people on that penisula seem to be confused. With that said you would never get a quorum of those 12 States to do nothing except maybe declare war on somebody.
A sense of mandate, wow do you just grab words out of thin air and use them to reinforce a statement. The President has mandate provided he is duly elected and meets the requriements to serve. Politcally we might split along two parties but nationally we try and pull it back together in time for the inaugruation. And let the Congress address the daily trench warfare of partisian politics. In this election we have a problem because for once we don't have a clear electoral winner. We have a State with a deciding margin of the electorate having all kinds of voter irregularities. We have party impropriety as it relates to absentee ballots and we have documented incidents of Jim Crow era voter disenfranchisement of minority votes.
To top it off we now have a partisian State legislature who wants to just push their guy in. If the electorate gives the president his mandate as you say. What mandate will Bush have if just handed the White House by the Florida legislature absent a resolution to the legal challenges in Seminole and Martin parties. Not to mention the outcome of the Gore Campaign case before the Florida Supreme Court.
So I guess if the electoral in your opinion gives the President his mandate I challenege you have it backwards. Because absent the judicial remedy to the Florida vote and ballots Bush will be handed the White House. And nothing said by no Bush supporter will change that fact. If the courts rule against Gore well the votes are lost, if the plaintiffs lose in both martin and Seminole questionable votes will be counted. But since the system will have prevailed we will chalk the loss and get ready for 2004. Absent that happening Bush will be handed the election.
posted on December 7, 2000 07:47:59 PMNetworker67 what you describe is a total pipedream. The framers of the constitution had three branches of government for a reason. Attempting to have the executive branch legislate creates a situation that is just as bad as having the Florida Supreme Court try to legislate.
The U.S. Supreme Court defended the three party system by reminding the Florida court that another branch of government has the role of the legislature - i.e. to legislate. Attempting to have the executive branch usurp the powers of the legislature is a short cut to a true constitutional crisis.
posted on December 7, 2000 08:16:39 PM
Dr. beetle - For the 22nd time that was hypothetical musings on ways to solve the problem without a partisian Florida legislature just handing the election to a candidate over a perceived fear that some of the 25 current electors will use the legal battles to justify not voting for the Certified Candidate.
Heck if I was a Florida elector and I beleived in my heart that that certified candidate might not have actually won the election I wouldn't cast the electoral vote for them either. So I can see the fear that the Republican Florida Legislature is dealing with. The party went through all of that to give Bush the election and then have an elector or two get a conscience and not follow through. Hey the martin and seminole cases show a lot was done to find votes for Bush to offset the probable edge Gore would have in areas of heavy minority population.
And somehow arranging for some 9,000 votes to get lost is shall we say no small feat. If those votes are actually lost and weren't created by the democrats to have an area of contest. Because in Illinois if that happened at a precinct in Chicago. Trust me the votes would have been counted no matter what the friggin machine said. Sounds like Florida runs their elections too centralized at the top. That centralization caused votes to be lost in Miami Dade. And allowed the Republican Party to make sure absentee ballots got in elsewhere.
Regardless of the outcome of this election. I hope you guys on the penisula get that mess cleaned up.
posted on December 7, 2000 09:56:27 PM
All of this partisan rhetoric and spin is sure getting old. It is the same old crap repackaged and regurgitated over and over.
posted on December 8, 2000 02:32:20 AM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, Networker, when you ask that:
"Why do you think the Florida legislature wants to nominate its own slew of electors for Bush. Because half of the current electors are pro Gore and without a resolution or if they feel the voters have been disenfranchashed might actually vote in the college for Gore."
If that's supposed to read the way it looks to me, I don't think that's right. The Republicans picked 25 party loyalists to comprise their slate of electors before all this happened. One of them is Tom Sweeney, the Speaker of the House or Majority leader or whatever in the Florida legislature.
At the same time, before all this happened, the Democratic party picked 25 Democratic party members to comprise their slate of electors.
Whichever way the election had gone, the slate of electors would be comprised of 25 members of the same party, either Democrats or Republicans. (i.e. there are actually 50 people who have been chosen as electors in Florida. 25 Republicans, who make up the Republican slate, and 25 Democrats, who make up the Democratic slate. In normal times, one slate of electors is certified. Those 25 Republicans go to Talahassee. The 25 Democrats stay home, or vice-versa.)
When and if the Florida Legislature picks "a new slate of electors," assuming that they'll choose a Republican slate of electors, the actual people who already made up the Republican slate of electors won't change. Tom Feeney will still be one of the 25 electors, along with the other 24 who were already on the certified slate of electors with him before.
It's not fear of elector faithlessness that's driving the Florida legislature to "choose a new slate of electors." The phrase "new slate of electors" is misleading. These are going to be the same old electors. The only difference there will be is that the action of "choosing" will have the stamp of the Florida Legislature on it, thereby protecting the slate, the Legislature thinks, from interference by the court, and making it presumptively more legitimate, when it comes time for the U.S. Congress to tally the electoral votes, than a possible second slate of Democratic electors that might, in the future, be certified through the actions of the Florida courts.
posted on December 8, 2000 03:44:06 AM
Donny - You are correct and I am mistaken. However still doesn't change the partisian nature of such an action. I find it funny that Pro-Republican people are now tiring of partisian.
