Slashdot Mirror
Florida Election Votes Certified
Ravn0s noted that CNN has reported that Florida has certified Bush as the winner, which of course means that he'll get the 25 electoral votes, and the presidency. We haven't had enough fun:
Gore still has the popular vote nationally, and there are zillions of Florida ballots in question (felons who voted, multi-punched ballots, dangling chads and the list goes on). I wish I could
say it's over ... closure with a President with the qualifications of a head of lettuce is still closure, but I suspect the mainstream media
will continue to harp on this for awhile. But hopefully this is the end of the issue on Slashdot.
And Bush is different how? Oh, I see, he's a Republican, who are renowned for their big hearts and open minds (please note sarcasm). Frankly, when I think of racism, intolerance, and ignorance, "Republican" is the first word that pops into my head. Unless you've got a bible in one hand and a gun in the other, then you just don't matter.
I didn't vote for Gore because he is a major league asshole
Again, I'm thinking that you've got the two guys confused here. While Gore was building his political career, Bush was living the coke-snorting playboy lifestyle. He cleaned up a bit after Bush Sr. bought his sons gov't positions. Now he expects America to beleive that he's credibile? Asshole.
Despite this, I can see benefits to having Bush in office. He's the perfect guy to symbolize how fucked up things are nowadays. He's the epitome of the shallow, fast-food, care-more-about-the-packaging-than-the-product attitude that is killing us all.
FYI - I didn't vote for either guy. I'm still waiting for the Wizard to give Gore his heart and Bush his brain.
...And Let the Flame War Begin!
Vote Richard Stallinman for President in 2004 -- Communist Party candidate!
"The only ray of light in this entire process is perhaps the hope that some sort of standardization of voting proceedures and machinery will happen nationwide "
Ummm....... no. The whole idea is to allow the States to figure out how to come up with an answer, then give the answer, via the electoral college, to the national Goverment.
There is no reason to assume that the voting procedure that would work best in Montana is the same procedure that would work best in New York. Let the States decide and keep the central planners out of it.
Evidently every vote except the absentee military ballots, because they presumably do not favor Algore. Postage is not required for service members deployed overseas to hostile/hazardous areas, and their mail is not postmarked. So, because this administration deployed them to serve "meals on wheels" all over the world, they should lose their vote?
It's no wonder the military tends not to like Gore and company; their disdain for the military is palpable.
Wisconsin Browne voter
Of course, it should be kept in mind that they are 99.9% accurate in counting the ballots that get accepted into the machines. Many ballots were thrown out by the machines and machine has *zero* accuracy with respect to those. They are not 99.9% accurate over all ballots cast.
What this number you quoted means is that given perfect ballots, the probability that the machine's answer is correct is 0.999
By looking at the ballots rejected by the machine, it may be possible to ascertain the will of the voter. And in a such a close election, that should definitely be done.
so, those "midwestern nowhere hicks" who make up the majority of the population in over half our states shouldn't have a right to vote for our president? how would you like it if I said we should keep those "damn blacks" and "damn women" from voting? people like you are EXACTLY why we have an electoral college to counter blind mob rule.
How could this happen? We've elected a Nazi! How could any freedom-loving American vote for a guy who says that "There ought to be limits to freedom" and calls a guy a "Major League Asshole" just for supporting the other guy, and tries to prevent all of the ballots from being counted while he is still ahead? I know he's a right-wing Republican, but HOLY SHIT!
From Red Rock Eater mailing list. Scroll down to point number 4.
I think giving two electoral college votes to each state corresponding to the two senators must be abolished.
QUOTE
But there is another factor as well: the Electoral College gives each state a vote equal to the number of its Senators plus the number of its Representatives. This is a bias toward the rural states, which tend to be more conservative. Was it a deciding bias in the present case? It's easy enough to tell. I went back to the Electoral College results thus far and re-added both Bush's and Gore's totals counting only the Representatives, not the Senators -- in other words, reducing each state's electoral vote by two. The total electoral vote is thus 436 instead of 536 (in other words, the membership of the House plus one for the District of Columbia), and 219 votes are needed to win. Does Al Gore have more than 219 votes without Florida? Easily: under the House-only Electoral College system, Gore has 225 votes to Bush's 188 votes. That does not itself mean, of course, that anyone should claim a victory for Gore, except for the partial moral victory that he has rightly earned. The rule of law requires that, barring extreme illegitimacy, we should stick with the rules until they can be changed. But it does mean that the supposed anomaly was not random at all, but is the consequence of a political bias that for historical reasons became lodged in our laws.
ENDQUOTE
Giving the states as much autonomy as you do in the USA is cute, but is it democratic? State autonomy is OK for local issues, but why should the president of the whole country be elected on local rules? Shouldn't a national election be held on national rules?
clickity
This article is proof that CmdrTaco is slashdot's biggest troll.
So you compare Bush to a head of lettuce... I'd like to see you run for President (and win) instead of making some dumbass comment like that. Grow up, Taco!
Yeah, well conservative and what the Republicans are is vastly different. We have the same problem in Canada. The conservatives all got screwed up one day after they created and broke up the USSR (it was Taylorists both times... look it up). Regan popularized the movement. It was neo-conservatism, of which Limbagh subscribes, which is Marxism all over again. Think about it. Unleash the market forces, let the people decide who comes out on top, and the victor holds the bag of cash. Only, Marx decided that the proletariats were the victors. Changed sides, changed names.
And become a good Republican. Right now you may be magnanimous with your newfound wealth and famee, but these things are fleeting. Eventually you wil likely get married and/or have kids, and the money and fame will be a memory. Then the harsh reality of Taxes will come home to you, as will the fact your kids are the center of your universe. Then you will be amazeded how quickly you will turn conservative.
Bill Clinton was our nation's first postmodern president. As WORLD has argued, the president's capacity to "construct alternative truth claims," to re-invent himself according to the needs of the moment, to compartmentalize his life, and to create his own morality, is a political manifestation of the new worldview that rejects all absolutes. Now the first election of the new millennium--with its disputed and repeated ballot counting--shows how postmodernism may make constitutional government impossible.
The two candidates exemplify two different approaches to the end of modernism, marked politically by the failure of all of the seemingly rational, scientific schemes--socialism, Marxism, welfare-state government programs, and all of the other social-engineering schemes that marked the now-defunct century--to create the progressive utopia.
One response to the end of modernity is to recover what was of value in the premodern era and to apply old worldviews in new, creative ways to our contemporary times. Thus, we have a new classicism in education and in some sectors of the art world, and the new cultural relevance of conservative Christianity. Postmodern America also saw a revival of conservative politics, with the success of Ronald Reagan. Now George W. Bush, with his compassionate conservative programs and new-image Republicanism, is the standard bearer for that mentality.
The other response to the end of modernist rationalism is to take the next step and deny rationalism altogether. These postmodernists maintain that truth-claims and moral absolutes are nothing more than a personal or social construction. Politically, this means the politics of spin-doctoring (professional construction of plausibility paradigms), image manipulation (since style, not substance, is what persuades in an era without truth), judicial activism (since law is just a matter of interpretation), and ruthless power politics (since truth is nothing more than the imposition of power). For those unbounded by the limits of truth or morality who see everything from cultural institutions to human nature as a social construction, the state has, theoretically, infinite power.
Al Gore has inherited this mantle. Despite his apparent retro-liberalism, Mr. Gore is actually taking postmodernism further than his mentor. Mr. Clinton re-invented himself when he needed to, in a manifestation of what postmodernist psychologist Robert Jay Lifton approvingly calls the "Protean Self." But Mr. Gore is even more Protean, changing his persona from week to week, audience to audience. More seriously, postmodernism teaches that ideological and cultural disagreements are not just differences of opinion, but rather issues of power, that culture is a thinly disguised mask for groups in power oppressing those who are not, who, in turn, must be "empowered" to turn the tables. Thus, Mr. Gore scored votes by setting groups against each other and promising, "I will fight for you!"
The election showed the nation split right down the middle, with the big cities, the universities, Hollywood, the cultural elite--who cut their teeth studying Derrida and Foucault in the universities--and the masses whom they influence voting for Mr. Gore. The more traditionally minded Americans in what the coasts contemptuously refer to as "flyover territory" went for Mr. Bush. And the result was, essentially, a tie.
On Nov. 20, everything hinged on Florida. In the early 20th century, the aftermath would have created no problem. Modernists, for all of their faults, have a trust in rational, objective truth, which can be determined with the aid of science. Modernists trusted machines. Counting ballots by machines was once a progressive reform, a way of making it more difficult to cheat, countering the notorious ballot-stuffing of corrupt political bosses with the nonbiased certainty of modern technology.
But the postmodernists of the cultural elite do not believe in this kind of modernist certainty. Truth, they believe, is a matter of interpretation. Language is certainly just a matter of interpretation ("it depends on what the meaning of is is"), and so is everything made out of language, such as laws ("the constitution must be interpreted to fit the needs of changing times"). In postmodernism, even hard, tangible, scientific evidence is susceptible to various interpretations.
So the election of the president of the United States hinged on the hermeneutics of chads. Partisans held pieces of flimsy cardboard up to the light and tried to interpret the meaning of tiny indentations and miniscule punchouts hanging by a fiber. And, surprise, surprise, the numbers kept going up for Mr. Gore.
Democratic operatives spun a sanctimonious paradigm of simply wanting every vote to count. Students of postmodernism know, however, that postmodernist hermeneutics does not believe in respecting an author's--or, by extension, a voter's--original intention. Objective meaning is inherently indeterminate, they believe, so it is completely legitimate to construct a paradigm that advances the power interests of your side.
According to these tenets, assiduously taught in just these terms in the nation's universities, contradictions of logic or morality need not get in the way. One may assert transcendent principles--such as the objective rights of voters--as a rhetorical ploy to persuade public opinion, but then work to get the ballots of military men and women thrown out on hyper-technical interpretive grounds, without worrying about the inconsistency.
Also, since every truth claim is ultimately a matter of personal preference and since logic is not valid, arguments are refuted with ad hominem attacks. The goal: Destroy your opponents personally, go after their reputations, give them a negative image, make them appear ridiculous and incapable of being taken seriously. Thus, the media trashing of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who was vilified and ridiculed, in the vilest, most personal terms, for doing her job and standing up for an objective legal deadline.
Republicans, with their naive modernism or genteel premodernism, tend not to be so cynical, and have trouble coping with or even understanding what they are up against. They need to realize that, for postmodernists, the only thing that counts is power. Without any moral restraints--in the cosmic absence, in Mr. Gore's words, of the very possibility of any "controlling legal authority"--all that remains is the sheer exercise of power. Those who think in these terms are too cynical to be moved by moral or legal or rational scruples and will be utterly ruthless in their pursuit and exercise of this power.
On Nov. 20, the issue was in the courts. The founders, who so carefully checked and balanced the executive and legislative branches, assumed that the courts would be checked by the constitution. But in their touchingly premodern way, they had no conception of postmodern legal theory, by which courts do not just discover what the laws and the Constitution say. Rather, the law and the Constitution itself are matters of "interpretation," and the rulings of a court are legal "constructions."
As of the time of this writing, no one knows how Florida's judicial powers will rule. They may adjudicate the objective facts according to an objective legal standard. Or they may construct a ruling according to their own ideology, emulating the justices who constructed the right to an abortion.
But, however the election goes, Americans should be asking whether political institutions that originated in a worldview resting on transcendent absolutes can survive if the culture no longer believes in any of them. What were for the founders "self-evident truths"--belief in a Creator who endowed "inalienable" rights--are no longer self-evident. Indeed, in many circles they are routinely dismissed as unworthy of discussion. Rights are a social construction, not grounded in any kind of transcendent God. But, as postmodernists have shown, what is constructed can be deconstructed, and rights created by the state can be taken away by the state.
One tenet of postmodernism has not been brought up in public, and for good reason. According to postmodernism, freedom is an illusion. Our sense that we can do as we please is itself a social construction. According to the poster child of postmodernism, Michel Foucault, Western democracies are not free at all. Indeed, they are the easiest to control. This is because those in power make their citizens control themselves. This is far more efficient than a police state, since each individual, imagining that he is free but in reality internalizing the values of those in power, becomes his own policeman. And they are so easy to manipulate.
"Let this come to a final end," said Gore or Bush. "The people have spoken and their choice is clear. Let's not involve the courts with this matter any further. The people of our great nation are tired of this partisan bickering and know that it is time for the results to be accepted."
Gore or Bush claimed that these results indicated that they were the president-elect.
"There is a time for lawyers, and there is a time for reconciliation," continued Gore or Bush. "The time for legal challenges is over. I call upon my opponent to do the honorable thing and to concede this election."
Bush or Gore denied that the fight is over. "We do not believe that the votes have been correctly counted in the great state of Florida," they said, suggesting that overseas military ballots or those with so-called "pregnant chad" had yet to be counted correctly. "We are confident that once these military or pregnant ballots are counted correctly, the country will know who the real victor in this race was."
The most important thing, said Bush or Gore, was that the voters be granted the right to be heard, regardless of how much time the counting takes.
Gore or Bush protesters demonstrated outside the building for most of the weekend, holding placards reading "Gore Or Bush: It's Over."
First the cliche's. Get a clue, look at history, wake up and smell the coffee. Now for the important stuff.
The first american president was not elected for brains, he was described as being rather average. The biggest reason he was selected as potential president was because he was well known and well liked. Nothing has changed in 200+ years, except this last election was more like 2 chosen doof's searching blindly in the dark for a nut. I personally wish the Election debaucle was a final exam and both canidates flunked horribly, as a leader and as a politician. Tell me which of the two whining maggots would you want holding the big red phone.
Now for the insightful comment. The obvious has not been brought forth.
1. The irregularities are not new ("vote early vote often", "Bury me in Louisiana so I'll still be active in politics after I die"). Forget the whining and take action.
2. Before you start shouting tear down the electorial college, ponder what having Lefty the Beanie Donkey as president with Righty the Beanie
Elephant as the VP would be like. In short Mob rule is a bad thing, having sanity checks to stop sudden passion decisions is a good thing.
3. While i'm on the topic , the United States of America is not and has never been a Democracy. At best you could get away with calling it a Representative Democracy, but it is probably Closer to being a republic, but that doesn't fit the bill. What we have here is neither fish nor foul.
4. Scariest thing that this election may bring is the citizens of the United States of America finally approve a constitutional rewrite, letting the wolves shear the sheep so to speak. Which is a great example of what Mob rule would do. Self Fscking, is bad. Also let's not forget that the Electorial college is not serving it's original intent due to an ammendment (if i ever get time i;ll track down which one, cause i forgot).
Now for the closing comment. If you have read this far I thank you for your patience. And Remember there is nothing worse than watching people suddenly realize they've been wallowing in sh!t for years and wondering why someone else hasn't pulled em out and cleaned them off.
Signed JerryMeander
"If CmdrTaco can add personal feelings to an event that should contain sound thoughts, so can I (everyone's a child)"
I think sabres would be more appropriate. Pistol duels are over quickly, and that somehow doesn't seem right for this election.
IIRC, most, if not all of those quotes were made by Dan Quayle. I've seen them listed as being said by Gore and Bush in different places. It's sad someone would misquote someone just to sway opinions.
I'm tired of hearing this "but Gore won the Popular Vote (TM)" and "will of the people" whining. Here's a few observations on the matter:
1. There is no such thing as the presidential election national popular vote. Check the constitution/amendments/etc. No such animal. Using the expression makes about as much sense as football fans using the "Cumulative Score" to determine championships (e.g. total up the points a team scores during a season - highest number wins the national championship, i.e. BYU = #1!)
2. There is such a thing in each state as votes by the state's citizens that determine the electorate. My state (Nebraska) permits the electorate to be allocated by certain regions of the state (e.g. if Gore won Omaha, he would have picked up a few electorates).
3. The reason there is state determination and not one federal popular vote has to do with the compromise between big and little (population) states. Without this compromise, we wouldn't have had the consensus to have the United States. Failing to remember this compromise (hint hint, Hillary!) may cause this issue to resurface. (Read Ben Franklin's official biography for full details on why this matter is so important).
4. Per "Will of the People (c'est Moi!)" - anytime you hear a politician claiming to know this collectivist will, just remember that this was the same argument advocated by 20th century greats like Stalin, Hitler and Mao to justify nearly anything. Are we Americans stupid enough to buy this argument in light of the evidence?
As for the manual recounts and failures of counties to finish them, recall that PBC started it's recount the day before Harris' original Nov. 14 deadline. They wasted four or five days! Both PBC and Miam-Dade halted and restarted their recounts at least once, for no apparent reason, though there was some talk of "needing to get permission from the court." I've never understood this point, because it seems to me that the count should be able to go ahead, though certification would require a court ruling. If someone can clarify, I would appreciate it.
--
A hand recount of selected counties is unfair. It makes some peoples' votes more important than others.
Note that no one is making charges of any sort of election fraud whatsoever. Gore said he would abide by the results of the limited hand recount. He is not, and has lost what little respect I had for him before all of this started. Gore has placed himself in a situation where if he doesn't win, his political career is ruined. Even if he does win, barring some amazing policy decisions (unlikely with a divided congress) or dumb luck, he will not get a second term.
--
Yes, he probably should have done so. I was pointing out that posters here seem to think Bush opposed recounts because of some massive conspiracy to take votes away from Gore. In fact, there was no such conspiracy. It was simply a case of the winner not asking for a recount. This is not rocket science. :)
Did she actually say this? Honestly, I don't recall. Clearly Florida law allows for a recount. In any event, why was VC able to count its votes continuously, but not PBC? I don't recall hearing anything about VC dragging its tail waiting for a court ruling. PBC and MD have now had almost three weeks to count their votes, including machine and hand recounts. That seems like plenty of time to me.
IIRC, these lawsuits from Gore came up because counties stopped recounts due to a lack of a clear Gore advantage. MD might have been one of them, actually.
In any event, we have now had three vote counts (not even including all military absentee votes!) and Bush still won. What more does Gore want? He has stated he would abide by the recounts. The fact that two counties couldn't get them done by the deadline set by the Democrat-appointed supreme court of Florida is scandalous, but not because Bush won.
--
The Electoral College compromise is not unlike the House/Senate compromise in that it serves to ensure that small states have a voice. Those who advocate abolishing the Electoral College should also advocate abolishing the Senate.
As for our election stability, I think that has more to do with the nature of our society than the Electoral College. Unlike most other nations on Earth, the population of the U.S. has never known any other system of government than a democratic republic. Even in colonial times, governors and colonial legislatures were elected. As we've seen throughout history (France, Weimar Germany, Russia), it is much more difficult to transition to a republic than it is to start one from the ground up.
--
As for supposed SecState bias, it is a very serious charge to suggest that an elected official is not performing his or her duties according to the law. In fact, Harris was following Florida law by setting the original recount deadline and the court upheld her authority to do so. In addition the court specified that she could not "arbitrarily" refuse recounts after the deadline, a decision so weak it hardly qualifies as one. Essentially, the court washed its hands of the whole affair. She then certified final results yesterday at 5pm, the deadline given by the Florida supreme court.
I have heard lots of speculation about her bias, but not once has anyone in the Gore camp questioned the strict legality of her actions. They questioned her interpretation of the law and the court decisions, but never that she explicity went against Florida law. They have resorted to personal attacks not backed up by proof of wrongdoing.
--
Actually, that's exactly what they are! Being selected as an elector by one's party is an honor reserved for those members who have shown consistent party loyalty over long periods of time, have worked actively in campaigns and have pledged themselves to vote for the party's candidate.
The only time electors have changed their votes is when the outcome was a foregone conclusion, and then they changed to the more "extreme" side of the party line (a Republican voting for Buchanan or a Democrat for Nader, for example). Electors have never crossed party ideologies.
--
Hillary of New York has called for the abolition of the Electoral College. Now, of course she is not directly involved with Gore's campaign, but it sends a very strong message to the nation. I get very nervous when people start talking about changing the Constitution on a whim solely to gain a political end. It's the same feeling I had when Columbine triggered the 2nd amendment brouhaha (and I'm by no means an NRA supporter!). It's not unlike the Prohibition situation.
So no, Gore has kept himself clean. He has sent his minions out to do the dirty work, as has Bush. As much as I dislike Bush, I dislike Gore even more given the events of recent weeks. How many recounts do we need?
--
The fact that counties couldn't get their counts in calls for a change in law. But not for this election. The Florida supreme court already extended the deadline. That seems generous to me.
So we enter the contesting phase, where Gore certainly has the right to challenge the results. I don't think it's wise politically, but he has the right.
Gore's hypocritical "every vote must count" line is disgusting. If every vote must count, then count the discarded military absentee ballots! If we cannot count them because of Florida law, then I don't think we can count dimpled, undervote or overvote ballots either.
--
If Gore had requested a statewide recount in the first place he could claim the morally superior position. What he offered was pure spin.
--
Palm Beach County _did_ finish its recounts at 7pm. They were not included because the Secretary of State of Florida did not accept the partial recounts submitted at 5pm. However, Gore did not pick up enough votes in any case to get the win.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
It's clear that "which day shall be the same" is referring to "the day on which they [the electors] shall give their votes" (Dec. 18). There's nothing that requires that voting for the electors themselves must take place on the same day. If there were, early voting and absentee ballots sent by mail would be unconstitutional!
(Personally, I think voting by mail is a dreadful idea. Total lack of anonymity, and too much potential for fraud.)
--
Electors ARE chosen from the MOST dedicated supporters of their particular party. They don't go randomly pick out Joe Shmoe from a bar and make him an elector. It's almost always someone strongly tied to the party in that state. As another poster mentioned, there have only been 9 electors in history that have changed. AFAIK there has never been a case where an elector changing his vote has effected the outcome of an election though.
I'm not sure saying that to "NRA nuts" and "Klanners" would help your cause. More likely you'll find yourself being hanged from a tree in the middle of downtown by the Sheriff while the rest of the community watches and applauds.
What you are missing is that it fundamentally comes down to good vs. evil in the minds of the democrats challenging this. I really didn't understand it until I thought of it in that light. Bush is evil, Gore is the good guy. We can't let the bad guy win can we? The ends justify the means right? We'll spend 10 years in court if we must but good must triumph in the end or our entire concept of our fairytale liberal existence must come to an end. Not to mention, you really do see the conservative vs. liberal stints of the two parties. The GOP asks for a strict interpretation of the Constitution while the Democrats want it more fluid and changing to the "will of the people". The democrats will be happy with nothing less than Al Gore being declared the winner. That's a sad fact but it's true. Come on guys, we had to live through 8 years of Clinton for christ sakes. You can live through 4 years of W. Bush! The sky will not fall, the world will not end, Social Security and medicare will not go away. In fact, if anything happens our stock market will get back on track and we'll all get a tax cut out of it. If Gore wins I wouldn't want to have any money in the markets because your stock is going to tank.
Well, there aren't "months" to worry about. The electors must be named by December 12th I believe. December 18th they cast their votes for President. Once that is done, the game is over. The loser will need to collect his marbles, go home, and sulk in the corner. Or become President of Harvard or something.
You do make a very good point. At more than $40k US per year it costs quite a bit per inmate. I would say if we're going to start killing them we start with the hard offenders. Murderers on life sentences, rapists, etc. Basically the sh*t of human existence. The people that don't deserve to breath the same air as their victims. Do we really need to subsidize the prison life of a life sentence inmate? I mean, what's the point anyway?
1) This is all bullshit anyhow.
2) When the margin of error is greater than the margin of victory, statistically, no one wins.
3) I'm ashamed we could elect a moron like Dubya. Even Jeb would have made a better president. (Is he 35 yet?)
Fake Example:
-------------
Bush: 49%
Gore: 49%
Nader: 1%
Other: 1%
Margin of error: +/- 4%
Who won?
Well, I know the American people lost.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
What, with all the votes split? What margin of error are you using?
:)
Bush has 271 with Florida already, so there are some votes missing; sounds like some "fuzzy math".
Of course, I haven't done the math at all, so I'd like to see your reasoning, if you don't mind. I think less than half a percent would be small enough margin.
Either that, or split the representative votes by district (the way Maine does it already; it's up to the state) or ignore that state entirely (which would be less than ideal).
But there isn't much we can do for this election; it just proves that the system is broken.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
--
Of course, being from Illinois myself, I'd be pretty happy about a Gore win...after all, he took my state. =) And I really don't want GWB dealing with, say, the middle-east peace process.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
But the majority of people (the people GWB claims he trusts and promptly forgot about when Gore contested the Florida count...or does going to federal court count as "trusting the people" nowadays?) voted for Gore, which doesn't matter since we didn't get to elect him.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Wir sind gewohnt, das die Menschen verhonen, was sie nicht verstehen.
fix to - - - >
Wir sind gewöhnt, dass die Menschen verhöhnen, was sie nicht verstehen.
things. take. time.
Again, you are forgetting something. If Nixon would have successfully contested Illionois in 1960, that would not have given him enough electoral colleges vote to overcome the 100-odd deficit there. It's really funny to see how Nixon is becoming the saint of electoral behaviour, after he resigned because he had thugs breaking into Democratic headquarters of the 1972 election.
things. take. time.
Obviously the deadline was not in favor of Gore.
things. take. time.
In a stunning announcement today, CmdrTaco declared Bush the 43rd President of the United States. Shortcutting legal proceedings, he used his power as editor of Slashdot: "I was really getting sick of this, I rather talk about the cool features in the Linux kernel 2.4.0pre3784232 and the amazing new product XF-23 [order here]" Anonymous Coward agrees: "This politics stuff really gave me headaches. I don't care who runs the country, I just want my AOL. Oh no, they are evil, I don't know. Grits." Hemos ponders that "They should use the Slashdot approved meta-voting system to clear up disputes." This would entail that random self-selected people would storm Palm Beach County and toss out votes that they deem "not so pretty."
things. take. time.
It's hardly likely that only one side is cheating.
There were reports of a police roadblock stopping black motorists (who are mostly Dem) on the way to vote.
The ballot in Palm Beach County may not have conformed to state standards.
But various weird things happened involving the Dems, too, and the whole thing with lawsuits is getting a bit old (nevermind that, regardless of whether the courts are correctly interpreting state law, they're mostly Dem-appointed).
Since we can't tell exactly what everyone who was elegiable to vote and tried to (i.e., those people whose votes should be considered) would have voted, the process comes down to both sides cheating so that, perhaps, the result will be somewhere close to right. Currently, it looks like more people chose Gore and failed to get counted than chose Bush and failed to get counted.
You are going against slashthink....
5 2&cid=16
OR the following could happen to you
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/11/25/1392
On the contrary. I think the slashdot authors have an affirmative duty to do whatever they can to keep up the signal-to-noise ratio on the site. That's my interpretation of my role here and if you don't like it, well, tough. Noise generators can and should be suppressed. You generate much noise and little, if any, signal.
Then why are they giving a way a PT Cruiser instead of an alt. fuel vehicle????
Do you have any proof of this?
If you don't then SHUT UP!
My God...It's John Katz!!!!!
You also belive those Microsoft commericals about "The unstopable Windows NT!"
almost HALF the country DID NOT VOTE!!!!
I also love it when Democrats say Bush does not have the qualifications to be President. Bush is governor of Texas, one of the largest states in the union. What was Clinton before he was elected? GOVERNOR!
So its qualification enough for a Democrat candidate and not a republican candidate? Please...
Also, people seem to skip over the fact that Bush is a Harvard and Yale graduate.
>On to the subject of the dimpled chad and all
>that. There were ballots that were clearly
>punched through for all other offices but
>"dimpled" for president. Was this voter
>incapable of punching the holes? I think n
Obviously, because more people vote in the presidential races than the local races, the presidential holds on the voting device get jammed up with chad and prevent the vote from registering. The dimple is clearly proof of intent, what else could it be? Is there no one left here who is geeky enough to see these things?
Yeah. I'm pretty sure that Bush can spell better than Taco and crew at least. :)
But your forgetting that 3 of the last 4 US presidents were all governors with no experience in national politics.
George Bush was the only one who wasn't and he had a resume that was even more impressive than Gore's (Ambassador to China, Head of CIA, Congress, Senate, Vice President) and he ended up being a one termer.
We had two relatively successful presidents Reagan and Clinton from that pool. Clinton defeated both George Bush and Bobe Dole (another career spent in Washington)
By the measure of recent history and in a lot of American's minds experience in Washington doesn't always equal what we look for in a president.
Call us stupid, call us backwards, call us anything you like, but this is our election, not yours.
Wow, what a provocative idea. Wish I had mod. points.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Bush is an alcolholic and a crackhead. CmdrTaco is a better editorializer, and would probably make a better president.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
IIRC the rule in FL is generally that the party that the Governor belongs to is put first. In the 96 election, Clinton would have been above Gore. And since it just became really really easy to get other parties on the ballot recently, that's where they started to run into trouble.
That said, I don't have a problem with the ballots, though I'm upset that Bush or Gore will win.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
your sig - "Jesus died for somebodies sins, but not mine." may have been said by Billy Idol, but it was said FIRST by the incomparable Patti Smith. It was in 1975 on her album Horses. If billy Idol ever said it I'm sure it was an omage of some sort to Patti Smith.
Now (gasp!) Gore doesn't think that the electoral system is fair.
That is not true. Gore said in a speech after the election that he supports the Electoral College and would not support electors choosing him when they were assigned by their state delegations to support Bush.
He won by a margin of somewhere in the vicinity of 200,000 votes.
Gore is ahead by 330,000 votes in the popular vote. (Source: AP).
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
Yes, California doesn't need to tally the absentee ballots in their race, since Gore won by over a million, but those ballots could put Bush into the lead in the POPULAR vote!
California only has 110,000 absentee ballots left to count and Gore is now ahead by 330,000 votes in the national popular vote, according to AP.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
Moof!
Oh. Wait. I get it. You're suffering under the delusion that most people DON'T have affairs during marraige. How quaint. How "delusional vision of 1950s America, even though there were just as many affairs back then (people refused to make a public spectacle out of them)."
Hey, I've got an idea. Let's spend a hundred million dollars and see what we turn up from your past. Kicked a dog? Made a pass at an employee at work? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Moof!
Have you been watching the same election as I've been watching?
Last time I checked there were two recounts, but they were hardly as bullshit as the whiny crap you're spouting.
First "recount", if you want to call it that, was to look at 1% of the votes in each county. If a wide discrepancy between the machine totals and this count existed, a hand recount is REQUIRED under Florida law. And, surprise surprise, there were discrepancies.
Second "recount" was the only one that matters, since they look at ALL the votes by hand (which they have to since the machine recount was unreliable - see step 1). Then the Secretary of State butted her head into this process. Surely this isn't a tit-for-tat arrangement with the Bush family, who appointed her to this cushy job, one which is so pointless the position won't exist in a couple years. Hard job, that. You realize that if the Bush camp had just left their head up their ass this whole thing would have been over and done with by this point, right?
Then again, there's always that elementary class that conducted an "educational" vote. They used a voting booth, test ballots, and a ballot reader on loan from a company that makes them. Surprise surprise about 20% of their votes weren't read by the machine.
Face it: these are clunky mechanical devices that, quite simply, suck ass. The sooner we move to a digital solution is the sooner all of this crap will go away. Then we're left with the usual bullshit (which happened all over Florida this time around) - ballots & ballot machines getting "left bhind", "misplaced", etc.
Moof!
I love how some people always want to speak in terms of absoloutes.
"It's CLEAR the people of Florida wanted Gore."
No. It's not. If it were clear, we wouldn't have been subjected to this fiasco. Also, Buchanan pulled down nearly 8000 votes in Florida's Republican Primaries 4 years ago. Also, H. Ross Perot pulled down nearly 30,000 votes in his bid for office in 1992.
Also, griping because people voted for Nader is the worst of sour grapes here. They "WOULD HAVE" voted this way is irrelevant. They didn't. End of story.
"The will of the people."
Must I remind you AGAIN. Both Bush and Gore agreed to be bound by election conventions as they are now. That means the Electoral College. The will of the people could have changed this years ago. The will of the people didn't change this. The will of the people was that the Electoral College process stay in place. It did. Ergo. The will of the people is that George Bush won.
Also, if you don't think the people performing the hand-counts (with lawyers flanking them from either camp) are unbiased, you're not operating on the same level of reality as most of the rest of us.
Fact. Machines don't care who the president is. The people who recounted the votes DO.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"I know that."
That's nice. YOU 'know' that. Would you care to let us know how YOU know?
I can. It's quite simple. It's your OPINION that such happened.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Of course. The machine doesn't give someone the result they want. So it's 'unreliable'.
Okay.
Also, you people keep harping on the vote in Florida being significantly LESS than 1/1th of 1%.
What you're saying is the margin's insignificant enough (began at 1700 votes) to warrant arbitrary counts (and yes, determining chad positioning is entirely arbitrary) on the ballots by hand. But why is the final difference (500-something votes) so much MORE significant?
Also, you keep complaining about the polling machines. This needed to have been addressed BEFORE the election. Just because such previous margins weren't siginificant enough to warrant such an action isn't an excuse.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Okay. To start off. I don't like Bill Clinton (at least his public persona, I'm sure he's a sweetheart of a guy otherwise). I'm sorry. If he can't give the public the straight truth (instead of "well I don't define it that way") I don't want him in charge of the country!
Second. I firmly opposed national health care. It would have brought the health care industry to it's knees. It's NEVER a good idea to put in place a system that encourages malingering, and then put bean counters in charge of the pricing.
Also, out west, he designated an area as a national park. Now this sounds GREAT! But he destroyed jobs that were in the works there. The area in question was up for development (and yes, some mining). Most of the people in the area were looking forward to the influx of cash it would have given the local enconomy. Then Billsy makes his little speech and there goes the money. There goes the jobs. This country's about democracy, not the hyper-authoritarianism that the Clinton administration and their supporters want.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
After reading the latest CNN ariticle, for Vice President Gore to win the election. Full recounts in the contested counties have to be completed, AND the rejection of 174 overseas ballots.
So on one hand he's fighting for the "Will of the People" in Dade, Palm Beach and Broward, however at the same time stating that 174 overseas ballots must be rejected.
Does anyone else find this contradictory.
So if you we're not capable of understanding the ballot that was mailed to you prior to the election, nor did you understand the same ballot when you voted, then you we're robbed. However,
if you are in the military and serving in a location whereas the mail is not Postmarked, then you are just an unfortunate victim of the system... huh?
*Note absentee ballots must be postmarked, however several overseas locations, and those serving ship duty do NOT have their mail postmarked. So the individual was supposed to write the date on the ballot, however the ballot did not state this, nor did it request a date.
*Note in the state of Florida all registered voters are mailed a copy of the ballot and instructions a week prior to voting, as to avoid
any confusion.
Awesome!
Gore steps back from the court battle and just be a man except defeat. Try agian in the next 4 years. I doubt that will happen stranger things have happen
But he has won a majority of the land area in the United States. Look at a map on who won each country and you'll see that most of the nation is red with the exception of the densely populated areas like chicago, LA, and New England. So why should someone whose supporters are mostly in the Urban areas rule everyone who isn't? Like someone else said, Gore may have won the majority, but it was only within 0.3% which is within the margin of error. Without the electoral college, we would never have any real way of finding out who truly won. The election is so close than either candidate could have won based on many different little factors (cheating on both sides in any number of states). The electoral college is just allowing us to have a simpler way of choosing one over the other. Sorry it wasn't your candidate. If the positions were switched, you wouldn't be bitching.
before we all laugh too hard at the idea... there was a local city council race that was decided by cutting a deck of cards. when they counted up the ballots they found it was 793 for guy A and 792 for guy B, there was one ballot that had both circles filled in, but then they crossed out one of them. The local election officials counted that ballot for guy B putting it in a tie, so they had the two guys cut a deck of cards, and guy B won. Wanna bet guy A has already filed suit? (I don't remember which one had the X through it, but if it was A then they interpreted it as meaning "no, I made a mistake, this isn't a vote for A" and if it was B they interpreted it as meaning "I want *this* guy.")
The lawyers are in full attack mode and I don't see either side calling them off. People are making stupid arguments on both sides and losing sight of the fact they are going to have to live and work together after all this.
I think the best thing for everyone would be for Gore to concede, Bush to end his Supreme Court case and everyone to focus on what they can agree on. Gore would gain stature and stop looking more and more like a sore loser. He can take comfort in the fact that history shows that every President elected by an Electoral College majority and losing the popular vote has been a one termer.
At least my kids got a good lesson in civics from all of this.
Y'know, one thing with FL that's bothered me, was wondering how someone could possibly *not* punch all the way through a punch card...till I read Molly Ivin's column. This *does* explain it...and I always just assumed that the chads fell down into a bag, or some large trashcan. So, for those that don't know...
from Molly Ivin's column, Updated: Wednesday, Nov. 22, 2000 at 18:35 CST (http://www.startext.com/columnist/ivins2.htm)
A tray of chad with electoral dressing, please
...
What happens with the punch-card system -- and this is A-B-C to everyone who had ever been involved with these contests -- is that the trays underneath the ballots fill up with chad. People
punch through an entire ballot, they leave the little pieces of detritus, and the trays that collect them are only about one-quarter of an inch deep.
Furthermore, it is not at all unusual for the chad to clump in the front or the back of a tray, so you get a series of ballots where people tried to punch through and couldn't because they hit a pile of clumped chad underneath.
...
And if that's what happens, and if a lot of folks *are* voting one party, the clumps would wind up there, sooner, rather than evenly spaced.
Yeah, it's a hardware problem.
Actually, that was the point I was trying to iterate. I think Gore is an idiot, as well as Bush. Both may have credentials to speak for, such as degrees and so on. But what difference does it make? Neither will be able to do anything about this country, since neither has mandate. I can care less if Gore or Bush becomes president. But thanks for the input.
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
I am lead to believe that a national wide revote would probably remedy most of these problems. Chances are that the Nader people would give up on that dream and go for Gore. Chances are that a certain amount of Jewish people in a certain Florida county would not "vote" for that Nazi. Chances are that Bush could win the presidency. In my opinion, we have effectively wasted lots of money and time on something that is inherently stupid. Neither of these two candidates are ever going to have any mandate to speak of now, so we will probably waste even more money on political debacles until the next election, where another political scandal is going to emerge. But since this is going to go on, wasting _more_ money, I guess you and I should sit back, relax and pay higher taxes. I am a Libertarian voter, but I wouldn't care if hell froze over at this point. That being Bush elected for president, which he officially seems to be. PS. I hope you understand that you are considered to be stupid, which is why your vote doesn't directly count. America needs to be protected from you by means of an electoral college. DS.
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
Look at the response from his post. Now take into consideration the banner ads at the top of each page. Why should he not editorialize when every page view is another penny in the bank?
Would you like a potatoe with your order?
Whoever wins will be hamstrung by a divided congress and have to deal with accusations of cheating for the next four years. The party of the winner will almost certainly lose some seats in the House of Representatives in two years, so if that's Bush, he'll probably be dealing with a Democratic majority in congress by 2002.
My prediction is that Bush will be a one-termer just like his daddy. If he's as big a dolt as many people think he is, then he'll just tie a noose with the rope he's been handed and hang himself with it.
If Gore wins, well then g/Bush/s//Gore/ g/Democrat/s//Republican/
The woman that did the certifications and handover of the 25 electoral votes is just a talking head that means nothing.... UNFORTUNATELY it is now up to the courts as Gore and everybody else is suing and pressing charges and blah blah blah! I just wish one of the 2 , main party, candidates would give up and let the other in office, whoever makes it in isn't going to last more than 4 years anyway.
Don't forget, two polls conducted in the past two days (Zogby and CNN) put about 59% of Americans wanting Gore to concede now. Even if Gore was preferred on the 7th (which you can't prove), he sure as hell isn't now.
-Tom O'Rear -- tomed@radiks.net
Yes, of course there is.
Hi, I live in the state of Nebraska, otherwise known as one of the "Flyover States of America."
During this election, both candidates had to campaign in areas like Iowa, New Hampshire, West Virginia and other relatively small states.
With a straight popular vote, you don't have a President of the United States: you have a President of the Eastern and Western Seaboards.
IMHO, there should be _reform_ of the system. If I had my way, all states would adopt Nebraska's system of giving out electoral votes (1 vote for each Congressional district, and 2 to the winner of the statewide popular vote). Also, eliminate the actual electors and make the votes automatic, so you end the possiblitly of the electors disregarding what the people of their state elected them to do (ie: vote for a specific candidate in the College).
My 2 cents.
-Tom O'Rear -- tomed@radiks.net
Right, basically the hicks won this election, in a time where the country really needs to be run by the people who exist in the information age, not the agrigatian age.
"Farmers, people of the earth, the common clay of the New West, you know....Morons"
-- Blazing Saddles
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
In software, we call that bad user interface design. To consider that it is the fault of the people, and not the bad design is the worst kind of hubris.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
I'm less scared of Social Security and Medicare - hell, the only thing I am concerned about is rights - just remember, the last time the republicans had control of the entire government was '52.
What did we get then?
McCarthyism - The closest the country ever came to Stalinism (What, you speak against the state? What someone even _accused_ you of being a communist - arrest them!) No time before had we ever had something like the gestapo.
A disrespect of every citizen who is nto christian (Adding "God" the the Pledge of Allegiance, and the dollar bill (which used to say "Mind Your Business"))
I for one don't want to live under a regieme of a party that clearly has no respect for our rights (accept to own guns)
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Yes, I DO think it is bribary, and foolish at that. The absolute last thing we need right now is more money in the economy - considering that greenspan is fighting tooth and nail to slow the economy down - to prevent a large crash.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Oh, you won't need to worry about any microsoft breakups once bush's in office, or haven't you heard how opposed he is about the whole thing?
If we abolished the electoral college, then we'd not have to watch this sort of spectacle again, because the margins of victory would vastly increase. Rather than looking through 6,000,000 votes in search of 500 one way or the other.... But then... who knows?
According to Gnumeric, Gore won the country by 285,279 votes (.28%), where as he lost florida by 537 votes (.0092%) (those really are percentages, not decimals with percentage signs).
I think that, especially after this election, people really will care much more about their votes, ESPECIALLY if we red ourselves of a small bit of our 17th century roots.
It's one thing to fudge things 500 votes one way or the other... and say that 3000 votes could have made or broke the election, but on the much larger scale, what we've been watching in flordia is basically meaningless for democracy, in the true sense of the word.
Piss off all the residents of florida?
What about the 19000 double punched palm beach ballots? There were 24,000 other rejected ballots in the northern part of the state, from what i understand, as well... And let's not forget how pissed off those 3000 african americans will be at gore, since they accidentally voted for Buchanan rather than Gore. Even Buchanan concedes that.
Good comment, why was this moderated down?
How about have another vote, with just the two candidates that are statistically tied? I know that the constitution says there needs to be ONE day for voting, but that can be ammended. This would be the most fair, IMHO.
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
Because the Americans can't elect a suitable president, how about the title going to the eldest senator. Strom Thurmond for president. And you thought Cheney and Lieberman were old.
Cheers,
Russia's Putin made the offer, BTW.
The President of Zimbabwe (I think it's
Zimbabwe though I may be wrong) said that
if they pulled off an election like that,
UN would have sent troops to install an
arbitrarily preferred government.
Speaking as a Democrat who voted for Gore, I have to say that at this point I just wish he'd concede the election. Not because I don't think he has a case, but because if he wins, he will hold the most bitterly resented presidency in the history of the United States.
I suspect that history will not be so unkind to Gore. Remember that this is a man whose entire life has revolved around politics, whose parents were planning his eventual run for the Presidency while he was in his early teens, and who has been a "party player" for as long as he's been in politics. Plus, I think he genuinely sees himself as trying to protect the country from Bad Stuff in the form of a President Bush sequel.
Finally - the name of Gore's lead attorney is David Boies (you're correct in that he also argued against Microsoft). But try to be objective about the case: is it just that it's specious, or is it just that you're arguing for the other side?
Certainly. A recount should be done that is as fair as possible--all counties, by one chosen method with a definite set of criteria. If manual, prefereably performed by one person from each party looking at each ballot.
Ooh, even better. Lock Bush and Gore in a room and make them recount them all, or at least the contested/questionable/(dimpled if allowed) ones.
This current count is hogwash because only a few of the counties recounted. Harris just wants her ambassadorship post.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
It's all insane. Whoever wins will win by a margin less than the margin of error, in all likelyhood. I'd love to see a Fair, bipartisan recount done. Likelyhood that any of those three (fair, bipartisan, recount) will happen is slim, the likelyhood that all three will is, well, non-zero, but that's the best that can be said of its odds.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
I never did say that the number of electoral votes should be representative of a state's population though. :)
:)
What I said was to keep the current number of electorial votes in each state, but instead of having majority take all in the state, split it among the parties percentagewise.
The reason I want to keep the current number of votes for each state is because otherwise large cities with lots of inhabitants will be the only focus of the voting campaigns.
The discussion about wether this is better or worse than pure majority vote can be discussed and is much a matter of opinion. I am not going to get involved in that discussion tonight
Vice President Gore, if President Milosevic of Yugoslavia refuses to accept the election results and leave office, what action, if any, should the United States take to get him out of there?
GORE: Well, Milosevic has lost the election. His opponent, has won the election. It's overwhelming. Milosevic's government refuses to release the vote count.There's now a general strike going on. They're demonstrating.
I think we should support the people of Serbia and the --Yugoslavia, as they call Serbia plus Montenegro, and put pressure in every way possible to recognize the lawful outcome of the election.
Now the above is from Gore himself during one of the debates. If you change Serbia to USA, Milosevic to Gore, and Kostunica to Bush, doesn't this sound like Gore is doing excatly what Milosevic had done? The lawful outcome of the election has come to pass, so Gore should be a man, admit that he has lost, and support our new President, George W. Bush.
Why do you want to give up that fancy car of yours for? Why do you want to give up your freedom? By voting for Gore, you are voting for an environmental goof ball who thinks that the internal combustion engine should be outlawed. And if he can't do that, then he'll overtax gasoline so that no one can afford it. But of course he is special so he'll still travel in his gas powered limos, with a bunch of 4X4's, motorcycles, and police cars to get to the airport to fly on a jet, all spewing the pollutants that he so objects too.
Also, he will take away our rights to own guns. But don't worry, his calvary of secret service guys will have guns to protect him. If he wants guns gone so badly, he should not allow those around him to own or use them. Lead by example.
And please, when posting news, don't editorialize. It just baits those that like to cause you trouble. It makes you look like the lead troll around here.
If I am not mistaken, Gore dropped out of college to join the military.
Agreed, he might have had an easier term of service than many, but I don't think that dropping out of college at that point could hardly be held against him. He later returned, and completed school with excellent grades.
Of course, correct me if I'm wrong.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
>The governor's signature isn't even required to pass a bill into law!
Shh... the President's isn't either....
However, even small states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes.. This gives smaller states a voice they might not have in a direct popular vote.
Wow. Way to quote the Bush campaign's media materials as concisely as possible. The funny thing is, the one thing you seem to have made up, the clever clever football game analogy is idiotic. An ELECTION is NOT a GAME. We need someone to act as leader of the most powerful (we think) country on the planet. The planet may hang in the balance. Wake the f*ck up, please. (I know the president is just a puppet, but please, don't use dumb analogies that cheapen our world even further.)
Is it possible to create a new "Election" topic that all this stuff could be put into? This would allow those of us who already have more than enough editorial input on the election to exclude the topic. I had considered excluding the "United States" topic, but there actually has been some useful news in it.
Of course I'm enough of a realist to know that election opinions will surface in other topics (just like Jon Katz), but it would be great if it could be mimimized.
No, that just requires the right conditioning. To start and turn away is something else.
> what about the important distinction that a tax cut goes to all, not just those people who voted a certain way?
Uhm, yes. All the billionaires are going to benefit from GuuB's tax cuts.
> GPL is not free. public domain is free.
Forget the friggin' election. Them's fightin' words!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> he has basically no real credentials to be President.
My friends in Austin are saying that he just wants to be pres in order to pad his resume for next time there is an opening for Baseball Commissioner.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Or have I been trolled?
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I think you're missing the point.
If the US were counting votes using the popular vote, not only would leaders not campaign in states with small populations (does anyone really care about that?!), they wouldn't bother with legislation for them when it came time to, either.
Think about it. Everything that went through the White House would be completely centered on the coasts where most of the population lies in the US - the rest of the people would be forgotten. I.e. who has time to pass something that affects Idaho when most of the population is in California?
So things would be passed for the good of the people living in highly populated areas, not necessarily for the good of the country.
The use of electoral votes doesn't completely negate this problem, but the system does give the people living in states with lower populations much more of a voice than they would have if we were using the popular vote. Though it certainly has its flaws, it does serve its purpose better than any way I can come up with.
--SONET
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. --Benjamin Franklin
hell ya man, Harry Browne shoulda won... people dont realize that Gush and Bore are the same person, they both want bigger government even if they claim otherwise, neither has in the past done anything to reduce government, at least in a dramatic way. Browne is the only one who proposes to give freedom and liberty back to the people.. the founding fathers of this country were true libertarians and anybody who believes in the constitution should be as well
my blog sucks, does yours?
There were 15,000 TOTAL votes disqualified (undercount and overcount) in 1996.
There were (I believe) about 30,000 TOTAL votes disqualified in 2000 (19,000+ overcount, 10,000+ undercount). This is a statistically significant difference.
It's usually better if you know which numbers people are quoting, instead of just blindly accepting them.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
What suspicious procedures? Most counties used more stringent procedures than Bush himself approved in Texas. There were monitors from both parties present. I've heard about 'piles of affidavits' but never heard of anyone actually seeing them.
Also, the hand recounts were not finished.
Please elucidate. Until then, you're the loser.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
Check the facts, dude.
Al Gore Sr did in fact vote against the Civil Rights act, but afterwards repudiated that vote, saying it was the most shameful thing he had ever done. That repudiation cost him his next election.
And personally, I'd hate to be held responsible for anything my family did. I've never heard of an Uncle Whit, but unless Al Jr. was involved in his criminal activity, there is no connection between the two.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
I don't think Bush is an idiot.
I do think he is LAZY and indifferent.
He likes meeting people and is very good at remembering names and circumstances under which he met someone, but doesn't give a damn where Bosnia is.
In electing him, we're electing his advisors, not him. Remember how well the economy did under those folks.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
Gore's sister was one of the original employess of the Peace Corps. He never said she went overseas, that was added later to claim it was a 'lie'.
Gore made a speech at an elementary school where he credited a letter by an elementary school student for uncovering a polluted site in Tennessee. During investigation of that, the Love Canal mess was discovered. He never claimed credit for it - the point of the speech was "you can make a difference too - look at what this kid did".
Campaign fundraising - there have been two accusations, one that he made calls from his office and one about the Buddhist temple. There is ample evidence that the event at the Buddhist temple was not an official fundraiser; anything done behind the scenes he was not involved in. As for the other, why is it legal to make calls from an office using a cellphone, but not a landline phone? It's just idiotic.
Don't know about the other two (tobacco & pollutions), but based on your other statments, I wouldn't put too much weight on them.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
How does History speak kindly of George W. Bush?
What has he earned?
He would not have gotten into the colleges he did on grades alone.
He got into the Air National Guard when there was a four-year waiting list, got assigned to learn to fly a plane the Air Force was phasing out (thus guaranteeing he would never go to Vietnam or anywhere else), immediately took a three-month leave, got himself assigned to an Alabama base that had no planes, lost his flying privileges by refusing to take his physical. There is still a year where no one knows where he was.
His first business would have failed if a family friend had not bought it for more than it was worth in order to get a Bush on the board.
A family friend loaned him the money to buy into the Rangers, who shot up in value because Bush convinced the city of Arlington to give the Rangers a stadium (plus the land where the old stadium was). Even then, he only became a multimillionaire because the owners voted him an addional 10% of the team (to go with the 1% he had purchased) as a bonus. It was 10 times larger than any other bonus.
Use these FACTS when evaluating Bush.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
Clinton did one thing right: he appointed economic advisors (Greenspan etc) who were not Democrats but who demonstrated clear ability in their fields.
George W, on the other hand, has already selected a loyal family hack to run the Treasury. Don't remember the details, but he didn't sound too impressive.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
Why is it that Reagan won the Cold War and was responsible for our current economy, but Clinton was just in the right place at the right time? What did Reagan do that wasn't just due to his being there?
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
And where did Bush cop to using drugs? The only statements he made were masterpieces of nothingness.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
I never thought I'd think of Richard Nixon in a more positive light than anyone else... Nixon in 1960 could have done all this, and probably would have won.
JFK won the election by the thinnest of margins, largely from votes in Cook County, Il (Chicago). Mayor Dailey (ironically one of his sons is one of Gore's operatives). The fact that Mayor Dailey stacked the ballot boxes is not even argued anymore.
Nixon didn't do what Gore is doing now because he didn't want to damage the country.
Actually, the Republican Party chairman launched bids for recounts in 11 states. Recounts proceeded into December, but did not change the election.
(This is from a column in the Nov. 11 L.A. Times)
int prezident = 0;
while (!prezident) {
whine();
sue();
}
I wish more people would raise this point.
-Splat
The Florida Sec. of State is basically asking the court to overturn her certification anyway--she only accepted *one* of the three hand-counts.
Hey! According to your logic, Nader got about two percents of the votes and the other 50% of the population wouldn't have cared. 52% of the population. Not bad for a Nader presidency?!!
I may be too naive but somehow I feel that Gore is fighting more than the presidency.
:).
Unless his ambition has clouded his judgement, which is QUITE possible for people like Gore, a normal person should have realized that this presidency would be a tough, if not broken, one due to the split Congress, popular and electoral votes and everything else. To benefit one's own personal political career, it is actually better to concede like that Nixon and wait for another election.
In some sense, the only reason to go through all these legal hassles and the risk of personal political future for Gore (and Bush too) is the responsibility to the voters behind him. Afterall, election is not a football game. It's a demonstration of the will of the people - to paraphase the rheterics, should be fair and accurate.
Yeah. And unfortunately, they both have exactly half the population behind them. That's why we're in this mess
The phrase "morally superior position" made me laugh.
Both of them are pretty major scumbags and this whole deal has let America see that. And does anyone with more than 4 brain cells think that the SecState is unbiased and should be put in charge of this stuff? She's probably has her Abassador business cards already printed and her luggage packed.
-B
>And before anyone brings up Gore's (narrow) win >of the popular vote, the Electoral College exists >for a very important purpose: to prevent small >areas with dense populations to be able to run a >tyranny over the rest of the people.
Huh? That doesn't make any sense. First of all, the Electoral College gives disproportially high representation to the very small, sparesly populated votes. States like North & South Dakota have the (minimum) 3 electoral votes, but somewhat less than the population that should be supporting those votes.
Also, in a democracy, if 2/3rds of the country lives in dense urban settlement, why shouldn't they exercise control over the government? Democracy is essentially the tyranny of the majority. Doesn't make it a perfect system, but it is silly to argue that because the a lot of people believe something, we should reduce their say.
Mike Sackton
2. If you actually paid attention to the Florida Supreme Court decision, it wasn't partisan in the least. It reconciled two conflicting sections of Florida voting law. Open up your mind and think, OK?
3. Bush, not Gore, was the first one to let loose the attack lawyers. Additionally, Bush had plans to contest the election if he had the popular vote and not the electoral vote (as the Republicans originally forecast). So the idea that Gore was the only candidate to use (or even plan to use) lawyers is silly.
4. There were recounts in other counties, including Republican ones.
5. Texas law allows for hand counts in close elections, and allows dimpled ballots to be counted in certain cases.
6. Bush has been arguing against state's rights in the Florida & federal courts, when all the time he's claims that he wants to empower the states. He's lying to America right now and he's not even President yet!
7. According to mike, lawyers are un-American. On the other hand, screaming mobs of Republican partisans are democracy in action, I suppose.
8. Gore's laywer is named David Boies.
9. Yes, I voted for Gore.
--
"Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare,
Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare; but if you seek safety, it is on the shore.
This is why we should avoid political discussion on Slashdot. Because we get Trolls like the parent poster spamming the forum with political propaganda of their party.
I could go through Grant's post and find the fallacies, untruths, and misrepresentations that he spewed; but that would be a waste of my time.
Regardless of which faction you decide you belong to based on political ideology, economic class, political party, hair color, or family pets; can't we all just agree to discuss based on the facts and well justified opinion with good geek talk. You know what I mean by geek talk...the kind of talk where you speak about the relative merits of the system, candidates, or political ideology.
Look...both candidates are messed up. That doesn't make the other candidate any better. Everything the parent poster said was anti-Bush. What? Can Bush do no wrong? Wait...my mistake. You were spewwing propaganda.
*sigh*
do hope that you learn to be a bit more level headed before you venture into the job markets that don't rely on state funding.
Hmm... then howcome MSFT paid no business taxes in Washington state.
Answer: MSFT has benefited incredibly from the state corporate welfare system.
Goes to show that Harvard will graduate anyone these days. (I side with MIT)
Gov. Bush used to be a jet pilot.
And lost his wings twice. And had his discharge classified. Possible he was dishonorably discharged. Likely with his history of drinking and drug abuse.
Help us build a better map!
Eh. As far as Canadian politics go, I'm royalist. Yeah, the parlimentary system has its faults, but its sane compared to ours. You're the first non-American I've heard to rip on the parlimentary system in well over a year. And certainly not during this election. 8:o)
Help us build a better map!
No, sir, I do not, and I am seriously offended that you even think that I'm Californian. I'm Oregonian, and proud of it.
Liberal politics is what protects the world from being shafted into oblivion by everyone. If conservatives ran the world, we'd be still stuck in the industrial age, with no minimum wage, 16 hour days, no sick leave, child labor, no public health, no public education. The rich would remain astronomically rich, the poor remain literally penniless no matter how hard they work.
You're the primary example of the stupid Americans I plan on escaping once the paperwork goes through and I move to Vancouver.
Help us build a better map!
Yup, that's right folks, you heard it here first: When Gore and Bush both shut down the nine busiest square blocks in downtown Portland and disconnecting 52 transit lines and light rail during the evening rush hour, delaying 750,000 people for more than an hour, people actually cared about them taking the time to come to Oregon. Never mind it cost taxpayers millions in police overtime pay. Never mind they didn't speak about any issues that matter to Oregonians.
Seriously, we could do without shutting down Portland every few weeks every four years for Presidential wannabes that don't talk about anything that matters to 90% of Oregonians.
Help us build a better map!
I would be bitching. Except top priority would be abolishing the EC. Our elections system is not fault tolerant, and we found the showstopper.
I like the Canadian method of voting myself: Everybody is counted by hand. From a nationally standardized ballot. The entire election cost CN$90M. Can't remember if that included campaigns, but still. And it all happens in 36 days.
Canada will know who thier next Prime Minister is on New Years Day (and be damned if its Doris Day), will we know who rightfully won the presidency for sure, with all our different ballots and standards of counting, by then, if at all?
Help us build a better map!
The people have spoken nationwide, and it has been in favor of Gore.
The only honorable thing for Bush to do is politely step down and awknowledge what the people want.
Help us build a better map!
Ah, but Bush is from Havahd. Nuff said. The fact that they graduated Bush obviously shows thier inferiority to MIT. And I see a hack in that.
Help us build a better map!
> closure with a President with the
> qualifications of a head of lettuce is still
> closure
I prefer that to a president with the qualifications of a gangster. We've had eight years of evil/smart; at least evil/dumb will do less damage.
BTW, you seem to be accepting the sycophantic press's portrayal of Gore as some sort of great thinker. But from what I've read, he was quite a poor student in college and flunked out of several courses.
What are you STUPID ? You should not listen to all you hear from the LIBERAL MEDIA. There are like 180,000 under votes in FLA total that were
thrown out. YOU CANT JUST COUNT ONE COUNTY, that is why a part hand recount can not be CERTIFIED IN FLA. PLUS they are counting dimples and bumps. That is NOT A VOTE. BUSH won FLA by the rule of LAW. And GORE needs to go home to TN and I don't
think they want him there.
And so you reveal yourself as a lazy, ignorant, mush-brained liberal who can muster the energy to actually go to the polls to vote (unfortunately), but can't conceive of the possibility that you should evaluate the candidates based on your own objective criteria, instead of swallowing what the media feeds you.
Idiot.
Each candidate gets to govern, only those who voted for them.
That way 80% of the population are in anarchy.
Like the guy above said, preserver the status quo!
Not my post, but as I recall, this was something that everyone's favorite pRon publisher (Larry Flynt) dug up during the Republican primary, after Bush's campaign started throwing mud at the competition (McCain, for those w/short memories; still, I think, the best overall choice for pres.)
Furthermore, if the number of votes recieved were an accurate measure of intelligence, we clearly have a smarter candidate in Gore, seeing as how he did get more votes and all.
Apparently you aren't familiar with how politicians put their kids through school. Here in reality, we have it from reliable sources that neither candidate made good students.Facist, gun-toting, bible-thumping nazi.-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
I've seen the sheet to which you are referring, but I'm not convinced that his lack of speaking ability would make him a bad president. Honestly, I'm prone to the same mistakes when I speak. I almost caught myself using strategery as a word the other day, and that's _after_ I saw the SNL sketch.
My opinion about all of this is that Bush is a decent person, and so is Al Gore. Both would have different styles of leadership, but I think either would be a suitable president for four or even eight years. You don't get to be Vice-President or Governor if you aren't qualified, speaking deficiencies or sighing aside.
Oh please...
2 things. FIRST, Bush did NOT lose the popular election. It may appear as though he lost by a little over 200,000, but since that is like less than 1/5 of 1 percent anyone with ANY common sense and obvervation skills should easily see that .2% is WAY less than the margin of error in an election. Therefore, there was NO winner in the popular vote.
Second thing. Sick of hearing about Bush being fraudulent or something, cause its ludicrous. Wanna know why Bush sent people there? Cause the 3-member canvasing pannel in palm beach were all democrats, for example. That particular thing is against the law. Many other things too, like videos of Ms Cox bending ballots until a "chad" became indented. Or, the countless chads found on the floor after being recounted by the heavily democrat areas (gee, wonder where those came from). Or this absurd notion of a "dimpled chad" being counted.
The deadline established by law passed by. The Florida Supreme Court in a VERY biased opinion (biased AGAINST republicans, ya loon) extended the deadline. That second deadline is now passed. They didn't make it.
When lawlessness abounds, when the rules don't matter, THAT is when we'll have third world style elections. And that is the exact thing Gore is wanting to give us.
sorry, hard to keep up with the ever-changing tallies. So, it goes from 0.2% to 0.3%. Wow. You totally defeated my arguement there, let me tell ya.
Second, you say that a lead of 200,000 votes is insignificant, to the point where there was "no winner", yet you're arguing that Bush's lead of 500 votes in Florida is decisive, conclusive, and we should all go home. That's particularly funny when his lead shrinks to 120 votes if you count the recounts already submitted from Miami and Palm Beach. Of course, Katherine Harris, lackey-in-chief, didn't count these votes, or the 10,000 undervotes yet to be inspected. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
then, if you discount the chads all over the floor and count all the wrongly disqualified overseas ballots, Bush's lead goes up again. Not only that, but I NEVER said anything about a few hundred votes being decisive, nor did I ever say I was republican. To put back to you what you did to me, I believe the appropriate thing to say would be "yet another example of a democrat trying to determine the intent of the voter." I just think the law is established in such a way as to define what takes place, those events have occured, and we should all live with them. Enough is enough. Gore won New Mexico by what, 179 votes? Do you see Bush doing to New Mexico and the US what Gore is doing to Florida and the US?
Third, you tell me that having three democrats on one canvassing board is illegal. Might be, but it's the first I've heard of it
*shrug* watch the news a little more. Been talked about. Sorry you missed it. Don't have time to do the research for you, if you don't believe me do it yourself.
Fourth, dimpled chads aren't being counted.Yes they are...again, watch the news a bit more. Go to cnn.com, perhaps. Learn a little.
Fifth, your hero doesn't agree with your assertion that counting them is ridiculous, since Dubya himself signed a law saying dimpled chads are legal in Texas
"oh yeah, well he started it!" Blah. Not even going to go into this. Doesn't even rate.
the video was only shown on the news like twice. Eh, what can I say about the media; its well established that there is a bias there. This was one of the reasons the observers went there, actually.
Wow, at first I thought you were being genuine in your reply, then you resorted to petty personal attacks and you lost all credibility.
My oh so humble point was simply this, while yes, there are many intelligent people in this world who did not go to college, to suggest that someone who did in fact graduate from Yale AND Harvard as well as govern one of the largest states in this country has the "head of a lettuce" is a farce, especially when your favor is for a college drop out.
Instead of being disgusted by me and my opinion, why not focus your angst towards the true root of your displeasure, which I think we all can see clear as day. It's quite telling that an opinion such as mine can cut so deep, isn't it?
(I'll go ahead and drop the +1 bonus on this one since it is of little value to anyone other than the person I'm replying to.)
as price for making Hayes president. Disenfranchising blacks in the South isn't exactly what I'd call status quo.
Miami-Dade and Palm Beach decided that they couldn't get under the Florida Supreme Court's arbitrary deadline they made up out of thin air after the election to replace the arbitrary deadline set by the Legislature before the election. But Broward's hand recount is in.
I'm a conservative Republican. Still, if a reasonable percentage of the Nader voters wouldn't have voted otherwise, and they tended to vote Democrat in the downticket races (both reasonable assumptions), then Nader likely made the Democrats take Senate seats at least in Washington and Michigan. Possibly also Nebraska.
At least, that's what the Washington Post reported. Texas is really about the only exception to that rule, actually. The Illinois court case Boies cited had the court rejecting dimpled ballots, as the Chicago Tribune found.
If hand recounts are less accurate than machine recounts, why are hand recounts ordered by law in case in dispute in both Florida and Texas, as well as most of the other states?
Not true. What the Texas law does say is that if both a hand and machine recount are requested, only one, the hand recount is performed. Under Texas law, one may not have multiple recounts. In Florida, it is up to each county, provided they have the results in by deadline. Furthermore, as the Washington Post found, most states don't count dimples.
How easy is it to stuff the ballot box when you're in a roomful of extremely partisan observers from the other side? Do you think the Dem's are ripping out chads right under the Republicans noses?
Not conclusive at all. After all, the Republicans did complain about the interpretations of dimpled chads that Broward County came up with. The Republican judge on the Broward County board disagreed with tons of the calls, and one Republican observer was thrown out for disagreeing with a call. So, just because the Republicans were there didn't mean they didn't object to the calls. They just didn't control the process.
How can Gore have "clearly lost" the hand recount when the recount wasn't allowed to finish? Do you think shipping in goons to harass election canvassing boards into calling off recounts is an acceptable outcome in a Western democracy?
Because the race is over after either the arbitrary deadline the Florida Supreme Court made, or the original deadline in the statute the Legislature passed before the election. As for the "goons" complaint, the Democratic election supervisor in Miami-Dade County told the Los Angeles Times that the demonstration was peaceful, and did not intimidate him. He would have made the decision anyway, as there wasn't enough time. Don't forget that the Democrats on the County board originally voted not to have a manual recount, until the Gore campaign threatened to sue them. As a Democrat, it would have been easy for him to claim he was intimidated; he didn't.
The woman who certified this vote, and who has consistently attempted to block all attempts at hand recounts, is Bush's co-campaign chair in Florida. How can this be allowed to happen? Do they not have conflict of interest laws in Florida? Further, her job is due to be slated out of existence at the end of her term, which means she's looking for work. She'll get a plum appointment in a Bush administration, maybe even an Ambassadorship. Is this the way we do elections in America? Sounds more like one of those new Russian states making it's first attempt at democracy.
She does have an obvious defense, that it is her job and she was following the law. After all, the Attorney General for Florida jumped in the dispute, and he managed Gore's campaign in Florida. The judges and workers in Broward County and elsewhere who judges the dimpled ballots voted for Gore, and some of them contributed to his campaign, had stickers for him on their cars, and are members of the DNC. (Evidence, as though it matters: here) Surely there were conflicts of interest there too? At least her job had very straightforward deadlines in law, and later dictated by the courts-- the local Democratic officials were interpreting dimples and stray marks, which has much more room for bias. She certified all recounts that came before the legislated deadline. She then certified all recounts before the Florida Supreme Court imposed deadline.
Why are most of the optical counting machines in Florida in Republican areas, where the shitty old punchcard systems are in place in Democratic strongholds?
Not true. The Orlando Sentinal published a list of spoiled ballots for counties and electoral systems. It lists tabulation systems used, and who won each county. There's also a link to a map. Note that optical systems and punchcard systems are distributed proportionally in counties the each candidate won, although Gore did have slightly more spoiled ballots in counties he won.
They went by number in Miami Dade. The precincts already counted went 74% for Gore. The county as a whole went 53% for Gore. It's very unlikely that the remaining precincts would have given proportionally similar votes to Gore.
However, what the Court did, was find a completely different option, that ballots "shall not" be excluded if submitted after the original deadline, but that they "shall" be excluded if after a new, Court-imposed arbitrary deadline, that was still too soon for Miami-Dade and Palm Beach to finish their recounts. It's arbitary and completely different from the law; not at all a clarification of the ambiguity.
And for the recrod: Bush isn't what I'd call a great choice of the job. But, Gore is just so much more dangerous. And anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together knows he will continue in the decamation of our country.
---
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
image here
(for those of you confused by ballots, I'll explain: the greyed out areas are counties that voted for Gore.)
I suppose the whole point is moot given that florida was recently handed to bush, but I think it shows that the "will of the people" has been served; if you total the population of counties bush won, he beats gore. Why? More family type voted bush, plain and simple.
honestly if "NOBODY" watched late night comedians, they would be unemployed. the fact that people pay attention to them is what makes them money.... therefor there were "SOME" people who cared-"ENOUGH" people infact to merit the ratings of the late night dorks.
i agree that the real issue is that he lied under oath-the media however focused on what got the ratings. ie the media focused on his sexual exploits. people in other coutries don't see him laying his pipe in other yards as being a big deal. they think we are foolish for even caring.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
look like the entertainment industry. other nations look at the crap with clinton and laugh at us like a bunch of monkeys. most of them think it's funny that we care he had a mistress. politcs in this country has become disenchanting to many of the public for this reason.
it doenst matter wich of the republicrat candidates you voted for-they both represent the same entity. they both pretend that they care about the "issues", but will go along and represent different special interest groups once they get into office.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
From an article in which a Zimbabwe politician was quoted as saying that children should study this event closely for it shows that election fraud is not only a third world phenomenon...
1. Imagine that we read of an election occuring anywhere in the third world in which the self-declared winner was the son of the former prime minister and that former prime minister was himself the former head of that nation's secret police (cia).
2. Imagine that the self-declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some old colonial holdover (electoral college) from the nation's pre-democracy past.
3. Imagine that the self-declared winner's 'victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother!
4. Imagine that the poorly drafted ballots of one district, a district heavily favoring the self-declared winner's opponent, led thousands of voters to vote for the wrong candidate.
5. Imagine that that members of that nation's most despised caste, fearing for their lives/livelihoods, turned out in record numbers to vote in near-universal opposition to the self-declared winner's candidacy.
6. Imagine that hundreds of members of that most-despised caste were intercepted on their way to the polls by state police operating under the authority of the self-declared winner's brother.
7. Imagine that six million people voted in the disputed province and that the self-declared winner's 'lead' was only 327 votes. Fewer, certainly, than the vote counting machines' margin of error.
8. Imagine that the self-declared winner and his political party opposed a more careful by-hand inspection and re-counting of the ballots in the disputed province or in its most hotly disputed district.
9. Imagine that the self-declared winner, himself a governor of a major province, had the worst human rights record of any province in his nation and actually led the nation in executions.
10. Imagine that a major campaign promise of the self-declared winner was to appoint like-minded human rights violators to lifetime positions on the high court of that nation.
None of us would deem such an election to be representative of anything other than the self-declared winner's will-to-power. All of us, I imagine, would wearily turn the page thinking that it was another sad tale of pitiful pre- or anti-democracy peoples in some strange elsewhere."
...
Yes, I know I ramble and my spelling isn't quite up to scratch. If you wish to complain,
Oh wow... it actually was a yuppie bastard!
--
A mind is a terrible thing to taste.
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
In conclusion, you are a Democrat. Oh, but you'll claim you voted for Nader, but we all know you're just pissed off. All you said in your whole comment was that our Republican friend was a moron because he didn't agree with you, an obvious liberal.
Oh, by the way, correcting spelling is a really sickening way to try to prove your point.
Unless you claim that Gore's supporters are idiots, statistically the error should be proportionally equal for both sides. (Yikes, I can't spell.)
Please feel free to correct me without flame.
Oh, did you go to Harvard too?
Execute? [Y/N] _
The only thing I regret is after Gore finally is rightfully president, I'll have to listen to cretins like this going on about how all this is connected to Vince Foster and black helicopters.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
You have evidence that Gore has a gripe with the Electoral College? Please show it.
Well, not if you're going to make things up.
hmm.. I wonder what Gore was like before this.
Theorum 1: At work
"What!? You call this a paycheck? I demand a recount!.... See! the recount proves that I worked 200 hours this week, so pay up!"
Theorum 2: At school
"What?! a zero??? I demand a recount!.... See, the recount proves that I go 150% on this paper!"
Theorum 3: As a kid
Bush and Gore as kids on Halloween (ignore the age difference)
Bush: "i got more candy that you Al"
Gore: "No you didn't! Lets recount it"
(Gore then promises the little girl next door (Katherine Harris) that he will give her some candy if she distracts George for 10 seconds, and then he steals some of Bush's candy and then spits on some of the rest)
Gore: "EEEEWWWWWW, that doesnt count, its all nasty!"
Bush: "Hey, what happened to all my tootsie rolls? YOINK"
Gore:"MOMMMMMMEEEEEEEEE!"
Mom:"Al, stop stealing other people's candy" [SMACK!]
Gore:"WAAAAAAAAAAAA, you take that back or im gonna hold my breath until i die!"
And the rest is, as they say, history.
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
Maybe cos there was no evidence? A criminal is somebody who is charged with a crime, tried and then found guilty. Not somebody you don't like.
I thank god every day I live in a country that still pretends to have laws. If people like you ran this country I am sure I and most of my friends would be killed or jailed just for disagreeing with you. Thre are plenty of places on this planet where having an opionion or expressing it is deadly and from the looks of it we are on our way to becoming one of them. I figure you guys will go after gays first because they are a really small minority and not too likely to put up a fight but I think the jews and the moslems might put up a hellatious battle. Me I will be observing from another country when the blood starts to spill.
War is necrophilia.
I don't favor abondoning any law whatsoever. I am simply pointing out that in this country more people wanted a gore presidency then a bush one.
I am not saying Gore got more votes in florida but that more people intended to vote for him but fucked up, got confused or whatever. Those people too are going to be disappointed. Your argument about the margin of error is a little skewed too.
According to CNN.com gore got 49% of the popular vote and Bush got 48% with 3% going to nader. If you were overly generous and said that one third of the people voting for nader prefered a bush presidency then gore would still be up 3%. This is not an insignifact number and lets face it giving bush 1/3rd of nader voters is fantasy at best.
War is necrophilia.
Why stop there though? It's costing us 40K weather the guy killed a cop or held up a 7-11. If the reson for killing is to save money then you should not make any distinction at all about the crime they commited. A guy in jail because he beat up his wife is costing you the same as a guy who raped your daughter right?
To your list of people I would definately add wife beaters, drunk drivers, and executives or corporations who have killed many people though.
War is necrophilia.
Your point about Perot is correct. If he had not run Clinton would not have won. Bush is in the exact same category. I will happily grant you that a small minority of the Nader voters would have voted for Bush but I (and most political analysts) think that the majority of those votes would have gone to Gore.
As for florida I disagree. Even Buchanan conceded that the people in Palm Beach county mistakenly voted for him when they meant to vote for Gore. I think everybody agrees on this. Considering that these votes were not cast properly it would be fair to say that people of Florida also liked Gore more then Bush (close granted). Also consider that hand recounts were never done in Miami-Dade. Although the margin in that county was close it's not unreasonable to expect that Gore might have picked up a few votes there. Gore would have definately picked up a bunch of votes if Palm Beach had finished the hand count.
No matter how you add it up More people in florida wanted a Gore presidency unfortunately a bunch of votes got thrown away and a bunch more were not counted.
Margin of error or not you can't dispute the fact more people voted for Gore then Bush nationwide and that more people intended to vote for Gore in Florida.
War is necrophilia.
Bush won because the hand counts did not go on. There were numerous machine counts each with a different number (which ought to be a clue as to how accurate they are) but as far as I know only one county actually got done with the hand counts. Miami Dade gave up and palm beach never finished.
Also keep in mind that Bush won because there were a few thousand votes for Buchanan that even Buchanan says were meant for Gore. he won the election but it's clear the people of florida wanted gore.
Bush also won because 29 thousand people voted for nader. Sure some of these people would have stayed home and some might have voted for Bush but surely if Nader wasn't running Bush would have lost by a landslide.
Of course Bush also did not get the popular vote. Nationwide more people wanted a Gore presidency then a Bush presidency and so today a mojority of the country is disapointed.
IT is definately accurate to to say that the will of the people was that Gore be the president.
A few other facts. The Gore Camp does not have the power to disqaulify any votes let alone the overseas ballots. That is up to the politicians in Florida. They were lobbied heavily by both sides and choose not to. Please get your facts straight.
The hand counts were conducted with both republican and democratic observers and the repulicans alleged every night on the talk shows that this was a fraudlent and unfair system. Now they claim that there was no fraud and evertything is hunky dory. Funny how the tune changes when the counts go your way.
Bush trusts machines more then he trusts the people of florida.
My governor (Marc Racicot or Montana) went to florida and told them how to run their elections. Would some politician from Florida please consider coming to montana in the next election cycle and accuse us of commiting fraud and of being incompetent please I bet the people of montana would love that!.
War is necrophilia.
Because they don't have to. They have the right to ask for manual recounts in the counties they want. It's up to the Bush team to ask for manual recounts in the counties they want. The Democrats are not under any obligation to do the work of the Bush campaign.
A more important question is. What good is asking for a manual recount if the time limit on doing one is so short as to make it impossible? What good is having the right to call for a manual recount if the result of the manual recount are thrown out?
War is necrophilia.
Hard to believe there are people like you in the world.
So why don't we do every prisoner a favor and kill them? I mean why be nice only a small percentage and let everybody else suffer? Is that fair?
War is necrophilia.
The hand counts were done under the glare of media, democratic observers and republican observers. They were televised, contested argued over in court and every night on television. It is totally irresposible for anybody to suggest that under this much scrutiny people commited voter fraud by counting ballots wrongly or manufacturing votes.
Itf that's true then the republican overseers were irresposible, stupid, or incompetent. It was their job to make sure no fraud occured.
If you are going to accuse voter fraud be specific. Name names, times places people who commit voter fraud belong in jail and it's a serious accusation to make.
War is necrophilia.
Wow calling for the assination of the president and the vice president. We are slipping into a banana republic faster then I ever imagined. We can now look forward to Military coups and rioting on the streets what fun.
BTW Hillary beat Lazio and she would kick Bush's ass pretty danmed hard too. Clintons have a record of kicking Bush ass.
War is necrophilia.
So are you saying that Gore had no right to ask for manual recounts?
If he has a right to ask for manual recounts was he obligated to ask for a statewide one or did he have the pick and choose?
Why didn't bush ask for a manual recount of other counties didn't he have that right?
What good is amanual recount if a) it does not get done on time b) it does not "count"
Was it Gores fault that the recounts did not get done on time?
I thought Bush "trusted people" did he really mean that he trusted machines? Each machine recount gave different results (the first recount added thousands of votes to gores column) why was this if the machines are so accurate?
War is necrophilia.
"First, we don't have a "popular vote". The so-called "popular vote" is really just the sum of each state's votes."
Nevertheless it's fair to say that more people wanted a Gore presidency then a Bush one. This is a close election and if your popularity falls in the margin of error then so be it.
Also consider that roughly 3% of the country voted for Nader. It's definately fair to say most people in this country definately did not want a Bush presidency. If you think of it that way you also fall outside the margin of error. I think it's a safe bet to say most nader voters would prefer a Gore presidency to a Bush one.
War is necrophilia.
Facist, gun-toting, bible-thumping nazi
Three out of four ain't bad.
Not all states are like that. Maine and Nebraska (I think those are the two) allocate two votes to the statewide winner and one vote to each congressional district, or something like that. For a while, Maine's electoral vote was split 3-1 (I think it's 4-0 now, though). I'm not sure that it would be that bright an idea, though, as it would tend to make the votes of a smaller state even more irrelevant than they seem to have already become. I suppose it'd be better than a straight popular vote, though...anything would be better than having the morons in NYC and LA determing the course of the nation all by themselves. :-P
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Umm...not exactly. The voting instructions, which were mailed to voters with their sample ballots and posted in all polling places, advised voters to check the ballot to make sure there were no hanging chads. This is common sense if you're still using punched-card ballots, and according to this morning's Fox News Sunday it was part of the instructions. If a voter is too stupid to read and follow instructions, tough sh*t. Checking a punched card to make sure all of the appropriate chads are punched out takes what, 5 seconds?
Another consideration that has been advanced is that punched-card ballots aren't intended to be fed through the mechanical counting machines zillions of times. The sensing mechanism could very well have been responsible for the so-called "dimpled chads" and "pregnant chads" that Algore's team wanted to claim as votes. MSNBC's Brian Williams tried to create a dimpled chad himself with a sample ballot and was unable to do so; the least amount of pressure he could apply caused the chad to pop right out.
Still, maybe I shouldn't complain too much. Even with the playing field tilted so obviously toward Algore, even with Algore winning nearly all the concessions he sought, Dubya still came out the winner. The only thing left now is if Algore is willing to just walk away as the loser, or if he will insist on having the adjective "sore" added to that label. I suspect that when this is all over, if he keeps behaving like he has, he wouldn't be able to win a race for county dogcatcher in the future. Hell, even Ralph Nader can make a comeback, but Algore's political future is toast.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Considering that, contrary to popular misconception, the United States is not and was never intended to be a democracy...no. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
We need someone to act as leader of the most powerful (we think) country on the planet.
Why? Things seem to be running along just dandy without any real "leadership" right now (Clinton being a very lame duck). As far as I can tell you could put a suit on a chimp, drop him in the Oval Office, and nobody'd notice. (Now that I think about it, that might just be what we've done)
No matter who "finally" wins this broughaha they're going to get a deadlocked Congress who (along with about half the voters in the U.S.) will consider him "the guy who stole the election". Prepare for four years of complete lockup at the federal level.
Which is just fine by me, frankly.
As long as we're talking about "facts"...
If machine recounts are more accurate than hand recounts, why was there a difference of 1400 votes after the second machine recount? Sure as hell doesn't sound like "two votes in a million" to me.
a) Machines are impartial, people aren't.
b) The machine count was done state-wide, the hand count was done in selected counties.
How easy is it to stuff the ballot box when you're in a roomful of extremely partisan observers from the other side? Do you think the Dem's are ripping out chads right under the Republicans noses?