Well seems that the Grand Old Party has been bullying and forcing its agenda so long. That now they seem to think it is the natural order of things. The didn't likethe President get a partisian action to impeach him. Don't like the possibility of the courts correcting or remedying voter miscounts or partisian favortism as it related to absentee ballots. Well get a partisian action together and just do what we please.
Well partisian and bi-partisian actions are a mainstay in our political scheme. And I can accept that. But what bothers me is the apparent abuse of partisian measures as of late from the Republican party. Notice how the day that NAACP hearings were held. Bush appeared with his African American Foreign affairs advisor sitting down talking together. I really wish the GOP would spare me the pre-administration pony show of Blacks.
Don't show me Blacks, stand before the microphone and cameras and officially say where the place for others in the regime will be. Showing without telling is an insult to the intelligence of people like me. And we aren't easily fooled.
posted on December 8, 2000 06:40:19 AM
So you're proposing an executive order retroactively overturning the provisions of the Constitution that deal with the Electoral College?
I'd love to see how that'd play before the Supremes.
That's incorrect. A slate of electors has been submitted, and the makeup of that slate is consistent with the party split in the Florida legislature at the time those electors were selected. Actually 11 republicans to 17 democrats as I recall. There's a ling here somewhere which shows the actual document submitted to the college over Jeb Bush's signature. The attempt to form another slate (to replace those already submitted) is being made in order that the electoral makeup will reflect the current republican majority in the Florida legislature. They expect to be able to select an all republican slate.
Here's a link showing the slate of 25 electors each party chose in Florida (I was wrong when I said there were 50 electors in Florida. There's a whole slew of them, 25 for each party and write in candidates)-
Florida's certificate of ascertainment does list the names of both the 25 Republican electors and the 25 Democratic Electors, but it says at the bottom that:
"And, therefore, the twenty-five Republican Nominees for the office of Presidential Elector, having received the most votes, are hereby elected Presidential Electors for the State of Florida, under authority of the laws of the State of Florida"
The legislature, in choosing a "new slate of electors" won't change any of the actual names on the list of Republican electors, this is just a way for the Florida Legislature to exercise the power it thinks it has under the U.S. Constitution to make the Republican slate of electors inviolate.
posted on December 8, 2000 10:12:34 AM
I'd been wondering about this myself. It would be interesting if, say, the Legislature were controlled not by the Republicans, but by the Democrats, and that (as now) the Democrats were convinced that, certifications aside, Gore had actually "won" the state. A special legislative session could then be called, and the Democrat-controlled Legislature could substitute a set of Democrat electors, which in its opinion would more accurately represent what it believed to be the "voice of the people".
Would the Democrats be so quick to cry "foul" under those circumstances?
posted on December 8, 2000 10:31:38 AM
Well...I don't hear many Democrats crying foul over the possible disenfranchisement of 25,000 voters. Of course, those are mainly Republican votes.
posted on December 8, 2000 11:04:03 AM
HCQ, I don't know how I'd feel if I were a Democrat and the legislature was Democratic and did this for Gore. But what the Florida Legislature is doing impacts more than this election; Once a legislature takes an action like this, it makes it easier for some future legislature to take a similar action. That's the long-lasting harm that this Florida Legislature is causing and why everyone, Democrat or Republican, should be very concerned.
I live in Georgia, and I can tell you we've had, and still have, some real clowns down here. Lester Maddox and Herman Talmadge are just a few of the wackos of the not too distant past. And we gave you Newt Gingrich too, but that was only to get him out of Georgia.
I do not want to see Tom Murphy, Georgia's Speaker of the House for life, decide in 4 years that he's going to choose the next president, regardless of what the electorate has to say about it. The Florida legislature believes that the U.S. Constitution gives them the right to choose the electors themselves and, further, that under the U.S. Constitution Florida doesn't even have to have a presidential election if it didn't want to, the legislature could just name whatever electors it wanted itself.
While you may not be unhappy today about what today's Florida Legislature is doing, it opens the door to future actions that you might not be so happy about.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:46:04 AM
HCQ - And what's wrong with a plaintiff exercising their rights within the Civil System?
Interesting to me is the summary of the ruling.
"The trial courts have determined that despite irregularities, neither the sanctity of the ballots nor the integrity of the election has been compromised," Leon County Court spokeswoman Terre Cass said in announcing the decision.
They admit that something was irregular (wrong is too strong a word in light of the ruling) but it didn't hurt the ballots in question, nor the integrity of election.
Now under that ruling what stops minority groups like the NAACP and others from gathering and creating databases of minority voters and doing the same thing with absentee ballots?