As the man said, "The hand is quicker than the eye". If someone has practiced they can do manipulations right under your very skeptical nose without your noticing a thing. I'm not saying somebody hired a bunch of magicians to count ballots - I'm just pointing out that manipulating the ballots without anyone noticing is hardly impossible.
You can't seriously tell me that this election was the closest ever because the American public believed strongly in their own candidate, yada yada yada. This was an exercise in mediocrity, none really cared who won, but as Americans we love to argue. So any time sides can be taken people pull out their "Rights" guns and go at it. Ralph Nader Points out that Americans have the greatest power as private citizens yet refuse to exercise it. I'd like to see some of these people who stuck up so hard for their candidates put their weight behind some useful issue once their candidate gets elected. I'll bet 9 out of 10 of those guys will go home after this is all over and not think about politics till 4 years from know when they can start whining all over again.
I hope you keep in mind that Bush had prepared legal arguments for all possible disputed outcomes. So if Bush won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, he would have taken it to court as well.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
"An Error does not become Truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does Truth become Error just because nobody sees it." - Mohandas Gandhi
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Hi. First, a disclaimer: I am not a statistician. However, I am a scientist and I deal with statistics and uncertainties on data on a daily basis. That said:
There's not supposed to be *any* margin of error in the actual vote.
In an ideal world, possibly. But we don't live in an ideal world, and even if we did the actual vote isn't what we really want to know.
Let's take a step back. What is our experiment (the Florida part of the election, ignoring the wider one) trying to determine? Well, we want to know which candidate is supported by most citizens. That's not what we measure, though; we only count votes from people who made it to the polling station and cast their vote successfully. We're losing some of our sample right off the bat - we don't know how they would have voted. We can try and estimate by supposing that they're split the same way as in the people whose votes we did collect but there's an uncertainty there.
(Of course, it's debatable how many of the people who didn't vote were actually abstaining - in which group I include "couldn't be bothered" folks - and how many were genuinely unable to vote because of ill health, lack of transport, being turned away from the polling station or what-have-you. Furthermore, we don't know if those people are uniformly scattered across the population - in which case we've just got a random error - or whether there's a systematic trend at work; systematic errors are very nasty because they grow right along with your sample whereas random errors grow more slowly. You may have two million votes but if there's a systematic error of 2% they won't help you.)
So there's some inherent uncertainty which is (a) unavoidable, and (b) of unknown size. On top of that there *will* be random counting errors. It's difficult to get an exact estimate without knowing how the voting machinery worked and doing calibration studies but as a rough guide the error in counting N tends to be of order SQRT(N). There'll be a prefactor which will be large if the measuring process is inaccurate and small if it's accurate. A perfect infallible voting system would make this zero, but such a beast does not exist (see comp.risks) and even if it did it would have to be operated by fallible humans.
Cheers,
Mat.
If I'm following your the "reasoning" correctly,
:> Maybe it was Finland...). They were trying to keep a stable system of goverment that would last as long as possible - it had to be strong enough to stand up to sudden blows but flexible enough to change under pressure. In general they seem to have done a good job. While there might be an argument for modifying the EC system (splitting the EC votes in a state based on the same "lines" used to elect Representatives - basically giving the EC more of a "fine grained" approach) good arguments for eliminating it entirely are few and far between.
Bush won due to "a plitical bias that for historical reasons became lodged in our laws" that "is a bias toward the rural states, which tend to be more conservative" - therfore "a bias towards conservatives". There's a major flaw with your the argument thus stated - the constitution pre-dates the existing two party system and their identification as "liberal" and "conservative".
It *may* have been their intent to use the "free" 2 votes in the EC as a sort of governor - a weight to keep the country plunging into an out-of-control free for all. They weren't radicals - the system of government of the USA is similar to other systems that had lasted for hundreds of years (Rome for one, Switzerland was a Republic then as well I think - I'll have to check that
Instead of spending a lot of energy on trying to fix a system that isn't broken (the EC), spend it trying to fix one that obviously is - the method of voting itself. Purely electronic voting is very scary - it's way too easy for "accidents" to occur and the records of them to dissapear, but there are better alternatives to the punchcard and "pull lever" systems in use. The county I live in uses a system rather like the "scantron" system used in many schools and standardized tests. You fill in a round blank with a soft lead pencil - if you make a mistake you get a new ballot sheet - no erasures, that way it's obvious if the vote has been changed. This method has three advantages - fast counting, accurate results, and a "paper trail". It may not be the absolute best, but is an effective system that's currently in use - so it's proven.
ObTagLine: The more you run over the 'possum, the flatter it gets.
...a President with the qualifications of a head of lettuce is still closure...
As is a President with the qualifications of a block of wood.
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
Actually that is an option, and it was on the table. However, the Gore team couldn't get Bush to go along with it. Bush objected for mostly geographical reasons -- it turns out that most of punch card machines were in heavy democratic areas, where Gore would have gained the most ground anyway in a hand recount. Also, philosophically, Bush argued against hand recounts in federal court, and didn't want to appear to be hypocritical while still fighting the federal court battle.
When it comes to technological issues, the Slashdot community is for the most part in agreement about the reality of things. But if the nature of the posts to this story indicate a truth, it seems that the Slashdot community is very bipartisan politically, and that technology is not strongly coupled with politics. Hell yah!
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Drawing names from a hat has the advantage of speed, but it doesn't help the problem, which is that a great deal of electoral weight is being thrown around on the basis of random chance. One way to remedy this would be to declare a draw in any state in which the win/loss margin is less than the margin of error. In the event of a draw, the electoral votes are split (with one abstention if there is an odd number, as is the case in Florida).
/. land can tell us how to compute based on population size), the electoral votes go from being split evenly to being cast unilaterally. This is no good because we have merely cut in half the number of electoral votes that can be affected by a single vote lead. A better solution would be to pro-rate the distribution of electoral ballots based on the ratio of the win/loss margin to the error margin. For example, if Jones and Smith are exactly tied in a state with 20 electoral votes, then each gets 10 electoral votes. And if, for example, the margin of error is 5000 votes, then as one candidate's lead approaches 5000, the number of electoral votes she receives grows from 10 to 20. So, for example, if Jones is ahead by 4000 votes, her number of electoral votes grows 80% of the way from an even split (10-10) to a full win (20-0), so she gets 18 electoral votes, and smith gets 2.
Of course, the problem with this is that there is still a discontinuity in the distribution of the electoral ballots as a function of win/loss margin. That is, as soon as the win/loss margin exceeds the error margin (which I'm sure some statistician out there in
This has a number of advantages:
1) It preserves the essence of our electoral college system in which candidates are required to win states and can only gain so much by winning a state with a landslide.
2) It retains the *intent* of the electoral college system in situations where that intent is not currently accomplished (like in the situation with Florida right now). That is, you win electoral votes by winning a state, but you have to win the state *unambiguously* in order to win those votes. You can't win a state due to the uncertainty within the error margin.
3) It reduces the incentive to call for recounts, manual or otherwise. Since there are no sharp discontinuities in the distribution of electoral ballots, small change in the win/loss margin that might result from a recount can have only a proportionally small change in the electoral ballot distribution. It's only in cases where the national election is hinging on those one or two electoral ballots that might shift, that it would make sense to ask for a re-count. (In the current case with Florida, splitting the 25 electoral ballots 50-50 with 1 discarded, would leave Gore with a substantial lead, because he had a substantial lead with Florida out of the picture. Bush would have to acquire a much more substantial lead than he has now in order to shift enough of the electoral ballots to his favor to win the national election. In fact, he'd have to win outright, with a margin that at least equalled the margin of error, because winning all of Florida's electoral votes gives him the bare minimum needed to win at the national level.
Comments, anyone?
-Chris
Surely the states have much more important things to worry about than wether they get to design the ballot papers?
Surely Florida voters should be much more concerned that a large part of their state is due to dissapear underwater in the next century. This piece of states rights campaigning is at best irrelevent and at worst somewhat pathetic.
Can't we just give the presidency to Bob Dole?
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Note: Bill Clinton falls in the category for both of his elections.
My Weblog
Ignoring for now the fact that I doubt your predictions... Are you suggesting that we should vote for whoever offers us the most money? Did panem et circenses improve the quality of elected officials in Republican Rome?
are you suggesting that one should not consider his own welfare in chosing a president?
further, are you suggesting that offering a tax cut is tantamount to bribery? what about the important distinction that a tax cut goes to all, not just those people who voted a certain way?
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
Oh, please. There is also a third statute, providing for manual recounts. The court agreed that it doesn't make sense to provide for manual recounts without also providing time for the manual recounts to take place.
You seem to favor either,
1) hold the counties to the original deadline,
meaning no manual recounts at all.
or
2) based on your last paragraph, allow enough time for the manual recounts to happen.
2) is just as "arbitrary," according to your definition, as the court's decision, so either you only would accept (1), or you really aren't concerned about the arbitrariness at all, in which case you are full of baloney.
Solution (1), however, has the nasty effect of denying the legal right for manual recounts, as they couldn't be completed in time. The court decided that this side effect was more serious than the effect of ignoring the legislative deadline, for which no one seems to know any purpose.
Courts *must* have some flexibility to craft remedies, or they are useless. The real conflict wasn't between "may" or "shall" but between "manual recounts" or "no manual recounts." The court tried to create a ruling that allowed manual recounts to be implemented. Presumably, legislators wanted manual recounts to happen, or they wouldn't have written it into law.
It is pretty naive to believe that something as large and complicated as the body of Florida state law is going to cover every conceivable situation without any internal contradictions. It is the job of the courts to use interpretation and powers of relief to allow the law to adapt to the situations that happen to occur in the real world.
Think of an open source program. One day, it fails an assert(). You've found a bug. What do you do? You go back, find out what the bug is, and fix it. Sure, you wish the original programmer hadn't written the bug, but you need your results *NOW*, not when a version is released that might fix your bug. Are you changing what the original programmer wrote? Of course. Are you committing some heinous crime against humanity because of that? No. The original programmer didn't mean to write bugs. He meant to write a working program, and screwed up, probably because he didn't anticipate some crazy input. Welcome to the real world.
Legislatures write *statutes.* Courts interpret statutes, given the particulars of the case, and are given broad powers to make things work out when reality is conflict-ridden and messy. That is *law*. Sometimes it doesn't work the way one might like, but its the best we can do. Deal with it.
In the end, this is why you need to pick competent people to serve as judges.
Hey buddy.. The electoral college was designed for 2 reasons.. and BOTH are still a concern even 200 years after the design of the electoral college.
1. We still have small states in the union. The president is elected by the states, not the people. The electoral college gives small states a much larger voice than a popular vote would.
2. Half of the states still allow the electors to
have descretion.. not that this is much of an issue because the electors are pre-selected by the party they are to represent, and the party tends to select party loyalists and party funders.. not just some random group of people. Please also keep in mind that the state legislature can always override the vote of the people and select the electors themselves. I believe that only once in the history of our country has an elector voted for somebody she has not pledged to vote for.. and in that case she was just some idiot who voted for the runningmate as opposed to the candidate running for president (that's right she didn't vote for the opposing party, kinda silly if you ask me).
And now.. for a simple analogy (my leftist friends hate my analogies) to do away with the electoral college and go by the popular vote would be like having a football game and disregarding the score. It would be like declaring the winner based on the total number of yards completed by each team. Forget the touch-downs and the field goals... those shouldn't count should they?
When the United States of America formed, it was part of the contract (the constitution) that they would not loose the power to elect their leader.. thus preserving the sovereignty of the states. To give this power to the people would take away that sovereignty. Presidential campaigns would no longer be nation wide if we moved to a popular vote. Presidents would simply concentrate on areas with huge cities. Rural States would not be represented due to a lack of importance in the election.
So, when small states no longer exist, and mobs of people are no longer trying to vote themselves funds from the treasury, then I'll agree with you and say that the electoral college is out of date.
Didja here that it is actually going to take 9 months to correctly validate all the ballots?
They have to wait for the pregnant chad's to give birth!
-Kris
Posted by CmdrTaco on Sunday November 26, @07:17PM(4 Imformative Troll) ... closure with a President with the qualifications of a head of lettuce is still closure, but I suspect the mainstream media will continue to harp on this for awhile. But hopefully this is the end of the issue on Slashdot.
from the course-it-ain't-over-yet dept.
Ravn0s noted that CNN has reported that Florida has certified Bush as the winner, which of course means that he'll get the 25 electoral votes, and the presidency. We haven't had enough fun: Gore still has the popular vote nationally, and there are zillions of Florida ballots in question (felons who voted, multi-punched ballots, dangling chads and the list goes on). I wish I could say it's over
....Anyway, I have to agree with the poster above, when give the choice of evil or stupid, I'll take stupid any day. Congratz Bush, 6 out of 10 electorial votes think you da man!
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Its the same kind of logic that makes you only count a handful of counties when the STATE'S vote count is in question. Why not recount ALL votes in Florida if 'every vote should count'. Under the assumption that hand counts are more accurate than a mechanical process it would seem logical to recount all votes instead of just that of a couple key counties. Well, maybe not all votes should count after all.
I'll just assume all politicians are out to screw everyone until they show(democrates or republicans) me they really care about us equally.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
He stated that by law they have to be certified to a certain accuracy, and the machines in Florida are over 99.9% accurate. He said something like it will get maybe 2 votes in a MILLION wrong.
Sure, they might only get two votes out of a million wrong, but that's only because the machines throw out ballots that they can't read, even if those ballots would be clearly readable by a human. That would be like me claiming to be 100% acurate at mind-reading, but the only person's mind I'll read is my own.
It isn't just florida thats statistically insignificant, its the entire country... the margin was something like 250,000 out of 95 million... thats maybe a bit over a quarter of 1 percent difference, I'd be shocked if thats greater than the margin of error nationally.
-- Point? None! Cob.
unlike like some lettuce heads editorializing these days...
-- Point? None! Cob.
Are you out of your MIND? A Republican Missy Big Boots who definitlyl hopes to get a job from GWB not just flouts a state supreme court ruling...she also announces she will ignore the efforts of a carefuly monitored league of citizens who slaved away to re-count the votes in HER state.....
If you heard David Boies explain (concisely and correctly) to Ted Koppel Florida's relevant statutes and legal precendents, you should have detected a VERY CLEAR difference from the perorations of Dubya's lawyer (Ginsburg). The latter simply shuffled and re-shuffled a bunch of opinionated vagueries and generalizations ("We believe this to have been improper")
...Talk about specious! The whole Bush campaign has been based on incredibly specious premises - "likeability" and corny homilies (often contradictory) as oposed to actual qualifications and a record that bears examining.
Now if you'd said you voted for Bush just because you're a died in the wool Republican or because, frankly, you want the "pubs to help Big Biz and save YOU bucks, OK. Fair enough. But there are PLENTY of people behind Gore, when it cmes to the amazing shit that the "pubs have tried (are trying) to pull in Florida.
Something not mentioned is that this 99.9% accuraccy takes place when the voters are a: trained by the company to ensure that they use the machine properly b: have good vision c: have ballots that make sense and are easy to use.
Do you honestly think the company will have octogenarians testing their machines with butterfly ballots?
The margin of error for the machines is actually around 4% or so. Since the difference between Bush/Gore is 0.3%, it's obvious that a recount is necessary. Manual vs. Machine? Well, let's ask Bush and the law he signed in '97 for Texas.. Hmmm..
I love stuff like this. Here is a little game for you to try out. Take the above essay and replace every reference to Bush and replace it with Clinton, and Gore and you will see how nicely the story fits. -- George Actually, Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. That means he is one of the most successful students in the country right now. If Clinton was lazy in college, it sure doesn't show.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
On an added note, in Palm Beach County, FL a local news station took that "butterfly ballot" and replaced the candidates with cartoon characters. They then asked small children which circle to mark to vote for a particular character. Guess what? They figured it out... (and, keep in mind, that ballot was approved by the Democrats, published in the newspaper, and sent to the home of every registered voter prior to the election.)
The people who messed up while using the butterfly ballots were mostly elderly folks with poor eyesight. This makes the 'child test' akin to comparing apples and oranges.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
It is very good that there has finally been a move to end this election dispute. Vice President Gore should concede the election and take a loss. He has lost three times already. The original count, machine recount, and now the hand recount. Three strikes and you're out is a good rule to go by. This has got to end somewhere, Mr. Vice President. The more Gore lets this thing go on, the worst his image will become, no matter how close he is to winning. If a football game is lost by 1 point, it is still lost. So once again, do everyone a favor and concede, you lost fair and square.
With Kathrine Harris's certification of George W. Bush as the winner of the Florida presidential election, anything that Al Gore, Jr. does from here on out will be a blatent attempt to overturn, and yes 'steal', the election.
Al Gore and the Democrats have given it the old college try, but now they are done.
The election is over, so now we can focus on more important matters, such as investigating the backgrounds of Republican Electoral College voters for anything that could be used to blackmail them into changing their votes.
---
Interested in the Colorado Lottery?
Interested in the Colorado Lottery or Powerball games?
check out http://colotto.com
No, of course not.
It's just he doesn't want to assign failable humans with his narrow advantage.
What was his motto again: "We trust people"?
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Actually, Gore et al. didn't challenged any of the oversea ballots in court for the same reasons you noted, although they could.
Standard disclaimer: IANAA
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is why anyone should give a damn about small population states.
Sonet writes:
they wouldn't bother with legislation for them when it came time to, either.
Absolutely. Legislation for major cities, industrial interests, etc. would be dominant. Consideration for boring things like agriculture would be set aside ("What do you mean ag subsidy? Screw the farmers, we'll get our food at the supermarket!")
Not only would you have a large portion of the nation (geographically) taxed without representation (their vote would always be cancelled out), but you'd have substantial ignorance of "critical but not relevant to all parties" issues as well (e.g. look at who is for killing the ethanol subsidy).
In all, it's a great receipe for disaster, and the nation already had one civil war over lesser differences in perspective and representation.
Could it be possible that the founding fathers knew more than Gore attorney David Boies?
I wish I had the URL, but there's a great resource out there of many of the strange, incorrect, and downright stupid things W has said publicly. A couple of my favorites:
- "I know it's hard for you to put food on your family."
- (I'm paraphrasing this one) "I know it's a budget. It's got lots of numbers in it."
I wish I had the URL handy... maybe I can find it...***
what about the clinton presidency didn't you like? any of his policies, or just the other stuff?
i agree with monkeyboy, so what if he cheated on his wife? i have enormous respect for the way clinton has modernized the white house, running it more like a business, allowing at least the executive brance of government to run more efficiently. he's done a great job of not screwing up the economy while at the same time putting a little bite back into some of the labor and environmental protections reagen did away with. as far as his personal life, the way i see it, he got what he wanted, so it's easy to ignore his love life. what i really wanted to know is what policy issues people have with him.
I'm more worried about the hundreds of invalid Republican ballots that came in and got "corrected" to make them valid. You want to complain about mailin ballots, take a look at that instead.
Evan Reynolds evanthx@hotmail.com
Evan Reynolds evanthx@hotmail.com
Two peanuts crossed the street. One was assaulted.
it could be sig11 incognito
-tard
void recount()
{
while (time() sunday_deadline + whenever)
{
if(vote(ballot) == gore)
gore++;
else if (vote(ballot) == bush)
bush++;
else if (vote(ballot) == dimpled)
{
stare_real_hard();
gore++;
}
else
add_to_stack(ballot);
}
--
The shareholder is always right.
There's not supposed to be *any* margin of error in the actual vote.
Nice concept, but not very realistic. Unfortunately, people make mistakes. Some people will fail to follow directions, others will mistakenly punch the wrong hole or fill in the wrong circle. That's just the error in the voting process. There's also the errors in counting the votes. The manual recounts in Florida did show that even if a hole is properly punched, the chad can hang on and end up blocking the hole again. This happened in very few cases, and there's a reasonable chance that the recount ended up less accurate than the original count. Many of the elections workers are older retired people. There eyesight may not be that good, eyestrain has to play a considerable factor after hours of looking at little chads to see if not all the corners are really connected. When you start counting dimples, the margin of error goes up even higher.
Regardless of who wins in the end, one of the first acts should be to pass legislation for a new, modern vote system verifyable by some kind of encryption key to preserve anonymity.
You have to remember that there's a large percentage of the voting public who is not that comfortable with technology. If you think the "digital divide" is a big thing in the media now, think about the Rev. Jesse Jackson protesting that America's less fortunate are being disinfranchised. The other problem is that a lot of the people working at the polling places are often older, retired people. Many of them aren't going to like the change themselves, and they aren't that likely to help reduce the fears of the voters.
The vote could be ammended anonymously online via SSL or in a private booth at the local courthouse.
As someone else mentioned, you can't let people change their vote after the fact. There's also the problem of people forgetting their private key. There will also be the problem of who keeps the list of the public keys, and the chances for fraud through their use still exists.
"Gore has lost 3 and sometimes 4 counts of the ballots, including ones in the BEST possible bias towards him. He has clearly lost."
Wait just one damn second here...
This is the same crap that Republicans all over this country are spewing.
Gore has in no way CLEARLY lost. I do not call 500-some-odd votes clear in any definition of the word.
Moreover, Miami-Dade did NOT complete it's full hand recount. Gore has not "lost" any hand count there and they have not done either 3 or 4 counts there.
Let's get the facts straight before we all follow W's lead and make declarations and accusations that distort the truth of the matter.
nlh
Ferrari and other exotic car rentals in New York
"The only striking thing I see is that Gore refuses to give up. One recount is fine, two is pushing it, but more than that is just a waste of time.
Give up, Gore. You lost (barely, though). If you stop being an ass about it, maybe someone'll vote for you in 2004."
I'm going to reply to every one of these posts until people stop spewing this false rederic and start facing reality:
Gore is not wasting time. He did not "lose multiple recounts" because no complete recount has been made yet. Just because the state certifies something doesn't mean it's the actual result.
When every vote in every county has been fully evaluated and categorized in one way or another, then you can say who the winner and who the loser is.
Impatience is no excuse for inaccuracy.
nlh
Ferrari and other exotic car rentals in New York
Gore need to hire Johnnie Cochrane to do one of his clever rhymes....
"If the chad is fat, the vote's democrat"
actually, each individual member of the electoral college can vote for whoever the hell they want, its not really up to the state, or at least it wasn't intended to be, some states require thier electoral votes to go the way of the voter's intent.
Uh..., have you always felt this persecuted? Really, if you feel that threatened by people expressing their opinions, you might want to get some professional help.
Gore has a right to ask for manual recounts under Florda law
... and ... and
Yes, and the law says ALL the votes in a county must be hand-counted, not just a portion (or "contested ballots") to be valid. That's why 2 counties couldn't make the deadline. The law also doesn't specify any standards for counting, thus we had democrats changing the standards several times during the counting process.
Gore offered recounts in all counties
Gore doesn't have the authority to "offer" anything of the sort.
Of the recounts he wanted the only one was finished, two more where cut short due to time constraints (Yeah, we like democracy, but we really need to hurry to get Bush in office in January now).
And of course, you're conveniently forgetting who set the deadline of Sunday at 5pm.
The Democratic counties use older, more faulty machinery
Ummmmm, huh?
and
and?
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
Actually, in order I see Teddy Rosevelt, Clinton, Nixon. The republicans will never see it because there is just so much hatred built up for Clinton, but he really is a great one.
Doesn't the senate serve that purpose quite well? As far as I understand the system, every state gets the same amount of senators (2) in the senate. That means that when legislation reaches the senate, those small rural states could possibly group together and block it(theoretically).
Straight popular vote would be a good idea. You'd have a president elected by the universal vote, a congress elected by county and a senate elected by state.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"After Careful Consideration, Bush Recommends Oil Drilling" - The Onion
You have had a FAIR count. Al Gump has just been allowed to play dirty and politicize the happenings. He is afraid since hillary has said she would like to run for Fuhr in 2004 and she would beat him like a woman. Plus Clinton/Gore type democrats are criminals who need to be executed.
I mean, doesn't that sound a little ridiculous to you?
Not nearly as silly as Al Gump saying he would concede the election once the votes had been certified. He said this on the 17th and three days later Lieberman said the same.
You forgot to insert the words "hand" or manual" in front of recount[s]. This is much more prone to error than machines. Redirection my ass. I corrected his all counties bit. Troll elsewhere you mindless criminal democrat.
agreed. But hillary has the love of the media and all those feminist groups. The mob rules unfortunately.
You're half right there. Its in the Florida state statute where an automatic recount must be done if its less than 1/2% margin between candidates. He asked for extentions; he was given tripple the amount of time on the books. Yet its still not fair?
Gore offered recounts in all counties.
No he didn't. He only asked for recounts in heavily democratic counties: West Palm Beach, Broward, and Volusia. Each recount was done by error prone humans reading machine-like ballots. Humans dealing with this kind of volume is bound to favor him.
Manual recounts also occurred in Republican counties.
See above.
Gore was given almost triple the amount of time that he is required by law, and he still lost.
Lieberman wasn't announcing anything meaningful. What he had to say was known. He whined like a school girl. Meaningless rhetoric and discourse was all he spewed. Gore and Lieberman need to be kept to their words of conceding. What liars.
Gore needs to stop going to the courts as a backdoor into the white house. His actions may be declared legal by the courts settings a ouija board presedence though. Don't forget, Lieberman was the backer of many censorship bills as was Gump.
"The Accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." - James Madison, Federalist 47
He did, but he only asked for ones in the largely democratic counties which favor him. Its like being a "cafeteria christian" and picking out only the parts of a religion you like.
Why didn't bush ask for a manual recount of other counties didn't he have that right?
There was no need. He won Constitutionally. Gore is trying to Clinton his way into office. Concentration camps were legal under Nazi rule. But this isn't a legal issue, its of the Constitutional ilk.
The democrats were given TWELVE days for the recount while only FIVE were MANDATORY. This ruling was done by the Ouija Board ruling by the Florida State Supreme Court.
If you're down by a few points in a baseball game, you can't extend it into extra innings. There are rules to be followed. Even if you felt that the umpire made a bad call (although instant reply shows it to be a good call) you can't keep playing more and more innings until you are up by one then say its now fair. It's childish games six year olds play.
I thought Bush "trusted people" did he really mean that he trusted machines?
He does. I wouldn't trust ANYONE to count ballots other than an unbiased machine. People are exponentially more prone to error plus that whole bias thing comes into play.
HA! Judges are just the biggest schiksters of them all! You sir, are a fuck-twit. Oh and I'm not a republican, I'm an independant you 15 year old pimple faced troll. You didn't vote so suck on that.
You talk about a coup? What Gump is doing is a coup. Hillary is a criminal btw. I still wonder why only the clintons weren't indicted over whitewater.
A great number of states don't count absentee ballots at all unless the they could change the winner. I heard an estimate that 2 million ballots wouldn't be counted for this reason. If the pattern of 70% going for Bush held then he would be the popular vote winner as well.
"But hopefully this is the end of the issue on Slashdot."
No one ever made you post about this. You control your editorial policies. You could have left it alone.
You made this an issue on Slashdot, and you can stop it anytime you wish to.
sigh. you can buy your way in an out of both harvard and yale, if you have money or power, and guess who had both! and i can't attack the 50,000,000 [idiots] without overgeneralizing [how could they be so dumb]. the wrong people voted for him, too. his tax plan is marginally better for the poor than gore's. anyway, our country scores so low on cognative abilities tests that a turnip could have voted more logically then 50,000,000 people.
Why is it that people try to focus on W's perceived lack of intelligence? I would prefer to have a smart person be president who surrounds himself with some of the most brilliant people in the world, than someone who claims to be brilliant, but obviously is too dumb to realize he lost. Look at the brilliant minds Bush Sr had around him. People like Powell, Cheney, Greenspan, Baker.
Even under Gore's rules, with the terribly unfair recounts in three democratic counties, Bush still won. Do you honestly think this guy, who can't admit he lost, should be president?
The only rhetoric I see here is liberal rhetoric. If you are going to complain about partisan agendas you might want to go at it from a less hypocritical method.
;)
And David Boies scares me more than Pat Buchanen and Ralph Nader combined.
RevT
proud Florida Browne voter
The EC is what I like to think of as a trade-off. Just like the senate and house give power to the less populous states, but not too much.
Instead of a pure 1 state 1 vote electoral college we have a proportional system. I don't see you complaining because Iowa has more representation in the Senate per person.
I agree that it stinks, but I dont see a better way to strike a balance between the cities and more rural areas.
And i'm sure that is a completely balanced and fair quote from a non-partisan lawyer.
Sarcasm aside, Whether or not Bush/Gore was intellectually lazy in college (I am guilty as charged on that count) is irrelevant.
They could have graduated from MIT with honors and it wouldnt matter; my original point would remain the same: just because Bush (OR Gore for you repubs) has a different ideology from you _doesnt_ mean you have to make unsupported and idiotic claims about them.
If you are going to dig up early characterizations of the candidates why not give equal time; remember when Al Gore had a 90% rating from the NRA in the 80's?
RevT
proud Florida Browne voter
Are you serious? Please do some reading so you know what is actually happening in Florida. I think these articles are pretty interesting maybe you should check them out and broaden your mind:
Winning by intimidation
Patriot missile
Raising the Stakes
You are kidding right? You suggest to do some reading to broaden the mind and you give three opinion pieces to read? To suggest for someone to do some reading and broaden their mind is to suggest that they study the situation for themselves, not read name calling diatribe and consider it fact.
You ever heard of Al Gore, Sr.? If you want to preach on with your fear of the wealthy and successful, let's not forget how much nepotism shaped Gore's life and political career. Unless you're a Nader voter, in which case I would like to ask what illegal drugs you are smoking? Probably sharing 3 dollar crack with the moderators.
Or you could do what Lybian leader Col. Moammar Gadhaffi suggests: "For U.S. to avoid a civil war, power should be split between the presidential candidates," he said. "In case Bush wins, Al Gore could be his deputy and vice-versa."
--
<sigh>
> Democrats are known cheaters when it comes to elections.
That's right -- why would anyone vote for a Democrat? I've also heard that they kick puppies whenever they get the chance, too!
Don't you think a blatant generalization like that is what sustains this horrible partianship in our country? The idea of breaking the country into "us" and "them" and damn everyone on the other side?
> It is well known that there was considerable fraud in the Kennedy-Nixon
> race. The biggest incidence was in Chicago, where ballot boxes were
> stuffed with Kennedy votes. Nixon just didn't pout about it.
It's this sort of apocryphal storytelling that hurts politics today -- this idea that if you say something enough times, it becomes true.
;, Nixon did contest the votes, although he did publically concede. The votes in Chicago were close, but by more than 5,000, not a few hundred like in today's case. And after the recount, it was found that Nixon still lost. The Republicans took the matter to court and, according to the article, "A slew of lawsuits were filed by Republicans, and unsuccessful appeals to state election commissions routinely followed. However, all their efforts failed to uncover any significant wrongdoing."
According to an article in Salon
That last part is crucial, but I'm sure we'll continue to hear the story of the "stolen election" despite of any court findings.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
> it was thought that Bush may win the popular vote, but Gore win the
> electoral vote. Gore didn't complain about that possibility. Now we come
> to the interesting proposition that Gore may have won the popular vote
> but lost the electoral vote. Now (gasp!) Gore doesn't think that the
> electoral system is fair.
Yes, and the Republicans were ready to protest that possibility: Republican Representative Ray LaHood introduced a resolution to abolish the Electoral College back when it looked like the reverse. So the politics go both ways.
But Gore did explicately state that he wanted no electoral votes to be "unfaithful", so I don't think he's against the system; he's just asking for a full count of the votes.
There's still the issue of some 10,000 uncounted ballots in Miami Beach County that couldn't be counted due to the time constraints. Not questionable, may-not-be-filled-out-legally ballots -- but ballots that people filled out but were not read by the machines. I'm having a hard time believing the excuse that people chose not to vote for president. Most people vote for president and forget about the lesser offices because they're not interested. I find it hard to believe the reverse wouldn't happen. So it makes sense to actually count the votes (with representatives from both organizations there), rather than explain them away.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
CmdrTaco has more documented proof of his lettuce-head-ness with his rotten grammar and poor spelling than Bush will be able to amass in a lifetime. Indeed, if George W. Bush and old Dan Quayle were melded into the one supreme dunce that they are painted to be, they would still not be able to spin more horrid prose more quickly than CmdrTaco and his ilk.
The sad thing is this parent wasn't moderated up.
/. universe, if the people with moderation power opt to *NOT* post stories about the election, guess what? They stop existing in the /. universe.
Yes, the selection of the US President *DOES* matter on this small ball of dirt rotating around a disreguarded yellow sun, in teh unfashionable end of the western spiral arm.
However in the
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
I don't think anybody claimed Bush wouldn't do this. Maybe it's a flaw in all (and i say all only because you say "any") politicians. Point taken but irrelevant.
This election we had a choice between a scum of the earth liar and an idiot that hasn't even mastered the English language (listen to his speeches, he can't even use the verbs of being correctly 90% of the time).
Good thing you didn't run for president. You aren't much better, though admittedly, you didn't claim to be.
I agree with you that no matter who is elected, LOTS of people are going to be unhappy. Where are you getting this info on our economy being due for a decline though? That sounds like some fairly heavy extrapolation to me. Guess we'll have to see though. Do you have any links with statistics of our nation that imply this? Maybe I should move soon :)
B1ood
Note to self: pasty-skinned programmers ought not stand in the Mojave desert for multiple hours. -- John Carmack
But, somehow, evaluation of others decision-making performance is easier than making those decisions directly... Oh, wait. =)
What this poster says is true. But, ignoring the wierd quantization which was clearly meant to give even states with low populations a baseline amount of power (the US has some wierd characteristics as far as federal unions go... =), the intent appears to be that each citizen should have equal representation. I was attempting to respond to the "schoolyard" comment. Although I could write a building-sized tome on why parliamentary democracy is really nasty, at least Canada has good supreme court precedents about vote equality and electoral riding size parity. I don't really know why the founding non-gender-specific-parent-figures [ =) ] had in mind with the whole #electors = #senators + #representatives thing.
Yeah, but having the popular votes for a state go one way or the other as a block isn't a requirement for good segmentation of the vote. A simple quantization of a state's percentage vote to electoral vote numbers should suffice.
"We can't have 5% of the nation dictating who will rule over the other 95% of the land."
I thought you were arguing _against_ a popular vote. But this suggests that you support the 1 person = 1 vote concept. (Unless those percentages you're quoting are land mass and not population... In which case, I'd suggest that you look up "democracy" in an encyclopaedia some time. =)
"Think of what it was like on the schoolyard and how popularity ruled all. You want that shit running the nation?"
This confirms that the poster doesn't have a clue.
I'll tack this on, because some people don't realize that the post I was replying to was a troll (or that the poster was at least hopelessly clueless).
Electoral votes are allocated to each state based on the population of that state, people. I don't know how you can a) be a US citizen and b) not know this. Did you spend all of your high school civics classes out smoking pot somewhere or something? =)
Heck... I learned it, and I'm not even in the US.
Who are you to say the country should be run a certain way? Are you really that arrogant? So what if "the hicks won" the election. It's their country, too. Are city-dwelling "tech-minded" people the only ones suitable for making decisions that will affect everybody's lives? No, thanks, count me out of your proposed metropolarchy.
Constitutionally Correct
Here are several other Slash news sites that I check in to at least semi-regularly:
For most of my needs, these are sufficient. At least until I get my own political Slash board running.
Constitutionally Correct
Iowan speaking here: Screw you, California freak-boy. We won't be ruled by you and the crazy ideas you share with the New Yorkers. The president is President of the United States, not of the united peoples. That's why we have the electoral college, to ensure that the president gets support from a wide range of Americans. Wide range != two cities on opposite coasts, understand? As your parent posters said, "The EC is a fair system, 4 major cities should not be able to determine the election."
Constitutionally Correct
Yes, EC votes should be doled out by district, as in Nebraska. Appeal to your state congressmen for change, because the state is in charge of how EC votes are handled.
Districting is good, but the districts need to be a "good" size. Direct popular voting (district the size of yourself) is bad, because it makes your district the size of the whole country.
Why is districting good? Because it makes everyone's vote mean more. You have more chance of being the "deciding vote" - at least for your district. Even if your candidate loses, you show up as a blip on the map rather than swamped amongst the other 300 million (?) Americans.
We need the EC as a way to fairly represent the interests of all America (as opposed to people in the five largest cities), but we need to get rid of the "winner takes all" system in 48 more states. I'm going to be writing my congressmen this week.
Constitutionally Correct
That's not my point though, my point is that if the democrats believed that everyone must be counted, then they themselves should have demanded recounts in all counties... to hell with what the republicans think. But, instead they showed their hypocracy in demanding recounts in only their conties and left the others alone. Here and they say that they want every vote counted. They don't want every vote counted, the only want every good, democratic vote counted.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
The democrats say. I wonder, if the democrats are so ideological in this argument, then why don't they demand that every county in florida be recounted? And don't say, 'because the republicans didn't agree to.' If the democrats demand that every vote be hand recounted, they should demand that every county be hand recounted, regardless if the republicans go along with them or not. Instead they demand that only votes in heavily democratic counties be counted... I guess only democratic americans deserve to have their ballots scrutinized.
A reminder: Gore said last week that he would consider tonight's certification conclusive and would not contest it.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
It's not necessarily completely over and done with. Let's assume all of Gore's legal attempts fail (which they will). All that means is that the choice of electors voting will favor Bush. You could have a case of rogue electors (electors voting contrary to how the state went). The electors are not bound to vote for who won the popular vote in the state (I know this is true in many cases, I can't remember if it's universal though). I heard somewhere that the experts wouldn't be surprised if some electors from states that went to Bush voted for Gore.
"If you give a man a fire he's warm for a day, but if you set him on fire he's warm for the rest of his life."
I love how Gore's being painted as a horrible villian in all this. Can you honestly say any politician would act any differently given the circumstances? No, you cannot. If the situation were reversed Bush would do the exact same thing. This election we had a choice between a scum of the earth liar and an idiot that hasn't even mastered the English language (listen to his speeches, he can't even use the verbs of being correctly 90% of the time). Either way half the country will hate them, the economy's due for a downturn anyway, whoever's in office will take the blame, and that person won't get re-elected, thank God.
"If you give a man a fire he's warm for a day, but if you set him on fire he's warm for the rest of his life."
You're right. I never claimed to be better, but I'd like to see how an English professor would grade Bush's speeches (I've never had any problems). As for the economy, the economy tends to follow a cycle. If you look at the cycle and apply it to the U.S. economy, we're about due for at least a minor downturn. I've heard it from economists (give me a little time and I'll find specific sources) and my father. Why do I cite my father, you ask? He works at the corporate level for a company. A company that has been preparing for a slide in the economy.
"If you give a man a fire he's warm for a day, but if you set him on fire he's warm for the rest of his life."
I can't remember where I heard this quote, but it sums up how I feel about the candidates. "Evertime Al Gore speaks, part of me falls into a deep slumber. Everytime George W. Bush speaks, a part of me dies."
"If you give a man a fire he's warm for a day, but if you set him on fire he's warm for the rest of his life."
As everyone who's taken them knows, the SAT can in no way be used as a measure of intelligence. Basically your point about the SAT is inconsequential. Bush is a charismatic. I found myself liking the guy even though I disagree with most of what he stands for. That doesn't qualify him to run the country. You accuse Gore of lacking Bush's intelligence. By your logic, that means you are lacking it upstairs as well. If you're going to make a generalization like that, it must be applied to both sides.
"If you give a man a fire he's warm for a day, but if you set him on fire he's warm for the rest of his life."
Interesting. He dislikes Bush, so he must be a liberal. I was not aware of that fact. All this time I thought I was a moderate, but according to you I must be a liberal. Almost 50,000,000 disagree with you and your views. What's your damn point exactly?
"If you give a man a fire he's warm for a day, but if you set him on fire he's warm for the rest of his life."
First, thanks for that metric system comment, as a German who has spent some time in the States before I can relate to that and have to say that frenchman is absolutely right :))
:)
As to the "well-educated" etc. part: here's the way I see it:
Assume you are the boss of some company seeking a specialized employee for some purpose. Your search narrows down to two candidates for the job. You check their resumees. One of them is quite a charismatic and friendly-looking guy. Unfortunately he has proven himself to lack some of the in-depth knowledge that is needed for the job. The other guy to you seems kind of boring, a little too serious. His resumee shows, though, that for eight years he has been working as a specialist in just the area you need him in, and he display profound knowledge and _experience_ for the job. OK, he doesn't seem as nice a person. Here's the million dollar question? Which one will be employed?
Hmm, maybe the answer to this question has something to do with whether the boss is a geek or a marketing guy
I see two ways to solve this matter.
1. Throw out the whole election and redo it with different candidates. If you can't get more than 50% than you suck and shouldn't be president.
2. (this one is the best) Put Bush and Gore in a boxing ring. Give each one a gigantic club. Let them proceed to beat eachother to a pulp. Whoever is left standing gets to be president. This is the only fair way to do it with such a close election. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!
I mean, it's not like who we elect has any bearing on reality. They're all the same.
Uhhh...
Theodore Roosevelt starts the acquisition of huge tracts of wilderness for the American people to enjoy as national parks.
Abraham Lincoln wages war against the South to maintain the integrity of the Union.
John F. Kennedy puts the nation on course to the moon.
Harry Truman initiates the Marshall Plan, to rebuild Europe after World War II.
Woodrow Wilson throws the US into World War I, a war that most Americans thought had nothing to do with them.
George Bush embarks on a crusade against Saddam Hussein, creating the largest multinational force since World War II, and committing tremendous resources to throwing Hussein out of Kuwait.
Do you mean to tell me that all of those instances were fated to happen, regardless of who was president? Take off your Cycnical Bored Smarter-Than-You Glasses and look at the world as it is. Individuals, be they politicians or voters, are too complex to be reduced to means and averages.
If you think there's nothing gained by voting, then by all means, don't vote. It makes my vote that much more powerful.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It's up to the voters of the United States to decide, and the voters have spoken. Just because Florida had problems counting the ballots doesn't mean that voters in Florida abdicated responsibility for the election to the candidates themselves.
I disagree with the view that nobody *wants* either of the candidates. The vigorousness of the campaign and the intensity of emotion, particularly from Republicans who have an axe to grind with Gore because of his part in the Clinton administration, indicates to me that there was a clear choice to many people.
The fact that the nation was divided down the middle about it doesn't mean that there weren't strong feelings on both sides, it means that there is a cultural schism in this country that is widening rather than narrowing.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
There is a tremendous rejection rate from the machines (I heard around 5%). That's 5% of ballots that are NOT counted by these machines. Some of those are for Bush, some for Gore. But if you can hold a ballot, look at it and see that the chad is detached at two corners, it's a frigging vote.
This "dimpled" and "pregnant" chad crap is wordage designed to hide the fact that the vast majority of these uncounted votes are quite easily interpreted by a person, although not by the machine. There are a _very_ small number of votes that are actually subject to judgement.
The only design error I see with our machines, it that the candidates names are aligned right, and the corresponding buttons are aligned left in the colunm, so the corresponding buttons are actually nearer a completely different candidate. Apart from that, little can go wrong. The only malfeasance we've had since were small extreme right wing groups solliciting votes and voting cards from gullible elderly people. And some recounts in very close, small villages still voting by paper ballot.
Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
I seriously hope you're joking.
what happens if Gore refuses to certify the winner?
Here's what bothers me:
Do you know anyone, anyone at all that has any bit of respect for Clinton?
To me, if you clearly can't handle your personal life in a dignified manner, then you have no business running our country.
"Say no more..." - Monty Python
the country really needs to be run by the people who exist in the information age, not the agrigatian age.
We got som' a dem horseless carriages last year! Yee haw! I get up to 15 mph in my Edsel!
Heh. OK, now reality: I get over 2 Mbps on my cable modem here in the deep south. There are dozens of dot-com companies ( Kryotech ring a bell?) and ISPs in this solid-Bush Southern state. I work at one. Info-geeks and agrarians live here together in harmony, which is a Good Thing. No farmers, no food.
They say the country is split down the middle. Should we SECEDE ?
DIXIENET.ORG
I too have been irritated by CmdrTaco's childish anti-Bush ranting. I already blocked JonKatz. Maybe I should block Taco too. Sun Tzu, you should block every editor, which would be like voting for "none of the above". That would be a better protest. On second thought, I seriously doubt they would ever notice.
A big Slashdot link has been prominently displayed on my website with adoring praise for /. You have to admit, there is tons of interesting stuff here. But is it time for principled Slashdotters to delete their /. links? Have a "Burn All Slashdot Ads Day"? I have a love/hate relationship with /. Love the techie stuff, hate the atheistic communist agenda.
What to do..
I agree with you about the ballot design. The design for Canada's election ballots has remianed unchanged for most of the 20th century. It's boring, uncreative and extremely clear. Name on the left, a white circle on a blank background on the right where you put your X.
But it doesn't have to be an X. That's the recommended mark, but you can put a check mark or a dot or a caricature of John Diefenbaker in that white circle and it still counts. It's the voter's intent that's important.
I think making the X the only legal mark is crapricious. What's so special about an X?
JohnnyB - johnbowman.net
JohnnyB - johnbowman.net
Why are most of the optical counting machines in Florida in Republican areas, where the shitty old punchcard systems are in place in Democratic strongholds?
It is at the most local level (city, county, etc.) that voting equipment is procured and maintained.
Therefore, if the "shitty old punchcard systems" are really only in use in Democratic strongholds, I suppose it is the Democrats that you must blame.
hahaha, nice :)
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
There is no such thing as a "mandate of the people". Such a thing is something made up by the victor in order to assuage the people they are about (or in this case, continue) to rob blind.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
The winner will be known, Like Hayes, as "His Fraudulence".
NPR tells me his Fraudulence will be George W. Bush.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
This comes a bit late in that thread, but anyway ...
Can anybody explain to me, why the US relies on a machine count in the first way? I vulonteered to count votes in the last election of our Chancelor (Germany, 1998), when I was 18 years old. It was not that hard.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
How long before the US starts criticising some other country's electoral process, again? :-)
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
What are the politics of the Florida Electors?
Can they vote as they like, i.e. is the Florida vote binding upon them?
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Al Gore and George Bush argue the certified results before the courts. This is a transcript of what was said in the courtroom.
Gore: I invented the Internet, therefore I should be President, based on that fact alone.
Bush: You major-league @$$hole. Why should you be President when your boss can't keep a tight seal on a blow job he got from that slutty intern?
Gore: I can code. (turns on computer, which contains this comment posted at Slashdot.org, and proceeds to execute the program). Uh, I thought this was write once, run anywhere.
Bush (laughing hysterically): No wonder why Floridians like me. They can't stand a geek wannabe. I knew you plagiarized that code off of Slashdot.
Judge's ruling (displayed in a message box on a PC running Linux): Litigation fault: Gore dumped.
In the past everyone in the european world knew, not believed, knew that the world was flat. Were they wrong? Yes, but they believed themselves to be right. If they had stated that the world was round then they would have been "wrong" according to their time and the beliefs of everyone around them. I'm not saying that the fifty million people that voted for Bush are wrong. He might in fact be a great president. I'm just saying that it is possible that even fifty million people can be wrong.
On the dropping out of college thing. College doesn't stand for as much as it used to. People don't go to college and are still making over $60,000 a year. Bill Gates also dropped out of college and he's the richest man in the world. College is a place to learn, but only if the teachers have something worth learning.
Also. People have a right to express their views, even if someone else thinks they're wrong. It doesn't matter if that someone is one person or fifty million. If you don't agree, fine, state your view but do not suggest that they add something that would only be of use to one person.
And direct democracy, as mentioned elsewhere, is a really BAD idea. Then we'd really have a "mediacracy" (mediocracy?) as the Media dictated the outcome of specific votes. Very soon nobody would care. A country, especially as large a country as the U.S., is a hugely complex system, and has to be. If everyone had to know all issues to live in it and exercise their democratic right it would be a bit like every user of a OS having to understand everything about the OS, and taking part in arbiting process time slice allocation. We would simply have less users, and then we'd ultimatly have NO democracy as a information overload led to apathy.
A bad idea indeed.
-
-
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Concur - my son starting work two years ago and is already making almost 60K working on a factory floor. And he ain't [sic] rich.
But hopefully this is the end of the issue on Slashdot.
This, at least, explains /.'s refusal to run valid stories that connect to the Canadian federal election, such as the Canadian Alliance's attempts to shut down parody pages. The Americans have becomed tired of it, so everyone else is expected to forget about politics as well.
Luckily the vote was not on Slashdot otherwise instead of the Bush and Gore camps we would have the country divided over CmdrTaco and Cowboy Neal. We would all have avoided the first three options of Bush, Gore and Nader and there would be legions of Lawyers discussing script-kiddies stuffing the ballot boxes ;-)
I love stuff like this.
Here is a little game for you to try out. Take the above essay and replace every reference to Bush and replace it with Clinton, and Gore and you will see how nicely the story fits.
-- George
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
Oh this is hilarious! You must read the whole thing...
:)
My favorite lines:
Bush:
I'm just a rich boy, I need no sympathy...
Gore:
I see a little silhouetto of a chad...
Rock on politicos
-sk7
"a powerful and unexpected ally..."
Actually, considering Reagan's worsening Alzheimer's Disease, it's quite likely that he was being truthful and really didn't remember much of what he had done.
The Florida Supreme court's ruling was two pronged. It wanted to both the extend the deadline for certification and to allow time for votes to be recounted, but also it wanted to set the deadline early enough to allow for Contests afterwards (as dictated by Florida law). The Gore camp has a three item list of things it plans to protest. So whoever posted this story is largely mis-informed. This does not indicate the end of the fight for the election, it represents the half-way mark. This will absolutely not be over until all the electors have cast their ballots.
I had enough of this crap. A last we can see the real face of our beloved system, it was all a farce played by corrupted polititians. We should be ashamed of being americans, the land of the free, my ass...
Just because Gore won by that large of a margin in NYC is no evidence that the Electoral College is more fair. One city can and always will be able to choose the president. In the case of Florida, the vote could have made the whole election go either way in a large city such as Miami. It is just a situation that you can't avoid, popular or electoral.
I will grant the idea behind what you are saying: that the Electoral College buffers the influence of simply campaining strongly in one area, or a few areas. But ultimately, either system [popular or electoral] is flawed in that they are both subject to abuse. Remember, all a candidate really needs is a weak plurality in 12 states to win the election under the electoral system.
All they need is a strong majority in surprisingly few to win with strong third parties in a popular vote. A common example is the idea of a Southern Secessionist party. If they could garner 80% or more of the vote in the South with high voter turnout, with the rest of the parties evenly divvying the North; in a popular vote, the Secessionists would win handily, and just the South would decide the fate of the nation. That is hardly fair either.
Troll? Come on, Republican drones. If you feel the need to mark down my message from +5 because you can't answer any of my points, at least use the "-1 overrated" button. Marking it as "troll" just makes you look stupid.
Nice try, but you missed the mark. Yes, Texas does have a state wide procedure, and it's more liberal than anything proposed in any county in Florida. In Texas, even "dimpled chads" count, that is, cards where there isn't even penetration of the ballot. Yet in Florida, we're told by Republicans that even votes that are hanging by one corner of a chad don't represent a voter's intent, such is the shamelessness of the Bush campaign. If Florida went by Texas standards, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, and Gore would already be the president-elect.
Second, the main reason that the counties couldn't get their votes in on time were due the delaying tactics of Katherine Harris. She did her job well and no doubt will get a rich reward from Dubya should he succeed in his swindle.
While we're on the topic, care to tell me how she was justified in throwing out the ballots already counted in those counties that missed the deadlines? According to this article from the Washington Post, Gore had picked up 157 votes in Miami and 210 in Palm Beach, which leaves Bush's lead at 120 votes with over 10,000 "undervoted" ballots uninspected. Harris was wise to pull the plug when she did, since it's pretty clear a full recount will give the presidency to Gore.
You dismiss my concerns about the co-chair of the Bush campaign in Florida being the ultimate arbiter of this election as "crap", but you notably leave out any reason for this dismissal. Does the phrase "conflict of interest" not mean anything to you? This is about the most blatant abuse of power I've seen in a long time. Apparently, Republicans want their guy to win so badly that it doesn't bother them. So much for "restoring honor and diginity to the white house".
As for the voting machines, who do you think controls which areas get upgraded first? Here's a hint: it's the state government headed by Bush's little brother.
I assume you're familiar with at least the basics of programming, since you're hanging out here. In particular, I think you probably can parse the word "if". Look closely now, sound it out, I'm sure you can do it.
Really? Is it Gore trying every trick in the book to stop legally mandated recounts, including the threat of physical intimidation? No, that's Bush.
And is it Gore who is threatening to use the legislature to overturn an election if it doesn't go the way he wants? Nope, sorry, that's Bush.
Was it Bush that offered a fair and honorable way out of this morass -- a full hand recount across all of Florida? Nope, that was Gore.
And was it Bush that went on national TV saying that he would not accept the electoral votes of any Republican electors who decided to switch their votes? Oops, sorry again, that was Gore.
Seems to me that before this election Dubya was making a lot of noise about the need for Gore to step down if he only won the electoral vote. Bush promised to "fight on" in such a circumstance. Amazing how flexible Dubya is, eh?
Perhaps you need to reconsider which candidate is the dishonorable scumbag willing to stoop to any low to steal the presidency. (Here's a hint: Bush).
And Nader was the greatest evil of all in this election. I'd sooner see Buchanan president than that son-of-a-bitch.
He repeatedly told the big lie that the two parties were identical, and then he spent his money in swing states, deliberately trying to cripple Gore. If he was a paid operative of the Bush campaign, I don't see how his behaviour would have been any different.
And now, due directly to him and his sheep-like followers, the odds are we'll wind up with a president who believes in voluntary pollution laws, unlimited soft money, breaking the powers of unions whenever possible, and repealing Roe vs. Wade. Quite a legacy for the "Green Party".
I'd rather see issues decided by lawyers than by mobs of shipped-in goons, like the one in Miami that frightened the canvassing board into calling off their hand recount. That single act just might have decided the presidency, yet you have the nerve to accuse the Democrats of dirty tricks that damage faith in "the Constitution, law, and fairness"?
Yep, you're a Republican all right.
You're wrong for two reasons. First, it's not the duty of the Democratic party to request recounts in counties they won. That's the Republicans job. Two, despite that, Gore did indeed offer a state-wide hand recount last week, which Bush immediately rejected. Why? Because he knows he'll lose.
Sure, if everything is recounted and Bush wins, that's exactly what Gore should do. But everything hasn't been recounted. Or did you miss that scene of Republican goons physicially intimidating the Miami canvassing board into calling off their recount last week?
At least Bush was smart enough to not issue them armbands.
Actually I think neither Gore nor Bush are qualified to deal with that matter. Who is, is probably Cheney. He actually got the coaloation together in the Gulf War conflict, a step which requires diplomatic skill. Anyone know a good sniper ;-) (bug off echelon, i'm kidding)
Of course it can!
The president of the United States is a federal election, so why can't the federal government specify how it is carried out. The must be some pretty warped egos in the states themselves to want to make an issue out of something as simple as this.
Find funky gifts
uh, no. It's tommorow!!!! Don't forget to vote
But it does give more power to highly populated provinces, like for instance Quebec and Ottawa.
Ottawa? do you mean Ontario?
The Conservative party got destroyed in the last election, getting only 2 seats
That was 2 elections ago
We're actually fairly close to being a 3 party country. (even though NDP doesnt stand a chance)
the Bloq usually gets quite alot of seats (remember they were the official opposition 2 elections ago). BTW, someone should start the counter-block party, whose sole purpose is to seperate Montreal from Quebec and kick the rest of it out of the country :-)
there is a party that wants solely to get Maraijuanna legalized
Yep, Other notable fringe parties include the communist, socialist, green, and natural Law parties. Oh and then there's the rinocerous (doesn't seem spelled quite right) party.
Fuck off, bitch. Not everyone is American. I'm not, and I'm damned well glad.
Honestly, it was interesting the first... oh... day or so, but now that it's almost ONE MONTH after the fsking election, and you still haven't figured out who the fuck won (mainly because you're still using antiquated voting equipment), it gets a bit tiring.
--
"Give him head?"
ABC News and MSNBC both had the election results seconds after they came out, while CNN languished for years over the "Florida recount looms" front-page story.....
I'm sure I'm not going to be the only one to point this out, but here in Canada, our election will have been called, the campagning will be done, the votes will be counted, and a party will be in power in less time than it's taken the states to interpret their results.
I don't meant to point my finger or blame anyone; I just think it's kinda funny..
"How can we teach our children that every vote counts, if we are not willing to make a good faith effort to count every vote."
-Sen. Joe Lieberman, on the decision of the State Secretary of Florida to use an old, and inaccurate machine count instead of accepting any of the newer hand counts.
Download your mp3s any way you want, and support the artist via FairTunes
I am a Republican, and voted for Bush, so obviously I'm biased.
Tell me about it!
However, I clearly think that if Gore continues to go ahead with his lawyers in front of Democrat judges (who already have rewritten the law, in effect changing the rules of the game after the ball has been put in play), he's going to destroy his party.
I'm not sure of how clearly you think but this sure isn't an example of clarity in though. While the majority of the judges in the Florida supreme court were appointed by the democrats (6 out of 7) the court ruled unanymously in favor of extending the recounts. This means that the republican appointed judge voted for it too.
Bush has also been to court. In fact he was the first one to go to court. He even went to the federal district court in Gergia which is very much a republican leaning district court.
The reson gore has won the majority of the court decissions is that he has much firmer legal ground than Bush and what he is asking for as a general rule is more level headed than what Bush asks for.
I believe that at this point he doesn't stand much of a chance of succeding... Surprisingly, weeks of recounts being done in Democrat counties that voted OVERWEALMINGLY for him, using hand recount rules made and remade on the fly by DEMOCRATS didn't change the results.
This is clearly not true. From one county alone Gore gained over 500 votes placing him within 400 votes of Bush. If the Miami-Dade and Palm Beach recounts were allowed and counted Gore would probably win the election by 600-1000 votes.
Gore going any further proves that Gore thinks more of himself than the country to continue to be the cause of damaging faith in the Constitution, law, and fairness. And he is the SOLE cause of all this. Some day, when less biased historians write of this era will paint this election and Gore's actions as the final chapter of the corrupt Clinton machine.
Are you serious? Please do some reading so you know what is actually happening in Florida. I think these articles are pretty interesting maybe you should check them out and broaden your mind:
Winning by intimidation
Patriot missile
Raising the Stakes
BTW, Gore's lawyer, Boyd, is the lead government lawyer in the Microsoft case, don't know if anyone's mentioned that yet. This shakes my faith in the Reno case against them, IMO, he has damaged his credibility severely by arguing specious cases on Gore's behalf.
BTW, David Boies, Gore's Lawyer, was the lead government lawyer in the M$ case. He left the DOJ months ago. He is Napster's lawyer now. Why would any of this "shake your faith" on what you call "Reno's" case? First of all the M$ case isn't Reno's case. She just happens to be the Attorney General but it isn't as if this is some sort of vendetta that she has embarked upon. There was a findings of fact an M$ didn't come out so well. The judge was not compromised in any way and he still sided with the DOJ. Just because a legal decission isn't what you would like it to be it doesn't mean that the ruling is a bad one.
As a dual citizen, I also voted in the U.S. election and the absentee ballots (yes, there were several) got as large as a bloody poster because they did have a simple "place an X" layout (thankfully the elections board decided it was too much trouble to send one of their bizarre voting machines to each absentee voter).
Needless to say, I am rather looking forward to tonight's simple Canadian federal ballot (the design of which has remained constant for as long as we've had secret ballots)
first off, you argument that america is getting more violent is bogus. if you look at the stats, crime is actually down in the past 20 years, with people ages 18-27 (ballpark) committing signifigantly fewer crimes than back in 1980.
;-)
It would seem that the "violence" you see comes from TV and assumptions made based on the fact that we have so many full-up prisons. The TV crime, i don't know what to tell you...blame it on a media doing anything it can to abate public apathy. The prisons? blame it on a failed drug war. The VAST majority of individuals in prisons are in there for some sort of drug related incident. This is changing...here in Colorado, we just legalized medical marijuana - and posession has been decriminalized. Usually, if you get caught with less than an ounce, the cops will just throw it away.
as far as no national health care is concerned - we don't feel we need it. Remember - what everyone else values is not necessarily what we value. One big thing is that most of us believe government should be as small as possible, so the fact that they haven't stepped into the healthcare ring is applauded by many of us. Plus, we've got social security going - that's a pretty decent suppliment to a pention that many people get at that age. On that, most can afford health-care and what not. BTW - that sense of "responsability" you mention is manifest at least in my family. My uncle and mother are helping my retired grandmother out, and i'll be doing the same with my mom. I could give two shits if the government helps, that's not what i think they're there for (you damned socialist
Bottom line - it's pretty chic to attack the states now-a-days. Hell, most people i know IN the states like to attack it. The reason: every one of them seem to have forgotten to look around every once in a while to realize how good they've got it. Considering the fact that we are in the 99th percentile on a standard of living basis, we're doin' allright.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
A statistically correct prediction of the recount would probably show that neither candidate would gain or lose any substantial amount of votes... but look at the recounted totals in some counties...
Gadsen county, only 15,000 total votes Gore + 170 Bush +17
Martin county 60k total Bush +106 Gore +0
Palm Beach County 325k total, Gore + 787 Bush +105
Pinellas County 400k total, Gore +417 Bush -67
Its amazing... the recount is defying statistical probability! It seems that seemingly bipartisan machines have a tendency to count too many votes for one candidate, and undercount for the other. It takes good ole infallible humans to come to the rescue and recount them by hand, correcting these tricky machines that obviously favor one candidate over another.
If machine recounts are more accurate than hand recounts, why was there a difference of 1400 votes after the second machine recount?
The votes weren't cast in MP3 format genious... you can't play the digitally stored vote millions of times with no loss in quality. The punch cards are made of paper. If you run it through a machine (or human hands for that matter) a number of times you'll wear it down, the count will change as chad falls out, cards get bent, etc. I suppose theoretically we could recount votes until all the ballots were destroyed and no one received a single vote.
If hand recounts are less accurate than machine recounts, why are hand recounts ordered by law in case in dispute in both Florida and Texas, as well as most of the other states?
People make laws. People also make mistakes. The laws might be right or wrong, but in the middle of an election is NOT the time to change or reinterpret them to favor a particular candidate. end of story.
How easy is it to stuff the ballot box when you're in a roomful of extremely partisan observers from the other side?
Guess you didn't watch the CSpan coverage of the recount... saying a ballot which has an ever so slight indention (no puncture) in the vicinty of the Gore chad is a definite vote for Gore and overrulling the GOP rep who challenges this is about the same as stuffing the box.
How can Gore have "clearly lost" the hand recount when the recount wasn't allowed to finish?
Hrmm, the manual recount was partially done in a small number of Democratic stronghold counties, and not surprisingly Gore gained votes... You want a complete recount? Recount them all, in every county, not just the ones handpicked by Democrats to gain votes for Gore.
The rest of your points aren't even worth rebutting...
Well, there's the problem. Those machines you are talking about are the state-approved way of counting said ballots. BOTH sides knew how the elections would be conducted, and yet no one said anything until the results were so close that they fell within the margin of error for the mechanical counters. No matter how unfair you think it is, the election was conducted according to the law, counted according to the law, and certified according to the law. If Gore doesn't like it, he should stop being a child, concede the election and work to change the outdated system.
So we counted some of the votes, and we didn't know who won, and then we counted some of them again, and didn't know who won, and then in two counties we counted all of the votes.
And apart from those two counties, we still don't know who won. And we won't until we count all the votes.
We will never have an accurate count. How else do you explain that after they were done with the hand recount, there was a pile of chads lying on the floor? No, human counting brings even more possiblility for human error and human corruption. You argument sounds suspiciously like the one from the Gore camp... "recount until we get the result we like".
For the record, I would rather not see either of the Republicrats in the oval office; I voted for Harry Browne.
For those of you who're confused right about now, tort reform was an attempt to cap punitive damages someone could get in court, therefore limiting the amount that lawyers could get from any such case, considering they get percentages of any "winnings".
"I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
..and unfortunately, political processes do not follow rules or regular expressions. What you are now witnessing is akin to marketing, not engineering, in that everything has a purpose, but there's no way to precisely predict the outcome (at least not yet). For the Democrats, who now have no chance to maintain, the goal is to damage the Republicans as much as possible. Ordinarily, this would offend the American sense of "fair play", but as we've seen in these events, the Press is no longer "biased" but openly colluding, and with that kind of marketing muscle, you can do *anything*.
...-.-
Has this come to a certified vote?
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
FYI: I did not vote for Bush or Gore, but I did vote.
Both Democrat and Republican parties have left us in this current state, where we have a system of government that cannot even elect its next president. A system of government which only wastes, and hardly ever produces.
In fact, it is not just the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans. All Americans, who are not responsible citizens, are at fault. This country is a republic of united, democratic states!
Our government is like a tree. It will die if its roots are rotted. Our democracy is rotting. We the people should take the blame, for we are the democracy! We are that which is rotting! Too many of us are not responsible voters. That does not necessarily mean punching a ballot correctly. Voting responsibly means voting your educated conscience. I know of too many people who have chosen the "lesser of two evils" in this past election. This is the sign of a corrupt democracy, for the mentioned voters mustn't even have the most basic understanding of the race... far more than two people ran for president, in this recent election. Worse, I have seen even more people claim that voting for someone besides a Democrat or Republican, is "throwing your vote away". This claim is what spreads the corruption of our democracy. It forces our once-upon-a-time democracy into the form of a two party oligopoly, which runs our country.
We the people can stop the rotting of our democracy, and in turn, our nation. In order to save our country, you should vote for the better of the USA, not for the better of your political party, nor your religion, race, nor your own self gain. You should vote, not based on how your friends vote, and not with regards to your parents vote... or anyone else... think for yourself. Make your own decision. Next election, be prepared: go to the library and surf the web, in order to educate yourself on what you need to know about, in order to make the right decision with your vote. If you find yourself reading info on a candidate that seems too good to be true, seek out a different opinion or view - and study that too, understand how that opinion could also be the truth. The weeks before the next election lose sleep, as your mind carefully weighs each choice. Open your mind to other possibilities.
The name of our country says that we are United, for this is what we should strive for. Remember, we do not vote for a particular political party, we vote for the better of the United States of America. We vote for people.
If Lieberman were to win, the Senate would almost certainly be 51-49 in favor of the Republicans, as Lieberman's seat would be filled by appointment by his Republican governor.
If Bush wins, Lieberman would stay in Congress and it would indeed be 50-50, with Cheney as a tie-breaker.
Oh, since you know, when lots of people believe something it has to be true. You know, the world is flat, the moon is made of cheese, bush actually *isn't* an alcoholic pot-smoker that can't speak proper english, etc.
I'm sorry, but Bush has to be the dumbest president to ever campaign for US Office. I really can't in good conscience vote for someone who responded "Strategery" when asked to sum up his campaign in one word.
-- We should kill all the intolerant people in the world.
Hmm. "no complete recount"? I thought that according to Florida's laws an automatic recount had to be made in an election this close. I figured that included all the counties. Wasn't that why their state results were delayed a couple of days (before everyone started sueing for more recounts)?
I think Gore is wasting time, since Bush is leading by a margin less than the margin for error in counting. That would mean that sometimes he will win a recount and sometimes he will lose, dependinding on how big the error rate is (yeah, there shouldn't even be an error rate, but there seems to be one. If there wasn't any errors in counting, why recount?).
I personally think Gore should have won, but if both sides suing to only get recounts that benefit them (note that neither Bush nor Gore want a complete, fair recount of everything, just a recount in a couple of counties), that's a waste of time. Every vote should be "fully evaluated and categorized in one way or another," but the way Bush and Gore are going about doing that in their partial-recount ways is wrong and wasting time getting a flawed result.
I personally think Gore should have won
Let me rephrase that. I voted for Gore, but I don't think we can tell whether Gore should have won or not by the current evidence.
And before anyone brings up Gore's (narrow) win of the popular vote, the Electoral College exists for a very important purpose: to prevent small areas with dense populations to be able to run a tyranny over the rest of the people.
So sparsely populated areas should run a tyranny over more populous cities? I'd say whoever gets the most votes wins, rather than say "you won the vote by a landslide, but since everyone lives in this one city, you can't be president." (Obviously not referring to this election)
That vote map that had Gore winning only in the biggest metro areas was striking.
Yes, it is striking that rural and urban conditions are different and can cause a person to vote differently. IIRC, most Democrats are poorer than most Republicans, and more poor people live in cites than elsewhere, so therfore densely populated areas vote Democrat. I don't see what is so "striking" about that.
The only striking thing I see is that Gore refuses to give up. One recount is fine, two is pushing it, but more than that is just a waste of time.
Give up, Gore. You lost (barely, though). If you stop being an ass about it, maybe someone'll vote for you in 2004.
500 comments in about 2 hours? Slashdot must be getting a ton of money from ad hits from this.
Then Gore's people should drop the 'every vote must count' crap. It's not about counting every vote, it's about winning. And it doesn't matter if both Bush and Gore agree to a state-wide recount at this point, it's not allowed for under Florida law. It was an empty gesture.
I've heard the argument that by challenging the election Gore is damaging the Constitution so many times its made me sick.
The simple fact of the matter is that our voting system simply can *not* handle close elections, and it took this mess to prove it.
When you get down to it, no one *KNOWS* who one. Bush "winning" tonight was just as arbitrary as how many corners a dangling chad needs. It was decided not to allow the recounted votes in, which does make sense since the rules were arbitrary and changed mid-process. However, the machine counts were just as bad, if not worse, that we know.
Throw into the pot that the amount of votes that Buchannan "got" in West Palm Beach was something like 8 standard deviations off what they should have been. If you know what anything about stat that should make you wonder at least a little about how bad the butterfly ballots are.
I'm not for either candidate, I just want a *fair* count, not an arbitrary choice to not count arbitrarily hand counted ballots in favor of arbitrarily machine counted ballots of which nearly 5% were thrown out because confused voters accidentally punched two holes.
I mean, doesn't that sound a little ridiculous to you?
A|Q|U|A
Wow... I'm sorry but you really scare me. There are a number of fair ways to count votes, and simply put, anything based on punching chads is *not* fair due to the fact that there is the possibilty for discrenpency. There has not been a fair count, and there probably never will be, I'm sad to say. When you get down to it *both* parties are full of lying dirty scum, and I really feel bad for anyone who doesn't see that. Anyone who is so far lost on either side really needs to remove their head from the rhetoric and think for themselves.
A|Q|U|A
http://www.illegal-president.com
Please note that the above website can't even spell "minority" right. Perhaps the "MINOTIRY" are being discriminated against for incompetence.
_Adam Poulos;
To be honest, I can't really understand how the matter of presidency that is clearly a federal one is resolved based on at least 50 different statutes and many more different machines/ballots/chads etc. For crying out loud, have a federal voting law that regulates questions like this. Control of government and decentrilisation may be a good thing, but a situation like this doesn't help nobody!
MadEagle
Gore is still contesting this. He was certified the winner but it doesnt mean he will become president. Gore can still win it in the courts.
Also, it exists to quicken elections (or at least, that is one of its effects). Imagine this election, but multiply the confusion and political chaos by 50 (you know, 50 states and all). Of course, the electoral college discourages voting (due to the fact that your vote doesn't count if it isn't for the winner) and discourages third parties (plurality instead of representational voting). Also, Bush was the one who started this whole thing- the recount was started by Florida law, but Republicans have distorted that. Mind you, Gore is not free from guilt either. IMHO, both of these guys should have let the recounts procede without interruption and accepted the results like gentlemen instead of bickering like children. I voted Nader, i have less regrets now than i ever thought i would. Gore and Bush are both showing how much the people (not the powerful) actually mean to them- as soon as the votes are cast they each try to wrangle a victory through lawyering and obscuration.
-Elendale
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Bush was the first one to tamper with the system. He wanted the law to work to his benefit- depsite all his bitching about Gore 'rewriting the law'.
-Elendale
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Former Secretary of State James Baker, III
=
Sorry, I Steal Safer Miami For Jeb; Retake E.C.!
actually, the democratic party only requested recounts in counties they won.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
F i r s t p o s t!!!
Well, I meant to be first post. This slashdot submission form is too complicated. I know you'll all do a recount and get my post as first. If not i'll sue slashdot to have submissions done over so I can get my post in first.
"closure with a President with the qualifications of a head of lettuce is still closure" ============== I've asked numerous democrats to try to explain their rational on this one, but NOT ONE could explain why they thought George W. Bush was doorknob! They just 'well because'. Taco, I wish I could even give you credit of having lettuce up there, but I think that right is being set aside for someone a little smarter than you. What a dork he can be.
A great way of putting it! I hear people say all the time that we should get rid of it, but they don't -really- know why it's there. Thanks for the post.
Gore didn't get 50% +1 of the vote; he got a plurality.
As far as trusting the people, I don't think it's unreasonable to not trust people who are eating "chads" or otherwise handling the ballots, looking for dents, dimples, pregnant, aborted, swinging, hanging or buffeted chads.
I'd like to add to this... if you enjoyed Florida, imagine Bush demanding recounts all over the country, in an attempt to find another 200,000 votes to catch up to Gore. Nader could demand recounts to scrounge up the additional votes to get 5% for his party for matching funds. And I don't think that'd be a good thing, to have Florida at a national level.
Absentee Ballots do get counted. You will see modifications made to the popular vote totals, but you certainly won't see the sort of scrutiny of California, New York, Texas or Illinois as you saw in Florida because in those states, the margins were not close.
Interesting that you mention this. Here in Detroit I'd say the 'Big 3' paid for votes for
Gore. Gore got the Teamster votes. Any big companies with unions voted for Gore. Hell,
the 'Big 3' gave all their employees the day off to make sure they would have no excuse to
go out and vote for Gore.
Whether Gore or Bush wins the legal challenges, no voter will feel confident his vote has been counted anyway. Four years to fix it.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
I've handled over a million punched cards in my college days, and I have never ever encountered a mispunch that was attributable to the punch machine. Until this election, the word "dangling chad" was alien to my vocabulary.
I just can't believe either party approved of the voting machines. In my days, a card punch slammed a rectangular hole in the card, and if it didn't was serviced.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
Wrong yourself. Clinton won a plurality, not a majority.
"hoi polloi" technically already has a definite article, so saying "the hoi polloi" is pretty redundant.
(retreats into ivory tower)
io hymen hymnaee io
io hymen hymnaee
You all seem to be missing the point that we as a nation have had NOTHING of political chaos compared to the kinds which occur in Chile, Argentina, Iran, Russia, &c &c &c. Nobody rioted, nobody looted, and, contrary to The Onion last week, nobody got up and declared themselves dictator. We should all be happy - at least *some* part of the Grand Experiment still works.
io hymen hymnaee io
io hymen hymnaee
. His debating skills seem to revolve around chanting "fuzzy numbers" over and over again.
Don't forget "Worshington".
--
Who cares? By the time the govt (in either party) gets around to decreeing and implementing a remedy...it won't matter. Indeed, MS becoming a big company and the world of the Internet moving so fast that they can't keep up is a good thing.
Aide: Grant drinks too much to command an army. Lincoln: Find out what he drinks and give it to my other generals!
Let the liberals on the west coast and NE have Al Gore. Let the rest of us secede (we have most of the military bases this time :-)) and keep Bush and maybe link up with that new charismatic and conservative president in Mexico.
Given liberal policy on the military, it shouldn't take too long for the rest of us to whip'em!
Army No. Va.
Aide: Grant drinks too much to command an army. Lincoln: Find out what he drinks and give it to my other generals!
We don't have to secede. Bush won. Let's throw them out of the Union and exile Al Gore to that place! They don't want him in Tennessee anyway. Where can we send him? CA, NY? ;-)
Army No. Va.
Aide: Grant drinks too much to command an army. Lincoln: Find out what he drinks and give it to my other generals!
Hate to tell you, pardner, but where I live, $60K is working class, *not* even middle class....houses are >$400K average, etc.... Unless you have good stock options :-). Now I have a Texas background , but live just north of NYC these days.....don't get confused by the "accent" or the handle...I would consider anyone under $200K (including me) to be middle to upper middle class (not rich), at least around here.
Aide: Grant drinks too much to command an army. Lincoln: Find out what he drinks and give it to my other generals!
a well-educated, intelligent, proven person who's been part of the most successful administration for decades
You'd be suprised how many people just hate the clinton-gore administration here in america(I don't consider myself one of those people.) Even those who aren't clinton-haters probably wouldn't consider clinton's the most successful administratio in decades. What country are you from? I'd be interested to hear what the rest of the world thinks about US politics.
I'm so tired of people saying this. Both canidates are working within the system no matter what one side says about the other. The automatic recount was done because florida law says it has to be done in such a close race. The second and manual recount was done because florida law allows a canidate to request such a count. And now florida law allows gore to contest the certification. All of this is being done in accordance with florida law.
Why were many military ballots thrown out? Because florida law says they have to be postmarked or signed by a certain date. That's just the way it is.
Don't get started on the "will of the people." How about the will of all the elderly (we'll just assume that they are elderly) people who mistakenely voted for Buchanan? I know that there had to be at least more votes than bush leads by mistakenenly cast in this way. Look at Buchanan's more than proportianal tally in palm beach county! Yeah I know they're dumb, I agree with that, but in previous elections the democrat was always the second hole on the punch card.
Here are the things that I DO know-
1) We cannot and will never know the exact count in the state of Florida
2)Your right to vote is not an inalienable right- if you break your leg, and are in the hospital which prevents you from voting, then too bad. If you did not spend the time to positively pick your candidate, and poke the correct holes out, then your vote DOESN'T count.
3)The argument that Bush would have done it too is unfounded. Greater men in the past have stepped down in similar circumstances.
4)Breaking one law to maintain another happens all the time. Apparently counting the votes 'exactly' (an impossiblity) is more important than following the deadlines on deciding who won the Florida vote.
5)'Shit Happens' even when you are electing the president. My God, we are just a small speck in the universe!
love is just extroverted narcissism
A "law" is simply a rule made by a small group of humans at one point (and hopefully it represents the view of the vast majority of those whom it affects) - but any law can be changed, and many are. Sometimes its even changed to reflect that majority of opinion.
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Felons can't vote in the US?
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Romaine Bush or Iceberg Gore, does it really matter? Its the Croutton that makes the salad!
I'm not sure you're paying attention to this anymore, but this NY Times article explains with better statistics why there was a problem in the counting of the votes and why, in all likelihood, Al Gore got more votes in Florida than George Bush.
First off, Bush didn't ask for recounts because there was no reason for him to do so. Lots of people here seem to be missing this simple point. Why would someone who won an election ask for a recount? It would be ludicrous.
Given how close the election is and the likelihood that a recount in the Democratic counties would (will?) change the result, don't you think it would have been prudent for Bush to ask for a recount the counties in which he had an advantage? Instead, he decided to ridicule and attempt to discredit the whole concept of manual recounts. Given that he signed a bill in Texas requiring a manual recount in such situations, I find his attitude reprehensible.
As for the manual recounts and failures of counties to finish them, recall that PBC started it's recount the day before Harris' original Nov. 14 deadline. They wasted four or five days! Both PBC and Miam-Dade halted and restarted their recounts at least once, for no apparent reason, though there was some talk of "needing to get permission from the court." I've never understood this point, because it seems to me that the count should be able to go ahead, though certification would require a court ruling. If someone can clarify, I would appreciate it.
It took a day or two to do the original count. Then, the county, by law, was required to do a machine recount taking another couple of days. At that point, PBC indicated they wanted to do a manual recount, but Harris said it was illegal!?!?! The Attorney General said it was ok. They decided that they needed a judge to tell them what they could do. This took another day or so. By then, time was up and Harris said that the votes must be in. I'm not sure about the story with Miami-Dade, but I think it was similar. Also, there were at this time lawsuits by Gore trying to force them to recount, which may have also been a factor in changing opinions on recounts.
Did she actually say this? Honestly, I don't recall.
Yes, she did.
In any event, why was VC able to count its votes continuously, but not PBC? I don't recall hearing anything about VC dragging its tail waiting for a court ruling. PBC and MD have now had almost three weeks to count their votes, including machine and hand recounts. That seems like plenty of time to me.
Each county has a different board which independently makes decisions. The PBC board was perhaps more cautious. Also, I think VC is a smaller county and it took them less time to get the first couple of steps done. (This, incidentally, brings up a different topic: the election deadlines make it practically impossible for a large county to recount votes in time. The county board has to decide contested ballots, so this makes the time it takes proportional to the number of contested ballots, which presumably scales with county size. Also, they are required to be present at the recounts, meaning that when they're in court, no counting can be done.)
In any event, we have now had three vote counts (not even including all military absentee votes!) and Bush still won. What more does Gore want? He has stated he would abide by the recounts. The fact that two counties couldn't get them done by the deadline set by the Democrat-appointed supreme court of Florida is scandalous, but not because Bush won.
Officially, we've only had three recounts in Broward county and maybe a couple of other ones. The absentee votes were only counted once (or twice for a few counties...). Palm Beach's recounts weren't accepted in the final tally. Miami's partial recount didn't either. Nassau, amazingly, decided to take the first count instead of the second (which favored Gore by a net 52 votes). The Florida Supreme Court set the deadline to allow time for contesting the results, which is now happening. Under Florida law, Judges have wide discretion for handling contested elections. I think that before all is said and done, the manual count in Miami will happen. Also, Palm Beach County's results (net 215 votes for Gore) will also be counted. Bush has said he won't contest any counties.
Seriously though, hasn't this dragged on for long enough? It's not even news any more, let alone stuff that matters. :-)
WHAT?! You want it to END? In this Jerry Springer Country? Pshaw! What nonsense! The people *love* it! (Just ask the media. Ca-hing!)
Seriously though, I don't know why people are so insistent on knowing who the next president will be *right now*. People aren't all that interested in the president when he's actually in office. Unless there's some sort of scandal in the works, of course. Hm... Perhaps we're so impatient because we're eager to see who the new female interns will be?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
You see there's a minimum of 3 electors per state (one for each senator and rep, the minimum being 2+1=3, e.g. Wyoming), This gives Wyoming much more say so in the presidential race on a people's-votes-per-elector ratio. In CA, the ratio is far lower. So this inequity compels presidential hopefule, not to IGNORE rural America.
People are ignored all the time in the process of campaigning. The Electoral College is no less guilty of encouraging this behavior itself. Sure -- idealy, the presidential canidates would spend an equal amount of time campaigning in all areas. Our President should exist to best represent the views of ALL people in the United States. But the Electoral college is about balancing out population density vs. landmass -- this makes very little sense. So you live on a farm in the middle of nowhere. Your vote should mean no more and no less than the vote of one person living in a crowded New York apartment! Plus, the Electoral college presents a big obstacle to moving towards superior voting systems, where each person can cast more than one vote. I want to see the EC abolished. The sooner the better.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
9 times in the history of the U.S. electors have changed their vote. thats out of the hundreds of electors *per* election...only 9 (and it's never changed the outcome of an election). so with a very small electoral margin (as there is in this election) it is conceivable that elector swings *could* change the outcome, but that's really not likely. not to mention that knowing the effect it could have, electors are probably sticking even more tightly to the promises they made.
. . .except mine.
That seems to be what folks really think.
Everyone hates lawyers until they need them. Lawyers suck, can you help me with this divorce? Lawyers suck, hey, he stole that from me! Lawyers suck, what does this mean?
Any qualified canidate would have ripped Bush *or* Gore to bits (provided they had the support of a major party.) What a shame.
"Oww! Those paintball thingies HURT!"
-- Kevin Thompson and several others, "The Daria Hunter"
---- Hey Grrl Geeks! Your very own geek news site has arrived!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Loser.
I don't like fish. Reverse the fish to e-mail.
Heh - and what are you guys going to do about it? -dennis
It seems you are not clear in your mind today.
I'm talking about politics, not culture nor arts.
I understand, as it is always painful to awake for the first time.
----------------
----------------
If Internet is Freedom, Linux is Democraty
I've been waiting and waiting for the press to make mention of this. I've not been the most politically active citizen, but in light of recent events, I'm convinced we need new legislation which quantifies the conditions under which the vote is legitimate.
My thought is that states that have no clear winner (i.e. margin of victory greater than margin of error) should be forced to split their electoral votes. In other words, FL (not to mention New Mexico and a couple others) would have each given 1/2 of their votes to Bush and the other half to Gore.
(By the way, by my math, this would have given Bush a 271 to 167 victory). Mike
Your monitor is staring at you.
Bush knocked up his girlfriend in 1970 and got her an illegal abortion. Is abortion good enough for his family, but no one else's ?
erm..no i think just about everyone in florida would be pretty pissed if gore got his way and the electoral college was held without florida...If i was from florida, i would be pissed because he obviously didn't care about my vote. Of course..I would prolly vote for bush....
The anti-salmon
you obviously should have done a recount before stating something that you were not sure of. Unfortunately, slashdot certifies you as #2. Sorry.
The anti-salmon
Once a new president is sworn in, it looks to be Bush at this time, I would hope that the phrase "You see? This is the proof that YOU ARE FINISHED!" would be tossed around
I'll comment on a couple of posts here.
1. The Florida courts are not "rewriting" law.
The Florida courts are clarifying three conflicting laws, which is part of the duty of our court system. It is not a violation of "separation of powers" as the shrubbery says. Rather it is our government's "checks & balances" in process.
Catherine Harris may have overstepped her rights, by not allowing the recounts. The Florida Legislature wrote conflicting laws. This means that the judicial system must clarify and correct both at the same time. This is the way our system works. If you don't like it, then vote "yes" on the constitutional convention item at the next presidential election.
2. The dimpled ballots may have been a result of faulty equipment. This means that they should unquestionably be counted. This is what Gore is contesting, which he should. Hopefully this is enough to keep the shrub, or rather the weed, from infesting the White House.
3. Florida law states that non-postmarked ballots should not be counted. Unfortunately, because the military does not postmark their mail, some votes did not get counted. Should their voices count, yes. Should their votes count in this election? Florida law also says that election rules are set to the laws when it (the election) began. If they want the military vote to count, they should fix it, but rules are rules, and in this election the rule states that all absentee ballots must be postmarked.
I apologise, I worded the original post incorrectly.
I meant to say that if it is determined that the majority of the dimpled ballots were caused by machine error, then they should unquestionably be counted.
This is what you're left with, the same criticism that's been leveled against every Republican since Ike. The guy manages to graduate from two more post-grad schools than his opponent, qualifies as a combat pilot, and governs a large state with distinction, and still he's a dunderhead. As I write this, I'm watching George W. addressing the nation, having been certified the winner in Florida. He's classy enough to call for a coming-together and an end to the divisivness. Let's see if his opponents can match him.
Certainly 49,819,600 people can't be all that wrong now can they? This is more votes than CLINTON got so I guess that means good 'ol Billy Boy has the head of a rotten squash? look at AOL
Face it. In an effort to attract a wider portion of the populous, /. has tended towrds centrism, taking on issues that the hoi polloi will respond to. But at least they (er, we...? I don't even program in C...) act like its unpalatable to them, unlike the politicians. How to regain your (our? hmm... I still keep forgetting what GNU stands for) radical-ness? Stay Tuned!
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Utterly silly? Harvard and the other Ivy Leagues have a very strong, very old network of alumni; many, many students' parents went to that or another Ivy League school. Is intelligence found predominantly in wealthy dynastic clans? (Is IQ a vaguely useful measure of that?) Is education found only in schools? It would be foolish to claim such, seeing as both of us are self-taught - yet you claim it's obvious that the establishment-taught person is smarter.
Why the vitrol towards people who leave college? A human spirit grows at different speeds in each person - claiming otherwise is stupid. I would prefer that people leave when they need to; return when they can; ie, people need to be in certain places at differing times - in one case, Gore was thinking about being a priest. How could I ever respect someone who didn't explore their dreams?
I already know your response - "Yes, well, common sense says....". Bullshit. You sound like every beaten, tired, pathetic establishment lackey who parrots existing social convention as permanent wisdom or physical law - "That's just the way it is".
You disgust me more than anyone on slashdot has in a long, long time; and I'm sorry that you do.
Your opinion sickens, but it does not cut. You are, perhaps, the only person free of all such cares; in the meantime, we both are far too anonymous to have such impact.
My "favor" was for neither of them; I told you that already and I wish you could understand that; even if I voted for Bush I would disagree with your statements. Why can't you understand that?
What disgusted me was, as I said, your conviction to judge someone by the rubber stamp of degrees and your assumption that it is "silly" to do otherwise (even while we work in an economy which is breaking that mold). Maybe you don't really think like that; I've never met you and might really like you if I did. But your writing suggested that; and that's what I have to go on.
GW will be a rerun of Ronnie "RayGun"
Hi, do you know me? I'm not really president, but I play one on TV
He'll coast along using Daddy's 'advisors' to run the country and be out in four (or less if he REALLY fucks up)
Prepare for a bloodbath in the mid term elections though. The attack ads will make this year's crop look like a tea party with Miss Manners
We'll see in 2004 if people are ready for an even better Republican candidate.
So you're admitting that Bush was a lousy choice for the Repubs this time? I voted for McCain in the primaries, but NOTA in the general election (Not that it mattered much in here in VA)
The problem with that (and it's a very well known problem) is that it doesn't represent the country, it represents specific portions of the country; and if you think about it, it's symbolic of special interest groups.
The electorial college gives the states more power, so as to prevent candidates from just campaining in the 10 or so most populous states and essentially concede their every whim to them and screw the rest of the states of the country. Having the electorial college, actually gives the candidates reason to try and do what's best for the entire country, not just certain portions of it. This way the small guy's voice actually is paid attention to, how would you like it if you lived in somewhere less populous and because the vote was based entirely on the popular decision the candidates went to Cal & NY and said everyone's taxes in Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, etc. will go to paying Cal & NY taxes so they won't have to pay any this year because they are going to vote for me... now think about not being able to do a damn thing about it because the 10% of states they're giving tax breaks to have more votes than the rest of the 90% combined.
The candidates are responsible for the nation as a whole not to just kiss the ass of who's got the most people living in certain portions.
Spelling and grammar checker off because I don't care
but the question is, by WHO?
doing my best to look at it from a non-partisan point of view, the democrats finding more votes after the elections means either the republicans committed fraud BEFORE, or the democrats committed fraud AFTER...
the question is, WHO? and more importantly, why are WE forced to suffer through the results?
http://www.nakedandfree.com
Strum Thurmond will probably croak in a week or two and that could change everything as well.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, I mean in the fact that they fought tooth and nail to have a manual recount omitted, saying it was flawed, when in TX, Mr. Bush signed into law, a bill stating that manual recounts are the preferred method in close and contested elections. Those military votes (ones w/o post marks, etc.), in every other election have been thrown out. The fact that they fought tooth and nail to NOT COUNT legal votes!! Whitewash
I hate politics, I really do. and this just takes the cake. The 'Presidency' elected by 500 some odd votes. What a frickin joke.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
It ain't over till the fat lady sings, and I haven't seen any fat ladies.... well, singing anyway.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
Here's the problem with the unpostmarked military votes. For servicemembers in a combat area, there is something called 'combat mail' or 'war mail.' Basically, they can write a letter on just about anything... old food container, a piece of wood, etc., and as long as it has the address on it, and has 'Combat Mail' written on it, it is the postal service's job to deliver it. If this means that it can't be postmarked, then oh well. After all, if some serviceman out in the middle of nowhere can't vote, then why the hell should he be out there?
Something to think about...
ahahahaha
--
CashWars
It has been infused with pork bacon juices.
ok, so what your saying is that elderly folks should be provided assistance when voting? if the person trully cared about what they were voting for, i think they would have asked for help. i know i would have. if you rush through your work day, you might get things done quicker, but that dosnt mean they got done right.
CNN has reported that Florida has certified Bush as the Winner, which of course means that he'll get the 25 electoral votes, and the presidency. I actually beg to differ. He probably will get the electoral votes, however the elector's in the electoral college CAN choose to give them to Gore or divide it up so Bush and Gore split even.. Soo, it's not over until that's decided for sure, and of course we need to see how this folds out in court.
it all comes down to "how are you doing?"
Typical selfish attitude - would a better question be "how is my community doing?"
America is still a terribly violent country, with no national healthcare, ever decreasing 'rights and freedoms' - one thing has caused this: American 'cult of greed' myopia, and sheer selfishness manifested in your Big Business.
Does anyone there know the meaning of 'responsibility'? It means alot more than "gettin' paid and taking care of myself".
Thanks for the clarity - all these world leaders' quotes were in the same article I read.
Thanks.
Yeah - the CIA would never get involved in furthering American imperialism... have you ever heard of The Bay of Pigs?
CNN, now there's a credible, unbiased source. Might as well ask Al himself...
Has anyone tried to find out if Al reads /.? My guess is that if he has time to, seeing as how he's probably busy inventing Internet v.2, that he goes by the nym of Von Rex.
Oh well, I gotta look on the bright side; If al does win, by some slick, fraudulent, democratic (now that's what you call redundant) scheme, that will make my decision whether or not to reenlist very easy.
Now, all we need is some way to keep RMS from complaining that the electricity that's running it all is not GPL compatible...
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
I could have told you George Bush would win on Nov. 8 at 2am when CNN "called" it!
I think that he's using lawyers for the sole purpose of getting a judge to require that a FAIR, COMPLETE, and ACCURATE vote count be conducted
At least in the heavily democratic counties of Florida. Not so important elsewhere.
Granted, roughly half of the ballots without a vote for president are from those four counties. It's still not FAIR or COMPLETE.
How about voting for no president and no government, the world would be a much better place.
This might be the end of the matter as far as Slashdot is concerned--this is, after all, Rob's baby--but it's far from the end for the rest of the world.
Senator Lieberman has already announced that he and Vice President Gore will challenge Secretary of State Harris's certification of the election. Governer Bush still has a case pending with the United States Supreme Court. And a number of other court cases and other forms of legal challenges remain on both sides.
The only thing that can end this mess quickly is a concession speech, and neither candidate has given any indication of any sort of willingness or intention to do so.
At this point, I'm almost hoping for Senator Strom Thurmond to be the next president--and that's not as unlikely an outcome as it might sound!
Keep your safety belts fastened, people. This ride's only just begun.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Actually your rural areas are poorer per capita than large cities since most of the populus are farmers or along those lines where wages are very minimal. The dividing lines for this vote are conservatives versus liberals.
If WORLD Then CHAOS = True Else OBLIVION = True End If
First let me state that I did not vote for either one of these people, I voted for who I wanted to win. I don't like either candidate. There are many arguments on both sides, and quite frankly I am tired of the wining on both sides. What I do not want is a president decided on who has the best lawyers.
YES, a Machine count is more accurate in the fact that it is not biased in deciding who the ballot is for. I am not against hand recounting if there are standards. I live in Oklahoma and don't have to worry about some idiot named chad, because our ballots are state wide identical and are optically read with a line drawn through who we voted for and if there is a problem with the ballot, we are notified when we feed it into the machine at the voting location, where we are given a chance to either fix it or leave it how it is. I am registered republican but I actually vote for who I think will do the best job. As for this election, I voted Libritarian, Republican and Democratic depending on the candidate. I damned sure would not want someone trying to read my mind and deciding how I voted. I would rather my vote not count if I am not smart enough to ensure that I completed the ballot correctly.
As for the differences in the counts between the first machine count and the second machine count it is attributed to ballots with chads that had not fallen off during the first run, and were off for the second run. Hand recounting ballots with dangling chads is fine, as long as there is only one vote for president, but dimpled ballots are not conclusive enough for counting a vote.
As for the numbers, take them if you need them to sleep better, but anyone can come up with numbers for either side to make their point.
My end point is, Enough is enough. Either pick a damned pres-elect or don't, but keep the courts and lawyers out of it.
If WORLD Then CHAOS = True Else OBLIVION = True End If
1. "If hand recounts are less accurate than machine recounts, why are hand recounts ordered by law in case in dispute in both Florida and Texas, as well as most of the other states? "
Well, as most idiots are apt to do, they do not listen to the facts, Texas uses optical scanning for their balot counting, and two they also have a state wide proceedure for counting them manually, something that seems to change by the minute in florida.
2. "How can Gore have "clearly lost" the hand recount when the recount wasn't allowed to finish? Do you think shipping in goons to harass election canvassing boards into calling off recounts is an acceptable outcome in a Western democracy?"
The county that could not finish their recount in time took time off for the holidays instead of working through it like the other county. And this was a total democrat election board. They did not use thier time wisely. The other county did not want to do a full recount of their county after the sampling of 1%, but conceded when Gore's Troop of lawyers pressured them into. They realized that they were not going to have enough time to do a full recount even by the supreme courts timeline.
3. "The woman who certified this vote, and who has consistently attempted to block all attempts at hand recounts, is Bush's co-campaign chair in Florida. How can this be allowed to happen? Do they not have conflict of interest laws in Florida? Further, her job is due to be slated out of existence at the end of her term, which means she's looking for work. She'll get a plum appointment in a Bush administration, maybe even an Ambassadorship. Is this the way we do elections in America? Sounds more like one of those new Russian states making it's first attempt at democracy."
Well, while you are slinging crap, what about the lovely Attorney General? His office is supposed to represent the Secretary of State in Court Cases, and they were on the other side. Considering those posts are elected positions, anyone would be labeled partisan. Why don't you take the time to read the laws in question and read the complete law, don't just skip around and read the sections you want.
4. "Why are most of the optical counting machines in Florida in Republican areas, where the shitty old punchcard systems are in place in Democratic strongholds?"
Because the Democrats were toooooo cheap to buy them. They could have upgraded them, but they chose not too.
If WORLD Then CHAOS = True Else OBLIVION = True End If
IIRC, statistics don't really come into play in this case since you're not really _sampling_ a portion of the population (of those who voted, since those who didn't don't get a say in the matter). Instead, you're evaluating the entire population, so statistics should not be used. I could be wrong though, it's been some time since I studied any stats.
that's it! i demand a recount!
So can someone give me a reason that breaking it into electoral districts rather than doing it by state, please, feel free to tell me-but do not flame.
Macx
Unfortunately to the most US citizens logic is not what drives them to argue. Either side is either pretty much convinced that their president has a right to win, but those who in between might as well be cannon fodder. Reason is not what will be thrown around here and not what will win the election. Reason is weakest of the tools to adress the voters, and that is pretty much it. It does not change for people over here in Canada. Political slandering paid by opposite parties is and all out war... Yes the reason, because the
vote fell below margin of error, should be counted as equal, and there should be revote in the near future. But both parties have gobs of corporate money to waist on the lawyers who seem to be the only winners here. =)
Unless, of course, you want to vote Democrat. Contact your local Democratic Committee to learn more.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
I elect the Furby for president!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I'm disgusted with Gore for going after what I personally consider the bogus dimpled chad vote. He should take the votes as they fall, stand up straight, and accept or concede. But he should have the chance to get as many counties recounted as is allowed by law, and that has been denied.
I am much more disgusted, however, with Bush's "I won three times: on CNN, CBS, and according to Jeb" rhetoric. He still seems to think that he won a landslide, and his victory speech, while thankfully muted, seemed to be blissfully ignorant of the difficult job he has in store. His attitude towards hand recounts betrays, at the least, a lack of realization that his election was probably a statistical fluke. At the worst, it suggests that he knows he would lose if a recount was allowed to run unimpeded.
And don't get me started on the military absentee ballots. That issue alone, and the hateful handling on all sides, has me hoping for a long and fruitful Strom Thurmond presidency.
Now, as to your points:
- Mr. Gore did not request a machine recount -- it was automatic when the initial count was within 0.5% It's worth considering that the machine recount took two days from the seven allowed to request manual recounts, so he had a deficit to overcome from the start.
- That other county was Volusia. It was the smallest county from which Gore requested a recount, and was able to complete its hand recount before the 11/14 certification deadline, IIRC.
- Point of disgust: Bush's comment about "legalistic language, but make no mistake: They rewrote the law" is hogwash. The opinion is remarkably readable, low on legalistic language and mostly just reconciles a couple of contradictory Florida laws. I have seen other legal opinions that came up with alternate results, but I think that the Florida Supreme Court might just have the best understanding of the laws of Florida.
- Bonus question: What part of the Florida Election Code mentions the "natural disasters" that Harris mentioned as being an acceptable reason to extend the deadline? Answer: If you can find it, tell me: there appears to be no mention of "natural disasters" in the election code, except with regards to sending absentee ballots. Ergo, either a) Harris believed that she had absolutely no discretion to change it and lied about the "Natural Disaster" exemption, or b) she had as much discretion as she desired, and decided against using it -- coincidentally, in favor of the candidate she worked with.
- IMHO, it's too late for either to give up gracefully: Gore has kept the nation waiting almost three weeks chasing after a result that, now, is unlikely to happen -- that won't be forgiven quickly. Meanwhile, if Bush's post-election strategy fails -- and it certainly deserves to -- he'll be toasted for celebrating too early and not doing defensive recounts.
Enough. Both parties can burn in hell for all I care anymore.I will grant that the new certification date (i.e. Sunday/Monday) seemed a bit arbitrary. I suspect that the court may have wanted to prevent Secretary Harris from being, to put it nicely, arbitrary herself about what votes to certify.
TSG
Amen to that!
:-)
Seriously though, hasn't this dragged on for long enough? It's not even news any more, let alone stuff that matters.
arnald
this is all a conspiracy to make you think that your vote counts... which it doesn't... it was also a badly planned conspiracy, they should of made it down the like, one vote, so every vote in florida did count...
Runnin' On Empty
"We've heard a lot in the media the past couple weeks about how voting should be like an ATM machine.
But is this the case. Do you trust technology enough to have a paperless system?"
In case you didn't know it, there is a paper trail on all ATM transactions. There is a printer either inside the ATM or inside the closest bank branch that records every transaction. Also the ATM prints a receipt for the user.
The same type setup could be used to record votes. Mail every registered voter an ATM style card that can only be used once and then captured by the machine. It would be very easy to program ATM's for this behavior.
See the Salon letters section, the last letter for an excellent explanation of how dimpled chad occur.
As for why they might occur only in the presidential part of the ballot, I think it eminently reasonable that people might cast ballots only in the presidential part of the race, so that part of the catch tray might be more full.
~OutOfMindregardless of who wins this time around in the US election, is anyone really looking at changes to the electoral system?
there's obviously problems there, but will US citizens wait until just before the next election to worry about it
The best thing about those felons who voted?
One of them was convicted of drunk driving.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
With Bush president, Saturday Night Live will never run out of material again!
Two things are irrelevent: 1) Gore won the popular vote. 2) Bush won more states. Two things are relevant: 1) The electoral college is the law of the land. 2) So are the courts.
and I for one am all for it
---- http://www.opedog.com/
regardless...
---- http://www.opedog.com/
anyone honestly surprised? Wish he'd take a page from Nixon's playbook and bow out already. Little twit.
---- http://www.opedog.com/
I should add that if a state doesnt like the electoral system of "winner take all" or prefers the idea of popular vote, they can just decide to split their electors along popular lines, just as it is done in Maine or Nebraska. As far as I can tell, you dont really need to abolish the electoral system and enstate a popular vote, you can just do what Maine has done, but in all states. I'm sure their are some details involved and some limitations of Maines system that I dont know about.
Sneakemail is to spam filters what an ounce of prevention is to a pound of cure.
Agreed, not only did the voter KNOW their vote wasnt going to be counted as a "popular" vote, but the campaigns weren't run to gain popular vote, if they were, you would have seen each candidate sitting in a big state and milking it dry, like what Bush could have done in Texas, or Gore in california.
If you hear any politician or lawyer using the "we won the popular vote" spin, realize that they KNOW better, but are just trying to manipulate YOU and should be ashamed of themselves!
Sneakemail is to spam filters what an ounce of prevention is to a pound of cure.
But is this the case. Do you trust technology enough to have a paperless system? There are currently paper-based systems that will reject a ballot because it was not legally marked (voted too many times in a contest, what-have-you).
Is it possible to make a reliable and public election system which doesn't have a paper trail? Is it desirable?
I'd suggest not. At this point in the game making secure systems which can be validated is much more difficult task than reading votes from paper ballots.
What ARE the hurdles that an all-electronic balloting system would have to leap in order to make tampering nearly impossible and to fully preserve the integrity of the system.
Guess this makes me a bigoted, fascist, hateful, satanic republican?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
This election and the comments here at Slashdot have changed my mind, though.
The behavior of the Democratic party has been incredibly self-righteous and offensive to me.
I have been honestly shocked by the behavior of the democratic party during this post-election mess. I went into it slightly untrusting of republican money and thinking that Al Gore was at least a "boy scout" by comparison. Boy was I wrong. I'm going to vote Republican next time around.
Now I'll sit around and watch the replies to this post: "you're a republican anyway asshole" and "fuck off and die republican" and "I hate you white boy" and "you're an idiot" and so on. Beautiful.
Makes me proud to be an American.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Nothing Of Significance Occurring Outside of Palm Beach County
Nixon Throws Hat- and Most of Left Arm Into Ring
President Congeniality
Florida To Media: "...But Will You Still Respect Me?"
Tips For Living: How To Avoid Arguing About The Election
"Election2000 Solition" by Me, Ming The Merciless
pray tell, if Bush's credentials (Yale,Harvard MBA, successful business, Governor) aren't enough to be president, then what is? Clinton was a governor too. As was Reagan, the best president of the 20th century.
If hand recounts are less accurate than machine recounts, why are hand recounts ordered by law in case in dispute in both Florida and Texas, as well as most of the other states?
Laws that never were expected to deal with these punch cards. As a side, isn't it interesting that all of the republican counties use the inifinitely more reliable optical scanners? Kinda wierd that the counties where the dems are counting on votes from also have dem control and maximum potentional for fraud. How easy is it to stuff the ballot box when you're in a roomful of extremely partisan observers from the other side? Do you think the Dem's are ripping out chads right under the Republicans noses?
Well, considering there's good evidence it happened, not hard.
How can Gore have "clearly lost" the hand recount when the recount wasn't allowed to finish? Do you think shipping in goons to harass election canvassing boards into calling off recounts is an acceptable outcome in a Western democracy?That counties board voted not to continue. Plain and simple--the recount so far and test recounts had uncovered no discrepancies either.
The woman who certified this vote, and who has consistently attempted to block all attempts at hand recounts, is Bush's co-campaign chair in Florida. How can this be allowed to happen? Do they not have conflict of interest laws in Florida? Further, her job is due to be slated out of existence at the end of her term, which means she's looking for work. She'll get a plum appointment in a Bush administration, maybe even an Ambassadorship. Is this the way we do elections in America? Sounds more like one of those new Russian states making it's first attempt at democracy.And the state supreme court that illegally changed standards in the middle of the counting has how many democrats? 6? 7? No conflict of interest there.
Why are most of the optical counting machines in Florida in Republican areas, where the shitty old punchcard systems are in place in Democratic strongholds?See my above fraud response. I hate to say this, but down the line, democrats in the US have a horrible history of cheating. From the most horrid examples such as the Nixon election (where he honorably conceded) to this president election with it's democrat manufactured votes to where dems were giving away cigarettes to homeless people.
Ever wonder why dems misvote more than republicans? (it's historical and verified). I say it's due to dems pulling people to polling places and telling them to vote for. If you don't believe this happens (and I've seen it often) then you need to get out more.
This is so typical. Who's heard of Dick Hermann? He's a nobody. Who's heard of George Bush? Everybody. I'd probably be as jealous as this liberal too.
the voters would have behaved totally differently under true popular vote
Oh, you mean the 50% who voted would have stayed home, and the 50% who stayed home would have voted.
And the 25% who voted for Bush would have voted for Gore, and the 25% who voted for Gore would have voted for Bush.
Yes, I can see that would have been totally different.
I am anarch of all I survey.
Alright, for those of you who are ignorant of the US Constitution, for whatever reason, Article II (the section governing the Executive Branch, eg. the Presidency) only allows for *one* vote by the people, one *one* day. That's it, no exceptions. The electors get chosen, they vote, the Congress tallies the vote, the President of the Senate (eg, Gore) certifies the winner, and the President-elect then gets sworn in on a certain day in January. That's how it works (in a nutshell). Revotes are patently un-Constitutional. Cory
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.
Now, as Congress has the authority to determine the time of choosing electors, and they have done so, it's not up to anyone else to circumvent that decision.
As for absentee ballots and voting by mail, remember that they have to be postmarked by election day or they don't count (which bit Bush in the ass when all those ballots came in w/out postmarks). Personally, I think it's a bad idea to have mail-in voting, as well. I'd rather have Americans overseas go to an embassy or some other "appropriate" location (when an embassy doesn't exist) than mail in ballots.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Oh please, the man in charge of the executive wash room is hardly qualified to make calls on the economy.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
You think that includes the expected (and apparently required) reposting of this post?
Actually, one thing comes to mind about this:
At the most, only 1/2 of the registered voters actually showed up to vote... In other words, people with either schedules that didn't allow them to put in their vote, or people who believed their vote would be wasted (and if you think about it, 49+ million people HAVE wasted their votes)...
What I consider ironic, is that with all this bickering about who got what votes, chads, dimples, absentee and military votes, is that they simply didn't do one SIMPLE thing: Reopen the elections, so that the people who fell into the 1/2 not voting COULD, and balance, or tip the scales...
How hard could that be? What makes the electoral system so afraid of Americans claiming their right to vote, albeit belatedly? Come on, if they can allow upwards from a week for absentee ballots, or mail in military voting to be recieved, what's keeping them from allowing the elections to continue up until the point of that deadline?
I mean hell, I would have preferred to vote, if anything, to get the media to shut the hell up...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Why? Because he never was trying to compromise every single issue he could in order to win over independents. His views were already appealing to centrists and independents, and unlike Bush or Gore, he wasn't changing his ethics based on opinion polls, which is probably why people are so disheartened with them and the election was so close.
Say what harsh things you may, he has a definite belief system, which is more than either of the two major presidential candidates can claim.
A few things to consider..
Gore Winning the Popular Vote
I am sick of hearing this over and over in the media - the popular vote does not elect the president. I, personally, think this is a good thing. Why should states like (for example): NY, Califaronia and Texas hold the country hostage just because it has the most people? You think candidates campaign strategies are stupid now, jsut wait if the electoral college was abolished! Candidates would campaign in even less states. That is ridiculous.
The electoral college was instituted to protect the country from the tyranny of the people. Luckily, the founding fathers were smart people.
Confusing Ballots
Any idiot who looked at the ballots on cnn.com or your local newspaper can figure these things out. In fact, when given to elementary schoolers and told to choose there favourtie Disney character (Disney characters replacing candidate nes), none of the kids were confused - they all could figure it out!
There were stories about people who said they were to ashamed to ask for a new ballot because they had made a mistake - too damn bad. If you put more worth on your self-image than you do your vote, maybe you don't deserve to be voting? Just a thought.
Military Votes
Anyone looking to disqualify military absentee votes because of a missing stamp should be given a stern beating (this includes Bush and/or Gore). The entire reason you have a *right* to vote is because of the past actions, present actions, and future actions of the men and women of the US Armed Forces!
Do you think Private Ryan stationed in Bosnia can just walk down to his local US Post Office and mail his ballot. Nope. Do I still think his vote should count? Yes.
Anything to Win
Gore is now going to challenge the results because Florida did not wait till 9am Monday morning to accept votes. I do not see how he has any legal standing since the court he won in declared that date. They did say Florida could accept on monday if they were not open on sunday, but they were. Gore praised the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida when they ruled this way. Now he doesn't like it? Bug off.
There is a growing movement in America that holds the idea that anything goes as long as you win. This isn't how it should be. Typically, Democratic loyalists say "well, you (meaning Republicans) would do it if you were in our shoes". Not only (I think) is that untrue, but what kind of argument is that? What happeend to doing what is right?
Doing something because you should, not necesarrily because you want to.
Media Bias
As anyone is aware, there is a present Media bias in favour of Democratic ideals. While it is fine for people (news media) to have their own oppinions, I find it appalling that they still claim to be impartial. From what I understand, Walter Cronkite did not even vote soemtimes to prove his impartiality. Where have media men and women of this caliber gone?
How can slashdot report the news when its own editor is obviously biased? Rob can have his own views, but don't call it news if he seeps his ideas into thew story.
Secretary of State of Florida
I can't remember her name right now, but people have been calling her some nasty names as of late. She is only doing her job, following the law. Get over it. People claim she is not impartial - show me someone involved who is impartial. If you voted in the election, you are not impartial. If your vote was cast for one candidate, then you can not, in any way, be impartial.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
-- bearclaw
It's interesting to see how slashdotter swing one way (we cannot violate the law) when an election is concerned, yet swing entirely the other way on something like copyright (we don't like the law, so screw it and let's copy this stuff).
Do you really think you could manage to push the right button to send those missiles over?
Also remember to subtract the extra 1000 points his daddy bought for him!
Bush is a dolt. His debating skills seem to revolve around chanting "fuzzy numbers" over and over again.
If Gore wins, er, ends up inaugurated, then Lieberman will have to resign his Senate seat.
Care to explain why he would have to resign his Senate seat? What about if he declined the VP seat?
He could do just that because of the reason you specify here. And what would happen? Gore would pick a new VP. Someone a little less independent, maybe? In any case, they would end up with Lieberman still in his Senate seat, and a new VP. Kinda like 2 seats for the price of one, eh?
Sure, the press would go haywire, they would have a field day. But how long would it last? A couple of months down the road everyone would forget about it. Of course, you also have to deal with the Jewish voters who feel that they were betrayed, but you could work around that with choosing a new VP who is also Jewish.
I find it odd that the US allows things to be done differently in different states, and even counties! standardization at least lets everyone know what to expect. and there really is no 'battleground seats' since their all the same size population-wise. But it does give more power to highly populated provinces, like for instance Quebec and Ottawa. together they are almost 40% of the country! (perhaps more?)
This gives Quebec, who wants to seperate, more power and opens up the possibility of it happening.
There has been some massive changes here in our former two-party system as well. The Conservative party got destroyed in the last election, getting only 2 seats. They where the then reining government too! They collapsed, and the Liberal party took the county with the Reform Party supported mostly by western canada close behind. Since then, the Reform and Conservative party merged to form the Alliance Party, and the NDP party has powered up quite a bit to fill the void the Reform Party left behind. We're actually fairly close to being a 3 party country. (even though NDP doesnt stand a chance)
The elections coming up might be interesting, thats for sure, apparently there is a party that wants solely to get Maraijuanna legalized. I forget what they are called though. They acctually have high support for such a small topic-focused party.
2. The dimpled ballots may have been a result of faulty equipment. This means that they should unquestionably be counted. This is what Gore is contesting, which he should. Hopefully this is enough to keep the shrub, or rather the weed, from infesting the White House.
Unquestionably? They could also have been caused by a voter tapping on that particular chad before deciding that they couldn't vote for that particular schmuck...
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Huh? That doesn't make any sense. First of all, the Electoral College gives disproportially high representation to the very small, sparesly populated votes. States like North & South Dakota have the (minimum) 3 electoral votes, but somewhat less than the population that should be supporting those votes.
Right. North Dakota has 3 Electoral votes, or just over 1/2 of one percent of the Electoral Collage. If we allocated based on population alone, they would only have one Electoral vote vs California's 53. The politicians have little reason to go to states like North Dakota... Do you actually want to give them less?
Also, in a democracy, if 2/3rds of the country lives in dense urban settlement, why shouldn't they exercise control over the government? Democracy is essentially the tyranny of the majority. Doesn't make it a perfect system, but it is silly to argue that because the a lot of people believe something, we should reduce their say.
Darn good thing we don't live in a democracy then, isn't it?
The United States was set up as a Republic. The reason we don't use the system you describe is because the Founding Fathers, for whatever reason, decided not to do so. And guess what? It's worked pretty well so far.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
The corruption of the system has been so overt and so widespread that he must fight to the bitter end to try and prevent a Republican president appointing the next Atorny General and head of the FBI.
Actually, Bush would probably leave Loius Freeh in office. After all, he's one of the people who kept pressing Reno to investigate the Buddist temple "fundraiser".
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
ditto.
Actually, I voted for Bush becvause I live in California where Bush was supposed to have a shot. But thanks to voteexhange2000.com, a Bush supporter in Virginia voted for Browne.
Interestingly the difference between the two candidates nationally was something like one half a percent, while the margin of error of both machine counting and hand counting is two percent. At the point where the results are less then the margin of error, one can only expect the outcome to be based on the respective skills of the lawyers.
Actually while Jefferson's career was truly great, his Presidency lacked an awful lot. In fact, it was pretty bad. It was largtely his policies that led to the war of 1812 by insisting on using economic warfare on Britain. The impact was to destroy the U.S. economy while giving Britain everything she wanted. Furthermore, Jefferson made a very intentional effort to weaken the supreme court and almost eliminate it as a check to the executive or legislature. Then later, he abandonded his idealism w/r/t the Indians and set the U.S. down the road to an extermination policy. These events were the most striking of his presidency. Of course, the rest of his career was nothing short of amazing.
CmdrTaco: May I take you order? rabtech: Yes, I'll have linux commentary, news for nerds, but hold the political insults please. I'd rather have a head of lettuce as president than a fork-tounged snake who will lie and cheat me for four years.
-----
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
When you ahead in the race you want the race to end now. When your losing in a race, you want the race to keep on going until your winning.
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
boo hoo
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Ready, I'll put this in terms that even the most unexperienced slashdotter will understand!
Think of Gore as a three year old in a candy shop.
Situation:He wants the lollypop but his mother won't let him have it.
Most of us will feel sorry for him and give him one. Heck, what's one lollypop going to hurt.
Now the lollypop is finished, he wants another and starts crying again.
Some will say he had enough, no more. Others will still feel sorry for him and give him just one more. While others just want to hear him shut up, so they give him another.
When that lollypop is finished, he wants another! Now enough is enough. Only the feeble minded would give him another. Too bad the world has too many stupid people around, this thing would be over by now!
And another thing!
While I'm ranting and raving about the loopiness of it all.
You mean to tell me that this presidency is riding on the fact that some old bitties couldn't punch out the ballot correctly???
Come on..... Anyway those people should be shipped off to Iraq or somewhere like that. That would keep 'em confused for years, think of it, no more wars!
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
"I don't care who wins, so long as it isn't Bush..."
"I don't care who wins, so long as it ain't Gore..."
The party with the least negative score wins.
Indeed. He knew the world was round, because he sailed west to find a shortcut from Europe to India. That's why he found "American Indians".
Does my bum look big in this?
I would guess that my suspicions are rightly aroused by the fact that the URL contains the path "vomit/".
---
Moderators: I've got tons of accounts, do your worst.
the democrats somehow got many of the military ballots disqualified, and wanted to get a hint of a dent in a ballot to count toward them. I'd personally think this would mean the Democrats caused it, but I haven't been following it too closely.
It also looks like someone doesn't like the Bush family either, 'cause I'm sure that other states could have been contested...
"Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
One great thing about the Electoral College is that, instead of having to contest every ballot in every precinct in every county in every state (and the District of Columbia), we only need to put the process under such scrutiny when and where the margin is as small as in Florida this year.
In geek terms:
--------------------
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
A few thoughts:
Gore didn't complain about that possibility. Now we come to the interesting proposition that Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Now (gasp!) Gore doesn't think that the electoral system is fair.
1) The Bush folks were ready and willng to claim that Bush should be president if he did not won the electoral vote but not the popular vote. Read it on the NYT, can't find it again.
2)Either way, the system sucks. The electoral college was hacked by Andrew Jackson. He convinced states to select their electors by popular vote so the president would be effectively selected by popular vote. What we're experiencing right now is the failure state of a hacked system - the popular vote winner is supposed to win when you run Electoral 2.0.
If state-by-state votes actually matter, why not go back to having state legislatures select the electors?
Additionally, a real failure of the electoral college would do real damage. Imagine a president who lost the popular vote by a sizable margin - say 5%. This prez would have no authority, he would probably face a Congress skewed heavily against him, etc. A more extreme failure state - the total turkey president - is an argument by itself to scrap the electoral college system.
On to the subject of the dimpled chad and all that. There were ballots that were clearly punched through for all other offices but "dimpled" for president. Was this voter incapable of punching the holes? I think not.
This is where W. pisses me off. He signs a law in TX supporting the "dimpled chad" standard and then goes back and opposes it once it might hurt him. Either way, do you really think that a hole punch will work 100% of the time?
As far as the whole military absentee ballot thing goes, Gore just managed to upset the people who risk their lives for this nation. Probably not a very good plan...
The idea that the military is a Republican instituition is more than a little insulting - we have a proud tradition of nonpartisanship. Our obligation is to obey the commander in chief. If you enjoy your right to vote, then you should to see the military stay as far away from politics as possible.
I don't know if ballots with a late postmark/no postmark should be counted - how can we know that someone didn't decide to vote after they saw how close the election was?
On an added note, in Palm Beach County, FL a local news station took that "butterfly ballot" and replaced the candidates with cartoon characters. They then asked small children which circle to mark to vote for a particular character. Guess what? They figured it out... (and, keep in mind, that ballot was approved by the Democrats, published in the newspaper, and sent to the home of every registered voter prior to the election.)
1) It's easy to figure out a confusing form once someone tells you how. Studies have demonstrated that young kids are actually better at these kind of visual relations than old folks.
2) This is awfully mean to old folks. I'm sorry that you now need 20/20 vision to vote and that only the young and able get to pick a president.
We do not live in a true democracy. We live in a representative democracy. We vote for people who then vote for laws/presidents.
Palm Beach county has not yet finished their recounts; they still have around 1,000 ballots left to count. That county is predominantly democratic, so expect the majority of those to go for Gore.
Also, Miami-Dade, another Democratic county, did not finish their recounts because they did not feal they could meat the deadline.
Expect Gore to fight to get these in.
Unfortunately many of the responses here are what I come to expect from the Slashdot crowd, with dissenting opinions generally modded down. It saddens me that no one here seems to be appalled by the fact that the Dems have been so intent on making sure this whole sordid affair is mired in the judicial system. The Gore campaign seems to embody the recent litigious direction our society has been turning. 'I feel I am entitled to something and the courts will give it to me.' The Gore campaign has even gone as far as 'judge shopping'. It is also unfortunate that the Bush campaign has decided to hop on the litigation bandwagon, but I do believe they were given no choice, as they were forced to represent their interests in the courts as well. It is also convenient that the Dem supporters here (most of the Slashdotters by the looks of it) choose to ignore the absentee ballot issue. I guess it shouldn't surpise me though, as t has been the trend of the Dems and their supporters to discount the people who serve our country and are willing to back up their beliefs with something other than words and lawyers. Why are the Dems afraid of the military vote? A large portion of the military are minorities who traditionally vote Democrat, as well as people who hail from Democrat supported parts of the country. I am from the northeast and was born and raised on the Kennedies, as democrat as they come. And why, since Billy-Bob has been in office, has military retention reached an all time, catastrophic low? Because the Dems have little interest in the people who maintain our freedom and way of life. I served twelve years, but finally got fed up with having to deploy into combat zones all the time because the Dems cut our military to the point where we don't have the forces to adequately maintain the military commitments the Dems have levied on us. It is so bad that Guardsmen and Reservists are forced to set their lives aside for up to six months at a time so that they can help fullfill these commitments which the active forces can no longer sustain. Many of these Guardsmen and Reservists return home to no job and no spouse, by the way. The tremendous tempo of recent military deployments is also destroying the familiy lives of the active duty forces. Divorces and suicides in the military are up since ole Billy Bob took the helm. But back to the point... I am sure words like honor and responsibility are probably foreign to many here, but think what you are doing when you are supporting this guy who is only placing his own self-interests at heart, and not doing the honorable thing and stepping aside, and ignoring his responsibility to the American people by not ending this debacle he perpetrated in Florida.
The signs held by many of the Bush supporters:
Find it at: http://www.soreloserman.com Enjoy
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
Having senators popularly elected is one of the most stupid amendments ever to be applied to our constitution. The senate's original purpose was to protect states' interests in the federal government, not to cater to the current popular whims of the masses (and more to the point -- special interests). The latter is the purpose of the House of Representatives.
It was an important part of our constitutions "checks and balances" system that this country did away with on the premise of eliminating railroad corruption.
"My job is being right when other people are wrong." -- George Bernard Shaw
i've heard this assertion before. what laws did they rewrite? did they overstep their legal boundaries and if so, which?
my biggest concern - whoever the winner might turn out to be - is if the will of the people was represented. it's worth noting that gore *did* take the popular vote by an uncontested margin.
but i'm interested to see if your reply covers ground that the media soundbytes have failed to; where have they rewritten law, specifically?
My .02,
My .02,
zencode
iactivist.org/jason
Certainly 49,819,600 people can't be all that wrong now can they?
When 50M people agree, we call that a paradigm and we all know what happens to paradigms, don't we? Frankly, Nader was probably the most qualified before the Democrats horribly maligned him. Anyway, the lettuce head of the Administration will be the proof enough.
Lawyers are cool. Gore is cool. Boies (you called him boyd) is cool. This is my opinion anyway.
So basically you're suggesting that the US switch to the popular vote system! Think about it, if the number of electoral votes was representative of a state's population, and the number of votes obtained by each candidate in a state was representative of the number of voters... I agree with your conclusion. Can't argue with the popular vote and then everybody's vote is just as important.
Sergio
For real though.
As a californian, i can assure you that bush would not win the majority of those absentee ballots, no matter how ignorant those military folks are.
go get it
God save King George II.
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Simply put a popular vote would make our politics look just like our entertainment industry. Everything would happen in either New York or LA.
But the Bush campaign HAS and IS engaged in the same thing.
It's called a "response". If Bush's people had just sat on their hands and let Gore's 800 lb gorilla lawyers have their run of Florida, Gore would have won no matter what the ballots had said.
After the Gore team took the initiative in circumventing Florida's election system ON ELECTION DAY when they hired that tele-marketing firm to call people and ask them to protest, Bush's team had no choice but to respond.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
As with myself, a lot, if not a majority, of Americans vote for President and few other offices
The national average for voters who don't select a president is around 2%. Florida's no-votes for President is around 2%.
This whole "count the votes" is just an effort to shake the Magic EightBall(tm) and get a different answer for Al Gore.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Ah, the old "they MADE me do it" excuse.
In a contest like this, it's naive to think that public, executive, and judicial opinion can't be swayed by some good old fashioned muck-raking.
Bill Clinton masterfully (and regretfully) brought political spin to a new level when he came onto the national scene. The Republicans have had to either keep up or be exterminated. The Florida debacle is just the latest victory for obfuscation in this new political environment.
The Bush campaign was caught in a dilemma: Stay on the high ground, and the Gore team will definitely win; Join in the fray, and the Gore team will point to similar acts of litigation and protesting.
As I recall the GOP has no qualms about calling voters on election day
As you "recall"? You must have access to news sources that I don't, since this hasn't even been whispered by Gore's supporters in all the news shows that I've been monitoring.
The Democrats hired a tele-marketing firm on the day of the election to create problems where there weren't any.
You can make up other first causes all you want, but the tele-marketing, in concert with the immediate decent of other Democratic heavyweights (Jesse Jackson, Wexler, etc.) upon Florida was really what created this mess.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
If he says this sort of shit in public, what the fuck do you think is going to happen when he calls Yussaf bin Asami an "asshole towelhead, err, oops, I mean a nice Ethiopian man, I mean Islamic man." This kind of shit starts wars, and if this idiot starts spouting off at the mouth like this to the wrong person then we all could be in for a whole world of shit.
He can't communicate effectively, and his presidency puts everyone at risk because of it.
Now shut the fuck up and go back to your schoolwork.
Republican wit is at an all time low. Sore/Loserman? Come on. You are too busy being arrogant and loud to come up with a good or at least clever insult. This could all be over had there been a mandatory drug test for all presedential candidates. We all know that Ralph Nader's "Green Party" is made up of drug dealers who supplied Dubya with grass instead of soft money. And let us not forget "Mother's against drunk presidents".
Vice President Gore FLUNKED divinity school and dropped out of law school.
;-)
[/Quoted]
..and Winston Churchill was a bit of a dunce at school. Your point?
Far more important for Heads of State to have a firm grasp of reality and international affairs than a degree or two.
And I'll let youse guys argue whether Gush or Bore is the one that knows that Europe is not a country.....
...Bush doesn't think he got a "mandate" from the people. But, knowing him, he'll say he got a mandrake, or something.
;-)
[/Quoted]
...you mean he doesn't run Debian! Shame on him!
We are a union of states. If such an election system were initiated, the candidates wouldn't care about several states. Every state is equal, every person is an equal part of their state.
Can we get this catergory deleted and the deletion certified?
Unfortunately Gore can lo longer afford to back out. If he had conceded after the recount he might have been in with a chance in 4 years time (assuming Hills in jail with Bill). The last few weeks of sleaze and manipulation by the Democrats have ensured that this will not happen. The corruption of the system has been so overt and so widespread that he must fight to the bitter end to try and prevent a Republican president appointing the next Atorny General and head of the FBI. Assuming Bush retains the presidency we may be witnessing the end of the Democrat machine.
As a longtime reader I find it almost sickening how little the Slashdot community is paying attention to this. I agree that neither candidate has or will ever have true legitimacy. As it is the woman in charge of certifying the winner was co-chair of Bush's campaign. Nevertheless I find it ludocris to suggest that the topic doesn't matter.
A quick survey of the day's postings feature the following: a discussion of online rights and domain names, the usual discussion of a microsoft breakup, a comment on rumors that Bill has rewritten Linux code for his own use, and a discussion of the rights of employees to develop free software. Every one of these issues is directly in the hands of the President of the United States. Granted he is not soley in charge but he is an 800lb gorilla at the table.
For example it took a president's support to privatize domain name registration. Without that ICANN would not exist. In principle the U.S. Internet and domain names could be nationalized and once-again come under the auspices of the federal government if a president so chose. Granted it would be unlikely to occur given the strong tech investment in presidential campaigns. But imagine a time when Pepsico is unhappy with the way the rinternet is run because a strong ICANN or other group has denied them the right to seize Soda.org for their own use. Any president who owes them anything (Both mainstream candidates) would bend over backwards to make them happy.
In the case of Bill Gates and any of his activities the president's power is obvious. Even Bill knows that, why else would he donate so massively to both parties?
The case of free software development is even more obvious. It is strong but dying labor legislation that allows employees any freedom at all with respect to their employers. This legislation has been eroding steadily to the point where companies such as Boeing and Best Buy are asking their employees to sign away their right to sue the company for redress of grevances. Courtesy of a conservative federal and Supreme Court system (Appointed by the president and Congress) these contracts have stood. Thus permitting companies to strip the rights of their workers openly.
Given all of this how can anyone assume that the election of the president does not matter? I myself am of the opinion that Bush and Gore are (in the grand scheme of things) a gnat's hair apart but they do differ on issuies such as antitrust law. Nevertheless given the extreme power that a president weilds over (almost) everything that /. regularly covers, and the fact that the election is being openly hijacked by one of the parties, how can we afford not to care?
Irvu.Gore vs Bush
Gore
Why in HELL would you vote for a person who wants to hold office, anyway? What are you thinking?
A strong lust for polical office immediately makes an individual suspect in my mind. Maybe I'm just paranoid, by why aren't you?
Most of the character traits that people regard as positive, such as honesty, humility, loyalty, etc., become flaws that will prevent a candidate from competing effectively with someone who doesn't possess them.
Certainly our Republic has as good a form of government as many other nations, and one that is better than most. But there has got to be a better way.
I think we'd be better off, and almost certainly no worse off, just randomly selecting people to hold office. Yep, with the nutjobs and all. How scary is a legislative body composed of mostly ordinary people with average intelligence randomly selected from the populace versus a legislative body composed of prostituting lawyers who clawed their way into it?
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
while age40 { drink(); smoke(); go awol(); }
My dingo ate your honor student.
You Americans can stop, from this instant, touting your political system as the most fair, most inclusive, best in the world. Since this entire election fiasco, not a single American has the right to criticize any other nation's electoral process or government. I haven't seen this much hypocrisy in a long, long time.
This is a huge scar on the face of your country, and you should look into getting it fixed now.
Not doubly screwed. The Texas governor is so weak as to be worthless. Bush did as little harm as he did good as our governor. Perry, however, is competent evil. The power resides in the Lt Governor, at worst we break even by moving Perry out of a position to continue the harm he has been doing.
Dave
Either way, a large portion of the country will be upset about it. It's going to be a difficult presidency, starting with Supreme Court confirmations being challenged by a split congress.
The one thing I want to know is, with the numbers so close, how could anyone NOT count every single ballot? I mean if there is only a margin of 537 and there are any more than 537 uncounted votes, then you got some counting to do! If you support Bush, wouldn't you rather know that your man won by more than 537? And if you support Gore, wouldn't you like to feel that it mattered that you voted.. especially if your vote was one of those sitting in a pile when they just stopped counting? Someone please explain to me how you can "just not count some" few thousand votes?
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
At least the live FOX News Coverage didn't interrupt The Simpsons. Then I would of been pissed.
--------------------
count the BEOWULF CLUSTERS of hanging chads? And just how hung is Chad?
Hey friend,
/. comment put it) is that the rural areas of the US would be SoL... since the urban areas could DOMINATE the US system.
I was thinking about your third statement -- the abolishment of the electoral college... I know this is a hot issues down there (I'm in Canada... the land of the "fair vote") - so I'll only speak to it for a second.
The deal with changing the constitution isn't really THAT big. It would involve a popular vote (one citizen = one vote), and a constitutional ammendment. (Granted.. that is it's self a pretty big deal; but if the people of the US put up enough fuss over the election... that might do it)
There are a couple advantages (and quite a few disadvanges) to popular vote... the most important of those (as one
BUT... it's been shown (repeatedly) in economics, that urban centers are an economic "good". Having the synergy of a city creates more 'progress' than having a distributed population. (untill teleporters are cheap enough for ALL of us) [using normal economic assumptions...]
I don't think the American people should discount their right to change their own future -- there should be greater access to changing the constitution! Someone should get out there an do it... I wonder if Gore's would stick his neck out for it...?
I'm not a fool, I know the democrats play the game the same way. However, in this Florida fiasco, which side would you want to take that of I won, let's bring out the keg and coke, or that of the disenfranchised voter? (The millitary ballot issue is a little murky too).
I'm showing my colors a little bit, and I did vote for Gore. Part of that was guilt, I had made fun of him for claiming to invent the internet. Well, I saw a NSF colloquy, and looked at his record, and he may not have invented but he pretty well single handedly made the money availible for it. I figured I kinda "owed" him.
That said, I truly think it doesn't matter. We as a people will get the leader we deserve. It won't matter if GW is really the president elect, he'll will soon have it explained to him that he doesn't run the country, bond traders and economists do. But I do look forward to paying a 2% social security tax increase so he can keep his promise, so much for my tax cut. I think that's why I enjoy this train wreck so much; how can one not revel in the irony of it all? In the end I got to be a part of history. A small part, but my role is undeniable; and as a bonus, I now get to put the smack down on anyone who says any vote doesn't count. Aside from the obvious Florida mess, if GW lost any of his other states, even lowly Wyoming, the Florida outcome would be irrelevent.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Lots of people had it easier then Gore in Vietnam. My dad was one, it was his job to be in the rear with the gear, and to look peoples badges. There were many like him, but this one was mine. Being stationed on a large, safe airforce base beats the hell out to traveling anywhere in a jeep or by foot. That's not to say it was all sunshine and lollipops of course; it's not like he skipped ahead of thousands to join the "Champagne" unit of the Texas Air National Guard. (Not much threat of a Tet offensive in Texas so far as I know.)
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
"Of the recounts he wanted the only one was finished, two more where cut short due to time constraints (Yeah, we like democracy, but we really need to hurry to get Bush in office in January now).The Democratic counties use older, more faulty machinery ... and ... and"
and
I never thought I'd think of Richard Nixon in a more positive light than anyone else... Nixon in 1960 could have done all this, and probably would have won.
JFK won the election by the thinnest of margins, largely from votes in Cook County, Il (Chicago). Mayor Dailey (ironically one of his sons is one of Gore's operatives). The fact that Mayor Dailey stacked the ballot boxes is not even argued anymore.
Nixon didn't do what Gore is doing now because he didn't want to damage the country.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"..I just want a *fair* count...
You have had a FAIR count. Al Gump has just been allowed to play dirty and politicize the happenings. He is afraid since hillary has said she would like to run for Fuhr in 2004 and she would beat him like a woman. Plus Clinton/Gore type democrats are criminals who need to be executed."
I do agree that Hillary (oh GOD NO) may be the frontrunner in 2004 for the Dems. But, things can change in 4 years. Hillary is probably going to embarass herself in the Senate. If you want to talk qualifications... What has SHE ever accomplished, besides cover up for all her husbands affairs?
Hillary may end up a Ted Kennedy... Unassailable in the Senate race, but poison outside NY.
Gore I think has damaged himself beyond all hope of getting his party's nomination in 2004.
I mean, the guy pretty much is content to be APPOINTED President by some unelected judge!
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
How is it a TROLL to state facts?
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Actually, when the founders of the US constitution and current governmental system in the US decided on the voting process they did so in such a way as to exclude what they considered the potentially "ignorant" commoners from participating in the election process. They did this by only allowing male property owners to vote. Eventually this was changed but there is some debate as to whether or not the electorial college system was also created for the same reason in addition to the prevention of potential "regional" presidents.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
One big problem...
Look at how violently the democratic party reacted to Nader running, and he wasn't really a threat to them, he just took a few votes and they were talking about strangling him to death on national television. Could you imagine what these two power hungry parties would do if there was ever a real threat to the status quo that they have enjoyed for so long?
Otherwise, I would move to Canada but I hear the IT pay rates are much lower up there.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
Bush and his camp would have persued the same course if the roles were reversed. To say that Bush would not have stooped to the same tactics because he is a "better man" is foolish. They are both, after all, polititians and it should explain everything that choosing between two polititians is always described as picking between the "lesser of two evils".
This election was a farce, the whole world knows it and the only people who refuse to admit this are the ones foolish enough to still believe in one of the two parties blindly or in the two party system that has enjoyed undisputed power in this country for too long.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
The two party system is still safe for a while I think, unfortunately. America will have to wait for a generation or so until the old people die out who still believe in the two party system. The two parties are also so powerfull right now that they cannot be overturned except by gradually chipping away at their power, not by a direct assault.
,(oxymoron right now, yes). But until then the people are still too easily fooled by the media, the spinners, and the corporate hype.
The day will come when there will be a fair system in the US with good candidates and "good polititians"
Yes, I said corporate hype. They have a role in this as well. My company recommended it's choice of candidates to us, which reeks of bullying. I know other companies do the same. The companies and PACs give candidates and the parties "donations" that any other country would call bribes.
Oh, and if you think the media is as objective as they say, I have a bridge to sell you.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
This is the land of the rich, not the free. Where did you hear that we were free? I've always heard that nothing is free and that you get what you pay for.
Well, did you pay for some votes for your favorite candidate like your employer likely did? Did you pay the party of your choice, the one that promised votes that favor your company, millions of dollars worth of contributions?
If you didn't then you have no right to complain anymore. Only money talks here in the US, so put your money where your mouth is because that's the only vote that counts here anymore. The companies paid alot of money to get Bush elected, they deserve to get what they paid for fairly!
This sarcasm was brought to you by a generous grant from some nameless company who urges you to go out and vote because your vote counts. Hahahahaha!
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
In the overall scheme of things it is interesting that anyone could call either of these gentlemen winners, they have both lost. With only 24% of the potential popular vote going to either candidate this was a case of no confidence rather than a case of one being better than the other. Over 50% of the population still did not vote and I would venture to guess that less than that will turn out next time after what the candidates and parties decided to do to the votes in a close race that should have shown that every vote counts.
Pundits may spin that there was a winner in either case, but with congress virtually tied as were the presidential candidates, there are only losers here, and the biggest losers of all were the american people who have witnessed this sham and have been spun by the parties until they were witless.
These were not the "best" candidates that could have been fronted by either party. This was not a choice between the lesser of two evils, both gentlemen had a hard time convincing anyone that there was a difference between them. This was purely a battle between two stuffy old parties and the corporations who donated to either side, nothing more, nothing less.
The candidates lost, the parties lost, and the american people lost, face it people, we all lost.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
Yada yada yada...
"This is the exact reason that FoxNews is KILLING CNN and network news sources for fair and accurate reporting. It's about the NEWS to them, not their personal spin on the news to validate their own ideals and help them sleep at night."
Granted that MSNBC, CNN, and many other media outlets are biased towards the "liberals". But it's a fairly accepted fact that Fox is slanted to the "conservatives" as well.
The point being that there is bias for both sides and there are very few, if any, media sources one can trust for the complete, unbiased, and unembelished truth.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
The unions here in Ohio employed some pretty nasty tactics as well. In so many words they told the union members who they could and could not vote for and anyone not on the list they could choose for themselves. How nice of them, huh?
It's still money talking, unions want the status quo just as much as big corporations, busy body PACs, and other people with money fueled power trips. As I said, you don't choose, the money chooses, that's why the parties didn't front the best cadidates, they fronted the best puppets.
Almost all the republicans I talk to said McCain would have been a better choice than Bush. All the independents and moderate Dems I talked to also agreed that McCain would have likely won this election as well. But money spoke and Bush was the man for the Reps, such is the way it goes.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
My opinions on the subject are here
Sorry, i think you are missing a point here ...
If you had a proportional representation smaller parties would have a chance to get elected to congress or whatever. In the long run they may even get a chance to have a candidate for presidency with a *real* chance.
The majority vote system promotes two party systems. So if you're all for freedom of choice you might consider to give the people a little more choice. Eventually more americans would get interested in politics if there was more competition. And maybe that would lead to a higher voter turnout .
cu
IAAL
Will you americans finally modernize your political system ? Maybe anything other than majority vote system will give you ppl a little more choice. The whole thing kinda reminds of that little story of Douglas Adams of the Planet where men a rules by reptiles. They always vote for reptiles instead of the right man because they are afraid the wrong reptile gets elected. Whereas all those reptiles aren't too good as politicians....
IAAL
can take a very long vacation on the dark side of the Moon
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon...
Not that I'm a Republican, I just like that album.
Please please please mod me up! I'm serious! Pathetic, but serious!
Hi folks! :~
This is my first post here, and I admit I haven't read all the threads let alone replies, but here it is anyway. I suspect Bush will keep his victory, no, look this can be a good thing. Think about it,imagine all the fun we'll have here with ole Dubya over the next four years. Watching this guy try to cover up his party animal days and risky business efforts is gonna be more entertaining that watching a three legged cat try to bury his **** on a frozen pond. I suspect he have even less luck than the cat, with our help anyway.
Later
Matt
who voted for Harry or was it Ralph
matt@everyquest.net
http://everyquest.net
Canada is full of crack-addicted rabbits. See http://www.suck.com.
There may very well be enough support after this election to do away with the electoral college, despite the fact that it is supported by the two party system. Both parties would win since the Nation and the World find the system to be old, outdated, and not democratic. The party that leads the charge to do away with it could pick up votes in the process for the next election-that alone is enough of a reason to try it.
FYI: Gore had average grades in high school, and graduated in the middle range of his class (26/51, if memory serves).
He got in because of his father, and due to the excellent prep school he attended. I'm not saying that this justifies anything that happened in Bush's favor. I'm just saying that we should keep both sides in focus when throwing our stones.
Oh. And don't throw your B+ average at me. Everyone knows the gentleman's C has become the gentleman's B in the Ivies..
The reasoning behind it is that if you are too stupid to follow the instructions, then you are too stupid to have your vote count. I'm pretty sure lack of intelligence is not sufficient grounds, in the United States, for revocation of voting privileges.
On a similar note, Bush had stated that he'd "put it all on the line" in a foot race with Gore on the Tonihgt Show with Jay Leno. That was before the election, so why hasn't that happened to save all of us (especially non US citizens) headaches - (and for those of us in the US - uninterrupted TV shows)! I'll take time out of my sitcom watching to see a one mile foot race, but breaking into my sitcoms to tell me that it's not over yet just irritate me.
Although it might be different if either one was actually worth having as president.
Justin Koivisto, ZCE
To: The citizens of the United States of America: In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect: 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium" Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed." 2. There is no such thing as "US English." We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. 3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. 4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. 5. You should relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen, but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through. 6. You should stop playing American football. There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American football is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full Kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005. 7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. Merde is French for "shit". 8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called Indecisive Day. 9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. 10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy. Thank you for your cooperation.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
The S&L scandal had nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism: it had to do with bad management.
In case anyone isn't old enough to remember what happened, in the early 80s S&Ls were deregulated to the point where they could actually loan themselves money: federally insured money. This opened the door for crooks like Keating (and GWB's brother Neil) to make high-risk investments *with federally insured money*. When they went belly up, the federal goverment had to bail them out, because the federal government had insured the money.
The fault lay not only with the crooks like Keating, but with the idiots under Reagan who let them do anything they want with federally insured money. That's bad management!
The only thing liberal or conservative about the whole mess was that a lot of the crooks were big-ticket Republican donors.
--
...it's an inconsistency.
The original claim is still valid. The "winner" of this election had a winning margin that's less than the error margin. In other words, he didn't win anything.
And for what it's worth, if you assume precision in the counting process, your recursion argument doesn't apply here. In this case, a margin of victory greater than the margin of error -- even by one vote -- is still a significant result.
What this says to me is that we should adopt some real voting methods, rather than the "punch and pray" approach we use now. Otherwise, we're just fooling ourselves about the validity of our participatory democracy...
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
The one thing this election teaches us is that no, your one vote really *doesn't* matter, because any time the margin is that close, the count will be ruined by our country's piss-poor data collection machinery used in voting.
These problems have always existed, but it was only just now that it was so close that it mattered.
The one thing this election will teach us is that it's high time we had election reform - no not the abolishing of the electoral college, not the reform of money-gathering techniques, but the very simple, technical reform of getting a better voting machine in place, and using it universally.
Here in Wisconsin, the repubs briefly considered doing a recount because of the close margin here, but they gave up since we don't use obsolete chad-punchcards or butterfly ballots. We use a simple visual scanner that looks for a line you draw on the paper, and if the machine detects double-votes it spits the ballot back at you right there, so you know about it and can do it again. This system is good enough that a manual recount wouldn't really change much. Something similarly accurate needs to be nationalized.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Jikes! Imagine if we DID have a real democracy! 60% of the population wouldn't bother to vote on major issues. 85% probably wouldn't vote on routine issues. "Oooh.. you see now Grandma... you voted to eliminate social security there on this butterfly ballot. What you really wanted to choose was this third hole down here.. "increase social security by $1000 billion." :-)
So, theoretically, your margin of error would have made Gore win the first manual recount. He didn't. Bush has been ahead in every recount, even after recounts were done in only 3 heavily democratic counties. I am sorely waiting for the US Supreme Court to hand the Florida State Supreme Court an ass whoopin for violating the United States Constitution and the 14th ammendment.
Yeah, that's about what I expect from slashdot.
Want to reply to me next time, you coward?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Christopher Browne
(Who Slashdot cut off at the "E")
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Bzzzzzt. Not quite. Electors are allocated based on the number of senators (always 2) + representatives (number based on population). That fixed 2 becomes important for small states.
You see there's a minimum of 3 electors per state (one for each senator and rep, the minimum being 2+1=3, e.g. Wyoming), This gives Wyoming much more say so in the presidential race on a people's-votes-per-elector ratio. In CA, the ratio is far lower. So this inequity compels presidential hopefule, not to IGNORE rural America.
Al campaigned in NYC/LA/CHI/etc. and neglected rural regions. Now he's paying the price. He cheesed off the fewer (rural) people who collectively wield more electoral votes than those representing the urban population.
The constitution emphasizes CHECKS AND BALANCES above all else. The Electoral College is no exception.
things. take. time.
I voted for NEITHER Bush, or Gore
I wish I could say the same. I didn't like Gore's woodeness and Bush's record. Frankly I didn't want to continue the Clinton presidency.
I dunno about CmdrTaco calling Bush something like a "head of lettuce" as I don't see Taco having much real to say about politics. I really see little differentiation policy-wise. If Gore had done something notable for the environment in the last 8 years can someone point it out, please? That to me would be a good differentiation, as it seems his position on the environment got pushed to obscurity compared to other things.
Honestly, IMO neither man deserves the job. Both are presently in figurehead positions, neither position truly prepares a person for the job, but can anyone tell me what job prepares a person for the Presidency? Even very militarily successful high-ranking generals have had very mixed results, some good, some bad.
The margin of error is not in the election itself, but rather in the counting methods used. According to the numbers I've heard, punch card ballots have an error rate as high as 4 or 5 percent (this is considered acceptable (by the people who made the decisions, not by me) since the errors are random and thus do not affect the results except in exceedingly close elections). Other common methods, such as pulling levers or optical scanners, have error rates ranging from 0.25% to 1%. The national popular vote has a margin of approximately 200,000 out of 100,000,000, or 0.2%, which puts it within the margin of error cited above. I'll leave it to the statisticians to determine if that means it's fair to call that a tie.
for Texans.
He won't be our governor for much longer.
No, if you look at the bottom of the chart, the total population for the counties that Bush won is greater than the population of the counties that Gore won and that population base is growing faster. It is significant in that it shows that Gore's support is primarily in metro areas or areas dominated by unions & minorities.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
A good map of the US by who won the electorial college votes by state is at http://www.usatoday.com/news/ vot e2000/electfront.htm. An even better map is the one that shows who won each county. This map is at http://www.usatoday.com/news/vot e20 00/cbc/map.htm There are several states where Gore only won a handful of counties and three where he didn't win any.
I also wonder how many people in the Western states didn't vote because the networks called Florida prematurely and started predicting that Gore had it wrapped up. I've heard of several reports that when people at the polls in Western Florida heard that FL had been called for Gore, they just turned around and left. You also have to wonder how many Gore votes are due to the fiasco in St. Louis.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
It needs to get wrapped up pretty quickly at least so the president-elect can assemble a cabinet, WH staff, etc. All these people have to go through FBI background checks and get started with the process of transition. Gore could have an easier time doing this by just keeping the bulk of Clinton's staff.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
The FL Supreme Court set the deadline of 17:00 11/26/2K or if the office wasn't open 09:00 the next morning. IMHO, Gore only offered the hand recount for every county only because he wanted to continue the trolling for votes in the large counties that he won by quite large margins. Bush is forcing the counties to count the overseas absentee ballots that were excluded using the formula that the FL Attorney General (a Demo) initially sent out to each election commission. He later recanted these instructions because of the flack he received for excluding a significant number of military absentee ballots. The lawsuit is to make sure the counties abide by the revised rules. Also, if the US Senate decides which elector slate is valid, it is the current one, which isn't 50-50.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
As I had thought I pointed out earlier, the "right to elect a president directly" does not exist. Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever state that popular votes for a President even have to be held. According the the Constitution, each state's legislature decides how its electors are picked; by tradition they have all chosen to do this with a popular vote but this is not actually necessary (the only law regarding this is that the rules must be set before the election, and once set they cannot be changed once the election starts, at least not in such a way that the election in progress would be affected by said changes). "The Presidential election" as we know it is actually 51 statewide elections (plus a citywide one in DC); the winner traditionally gets all the electoral votes from that state, except in Maine and Nebraska.
Lastly, every other race in america is won or lost by the popular vote. So why not the president as well?
I'm not certain I understand this one. As far as I can tell, you mean one of two things: either that the popular vote has always agreed with the electoral vote, or that all other elected officials are done by popular vote.
If you mean that all other presidential elections have had the popular and electoral tallies in agreement, you're wrong. This is not the first, or even the second, time that this has happened; it's the fourth. Granted, it's the first time in over a hundred years, but that means little. And in none of those cases was there ever such a controversy as this.
If you're saying that other officials are elected by popular vote, that's not important. There are many ways to hold elections, and in the end no one way that is truly right and fair all of the time, not even popular vote (which is particularly unfair in the case of a nation where voters are heavily concentrated in certain small areas, such as ours). Besides which, the President was never intended to be elected by the people. In fact, the President and Vice President aren't even intended to run together; they're chosen separately, though again tradition holds that they run together.
There are some very interesting quirks in this. All of the following, though extremely unlikely, are all mathematically possible outcomes for this election:
No, the system's not perfect. But I maintain my assertion that it's the fairest one out there that I've seen.
----------
While you are correct, consider: a candidate who can concentrate on campaigning heavily in fifteen cities will do so, because the likelihood of garnering votes will be greater.
Remember, it only took four cities to turn the popular vote from Bush to Gore (all of them in California, and these four carried so much power they turned the whole state, which had actually voted mostly Republican otherwise). With fifteen, all but the closest elections -even closer than this one was- would be completely wrapped up with even a fairly small percentage majority (also note that the urban areas did tend to go heavily towards one candidate or the other, usually Gore, this time around).
This is the beauty of the Electoral College. It is true that many comparatively small groups of people can turn an election under the current system. This is good, because it ensures that you have to please them all to have any mathematically reasonable chance of winning, rather than just concentrating on fifteen small areas.
I live near an urban area. Either way; candidates will listen to what I have to say. But I would far prefer that candidates had to listen to everyone, and not just me. That is why the Electoral College works.
----------
Pardon? I think the electoral college is crap because it explicitly works against the principle of "one man, one vote"
Actually, I don't think it does.
Consider: if you take a direct-popular vote, then realistically speaking, no more than fifteen US cities will decide every single election from now on.
A candidate could well say "I support bulldozing the entire nation except for <insert major urban areas here> to create parking lots for <insert aforementioned urban areas>." Even if every single person not in those areas votes against this, if the people of those cities vote for it (a likely situation, given the terrible parking in most major urban areas), then the votes of those in rural areas were for nothing.
Now, there's one other thing: the President was never meant to be chosen by the people. Nor, actually, was the Senate. The people get their fair representation in the House (where things are not quite proportional, since all the states have at least one representative, but no one disuputes this). The states (because keep in mind that each state is also its own entity) get their fair representation in the Senate (one state, two senators who oversee matters of the state as a whole). The office of the Presidency was created such that it would be chosen by the states; it's a rather interesting constitutional fluke but it's actually quite constitutional for a state to not hold popular elections for the President at all; only tradition dictates that they do). This is how each state is assured its voice in choosing the symbolic head. Also note that this is important in the case of the Vice President, who has voting power in the Senate just as a Senator does (but in the case of the VP, that power exists only in the case of a tie). This is why it's important for the states to choose: this is the arbiter for ties in the body which represents them.
Note that the Constitution was later amended to support the direct election of Senators (they were originally appointed by state legislatures).
The people get their representation. That's what the House is for: a body where everything is based on population (though note that in small states where there is only one representative, the people who voted against him/her get no voice at all: is this fair?) The states get their representation: this is the Senate and the Presidency. And the federal government itself gets its representation: this is the Supreme Court (or would you rather that the Supreme Court justices be forced to descend into politics, rather than being able to focus on upholding the Constitution and justice overall?)
That's what checks and balances are for. The people are not the be-all and end-all of power, nor should they be: 99.95% of the people, very nearly all Slashdotters, and probably 99.99% of people who haven't studied law -noting that I haven't either-)don't have the knowledge or training it takes to run a country in any kind of effective manner. That is why we have elections. But sometimes mistakes are made here: that is why proportional representation is checked by nonproportional means as well (such as the Presidency itself; is it fair that we have only one President?); neither is powerful enough to overpower the other, so all must agree before a law is passed. It's not perfect, but it's more effective and, in the end, fairer, than any other system I've seen.
----------
Pardon? I think the electoral college is crap because it explicitly works against the principle of "one man, one vote", instead allocating undue influence to sparsely populated states. I voted in California in this election (for neither Bush nor Gore, FWIW) - California has one electoral vote for (roughly) every 540,000 people. Iowa (to take a battleground state in this election) has roughly one for every 280,000. I don't call that a fair system.
I'd go so far as to say the system works as designed - it gives that extra little nudge in a tight presidential contest to rural landowners, keeping the urban poor in check. If the broken system hadn't been enshrined in the body of the constitution itself (by our clearly infallible *ahem* founding fathers), but merely in statute, it would have been trashed decades ago as contrary to the fourteenth amendment.
(Disclosute: I think both Republicrat-party candidates sucked most heartily this year, and would never have voted for either of those to jokers, even if I still lived in Florida. I would be grousing as loudly if Gush's and Bore's fortunes were reversed.
Most civilized countries have proportional representation. Damn near all have provisions for runoff elections in a race where multiple candidates leave the race too close to call (some states and counties do this, too). A one-night-only, winner-take-all electoral system produces erratic results and generates no end of controversy when the results are within the margin of error. Add in the skew towards less populous states, and you have a process of questionable legitimacy.
I'm with you on trashing punch-card ballots, but a adamantly against fully-electronic balloting. With physical ballots, the number of empties is known, and the completed ballots leave a physical record. Tweaking an electronic vote tally leaves no physical trace, unlike "losing" a stack of marked ballots (the lost number being reflected in the difference between the total count of ballots before and after the election). In other words, an election could be stolen *without incurring suspicion* simply because there would be no irregularities noted - the electronic count would be the sole, indisputable count. Ugh. Ugly to contemplate.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Just wanted to jump in here and remind you that the court system is in fact the branch of government charged with evaluating petitions for redress and then ruling as to the soundness of the claim and the appropriate remedy, if any.
That is to say, a legal process. A protesting mob is not a petition for redress. It is an exercise in free assembly, though, which I wholeheartedly support.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The problem is, there wasn't an equal vote in this state.
Bush won.
They recounted.
Bush still won.
They recounted again.
Bush STILL won.
How many times does reality have to slap Gore in the face before he wakes up? That idiot Bill Daley keeps yammering about "the will of the people". Yet the Gore camp disqualifies absentee ballots from military members. And STILL he yammers about "the will of the people".
Well guess what Billy-boy. The will of the people HAS been followed. And despite your best efforts to derail it, you've lost.
Does it suck? Sure. But that's the way the system was designed. He agreed to be bound by the rules of the system. Just because it didn't give him the results HE would have liked, doesn't mean that he shouldn't be bound by the decision after the fact.
And before you start telling me that I'm a hypocrite and wouldn't say the same thing if it was Bush losing. Let me inform you. I voted for NEITHER Bush, or Gore.
And if Bush had resorted to the same tactics (i.e. anything till "we" like the result) as the Gore camp has, they'd be seeing JUST as much derision from me as the Gore camp is getting now.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
---
...gets an masters...
---
"An masters"?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Wow! What an articulate citizen you are. I am a 'freshly converted' Republican after going through three presidential elections registered as a Democrat. I see from your web site that you are a college student with "...little over 1 year of work experience...". If you are much like the people I went to school with, then you really only have time between work and classes to skim the news about the elections and candidates. If so, then you are mostly parroting the views of the people you grew up around and respect for various reasons. My views certainly matured greatly after taking the helm of a small business.
In ten years you may want to look back at your post above and see how your perspectives have matured or changed.
I don't own any stock at all, supported the M$ anti-trust case and voted for Bush in this election. My votes are not cast by party, but are based upon the information that I have about each candidate. It seems that I came to the same conclusion about Al Gore that the majority of Tennessee ( and Arkansas while I'm mentioning it) voters did.
In closing, I don't hope you burn in hell. I do hope that you learn to be a bit more level headed before you venture into the job markets that don't rely on state funding.
Take care Mr. Jackson.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
What exactly, is a Joint Class? I think I had a few of those back in "High" School. :)
Bush(tm) (marca registrada) The President? Nah. Well maybe in the same way small children think Mickey Mouse is the King of Disneyworld. The President of the US o' A is James A. Baker III. He ran shit when Reagan was the Leader of the MoFo Free World and he will do it again with Reagan Jr.-Lite (tm). I'm sure Frat Boy will try to inject himself into the process but they'll talk over his head and use big words until he falls asleep or has a tantrum and leaves the room.
BTW, expect that after Cheney keels over that Cardinal Baker appoints SchwartzPowell to the office.
The US election is a perfect example of what you get when you have two fundamentally bland candidates who totally fail to motivate people. Send people to the polls to choose between two indistinguishable candidates, and guess what? They'll come out 50/50.
There's a good article on feed that points out:
It's impossible to find out what "the will of the people" is under these circumstances. No matter how you count, the margin for error will remain higher than the margin of victory. Thus, tossing a coin, asking a lawyer, or taking your life-line and calling a friend are equally valid ways of deciding who gets to be US president.
Of course, the logical thing is to just hold the election over and over again until you poor Americans get it right.
Charles Miller
--
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
>Do you understand the need for a manual recount now?
The problem is that with every additional recount you do (manually OR by machine), you introduce further error into the count. This is because with a punchcard system such as they're using in Florida, moving the punchcards around may break off chads - which may or may not have been actually punched through by the voter (they may have only been indented, or "dimpled"). It may have been that they were about to vote for the candidate, dimpling the chad, and then didn't vote for anyone. Now during the recount, the chad falls out and it's counted as a vote the voter didn't intend. Or they may have been about to vote for a candidate, and then voted for another - in which case if in the next recount the dimpled/pregnant/whatever chad for the almost-voted-for candidiate falls off, as commonly happens with these punchcards, then that vote will be invalidated because it now looks like they voted for two presidential candidates.
And there's no way for us to know which of these situations may or may not have occurred with each ballot.
This is why there were different results in each of the recounts by machine, because sending them through the machine causes more chads to fall off (sending them through the hands of human counters would have much the same effect, as they get flexed and moved around, etc). Which is also why a manual recount isn't going to improve your accuracy, because the process of recounting itself is changing what the ballots are showing. Even if you ignore the potential for bias among human counters, the ballots they're trying to count are no longer going to show the same thing as they did on election night due to the physical limitations of the cards.
I personally would like to see more counties moving towards electronic systems such as the touchscreen-based ones used in several counties nationally. They look much like an ATM, and people have found them very easy to use. This eliminates this ridiculous situation of having to look at chads, and somehow try to divine the intent of the voter from how much a chad is hanging off, or how much it's dimpled, etc.
Hell with flipping a coin. Demand a pistol duel!
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I'm glad it works in Ireland, but the point remains that the combination of constitutional arrangements and political character has led to problems in some countries.
Overall, I was just trying to point out the somewhat glassy nature of the houses people were throwing stones from, and I think the point is still valid.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Even if the CIA did precipitate the events of 1975 (which I find *very* difficult to believe for a variety of reasons which I can't be bothered going in to here), the fact remains that the hole in the constitution which left John Kerr and Gough Whitlam in the farcical situation of being able to sack the other at a moment's notice, and the fact that without the double dissolution triggers the whole Senate would not have faced the people, shows the constitution was and is seriously flawed.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Yes, it's nice to have a chuckle at the expense of arrogant Yanks, but get some perspective. Just because they don't understand the world beyond their own borders doesn't mean we should be the same :)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Not really. Each senate seat is popularly elect4ed, there's a big difference between that and having a populkar election for the entire senate. Ditto with the house of representatives -- just because you can get 99% of the vote in seat A does not mean that you can forward 48% of the vote to another party member running in seat B.
As for the "circus in florida", the problem has arisen because the election is too close (the voters may as well have voted randomly), not because the "system" is bad.
You're kidding yourself if you believe that the problem was somehow "caused" by the electoral college. If the vote in Florida was split like that, and the votees in the other states were also split in such a manner, the two parties would be quarreling over one or two deciding electoral votes, you'd still have the same situation with both sides trying to gerrymander it their way. Even with a popular vote, the popular vote is close enough that it's be tied up in litigation (and the recounts would be somewhat more difficult !)
This is completely wrong. The margins of victory would increase, but so would the number of votes, so the difference between the margin of victory and the margin of error would not change that much. If a popular vote was used, you'd have Florida on a national level right now.
This lecture describes not only how you can cheat these systems, but how and why it's so hard to get an accurate count (not to mention why it's nearly impossible to count the same number of votes twice , mechanically OR manually).
The lecture is in .ASF and powerpoint format... sorry. Click http://wean1.ulib.org/cgi-bin/metawin-lectures.pl? target=Lectures/Distinguished%20Lectures /2000 and select the bottom row (Michael Shamos's "What's happening in Florida")! For some reason, slashdot is mangling the URL, so there are some spaces on it when you click there... just remove them in your netscape window.
Yes, some of the predictions that he made are somewhat dated (as the lecture happened on the 15th), but it is a very interesting overview of what can and *does* happen to your votes that you may not have thought about. It's a little long, but worth the time!
/ \
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
x
/ \
The elderly tended to, overwhelmingly, vote for Gore, so the majority of the votes so recovered will favor Gore.
Not in Florida.
You're talking about a county that is a Pat Buchanan stronghold (in fact, he lives there), and that voted majority Republican in the 1994 elections.
And, yes, those over 65 voted majority Republican in many races in that election. Look it up.
Palm Beach County voted for Connie Mack in 1994, by nearly 60%. There has been a widespread feeling among seniors in that county that Clinton betrayed them by concentrating on things like gays in the military instead of the things he promised them. They do not all believe Gore's attempts to get back in their good graces, and they remember seeing "that nice young man" his brother on TV a lot.
A lot of old folks in Palm Beach county voted for Clinton because he reminded them of JFK. Nobody's making that comparison to Gore.
-
There is ample legal precedent for counting dimpled ballots. Counting the voters' intent is even the law in backwards places like Texas now, thanks to a law supported and signed by none other than GuuB himself.
And what if the ballot is dimpled because the voter started to vote for Gore, then had an attack of conscience and voted "none of the above" by not continuing the motion?
A lot of those ballots have clear votes on every single race except President. Almost none of the "dimpled chad" votes are going to Bush.
Are we really supposed to believe that the voting machines all jammed up only on Gore?
-
A lot of those ballots have clear votes on every single race except President. Almost none of the "dimpled chad" votes are going to Bush.
According to the inventor of the punch card voting system used, there is a mechanical flaw which can and does lead to the first column of punches being incompletely punched while all of the other rows are punched cleanly. This is particularly the case in old, worn out machinery like much of that used in the election.
There is ample reason to count dimpled ballots, even when the only punch dimpled is in the first column which just so happens to be the presidential votes in question.
That being said, a hand recount of the entire state is what is required and what should happen, to be as sure as possible that the result is as accurate as possible. Unfortunately the Republicans chose to denigrate the entire recount process -- something that is standard procedure in any close election -- rather than request recounts in Republican leaning counties, as was their responsiblity.
The Democrats correctly requested recounts where they thought it would help them.
Clearly, the entire procedure needs to be revisited -- in an election this close, a hand count of the entire state is what should have happened. It wasn't up to the Democrats to request it, but it shouldn't have depended on the Republicans requesting it either. It should simply have been standard operating procedure, begun immediately, with no certification until completed.
Are we really supposed to believe that the voting machines all jammed up only on Gore?
Bush has received some dimpled ballots. However, the dimpled ballot issue is a systemic phenomenon which targets the elderly and weak, who did not use enough force to puncture the first row of chads and thus have their vote counted. The elderly tended to, overwhelmingly, vote for Gore, so the majority of the votes so recovered will favor Gore.
As it is, by refusing to count those votes were are excluding a particular group of people, namely those too elderly or too weak to fully displace the chads in the first column of votes. Since this excludes a demographic group which favors Gore, it is understandable that the co-chair of Guub's election campaign would be so unwilling to include them. What is not tolerable is that this stand: any and all discernable votes must be counted (and should be, statewide).
That this isn't happening denigrates the entire process, and I blame both the Dems for not insisting more vocally on a statewide recount and denigrating the process when the other side obtains legal victories, as well as the Repubs for not doing their job in requesting recounts, gathering a mob to terrorize one canvassing board (Dade) into stopping their recount, and denigrating the process when the Dems have legal victories.
A pox on both of their houses -- we should exile them from both from politics forever and start from scratch.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Well your facts are a bit distorted. Sure if you ROUND the numbers Bush got 48 and Gore 49 percent. However, rounding makes it seem much further apart than it really is. Gore got something like 48.6 and bush got something like 48.3. In other words, the most you could say, based on the facts, is that just .3% (350k) of voters prefer Gore to Bush. To put that in perspective, using your kind of logic, if Buchanan had dropped out his 499k votes would have gone to Bush, and Bush would've won the so-called popular vote. Or in yet a different light, more voters wanted Bush in this election than wanted Clinton in his first election. All that is irrelevant though, we have laws. We're not going to start inventing new ways of massaging the data to get the results we want, it's too dangerous.
.1% of the country thinks. I think the greater moral violence is that against law. In addition, if you believe in the "people" and polling/statistics, they show how the people really feel now (~60% favor Bush stance in many different areas, such as legitimacy, who "won" florida, who "deserves" to win, etc, etc)
As for Nader, he's totally irrelevant. You don't know that Nader voters would have even voted. (I suspect a great many of them wouldn't have). Also, as I have previously indicated, I know at least a couple Nader voters that would otherwise vote Republican. It could also be argued that Nader changed the very dynamics of the election. For instance, Nader might have pushed Gore more towards the extreme ends of the democratic party, causing him to take risks that he would have otherwise never taken. What if, what if, what if. We simply can't know.
I strenuously object to the assertion by the liberal media and Gore that these minor facts somehow give Gore a "moral" victory, as if somehow a Bush victory is amoral. We are a nation of law and at the end of the day that is our chief moral not the merely what
Speak for yourself. The margin of error is not something that has been drummed into my head by pollsters. I say there is a margin of error because there IS one in every election, despite the assertions of some. The degree may vary. Some may choose to call it by another name, but it exists nonetheless. It does not mean that anyone is being "disenfranchised". You can say it's unacceptable and unfair till you turn blue in the face, but that does not change the fact that it exists.
Are there better alternatives? Sure there are. But don't trivialize the problem and act as if getting rid of any and all error is a small task. There are serious issues at work here. Your solution may sound foolproof to you, but don't be so sure of yourself. So long as we're in the physical realm, we're going to have some error. If the error is sufficiently small so that an inaccurate election result is extremely rare, I'd rather have that than, say, a novel digital election with unknown risks (i.e., the potential for massive and untraceable fraud) but 0 or negligible error....
Then, by that same reasoning, it's also fair to say that more people in Florida want Bush. Also, Bill Clinton should have never been elected, because if you added Ross Perot's votes (far more than Nader et. al) to Bush Sr., Bush would've clinched it.
.3% of the vote? No, I didn't think so.
It's not "definetly" fair to say that "most" people did not want Bush. On the basis of the results alone, it's almost exactly 50/50. If Gore so much as farted, that margin could have gone the other way. On the basis of the intent of the country, you simply can't know that. As I've already mentioned, the electoral college changes the way people vote (and also the way the candidates campaign). For instance, I know many people in California and New York that, believe it or not, voted for Nader (because they believe the environment needs more attention) but who would have otherwise voted for Bush (as strange as that may seem). The point is that you can't presume to know the will of the people until you've actually counted their explicit vote. A vote in the electoral college system simply cannot be summed up and called a popular vote, especially when it's this close. Can you really tell me that people making those kinds of decisions are not more than
I'm not your typical slashdotter. Unlike the rest of slashdot, I generally consistently support IP.
The bottom line is that I do deny that Gore "certainly" got more votes in Florida, and to the extent that you can argue that Gore won Florida, I can argue that Bush won the so-called "popular vote". What we can agree on are the facts, that Bush won the official votes in Florida and Gore won more official votes nationwide. It'd be a mistake to abandon law in favor of this highly subjective reasoning of yours. Just who would you appoint to be chief reasoner? How is that protected from fraud, manipulation, and abuse? I'd rather have a concrete vote, no matter which way it turns, than the alternative subjective means.
No, you'd have each person having an equal say... Right now, where according to your theory, our votes are weighted by what the population density is. The higher the density the less each vote counts, basically. It's not like a candidate could go from LA to Houston to Miami to Altanta to DC to Boston to New York to Chicago and wrap the election like that, unless maybe they got 100% of the votes in each of those cities and the rest of the coutry forgot to turn out.
Every other vote in this country is based on popular vote - senators, congressmen, governors, mayors, etc... And didn't we just sit back in glee when Milosivech (i know, i can't spell his name) lost the popular vote, called himself the victor and then watch on tv as the entire country revolted against him.
Maybe we don't need to abolish the electoral college completely, but what we need to do is separate the votes from the states. Have the candidates fight out over each and every vote... Like, right now, bush'd get 13 of florida's votes and gore'd get 12 and this'd been over weeks ago. Because i hardly see how "every vote counts" under a system where the loser wins... No one recounted Massachusetts looking for extra gore or bush or nader votes because 66% of the state went for gore, making the other 34% basically throwaway votes.
Let's see, she came up with a national healthcare plan that would have put most of us in the poor-house and stole an African saying (It takes a village...) and pawned it off as her own...
Perfect Democratic candidate!
--
The unsig!
Actually, regardless of whether Gore thinks the electoral system is fair, he agrees that it's the law. In a speech a few days after the election he said that although he may have won the popular vote, it's the electoral college that counts; essentially, that he knew the way the game is played, and will win or lose by those rules.
The lawsuits and challenges you're seeing now, incidentally, are part of those rules. The law isn't a machine, and we can't expect a hotly contested matter to be resolved in one iteration. Lots of important things are decided just the way this is being decided, by citizens taking their disagreement to the judicial system. Blah blah checks and balances etc.
As an American, I'm not embarrassed by an election that takes a lot of time and a lot of lawsuits, as long as it's eventually resolved peacefully. Resolving our differences through appeal to law--byzantine and tedious though it may be--is a lot better than bloody revolution or assassination, two popular alternatives which don't look likely here (notwithstanding some rioting in Florida). Believe it or not, this is how it's supposed to work.
My bad, it was 999,000 -- I put an extra zero. but the recount caught it.
BTW, Florida has 6 mil votes, so a 99.9% accurate count has a margin of error of 6000. A 99.99% accurate count still gives a margin greater than Bush's current lead (but it's much closer, 600)
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
What I meant by "the electoral vote is tallied" was to tally the national electoral vote (which could easily, under that system, happen several times). Yeah, it would require changing the constitution.
If Senator Bedfellow does well enough the first time around to win the majority electoral vote, that would end the process right there - there would be no runoff. You're right though - with a runoff and a proxy system, a person's total could change for the worse, state by state.
Dammit.
Well, this is why a person's vote should not count for more or less just because of where they happen to live.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
As far as recounts go, I'm imagining a time when we have computer voting booths everywhere (we've got them where I live already) and "recount" means, "do another query with these computers". There'd be some kind of secure protocol by which they could all put the results together a few minutes after the polls close.
I don't know how close we are to that right now.
I don't see why you can't do a runoff system with the states proportionally dividing their electoral votes. It would be like an optimized version of the following:
State X asks all its voters to vote for their honest top choice, assuring them that if that person does not win, and the election does not become a foregone conclusion, they will be able to change their vote.
The state's votes are distributed proportionally, rounding off where necessary.
The electoral vote is tallied. If one candidate has a majority, that's that - because no runoff would change anything.
If not, each state drops off the candidate that received the least votes in that state. The votes that went for that candidate spill over to the second choices marked on those ballots. The results are again tallied and the proportional votes from each state redecided. The electoral vote is again tallied.
Repeat until somebody has a majority of the electoral vote.
The electoral votes here act as nothing more than a proxy, and their function is to keep the balance we have now which weights each state's influence.
A more blatant way to do this would be to give each person a weight based on where they live. Those living in cities would have a smaller number and those on farms would have a larger number. This, of course, exposes plainly the injustice of the electoral college - your vote literally counts for less when you live in a populated area. It's the only reason Gore isn't the president now, and it's what makes liberals cringe. Conservatives justify it by pointing at the county-by-county results that show a country blanketed in red.
Personally, I'd go with a popular vote and ditch the electoral college. But then, I'm liberal. I know it's not gonna happen, so this is my best effort given the constraints.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
McCain should have beat Bush in the primary. I'd have voted for McCain.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
The twist here is that it's electoral _voters_, not electoral _votes_. These people have all the disgression in the world when they go up there and vote. They can elect CowboyNeal as president and it would stand.
The electoral margin is so slim that just a few of those voters could change thier mind (they've done it many times before, including ones from Florida, though it's never decided an election) and it could swing the other way.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Ok, this is really stupid. I had bullets in this post, in the form of lowercase o's, but that triggered a "junk repetitive characters" lameness filter. Now I'm wondering if this will get accepted at all, or rejected for being a "repeat". People, these filters are worthless.
Here are some suggestions for federal legislation to avoid some of these things in the future:
Keep the electoral college, but with some changes.
Proponents of the electoral college system point out that it keeps less populated states' interests from being overrun by voting blocs in the heavily populated areas - each state gets proportional representation, plus two extra. Ok, fair enough. That can stay.
What should go is the part about the states electing voters. This is the part that smacks of elitism. We should not be electing "electors" that have discretion. It should be a completely automatic system. Just make that small change in the constitution. It's not like it would even really change things much, but it's the principle of the thing.
Pass a law requiring states to split their votes proportionally.
The reason the states have a 'winner-take-all' system right now is to make themselves more attractive to candidates. If Joe Candidate can go to Iowa and get a thousand extra votes that would tip all of the state's electoral votes in his favor, you can bet he'll spend a lot of time in Iowa, which is great for Iowa - he'll pander to their specific concerns. Once one state does this, the others all have to do it too, to make themselves more attractive. Then we get what we have now - 48 states using winner-take-all, and candidates that pander only to the ones that are "In Play".
If they split their electoral votes, the small states would still get that extra little clout, but everything would be "in play" - you could go anywhere and pick up an extra electoral vote.
Finally, a runoff system. At the voting booth, a voter selects his/her first, second, third, and fourth choice. First, the first choices are tallied. If no candidate has a clear majority, the candidate farthest behind drops out and the votes that went for him spill over to the candidates those voters marked as their second choice. This would continue until a candidate has a majority of the vote. Needless to say, this requires a computer-based system.
This has many advantages - a voter can vote third-party and not worry about hurting the similiar-minded candidate that has a better chance of winning. Also, the winner would have at least the grudging support of a majority.
It wouldn't be difficult to mesh this runoff system with the electoral vote - just treat it as a two-tiered election that happens repeatedly until there is a winner. Each state has its runoff election, and divides its electoral vote according to the proportions of the first choices marked on the ballot. The electoral vote is tallied and if there is no winner by majority, the state votes are retallied, with a runoff from the candidates farthest behind to the second choices of their voters. Eventually, a candidate will win a majority of the electoral vote.
There. That's a voting system that should satisfy everyone. Now the question is whether the voters can handle the idea of ranking the candidates.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
After the Gore team took the initiative in circumventing Florida's election system ON ELECTION DAY when they hired that tele-marketing firm to call people and ask them to protest, Bush's team had no choice but to respond
Ah, the old "they MADE me do it" excuse.
Tell me, how is calling voters "circumventing" the election process? As I recall the GOP has no qualms about calling voters on election day -- I think its perfectly within everyones rights to do so.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
As you "recall"? You must have access to news sources that I don't, since this hasn't even been whispered by Gore's supporters in all the news shows that I've been monitoring.
Okay, maybe I was being too "polite" -- Bush was calling people all damn day, the same way Gore was calling people, and any other high-ranking GOP or Democratic official was calling people. This is not something new, especially as a way to get people out in critical states, though I'm sure you'll come up with a way that Bill Clinton or a Democrat invented it so that the Republicans had to "lower themselves" to use the technique.
The Democrats hired a tele-marketing firm on the day of the election to create problems where there weren't any
There weren't any? As I recall (there's that phrase again!) people were calling their congressmen AND the board of election in palm Beach County as early as 9 am because they thought the ballot was confusing. Whether you think those people are idiots and should be ignored is no matter, the fact is that THEY started calling first thing in the morning to complain, and the democrats picked up that something was wrong and started calling others in the area to encourage that they complain (keeping in mind this is well before anyone had a clue what the final numbers of Florida would be).
It was due to this that an advisory was put out to try and clarify the ballots -- maybe it made a difference in the number of mistaken votes, or not, there's no real way to know. But I can hardly imagine how this is a nefarious scheme since I don't know of any other location where it took place, and NO ONE had a clue that Florida was going to be critical when this was happening.
in concert with the immediate decent of other Democratic heavyweights (Jesse Jackson, Wexler, etc.)
Ah, so the descent of republican heavyweights had nothing to do with it, I understand now. Everything done by democrats=bad/evil/extralegal, everything done by republicans=good/pure/constitutional. Thanks for clearing that one up for me.
Tell me again why no one in america seems willing to accept that maybe they don't have a monopoly on common sense or logic? Why is someone who disagrees with you automatically branded as breaking the law and trying to destroy the constitution?
I accept that republicans think everything is okay, lets just move on -- why do they assume anyone who disagrees is anti-american, that we have no capability for thought and are clearly puppets of some higher power? Why is it so unthinkable that the Florida Supreme Court actually did their job by ruling on the law? Is it impossible to conceive that an election whose totals are a thousand times smaller than the margin of error might actually HAVE AN ERROR? This seems like basic math to me, yet it seems to truly baffle anyone who voted for Bush.
I have no problem with Bush being elected (though people who HATE Bill Clinton seem to have a REAL problem with Gore being elected) but I have little faith that we've had an accurate assesment of WHO won yet.
(it should also be noted since you brought it up that the republican protestors are being funded by the GOP -- folks like Jesse Jackson were there on their own dime, and Gore was pretty blatantly being unsupportive of them. But hey, Bush has the moral high ground so anything goes).
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
If Bush wins, then the Senate will indeed be split 50-50. The House has a Republican majority, but a slim one.
If I were a Democratic Congressman, I would be praying for a Bush victory and not making too much noise on Gore's behalf, since (a) I, unlike Gore, will need to cooperate with Republicans next year to get any useful work done, and (b) the President's party tends to lose Congressional seats in the miderm elections.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
The election system is based on electorial votes and not on who gets the most votes in the country. Because of this there are lots of people that live in non battleground states that simply don't go and vote because they think it doens't matter. The popular vote doesn't correctly express the opinion of the people because of this.
This doesn't mean that the electorial system used right now is a good one. I personally like the electorial votes because it gives the smaller states a little more weight in the election, but I don't like that a single party gets all the votes in a state. I think it would be much better if the votes where split according to how many percent each party got in that state.
NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCEOTICE
To the citizens of the United States of America,
In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern
yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your
independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other
territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister
(The rt. hon. Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been
unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister
for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate
will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to
determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules
are introduced with immediate effect:
1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed
at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should
raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the
same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and
"you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look
up "interspersed".
2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know
on your behalf.
3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents.
It really isn't that hard.
4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as
the good guys.
5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The
Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to
get confused and give up half way through.
6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind
of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game.
7. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your
borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You
will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper
football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a
difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play
rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve
stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour
like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens
side by 2005.
8. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons
if they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there
is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians
have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "shit".
9. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new
national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day".
10. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for
your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.
11. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Perhaps I betray my ignorance here, but:
:)
In Canada, given the Florida situation, we would have a by-election. I understand that there is no mandate for this in the US Constitution, but wouldn't that be the logical choice?
If Florida were given the chance to vote again, it is exceedingly unlikely that the results would be as close as last time. There has not been a clear winner, despite Bush's 500 vote lead. From 6 million votes cast, a margin of 500 says to me that they tied.
Of course, I also recognize that this by-election could never happen, even though it may be the fairest way to determine who won the presidency and even though it may be the best possible course for the country. The partisan rhetoric down there stuns me. In Canada, we have just finished a rather vitriolic (for us) election campaign, but in the US, the anger defies reason. Literally. Anything a Democrat says(and vice versa) is instantly irreconcilably biased and roughly equivalent to lies from Satan himself.
It seems to me that there is no real debate among the upper levels of US government anymore. Where has this come from? Was it always this mindless name-calling? Does this irrationality hurt the country, or does it benefit it? Does powerlessness at the top allows the country to function without impediments?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
And, for the record, I would have voted for Nader.
heinzkeinz
The Bush team apparently is still going after uncounted overseas votes.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote 200 0/legal3.htm
For a man who just announced he's president, I wonder why he's not confident?
My guess is he knows he's still standing on shaky ground, and hopes acting like he's won will make the challenges go away. I don't think that bodes well for his confidence in the process.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
> Well, at least bush will be the winner until the idiot lawyers get their hands on it tomarrow and steal the election from him.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that an election is something you "win" by beating the system, rather than by finding out how people actually voted.
> Quite frankly, I think that the hand counting is biased, because quite frankly humans are not impartial, we are going to see what we wish to see.
You seem to be unaware that the hand counting is being done by having a small team look at each ballot, with a Republican representative on each team.
You also seem to be unaware that hand counting is^w was universally recognized as being more accurate than machine counting, up until the day it turned out that this election will be decided by whether or not we get an accurate count. GuuB himself supported a law in Texas that favors hand recounts over machine recounts whenever a recount is requested.
> If the lawyers and judicial system decide this election any further...
You are falling for Republican spin control on this one. Believe it or not, our state and Federal constitutions give the judicial system the last word in all matters of law and public procedings.
You will also be surprised to learn that the judicial system hasn't innovated anything this time around. In fact, there is ample precedent for decisions that would have favored Gore more, such as revotes, counting dimpled ballots, throwing out masses of absentee ballots, etc.
Don't let the Republican party do your thinking for you.
> because it will mean that all this country was founded on has been yet again trampled on...
Thing like letting the voters decide who gets the executive offices?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Republican Slade Gorton lost
"The senator from Microsoft", as The Register calls him.
> It will be over in four years.
People familiar with Bush's "part-time job" approach to the Texas governership have been expressing serious doubts about his ability to manage a job so demanding as the presidency. Add that to his louche lifestyle [always wanted to use that word!], and we're likely to have another presidency troubled by continual scandals, rumors of scandals, and hostile investigations.
I honestly don't expect him to finish a four year term.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Americans hate lawyers, as do I.
... didn't change the results.
I'm an American, and I don't.
Anywhere that you have a rule of law, you've got to have lawyers. Otherwise you get a dictatorship where the powers that be can do what they please without anyone to pull the plug on abuses.
Lawyers suffer from a PR problem. The ones you hear about are the ones that get notorious criminals off the hook or that win huge settlements for frivolous tort cases. You don't hear about the hundreds of cases every day where a lawyer convinces a judge or jury that the little guy is right.
Also, even in cases where you hear about "outrageous" tort settlements and "notorious" criminals getting off the hook, how often do you really know what the jury heard in the case? Businesses have the money and motivation to put a PR spin on lawsuits that they lose. Public prosecutors are usually either elected officials or else their appointees, and "tough on crime" plays better in election years than "defended innocent accusees", so there's money and motivation for PR spin there, too. And the media know that controversy brings viewers in to feed at the commercials trough, so they have every motivation to talk up "outrageous" court rulings, and little motivation to look at the underlying facts.
So give laywers a break. Your freedom might rely on one someday.
> Surprisingly, weeks of recounts
???. Bush was ahead by 1700 votes after the machine count, and won the biggest share of absentee ballots to boot, but now for some reason his "lead" is only about 700. The recounts are making a difference -- or at least they would be, without all the obstructionism.
> Gore going any further proves that Gore thinks more of himself than the country to continue to be the cause of damaging faith in the Constitution, law, and fairness. And he is the SOLE cause of all this.
I apologize in advance. I usually resist the temptation to flame here, but... get a fucking clue. Gore has been pursuing the mechanisms that Florida's law allows for. He has also challenged the arbitrary actions of Republican administrators. (I believe it was you who brought up the word "corrupt", yes?) The courts have ruled in his favor on about 19/20 of all the questions so far. The only thing that ought to be damaging the public's faith in anything is the fact that partisan public officials can do so much to prevent such a simple and important thing as a recount.
The Republicans are playing this exactly the way a k1dd1e plays a hacked version of Quake. Instead of trying to win on their merits, they are trying to win due to a bug in the system. I have no respect for gamers that try to "win" by beating the system rather than by beating their opponent, and I have no respect for politicians that try to "win" by beating the system either.
The Republicans think they have an "entitlement" win, because the first count went to them. But it could not be more obvious that the only way to win an election is to get more votes than the other guy. When the results are within the margin of error, the only solution is a careful recount. The votes are what matters -- not the lamer gamer's luck at "winning" on a system error.
But the Republicans have a problem. A fair and accurate recount will almost certainly cost them the presidency. Meanwhile, all the fat cats who donated the $100MM to the Bush campaign are clamoring for the promised ROI on their investment. The will of the voters in Florida are not on those fat cats' agenda.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> The GOP asks for a strict interpretation of the Constitution while the Democrats want it more fluid and changing to the "will of the people".
... In fact, if anything happens our stock market will get back on track and we'll all get a tax cut out of it.
Pure spin. The GOP is asking that an accurate count be avoided, because they expect to lose the election if it is. The Demos are asking for an accurate recount because they expect to win if they get one. IMO, the Demos have the morally superior position -- but only because of the two occurences of the word "accurate" in my description of the situation.
And no, the GOP's position has nothing to do with a "strict interpretation of the Constitution". Nothing the Demos have done or asked for is unconstitutional. What the GOP means when they say that is "strict interpretation of the results of the erroneous count". If they thought the voters of Florida actually favored them by even the tiniest margin, they would not be fighting tooth and nail to prevent an accurate recount.
> Come on guys, we had to live through 8 years of Clinton for christ sakes.
Yep, the man's a real worm. Did a better job of the presidency than most of his recent rivals though. (Not nearly good enough a job, but much better than, say, Regan or Johnson.)
> You can live through 4 years of W. Bush!
Ignoring for now the fact that I doubt your predictions... Are you suggesting that we should vote for whoever offers us the most money? Did panem et circenses improve the quality of elected officials in Republican Rome?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Others have said this, too, but I'm afraid that I don't know what they're talking about. If you would like to see some careful work on margins of victory (especially in Florida, surf on over to Professor Rusin's paper on this matter. After reading this, you should be clear on the concept that a margin of 200,000 votes out of 100,000,000 cast is highly unlikely to be reversed on any kind of more careful recount unless the original count suffered from some systematic bias affecting one candidate or another. You will then also find out how likely it is that, e.g., the Florida election outcome would be reversed by recounting ballots in counties where you know there to be systematic effects. Basically, Florida would still be close to a statistical dead heat in the situation where we have the totals we have now and the knowledge that there are thousands of untabulated ballots in counties known to prefer one candidate or another.
The questions here are political rather than mathematical, which is why the situation is so awkward for both sides. So not only can we say that recounts (like those we've had in florida) could result in shifting of numbers, but we can also reasonably presume that the slightest change in behavior of either of the candidates could have overcome that margin (i.e., under a popular vote).
Babar
And if it were counted 10,000x removing all anomolies, would you then accept the result?
Lowmag.net
Gore offered recounts in all counties.
No he didn't. He only asked for recounts in heavily democratic counties: West Palm Beach, Broward, and Volusia.
Ah, the old "redirection" trick. Gore asked for recounts in heavily democratic counties, as was his legal right. Bush could have asked for recounts but didn't, because he thought his margin was large enough that he didn't need them.
The original assertion, however, was that Gore offered recounts and, indeed, last Wednesday he said he'd go along with hand recounts for the entire state if Bush wanted them. Of course by that time the Bush "recounts BAD" campaign had so villified hand recounts that there was no chance of Bush accepting Gore's offer.
Prepare for the onslought ... of punk bands, all named "The Dangling Chads"!!!
CNN is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for permission to televise the Bush case on Friday. So there's at least one technological twist in the neverending story this week.
Interesting. He dislikes Bush, so he must be a liberal.
If memory serves, many of Taco's political ramblings are pro-Gore/Democratic party. To me, that makes him a liberal just as being a Bush supporter or Republican makes most people a conservative comparitively speaking.
All this time I thought I was a moderate, but according to you I must be a liberal.
You are nothing according to me since I was not addressing comments (current and past) made by you. If you wish to classify yourself one way or another, that is your choice, not mine.
Moderation Totals:Troll=3, Insightful=3, Interesting=2, Informative=1, Overrated=2, Total=11.
And people wonder why this place has become a wasteland of useless commentary and one sided, opinionated articles.
Stick a fork in me, I'm done with this place.
In the past everyone in the european world knew, not believed, knew that the world was flat. Were they wrong? Yes, but they believed themselves to be right. If they had stated that the world was round then they would have been "wrong" according to their time and the beliefs of everyone around them.
.. but I think comparing scientific facts questioned by those in the 1300th century to the correctness of political idealism is a bit of a stretch, even for slashdot. Apples and oranges sir.
/.'ers loved the crack. That's fine, for an editorial/opinion piece, not tucked away nicely in a news article.
/. for anything resembling legitimate reporting, but one can hope can't they?
Cute
I'm not saying that the fifty million people that voted for Bush are wrong. He might in fact be a great president. I'm just saying that it is possible that even fifty million people can be wrong.
Well if that is the case, regardless of who wins, ~50,000,000 people ARE wrong since the popular vote split down the middle.
My point was that certainly 50,000,000 would NOT vote for a person with the intellect of a head of lettuce, and to say so is a very lame attempt to cast dispersions on a candidate that you (Taco) do not like. The same could be said about Al Gore and his resemblance to a tree. I would not support such a statement either since he OBVIOUSLY is a very intelligent man and has the support of just as many, if not more people in this country as Bush does.
On the dropping out of college thing. College doesn't stand for as much as it used to.
I could not agree more, I did not go to college myself but do very well for myself in the IT industry.
But if you consider the time these guys DID go to college, it does stand for a bit more than it does now and it's utterly silly to question the intellect of a Harvard/Yale graduate in comparison to someone who dropped out of college all together. If one had to put money on the IQ of one over the other, the smart money goes with the graduate, that's just common sense. For every Bill Gates success story in this world, there are 1,000,000 college drop outs in this country who can't balance their check book.
Also. People have a right to express their views, even if someone else thinks they're wrong. It doesn't matter if that someone is one person or fifty million. If you don't agree, fine, state your view but do not suggest that they add something that would only be of use to one person.
No where did I suggest that Taco's jab at Bush was of use to only one person. I'm sure that a large number of
This is the exact reason that FoxNews is KILLING CNN and network news sources for fair and accurate reporting. It's about the NEWS to them, not their personal spin on the news to validate their own ideals and help them sleep at night.
And yes I know, I should not come to
And I assume you forwarded that to Mr. Gore thanking him for making the whole thing possible since he did "take the initiative to create the Internet" right?
(CNN, March 1999: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." - Al Gore.)
Also, ever seen Steven Hawking form sentence? It's not a pretty sight and takes a excruciatingly long time, so I guess that puts him in the same garden as Bush? Funny, Mr. Hawking is considered one the brightest minds to ever inhabit this rock, ever.
.. he has made statements such as, "Even though I won the popular vote..."
.. both sides of the aisle.
.. which is a statement of fact; it is not an opinion or a call to arms.
Hillary of New York has called for the abolition of the Electoral College.
As has Arlen Specter, a prominent Pennsylvania Republican. Ditto for Ray LaHood, a Republican representative who had drafted pre-emptive legislation to bring before the House if the reverse outcome would have happened (if Bush had won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.)
As I said
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
The campaigning by both candidates, as well as the actual voting by the country, are made with the electoral college in mind. Both the candidates and the voters would have behaved totally differently under true popular vote.
.. the whole shebang. If people are willing to stipulate that there is a significant margin of error in the election results (by "significant", I mean "large enough to affect the outcome"), then they cannot possibly begrudge the right of Al Gore (or George Bush, or anybody) to call for manual recounts.
I'm not sure if I buy this. One of the big arguments made by proponents of the electoral college is that it makes it impossible for candidates to ignore small states and focus on the populated areas. I live in a small state with a whopping total of three electoral votes. During the campaign, we never saw Bush or Gore once. Not a single time. We saw Ralph Nader and Howie Phillips (whoop-dee-doo), and Bush Sr. stopped by for a few hours, but that was it. Small states are already ignored under the current system, and I can honestly tell you that it would not be possible to ignore them any further under a direct popular vote.
Secondly, the margin for Gore's victory in the so-called popular vote is something like 0.3%, well within of the margin of error.
What is the "margin of error?" This isn't a Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll where some statistician on the telephone queries a select few voters and uses those results to extrapolate the results. "Margin of error" is a useful indicator in polls. This is the election itself. This is all the voters
Thirdly, the electoral college is the law of the land. We simply cannot violate it based on whim.
Right. And I don't think that any reasonable person has suggested otherwise (which is to say that I'm not aware of anybody who has claimed that the presidency should be given to Gore because he got more votes.) The fact that he did win more votes has significant psychological and political implications, but very few (if any) legal implications.
Fourthly, there are good arguments for and against the electoral college. If you're going to argue against the status quo, you should at least make a strong case for it.
To me, it's a matter of common sense and fairness. If Bush wins Florida by a couple hundred votes out of six million, giving him all of that state's electoral votes is simply unbalanced. Similarly, if Gore wins California by a handful of votes, handing him 54 electors is not fair and equitable. The current system is set up so that a Wyoming citizen's vote is worth less than a California citizen's vote, and that is diametrically opposed to the idea of a democracy where every citizen's vote is of equal value.
The electoral college was set up because the founding fathers did not trust John Q. Citizen to make his or her own informed decision about who the next president should be. Maybe this made some sense back in the days when information flow was scarce, but we passed those days a long time ago. The government should trust individual Americans to make up their own minds, and pursuant to this, it should employ a system where every American citizen's vote is of equal value.
Fifthly, Gore was more than ready to win on an electoral vote (see his tapes on CNN and company) when that was what the media was predicting.
This is true. And to be fair to Gore, you should also point out that out of all the voices calling for the abolition of the electoral college, his is nowhere to be found. Plenty of people, both Democrats (i.e., Hillary Clinton) and Republicans (i.e., Arlen Specter) have called for hearings on this, but Al Gore hasn't. Even after learning the results of this election, he came out and publicly defended the college as the "law of the land."
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
It far more important that the Florida counties not change their rules after the elections. Palm Beach clearly didn't count dimples at least since 1990. Recounting them now would change the rules.
But that is UnAmerican. You would be depriving somebody of their God-given right to contract out the making of ballots for [insert state] to their brother... err... I mean to the lowest bidder.
In Britain you have to put an X inside the box next to the the candidates name. If the X even touches the box, then that vote is declared spoiled, and the ballot slip is thrown away. If something other than an X is used, then the ballot is spoiled and the ballot slip is thrown away.
But that is UnAmerican. You would be depriving some [insert political party] canidate their God-given right cheat, lie, manipulate, recount, and sue if the election doesn't go their... err... I mean ask for a fair and impartial election.
Power attracts the corruptable. Absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptable.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
However, I clearly think that if Gore continues to go ahead with his lawyers in front of Democrat judges (who already have rewritten the law, in effect changing the rules of the game after the ball has been put in play), he's going to destroy his party.
Time will tell. Certainly his colleagues don't think so. Tomorrow, you will see a display of awesome party unanimity behind the contest. (Indeed, I think a Bush administration would assure a Democratic majority in both houses in but two years, but that's another story)
Americans hate lawyers, as do I. In my view, the person who, after multiple counts and recounts is resorting to using lawyers for the sole purpose of getting a judge to appoint him President.
Both sides hired and deployed lawyers. Only one side made a federal case of it.
I believe that at this point he doesn't stand much of a chance of succeding...
As between you and David Boies' legal advice, I know who's advice I would rely upon.
Surprisingly, weeks of recounts being done in Democrat counties that voted OVERWEALMINGLY for him, using hand recount rules made and remade on the fly by DEMOCRATS didn't change the results.
Actually, only ONE county was included in the final count, and Bush still showed a mere 500 or so votes. The reason Bush whined all the way to the top was precisely that he KNEW that a full recount would cost him the presidency.
Gore going any further proves that Gore thinks more of himself than the country to continue to be the cause of damaging faith in the Constitution, law, and fairness
Nice pabulum, but it might also mean that he thought he won the election, and that he owed a duty to his supporters to exercise the appropriate processes under our Constittution and the rule of law, to find out who, in fact was the winner.
BTW, Gore's lawyer, Boyd, is the lead government lawyer in the Microsoft case, don't know if anyone's mentioned that yet. This shakes my faith in the Reno case against them, IMO, he has damaged his credibility severely by arguing specious cases on Gore's behalf.
So specious that he won a unanimous ruling of the Florida Supreme Court, blew Bush out of Federal Court in the Eleventh Circuit --TWICE--, and spanked George's attempt to bring a substantive claim on the unfairness (equal protection) to the Supreme Court. (They denied cert on that point.)
Time will tell.
(your sig about mindwire.org gave me this idea -- I will check it out as a possible new link.)
;)
I can no longer write off Rob's Bush-bashing as the rantings of a young man who has spent his few adult years building a website and has had little time left to think about other things. I've ignored it long enough. At a minimum, I can no longer promote this site on my own websites.
Compared to slashdot, my website is insignificant, but it's growing at 40% a month. It may mean nothing to slashdot but I intend to replace Cmdr Taco's baby with some other news site.
For me, and any other slashdotter who might want to replace a link, please reply to this message with any suggestions. I'm not looking for anything big and political -- I just want something reliably geeky.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Anything less and any US Senator can invoke a permanent "filibuster" and stop any action from occurring.
The 50/50 split is important in that that determines committee chairs and assignments.
Will in Seattle
I was just talking (cell phone) with a friend of mine who's been working for the Gore campaign, first in Pennsylvania and then in Florida. She's been offered work in Washington DC during the Supreme Court hearings on this.
It is not over.
I still figure we have until Dec. 12th before we get a real answer.
But, in case noone told you, it is official that the contested election in Washington State for US Senate is over. Republican Slade Gorton lost, Democrat Maria Cantwell won. Whoever becomes the next president will have a US Senate split 50-50, where you need at least 60 votes to override "automatic" filibusters or call issues to the floor from the committees where they will be buried. Even a dead vice-president (appointment of someone more right wing probable) for Bush won't stop that basic fact.
It will be over in four years. When the next election is over. And not before.
Will in Seattle
Yet another crack about GWB's intelligence. A friend of mine was curious and so did some research. He looked up Bush's SAT score: 1206 (pre-1995; it makes a difference). This puts him in the 95-98th percentile. Given also that he received an Ivy League diploma, I suppose he ought to be qualified as "Not Exactly Stupid."
Despite this, the largely liberal media spin has convinced everyone (including many supposedly enlightened slashdotters) that the man is too dumb to spell his own name.*
[*Or perhaps too stupid to fill out a ballot. Oh, wait. That would be a Gore supporter.]
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Do you really believe that if someone cannot get this right then they are going to know if their vote is counted, let alone care?
Perhaps not, but since when does ignorance on the victims part make the act ok? If I were to steal something from somebody and they were too "stupid" to notice is that not a crime? It's just a slippery slope to go down. I cringe every time I see a reporter interview some ditzy kid, or some clueless streetwalker about their preference in canditate, and hear them respond in terms of personal characteristics or carriage, or because a friend told them that that was a good candidate. I think it is awful that campaigns are run like humongous product marketing efforts. But I *still* won't cross the line I mentioned above, for that one immigrant who came here to escape god knows what, doesn't know anything about the US, but still wants a voice in the democracy. To that person I'm not going to say that they are too stupid and discount their vote.
But yes, probably making a national standard with time-proven technology of paper and pen would help things a lot. Of course then there's the human counting margin of error, multiplied by the population size of the US in contrast to European countries.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
1. Americans don't know how to make ballot sheets.
Perhaps. But theoretically, each state is sovereign (or semi-sovereign), so they can determine their vote however they want. But, yes, I agree, there probably should be a federal standard accross all states and counties everywhere, for every type of office, so that when you go to vote, no matter what state you are in, you know how to.
2. Americans don't know how to count votes.
And what would you say if the voting machines themselvs are faulting and not punching cards correctly? Is that the voter's fault? It brings up the question of what technology we use to vote in the first place. Human counting is tedious and error-prone. But so are broken machines or buggy vote-counting software and apparatus. And by the way, AFAIK, there is no "intelligence barrier" to voting. Yes it means a lot of stupid people will vote, but as an American (left-leaning as I might be), it is incendiary to me that "if you are too stupid to follow the instructions, then you are too stupid to have your vote count". Whether you're stupid or not, the policies of your country still affect your life.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Ok, about now I don't give a damn who wins. Lots of people are clamoring that Bush won all the recounts, so he should just win. That's fine. However, let's just take a look at the electoral college. It exists ostensibly to mitigate the power of states with very large population while giving a boost to states with very low population - in other words it normalizes the voting power of states. I agree with this theoretical system. *However* if you look at how it is currently implemented, it does the exact opposite with respect to minimizing overwhelming majorities (one of its goals, as above). When states are winner-takes-all, that completely thwarts the purpose of the electoral college. For instance, in Florida, the guy who wins by even 1 vote gets ALL 25 electoral votes. This is the complete opposite of normalizing a vast majority, instead it amplifies a very narrow majority into a HUGE majority...hence the "wasted vote". It would be fairer if all states' electoral colleges proportionally represented the vote in their state. The electoral college would still be doing its job, because its job was to decrease or increase the voting power (read: electoral votes) relative to the state's size - its job was NOT (AFAIK) to tamper with the public opinion by implementing things like winner-takes-all.
If you consider this, then the electoral votes might be split down the middle in Florida, and Gore would end up with the (small) lead. However, the same thing would be done for every other state, so we would probably still have a dead tie...but at least it would be representative of public opinion, which I personally read as there being very little difference in the candidates as far many major policies, just aesthetic differences.
Which brings me to my sig...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I wonder if Slashdot were around 5-6 years ago how many OJ Simpson-related DNA articles we would have seen.
BTW, I agree Gore had every right to ask for recounts in the four heavily-Dem counties, and Bush blew a chance by not calling for recounts in heavily-Republican counties.
But by last Wednesday, the deadline for calling for recounts had long passed, and Gore's offer was good PR, but technically illegal - in that there was no basis in law to ask for recounts of any counties other than "Gore's four" at the time the "offer" was extended.
BTW, I saw a web site that listed the counties, their machine-counts, and the type of voting technology used -- most of the heavily-Republican counties used the Optiscan system and would not have been subject to the "hanging chad" issue.
It's an accident of statistics that Gore's four preferred counties happen to be (a) heavily-populated, (b) heavily-Democratic, and (c) used the punch-card system. Only this combination of all three factors - lots of votes to recount, a high probability of any machine-unreadable vote being Democratic, and a relatively high proportion of machine-unreadable votes - could have given Gore the win.
Given the experimental errors (even in Optiscan counties), the legal errors (should overseas ballots without postmarks count? should dimpled chads count?), I'm not at all convinced I know who would have won a "fair" hand count of the entire state.
Sadly, the reality we must deal with is that there are no non-partisans left, and there's no such thing as a "fair" hand count.
Yet even the hand counts as performed and accepted by largely-Democratic canvassing boards showed a win for Bush. On the grounds that Gore had every statistical thing going for him, and won almost all the "legal breaks" that changed the vote count, and yet still managed to lose, I believe he should concede.
But the fact is that I don't know, and don't think anyone will ever "know", who "won" in Florida. The result was within the margin of error. There's no way to know.
To make a long story short - thanks for calling me on those points. I'll clarify a few things too.
1) Yep, the machine recounts were automatic. Fair deal. I should have made it clear that I believed that recount was perfectly within everyone's right, and that it was non-partisan.
2) Yep, Gore's four counties were his to choose. And thanks for clearing me up on Volusia.
3) Yeah, the new certification date was what I was raising as "court making new law". I thought the point of the old certification date - in the original law - was to allow for a contest. Why have a deadline if the FSSC's only gonna extend it?
IMHO, the right thing to do would have been to allow to certify on the original date, then have Gore contest it the day after. It would have saved us a week, and Palm Beach would have been able to complete its manual recount as part of Gore's contest. Hell, Miami-Dade might have had time to finish its recount.
4) Bonus. Absolutely, Harris used her discretion. Whether it's "use" or "abuse" depends on who you want to win. It really is (IMHO) unclear; if it's intended that there's a limit on that discretion, then it's a poorly-written law. At any rate, it's moot, given the FSSC decision and it should have been moot, given my point above ;)
5) Yeah. Both parties (meaning both Bush and Gore, and the political parties they repreasent) have acted like total jackasses since November 7th. (Er... and heaps of elephant dung.)
The bottom line of this election is - and has always been - if you believe a dimpled/pregnant chad oughta be a vote (which it hasn't been in Florida for about 10 years), then you believe Gore won. If you don't, then you believe Bush won.
Gore has lost:
- Gore lost the original machine count, so he asked for a recount.
- He lost the machine recount, so he asked for recounts in four Democratic counties.
- Miami-Dade: Gave up, costing him 157 votes. He's sued them for certifying the results. Pending.
- Broward: Stopped, got sued, started again, recounted including pregnant chads. Gain of 500-odd votes.
- Palm Beach: Didn't count pregnant chads. Gain of ~100-odd votes. Gore's gonna contest/sue until he can get another 500 pregnant chads outa here.
- WTF's the other county that I forgot about?
;-)
- The Secretary of State certified the election a few days ago, and Gore sued (again), and the law which sets the date of the certification was essentially rewritten by the Florida State Supreme Court in order to give Gore another week to harvest votes. Bush is appealing, but probably won't win.
Which brings us to today.Mr. Gore. Give it up. You've lost. Deal with it and come back in 2004 against a weakened Bush.
Just because your mentor Clinton was a sucker for Hollywood doesn't mean you have to be. Just because he taught you how to "always attack, never defend", or that "the purpose of a lawsuit is not to win, but to harass", or that the way to win a PR battle is by "dead-agenting" your enemies (e.g. what your boss did to smear the repuation of Kathleen Willey, among many others), doesn't mean you have to follow in his footsteps.
Stop acting like a $cientologist and be your own man, Mr. Vice-President. It really doesn't become you.
Because the way you think it happens isn't the way it actually happens.
When electing a president here in the States, there's really two elections that happen. Or, to be nitpicky, fifty-one.
The population of each state casts their vote -- which is what's happening now. These votes determine who the electoral votes for that state should go to. Then, a while later, representatives from each state vote for the president -- and in some states, they aren't legally obligated to vote the way the state's population wanted them to.
So this is why the federal government can't regulate the ballots, or any part of the election. They're state elections, not national ones.
--
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Machine counts are not 100% accurate, because no system is. However, they are at least impartial, which is more than can be said for the overwhelmingly Democratic manual vote counters. Statistically speaking, any machine errors will be evenly distributed for all the candidates, while manual recounts are subject to the conscious or unconscious biases of the counters. It's even less impartial when these recounts are done only in heavily Democratic counties, where ballots that the machines didn't catch are virtually certain to split favorably for Gore.
Gore got all the breaks in the recount, and he still lost. Game over.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Actually, the Florida SC fabricated a brand new certification schedule out of thin air, a textbook example of judicial activism with no basis in law.
6. Bush has been arguing against state's rights in the Florida & federal courts, when all the time he's claims that he wants to empower the states. He's lying to America right now and he's not even President yet!
Bush has been arguing precisely that the law as established by the Florida legislature should be upheld. The Florida Supreme Court chose to rewrite that law because they didn't like it, but even under their new schedule Bush has won.
7. According to mike, lawyers are un-American. On the other hand, screaming mobs of Republican partisans are democracy in action, I suppose.
Seems to me there's something in the Constitution about people peaceably assembling and petitioning for a redress of grievances. I know the Bill of Rights is out of favor with many liberals, but it is still the law.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
... and Ireland. Governed by coalitions for almost twenty years now, yet with the higest growth rate in the "Western" world, massive trade surplus, low unemployment, high educational standards, Socialised Health Care (!!!), and all the trappings of a civilised society. Don't confuse the political difficulties faced by Israel and Italy with anything caused by proportional representation; I'm sure if you think hard you might be able to come up with some other possible causes for those countries' political problems.
PR (when done properly) is a Good Thing, as it allows the votes of the people to be translated as accurately as possible into electoral influence. If that results in coalitions, so be it - it's up to the politicians to come to amicable arrangements between parties, not to rig the system so that only big parties ever get any influence.
Your suggestion is intellectually sound as far as it goes, and I am tempted by it, but unfortunately it contains a recursive fallacy - a fallacy very similar to that contained in the drunk driving law.
:-). But the difference represents a meaningless quantitative distinction.
Let us say for the sake of argument that we can all agree on a defined figure, say 1%, a difference below which is deemed statistically insignificant. This means if the vote is 49.099% to 49.000% (the remainder voting for other parties), we call for the drawing by lot.
What if the vote is 49.10000001% to 49.0%? We only missed the criterion by a statistically insigificant 0.00000001%! This is too close! Perhaps there will be riots if we do not make an exception to the defined figure and and draw by lot in this one special case. But we want to say we are ruled by laws - how can we arbitrarily bend them for the special case? On the other hand, how can we possibly come up with a law which anticipates this special case - and an infinite number of other possible special cases - and deals with it in an acceptable manner?
You see, we have only put off the problem to the next level. The recursion extends forever.
I consider this very similar to the drunk driving criterion. If your blood alcohol level is 0.07999%, you are OK; if it is 0.08001% you are subject to arrest (0.08000% I'm not sure which - as if a physical quantity can ever in actuality be an exact number
This is ever the problem with trying to arrive at precisely defined formulae. It's a quandary. We don't want to have discretion reach the level of fast and loose, but neither do we want arbitrariness to reach the level of absurdity and eliminate the possibility of adapting to nuances of individual case.
I'm afraid I don't have the answer, and it gives me no pleasure to point out the fallacy.
Path: mindspring!news.mindspring.net!nntp.primenet.com!n ntp.gblx.net!news.phx.gblx.net!ahbou-and -some-other-stuff!largely-for-ahbou!mostly-for-ahb ou!just-for-ahbou
From: "Rick B."
Organization: best of usenet humor
Newsgroups: alt.humor.best-of-usenet
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr07.primenet.com
Followup-To: alt.humor.best-of-usenet.d
Subject: Re: copresidents
From: "Opus the Penguin"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.cecil-adams
Dave Wilton wrote:
>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>Rich Clancey wrote:
>>>Since the Clintons introduced the notion of Hillary as
>>>Co-President, perhaps we could extend the idea. Let's have Gush and
>>>Bore make a joint appearance on television and admit that neither of
>>>them has a clue as to how to do the job, but that together they might
>>>be able to come up with something. Move another desk into the oval
>>>orifice and we'll have a joint presidency. They can arm wrestle for
>>>who does what on a given day. The voters will have the advantage of
>>>Bush's boyish charm and Gore's willingness actually to read government
>>>reports all the way through.
>>
>>Now *there's* a good idea for a new sitcom. What would we call it?
>
>Plot suggestion for the pilot: Al gets upset at George for using his
>stapler and paints a line down the middle of the oval office telling
>George to stay on his side. After much hilarity, they realize that
>this doesn't solve anything and Bill and George, Sr. enter and deliver
>sound advice about getting along with others.
Beauty!
It's a little late for a full season, but if we hurry up production we can
probably fit in 16 episodes.
Episode 2 - Suspicions abound when an anonymous letter describing Al and
George's situation appears in an advice column. (The writer refers to
himself only as "One of the two leaders of the free world.")
Episode 3 - Now that George and Al are in charge, Bill decides he's no
longer needed. The two presidents feign incompetence to convince him
otherwise.
Episode 4 - The Presidents have a card house building contest to decide how
to spend their free money from the taxpayers. Al's oversized ego
accidentally brushes the table and he loses. But George buys something with
the taxpayer money that they can both use.
Episode 5 - Al and George switch roles for a day to settle an argument about
whose job is the hardest.
Episode 6 - Fed up with what he believes to be Al's illicit phone calls,
George installs a pay phone in the Oval Office.
Episode 7 - George tells his buddies that he and Joe Namath are friends and
then is called on to deliver. Namath guest stars as himself.
Episode 8 - Trouble ensues when George and Al each want a White House
on-staff doctor of the same political party as himself.
Episode 9 - The two men have nightmares after telling each other they wish
the other one weren't President. They recant by episode's end.
Episode 10 - George accepts the task of preparing a recommendation on
foreign policy toward Russia but tries to talk Al into doing all his
homework.
Episode 11 - George and Al both wind up in the hospital. In the same room.
Episode 12 - After George criticizes Al's work habits on national
television, Al vows revenge.
Episode 13 - After some of his predictions come true, George believes he is
psychic.
Episode 14 - George tries to convince Al that conservatives are really good
people at heart. He gets a chance to prove his point when their car runs out
of gas during a visit to Orange County, CA.
Episode 15 - Al finds a homeless boy (Leonardo DiCaprio) sleeping in the
White House basement. His efforts to help the boy end up getting the kid
kicked out. He solves the problem by giving the boy the Lincoln bedroom.
Episode 16 (season cliffhanger) - Fearing he has lost his masculine appeal,
Al decides to prove his masculinity by doing a water ski jump over a shark.
By the way, I just thought of the perfect title for this show. Too bad it's
already taken.
Who's the Boss?
Oh well. My second choice, _Full House_, will have to do.... D'oh! _The Odd
Couple_?
All right, how about _You Can't Win 'Em All_?
Or, it's a little wordy, but _No Controlling Legal Authority_ works too. As
does _Now You Listen to Me_.
A small margin of error, perhaps, but still larger than the margin of victory. The error is also weighted against Gore, because his counties are the ones using punch cards. The Republican areas mostly use optical systems.
I disagree on this point. Optical systems are less likely to be error prone and, thus, require less manual intervention and interpretation. When considering "dimpled" ballots, you are assuming the power to be able to discern the will of the voter. Remember, only the Shadow knows what is in the hearts and minds of men.
Nationwide? The contested election involves Florida's delegation to the electoral college, and Florida may handle it in whatever manner we chose (persuant to the Constitution and what federal law there is, of course). If the election crossed a state line, you could argue for more federal intervention, but it does not.
When an election comes down to subjective manual recounts, this can hardly be called fair when taken in light that the rest of the country (for the most part) uses automated methods. To assume that everyplace else is correct yet do manual recounts in selected, heavily partisan counties is grossly unfair. Who's decision is it to use the punch cards anyway?
We hear of the so called "popular vote" in which there is only a 300K difference between the two major candidates. But, is this count even accurate? I would suspect not.
A nationwide manual recount is the only way to determine valid votes. As the decision in Florida will determine who becomes POTUS (a national position), a nationwide recount is the only acceptable solution (unless one candidates concedes). But, it will never happen for the very reasons you have stated...the other states have certified their results and the results are not being contested. So, the battle remains a state battle.
Nor is there a law saying they are not valid votes. It's up to the discretion of the county canvassing board.
Similarly, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the recounts were in the hands of the individual canvasing boards AND issued a new deadline. The fact that Palm Beach took Thanksgiving off and then failed to make the deadline is not an excuse to extend the deadline (consider they would have finished ontime and their results would have counted HAD they worked two hours on Thanksgiving). Similarly, in Miami-Dade, the canvasing board elected NOT to perform a manual recount. Is this not the rule set forth by the new law established by Florida's supreme court?
I do feel sympathy if honest votes were not counted (hell, I would probably be pissed too). But, how will we ever know the true count? Each time a ballot is touched, it is potentially altered. Just consider the number of chads on the floor following the recounts. If no ballots were altered (assuming non-intentional alterations...to be fair), then where were there chads on the floor and tables. Heck, even a sneeze might knock a chad out or the ballot may be bend inadvertently. At this point in the game, there is no honest, accurate way to perform a manual recount.
But, what I find really sad is the notional of class warfare as put forth by the Gore campaign. Even if Gore is correct (I'll argue he is not..but that is a battle for another day) and the tax cuts Bush proposes are for the wealthiest 1%, consider that those being taxed under Gores plan are the small and medium business owners. These are the people that make jobs available to the lower income groups. Make their life easier by reducing their tax burden and that may produce additional jobs though economic growth.
Also, consider the programs that Gore wants to implement. Where is the money for these programs coming from? If not from the lower income group, then it must be from middle and upper class. Guess what? That means higher taxes for those individuals which will mean one (or more things)...
1) Layoffs as the profit margine is decreased.
2) More people entering the non-working ranks (see 1).
3) Higher prices for goods in an effort to restore profit margin.
Who wins? Certainly not the poor folk. While decreased taxes may not mean lower prices in the stores, ultimately, they do mean more jobs and lower unemployment. Unfortunately, lower unemployment does not mean less individuals in poverty status. That's another issue that should does need to be address. I don't have a silver bullet for that one. But, I would suspect higher state or local taxes with that income directed towards programs in areas where poverty is higher.
Basically, I'm for new taxes and legislation AFTER all other measures have been taken and still a problem exists. Those other measures have not yet been taken. Hence, I oppose Gore's platform because he will introduce new taxes.
I also don't trust him on a variety of issues regarding personal privacy, military readiness, or his intent to create social policy through the courts.
Its time to end the election, and force the "winning" (if that's what you want to call it) candidate (by new law if necessary) to have a bipartisan cabinet.
RD
While your statements make total sense, they won't fly here in the US because election law is in the jurisdiction of the individual states.
The legitimacy of this presidency will always be questioned no matter who wins. From a statistically, scientific, perspective, the ballot pool is tainted and biased. The method in which ballots were hand counted has been subjective. Even the initial collection was tainted by the broadcast of exit poll results and "projections" by the media. The skewing is even greater when one considers the "manual" collection processes.
Consider Ballard County, for example. The manual recount reviewing team consists of two democrats and one republican. It took a consensus of two of the team members to make establish the intent of the voter. If all team members are honest (lets assume they are), then partisanship should not be a factor. But, if partisanship does come into play, the republican will almost always be overridded and the results favor the democratic candidate (in this case, Gore).
Secondly, the method of examination has been subject to change throughout the process. You can not obtain true results when the standards or methodology of the collection process is not consistent.
Thirdly, consider that there are sixty seven counties in the total ballot pool. Selecting three counties known to be highly democratic only introduces additional statistical bias and will futher skew the results.
From a scientific perspective, one has to conclude that the election is a statistical dead heat with no clear winner when using the hand recount method. Yet, if the automated method of counting is utilized, a clear winner is determined in a uniform, non-partisan way. In this case, machine counting has introduced a statistically small margin of error when compared to the subjective manual recount method.
The fact that somebody didn't understand how to cast their ballot correctly (nor did they ask for assistance) or to verify that they did, in fact, cast correctly, is not a reason to assume omnipotent powers and determine their will for them. Their ballots, in the election for president, should not be counted UNLESS the entire ballot pool is counted in EXACTLY the same manner. This would incure a state-wide, or more appropriately, as nation-wide recount. Neither state nor federal allows for this. Neither does the Constitution.
Now, consider the military absentee ballots. Federal law allows military members to send mail without a postmark. Yet, Florida election law requires them so many are rejected despite the voters intent being clearly descerable. A technicality? Yes. But, isn't Federal law supposed to override state law when a conflict arrises? Yet, "dimpled" ballots are given merit when no State or Federal law or standard exists to validate their acceptance (at least in Florida). To say "Texas allows them" is irrelevant...there is no Florida law allowing them or specifying what is a valid vote. Ironic that the Gore, if he becomes the president elect, wants to alienate the armed forces for which he would their Commander-In-Chief. In this regard, Bush has the upper hand. He will command the respect of the military which Gore will be despised. Loyalty of our armed forces will never be in question...they will defend the US as they are sworn to. But, they will have no respect for their leader. Expect to see many resignations and lower enlisted retention than normal over the next four years if Gore becomes president.
Finally, all this aside, I pity whoever becomes president. Not only do they have to try to heal the political divide in this county, but will also probably be blamed for the recession we are already entering.
Obviously, my perspective is probably clear, I think Gore should concede (and remain true to his word of accepting the final certification). But, he has indicated he will not due this and instead contest the election in Florida. So, again, we have a bending of the truth and and the law. What a sad state of affairs.
RD
Agreed. While I can't stand Gore, I don't recall him ever advocating the abolition of the Electoral College. Hillary Clinton, however, has stated that she would pursue actions to abolish the electoral college in favor of the popular vote.
So, are we heading for a Constitional convention in the next ten years as more and more legal attacks are made against our founding father's principles? Many people I speak with seem to think so.
We all speak of democracy and the will of the people. Many fail to to understand that we are republic and not a democracy.
Why is this so? Simply because of the fact that the original drafters of the Consitution feared what would happen placing the fate of the most powerful position in the world (next to Greenspan, of course) in the hands of illiterates or uninformed. Electors are chosen because they are supposed to understand the importance of their actions as well as the loyalty.
What the founding fathers feared the most is what has happened in this election. Along with the illiterate and uniformed, we now have people who can't determine who they actually voted for (some telemarketer had to tell them) or can't seem to ask for help (or a ballot replacement) when they make a mistake. So much for exercising good judgement and accept personal responsibility for their vote.
True, the electoral college has it faults. But, it has served us well for over two hundred years. We've always been able to settle our election disputes without resorting to violence - partisan or not. Pretty amazing, isn't it?
When the same individuals who can't remember who they voted for or why (or verify where they are registered to vote) learn the concept of personal responsibility and self determination, then I might advocate election via popular vote. Until then, let's keep what we got and end it as the law of Florida states should be the case.
I decided that behaving ethically was the most nihilistic thing I could do. - Paul Pavel
--
The shareholder is always right.
If your standard for handing out the Presidency is what would happen in a more rational and fairer voting system, then Nader should probably be sworn in. See this online Condorcet poll.
Seastead this.
Machine recounts are more *fair* and unbiased than hand recounts. Notice how the hand recounts are only in selected, strongly Democratic counties. Notice how the standards vary all over the place (dimpled, pregnant, hanging... chad). It is more important (and far more possible) to have an unbiased count than a "accurate" count that is done by error-prone, bias-prone, fature prone psychics trying to divining the intent of voters incapable of doing what millions of others have done successfully: correctly produce a valid ballot.
The only good weather is bad weather.
And to top it off, we have socialized healthcare, too! Damn, looks like you need some other country to move to ;)
No, Bush did not get the most popular votes. However, Bush did get support from a broader cross-section of America (Electoral Votes), and that's why he's going to be president.
Look at an election map. Bush carried states from Georgia to Alaska and every place in between. There's a lot of diversity that backs him. What did Gore get? A few big population centers. If EC votes went by district, rather than winner-takes-all, Bush's lead would have been even larger, since only the urban centers themselves would have gone to Gore and Bush would have picked up votes in the outstate areas.
The electoral college did exactly the job it is supposed to, preventing the "Tyranny of the Majority" from ruling the nation.
Constitutionally Correct
While it's true that many of the screwups in Palm Beach County are due to stupidity or carelessness on the part of the voters, it's also true that a better layout could have prevented about half of the mistakes. (Eliminating punch-card machines would cover the other half). Both the voters and the election officials are to blame here.
> Certainly 49,819,600 people can't be all that wrong now can they?
Well, it's pretty certain that 50% of voters are dumber than the average voter!
What's probably going to bother you much more than the outcome:
Just to conclude that it doesn't matter what arguments you bring up when supporting one or the other party's current behavior.
Maybe the next election there's e-Voting[tm], a simple user interface ("push here if you want X to be President") and a secure electronic network gathering these votes and counting and hopefully not get stuck because of some cpu bug :)
1,000,000 - 990,000 = 10,000!!!
The bottom line is that the "margin of error' is greater than the measurable difference. We still don't know who won!
no sig.
I would actually say that whoever is elected president now, gets 75% of the people behind him; 50% of the voters (that's 25% of the population) and 50% of the population that didn't vote at all. The latter obviously don't care and will endorse either one as president.
A 75% mandate from the people, not bad.
<grub> Reading
Bush thinks there is too much violence on TV.
Gore thinks there is too much sex on TV.
So basically Bush thinks there's too much gore and Gore thinks there's too much bush.
If that were the case, Gore wouldn't be trying to scratch up enough votes in Florida to win its electoral votes.
Your bias conveniently serves you. Think outside the box.
As with myself, a lot, if not a majority, of Americans vote for President and few other offices. Thus, there are bound to be many more pieces of chad left over from previous punches, and thus more chance for the chad to build up making it difficult or impossible to punch later ballots completely.
DISCLAIMER: This is not my theory, just one I heard on a call-in talk show. I happened to find it refreshing to hear someone giving fellow American's credit instead of thinking they're smarter than everyone else.
Again, another situation with many of the original variables removed.
Did the small school children have years of experience of reading left->right, top->bottom, left-page->right-page?
Were they the actual ballots, in the actual voting booth or simply paper copies? Were you in Palm Beach county to see if the ballot books were secured tightly enough in the voting mechanism that the arrows would line up with the holes mounted in the voting booth? I heard from someone in Palm Beach county who confirmed these suspicions.
Exactly! But its a double-edged sword.
Should either candidate be trying to claim a rightous victory from such a small margin? Bush is up now by 450 votes (out of 6,000,000 in Florida, a percentage of 0.0075%). Suppose Gore count scratch up enough vote to get up by 450 and we'd have the same miniscule margin. Yet Bush is talking like he is the undisputed winner and that Gore is an idiot for trying to wiggle around in that margin. If the situation were reversed, it would be the same.
The travesty isn't so much the butterfly ballots, voter intimidation, etc. Its the fact that the American election system allows for victories that are well withing the margin of error of the vote tallying methods. I think all close votes (maybe FL's 0.5% is a good boundary) should be determined in some other method (duel, vote-off, foot-race, etc.) rather than by meticuously recounting votes that still buzz around in that margin of error!
Yeah, just like in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson had no mandate due to a tie in the electoral college which had to be decided by the legislature.
It's too bad, that Jefferson guy had talent, but he wound up fading into obscurity, accomplishing nothing, and no one outside of history professors even know who he is.
As to you comments about my second point, I think that if the first point is adequately addressed, then machines not punching cards correctly will not be the issue.
Get people to make an X in a box with a provided pencil, and then use those machines they use for marking multiple choice examinations which detect the lead on the paper.
As for your being fired up about my 'if you're too stupid to...' comment, think about it.
Once every 4 or 5 years, people are required to make a mark on a piece of paper in a position which indicates their support for a chosen candidate.
Do you really believe that if someone cannot get this right then they are going to know if their vote is counted, let alone care?
Find funky gifts
> Thirdly, the electoral college is the law of the land. We simply cannot violate it based on whim.
It seems that most conservatives (GOP or otherwise, living in the south I've seen my share of really conservative Democrats ;-) ) view our nation's legal framework or ``social contract'' this way, and I do believe it is a valid opinion. (Students of constitutional law will recognize its manifestation in that field as a ``traditionalist'' or ``literal'' interpretation of the Constitution as opposed to a ``constructionist'' or ``liberal'' interpretation (basically a letter-of-the-law vs. spirit-of-the-law debate).)
However, I think that ``violation'' and ``reinterpretation'' are not synomymous. The government is valid only by consent of the people, so if an aspect of it turns out to suck, I don't think we (the people or our duly elected representatives), should hesitate to tinker with it. No law is graven in stone (c.f. the ever-mutable Tax Code :-)). Violation would be Gore saying ``Screw you people, I'm having my good buddy Clinton call out the Army to shoot all the Bush supporters. Fuck this democracy crap anyway..." (and I think even the staunchest GOP member would recognize the difference between an armed coup and vigourous legal attempts to have as many recounts as it takes to get an accurate vote tally).
Of course, this `if it sucks, change it'' attitude probably isn't suprising coming from a capital-L liberal and Free Software/Open Source subversive like me... ;-)
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
<flame>
> I am a Republican, and voted for Bush, so obviously I'm biased.
Yeah, no shit?
> Americans hate lawyers, as do I.
Ahh, broad generalizations along the pattern of ``All good Americans do X! (Are you a good American?)". Long a staple of the conservative puerility (like a plurality but with less collective intelligence).
> ... is resorting to lawyers .. for the sole purpose of getting a Judge to appoint him President.
I think that he's using lawyers for the sole purpose of getting a judge to require that a FAIR, COMPLETE, and ACCURATE vote count be conducted, which is sort of a prerequisite for legitimacy in a democratic system of governance. The Republicans have done nothing since November 7 except obstruct this process.
> Gore blah blah blah Clinton machine.
Uhh, yeah. Like Bush has been the poor innocent village idiot in the corner not doing a thing. I recently saw some GOP flack on Hardball (probably normally caucasian but he was so into the Angry Conservative Bluster (TM, patent pending) when I channel surfed through he was about the color of a good merlot) saying at the top of his lungs that the Democrats were spending US$3million on lawyers. OK, how much has the GOP spent on lawyers?
> (sub quote) ... less biased historians
You mean conservative ones you agree with?
> Boyd [sic], is the lead government lawyer in the Microsoft case. blah blah shakes my faith in the Reno case against them blah blah
How suprising that a Republican would argue in favor of a large business against that Big Meany, our government? You by any chance wouldn't happen to have four little letters in your Republican Standard Issue stock portfolio (M-S-F-T), now would you?
Sigh. Depressing that the world looks at people like you and associates the word ``American'' with that thundering ignorance. In short, fuck you, and fuck every fucking Republican in this excerable country. I quite honestly hope you all burn in hell.
</flame>
Flaming of moron aside, there have been so many irregularities associated with the FL vote, that I don't think we will ever truely know who won. In this instance, I think the 25 electoral votes should go to neither man (which would be worse for a party, conservative or liberal: to lose an election or win one in such a manner that half the country hates them for it?), and the election should be decided based on the other 49 state's votes (i.e. recalculate the required majority of electoral votes based on the total sans FL, and who ever crosses that line, wins).
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Probably best not to discuss memory errors when defending the Shrub (little Bush, as he is known in Texas)...
Still, even though I'm a Democrat, I laughed. Definitely +5 Funny. :-)
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
How did we get here? Easy, stupidity.
Look around America today and tell me that having the occasional chlorine in the gene pool via natural or unnatural causes up through time until relatively recently was a bad idea. Better yet, watch any random five minute segment of Jerry Springer's show... :-)
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Nah. I live in Austin, and I've watched him as the Head Yahoo in this wacky state for while now.
The Shrub could only be Baseball Commissioner if he could figure out which end of the bat to hold. Fat chance, that... ;-)
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Woah. Must of missed that one! What was it, the lemonade stand he ran as a kid? In Texas he is legendarily bad as a biddnis (<--local pronounciation, doncha know? ;-) ) man...
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
... too gawddamn stupid to get a joke. ;-)
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
it all comes down to "how are you doing?"
i don't see any problem with how i'm doing. I'm making a good deal of cash at 21. I've got a nice car, a nice place, and i'm certainly not wanting for any of the basic necessities of life except maybe a few more Playstation 2 games and legal marijuana (although that is almost a certainty in the next 10 years).
Bottom line - if this is what "shitty" democracy gets me, then hooray for shitty democracy.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
His father, by turning a blind eye while the S&Ls went nuts, with the end result that my Dad's career was destroyed.
Now I guess "Son of Bush" will fsck with mine?
It's not so much having a republican as president, it's the tendency for them to let questionable business practices slide -- the right wing cronies in high places really tend to rape the economy.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Specific example: Saturday morning, Bob Dole and a lot of other military veterans had a press conference to complain about 77% of the overseas military vote being thrown out. Fox News showed it live, and even MSNBC was showing it. On a hunch, I switched to CNN. As I expected, they were not showing it. They were making it an "un-event", as it would be said in Orwellian NewSpeak.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Why, the UN should've send some observers to make sure the elections in US occur without any violation or abuse of democracy. Preferrable countries to assemble the observing committee, are Russia and China, of course. Well, then, in a recount we might've suddenly discovered that the actual leader in the elections is ... Vladimir Putin.
-- "If you had fallen into a shit pit during a battle, lick yourself off and move on." - Jaroslav Hasek
What about the innocent people who are wrongly convicted ? Do they deserve to die ? Think about it, how hard do you suppose it is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time ? I am against the Death Penalty, not to protect the guilty, because god knows there are people in the world who just need to die. I am against the Death Penalty to protect the Innocent. In my book if the state of Texas or any state for that matter, put even one innocent person to death, that is way too many. Don't give me any "In order to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.", because thats crap. I don't know anyone who would want to be innocent and face the Death Penalty, and for all of you who are for the Death Penalty, if you are ever convicted and sentanced to die, I expect you to push the needle into your own arm, pull the lever or put the gun to your own head, whether you are guilty or not, because you supported the Death Penalty and damn it, its the right thing and you must have done something wrong to deserve it.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
FLORIDA: The orange sunshine state.
Far out, man! The vote is changing right in front of my eyes.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Yeah, but Al Gore's website runs Linux so none of that matters.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Any voter could view and change their result on election day. After the poles close, only those votes cited as disputed by the election board could be changed. A dispute would have to be a bad checksum on the tape, or a bad punch, or some other flaw in the medium used to record the vote.
Voters could not change their results after election day unless a pattern of complaints emerged suggestive of a system failure. For example, one precinct having complaints a full standard deviation above the mean.
I find it ironic that so many people on Slashdot make fun of Windows for crashing as often as it does, yet expect the electoral system to crash. How would you feel if your server was down 0.5% of the time?
At one time, consumer OS's were expected to crash, then you wrote a high quality free *NIX. Well, in the future we may look back at a time when voting systems were expected to crash.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
If we were using the popular vote, we wouldn't have this problem, of course, we would have different problems. Third Parties screw up plurality elections. That's why in America we don't have direct plurality elections. If no one wins a majority in the electoral college, the vote goes to the house. If there is still no majority there is a runoff of the top three candidates. The problem is that there is no such runoff for the states to choose their electors. This is because it is infeasible to ask everyone in a state to come back and vote again, but with new technologies instant runoff elections would solve this problem. You mark from 1 through whatever for each candidate in the order of preference. In the first count, you look at only the #1s. If there is a majority, you declare those electors the winner. If there is no majority, you eliminate all candidates except for the top two, and tabulate the votes again, the lower number winning that vote. If any candidates are completly unacceptable, you need not vote for them, and that number will be presumed infinity. If all the remaining candidates left are unvoted on your ballot, that ballot is ignored. In this past election, presumably this would have helped Gore and Nader (but also would have helped Bush and Perot in 1992). It would have helped Gore, because he probably would have won Florida in the instant runoff, with the Buchanan and Nader votes thrown out. But it also would have helped Nader, who would have surely gotten closer to his 5% with people free to vote out of principle and not out of fear. Perhaps best of all, punch card ballots would probably not be used in this type of election, only OCR and electronic. I'm not trying to whine here. If Bush wins, he won fair and square. But we should consider fixing this problem in the future. Hopefully it can be done on a state by state basis, but some have raised constitutional issues with it. If it's unconstitutional, we need to consider getting an amendment together.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
The original poster posits a 1% accuracy. Now, your argument will be correct if that 1% is ad hoc. However, it does not have to be.
The way to go is to take data : say last 5 elections' ballots and then manually recount them to get an error rate. Then define this error rate as the "margin". Let's for convenient, say it's 1% with 99.99% confidence level (I am using standard "frequentist arguments" but it is not the best way, but will do for an illustration).
Now your argument about the difference between 1% and 1.0001% is no longer valid. Since statistically speaking, the difference is now significant. To put in other words : statistically it is not possible to "call" it either way if the margin is within 1% with 99.99% confidence. (Note the qualification "99.99 confidence"). But if the margin falls outside 1%, eg. 1.00001%, then the confidence is no longer 99.99% therefore a decision can be called.
Your Drunk Driving analogy is flawed because here it is an arbitrary margin, with a tenuous definition of "drunkeness" (i.e. how can one tell if a person is more "dangerous" with 0.08001% blood alcohol level than someone with 0.08%? since there is no clear line of division between "drunk" and "sober".). In an election, the line is clear : there is only two possibilities (win/lose).
I have no opinions regarding interpretation of statistics (i.e what is meant by "99.99% confidence") : controversy still rages. But the point is that there is a well-defined scientific way of going about doing these things. It's not fast and loose as you put it.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
The Dem and Reps agree on so much there's not much need for debate. The only things they could debate on would be non-issues like abortion, debates which would give no illumination. Avoiding frank discussions of positions allows the government to maintain some of its more ludicrous stances.
Where has this come from?
Technology has broken down the barriers between states, thus amplifying the role of the federal government. Interest groups now find it quite worthwhile to pay large sums of money to make sure elected federal officials cease to consider the good of the public or any other principle when making the law.
Was it always this mindless name-calling?
Yes.
Does this irrationality hurt the country, or does it benefit it?
Hurt.
Does powerlessness at the top allows the country to function without impediments?
Not really. Power has an advantage: it can be used to do good things. Power has a disadvantage: it can be used to do bad things.
--
share and enjoy
pray tell, if Bush's credentials (Yale,Harvard MBA, successful business, Governor) aren't enough to be president, then what is?
Its widely known that he got into both Yale and Harvard on his family name. As for his business record, he failed several times in business. Each time he was bailed out by his father's friends. He finally made reasonably well on a deal one of his father's friends brought him into. The governorship of Texas is almost a figurehead role, and the decisions he did make reflect poorly on his political career; what he did to the environment, especially, borders on the criminal.
Clinton was a governor too.
Bill Clinton was a governor for 14 years, and before that an attorney general. He's spent his entire professional life in law and politics.
As was Reagan, the best president of the 20th century.
How on earth was Reagan the "best president of the 20th century"? As far as I'm concerned Bush is another Reagan; a pleasant, bland clean slate that extreme right wingers can use to push their reactionary politics.
--
Bill Clinton was a governor for 14 years
Let me amend that; Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas for about 10 years. Point still stands.
--
Nixon didn't do what Gore is doing now because he didn't want to damage the country.
;.
That is a fallacy.
First of all, if Nixon had gained Illinois, he would still have lost the election.
Secondly, he DID contest the results. He just did it a lot quieter than Gore is doing now.
After the election, Republicans launched a multi-state attack on the election results. They created grand juries. They appealed to state elections commissions. They demanded, and received, recounts in several election districts in several states. They showed no widespread discrepancy. In fact, Nixon lost 3 electoral votes afterwards, as Kennedy was shown to have won Hawaii rather than Nixon.
You can find related stories on Slate or Salon
--
Oooh, good idea. I've often thought that the most qualified leaders are smart enough not to want the job.
I'm reminded of a story I once heard about, I think by Clarke. After many serious changes in government and advances in technology, Democracy went the way of the dinosaur. The President was chosen by a big computer, which would choose the most qualified person in the country for the job.
Any person actually wanting to be President would be immediately disqualified. And the only way the chosen person would be able to get out of being President would be to do a good job at it. Hence, you end up with a bunch of highly-qualified folks doing a good job at being President just so they don't have to be President any more.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
A good voting system makes it possible for there to be only 2 possibilities, either you clearly voted for the candidate or not. Nothing that allows judgesment calls....
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
And since the winner will be a murderer, we can immediately disqualify him for the presidency.
Seems a pretty ideal solution to me.
Democrat judges (who already have rewritten the law, in effect changing the rules of the game after the ball has been put in play)
Did you read the Florida Supreme Court ruling? I think they made an overwhelming case that the early certification "deadline" was not the law.
That said, I think they should have let Katherine Harris pick a new deadline guided by their (correct) reading of the law, rather than picking one themselves.
Whoa... You're pretty gifted with the language yourself.
Let's see: Gov. Bush has a Master's is Business and GRADUATED from Yale and Harvard.
Vice President Gore FLUNKED divinity school and dropped out of law school.
Gov. Bush used to be a jet pilot.
Al Gore invented fighter jets.
I VOTED FOR GEORGE W. BUSH! I'M PROUD I DID! AND I'VE READ ENOUGH ONE SIDED CRAP ON THIS SITE TO TELL THE STAFF OF SLASHDOT TO TAKE MY KARMA AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS!!!
No intent to troll here, but Bush's lead did drop by two thirds on the automatic recount. It is pure denial to ignore, for the counties that a recount were requested, within the scope of Florida law, did find a difference "capable of affecting the outcome of the race" existed. Again, by Florida law, this meant a further manual recount was justified. The counties had so much oversight via the media, party observers, etc. I find it hard to believe any fraud occurred, or that votes that didn't exist "suddenly appeared". Given that circumstance, the Gore side continued to rack up more votes.
From a troubleshooting point of view, this tells me the county election officials were on the right track. If the vote had gone more less 1 for 1 where Bush and Gore were coming out the same, I would have been saying Bush won, no question about it. But my troubleshooting mind must admit the trend was clear, and with all the review, it is not imaginary, illusory, or wishful thinking. Furthermore, any observer that believed fraud was going on could have rasied their hand, asked for immediate intervention, filed a criminal complaint, and the camera's would have been there to help make their case. But, that hasn't happened has it?
If I may now draw a parallel, many here have railed against the bullying of companies such as MS, and complained about monopoly power, abuse of process, etc. But the real reason so many are for Opensource isn't about power or balance of power, but about maintaining an opportunity for truth to be recognized. That Opensource policy means people can speak their mind without fear, make suggestions without fear, and in the end we all get something better for it. And what does this cost us? Nothing more than a bit of time, to be sure in our facts, purposeful demonstrations, and representations.
Have we all become so jaded and polarized we now have blinders on? Have we lost sight of the higher goal of "get it right", not "get it right away"? Extending some of the theories I have read in this discussion to their logical conclusion have me wondering.. and for those that think I am pro Gore, rest assured I am not, but I will not abide by the turmoil sure to be created by "expediency" because..... by that reasoning, Microsoft is merely looking out for all our best interests...
I believe that at this point he doesn't stand much of a chance of succeeding... Surprisingly, weeks of recounts being done in Democrat counties that voted OVERWEALMINGLY for him, using hand recount rules made and remade on the fly by DEMOCRATS didn't change the results.
There was simply not enough time for recounts. Only one of those heavily Democratic counties (Broward) had enough time to finish.
If Dade and Palm Beach counties both had enough time to finish their manual recounts, then it in all likelihood would have changed the results. Miami was through with only about 1/4 of their counting and picked up about 150 votes (assuming this trend continued, this would mean about 600 votes). Palm Beach was almost done (2 hours left!) and Ms. Harris declined to give them the time to complete their tally in a blatantly partisan move. Furthermore, she rejected the partial recount, which netted Gore 180 votes with about 1000 votes to count. The Florida Supreme Court allowed her to accept the results Monday at 9 am if her office wasn't open at 5 pm on Sunday.
Both candidates had every opportunity - including during the Fl. Supreme Court explicitly asking the Bush lawyers - to request manual recounts in any county thought to be improperly counted. The reason Bush didn't was he didn't believe the recounts would favor him. Why? By happenstance, the counties that vote Republican have optical voting systems, which have significantly fewer undercounted votes. A recount wouldn't change the results much. The punch-card systems in heavily Democratic counties have a much higher percentage of undercounted votes. This means when manual recounts are made, the undercounted votes will (or at least should) result in votes being resolved. These votes are likely to be split in approximately same proportion as the rest of the vote in that county (unless there's some other consistent bias), resulting in a substantial gain for Gore. This is what we've seen, but due to limited time and substantial obstruction by Republicans, especially Ms. Harris, all the votes weren't counted.
The Republican arguments that these votes should not be counted fly in the face of reason as well as law. The job of elections officials should be to make sure that every vote gets counted. The provisions in Florida State law that allow manual recounts anticipate this. It is clear that manual recounts cannot possibly be made in the seven-day period after the election, which an earlier law allows. The Florida Supreme court explicitly recognized this conflict and said that the newer law has precedence (this is typically the standard in legal cases).
The bottom line: in all likelihood, a fair count of the votes would favor Gore. The Bush campaign has tried it's hardest to avoid recounts for exactly this reason.
This is neither News for Nerds, nor Stuff that matters.
'nuff said.
--
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
When we have more than one election on the same day (parish council, borough council, county council, parliament or european parliament) the papers are colour coded to make voting easier.
Dershowitz got old, and Johnny Cochrane really didn't do anything after OJ, so it falls to our main man David to show up just in the nick of time, presuming there are enough television cameras to capture his immortal smugness.
One anecdote from one of GWB's college buddies is essentially meaningless - just as meaningless as anecdotes about any candidate.
In France, when we have a rough 50%/50% votes, we start the election again.
When we find numerous irregularities, we start the election again.
So lives a Republic, else you have not a president, but a dictator.
Welcome to the Banana Republic of America !
----------------
----------------
If Internet is Freedom, Linux is Democraty
ermmm..actually, if you read the constitution, you do not NEED 270 to win. You need a simple majority of electoral votes. the 270 is a majority of the electoral college when all states are present. If a state doesn't come, then you just need the majority. Chances are, Al Gore is going to attempt to tie up Florida until they hold the electoral college and force it to be held without florida, therefore he would have the majority. Hopefully, he will realize that he isn't gaining any popularity by screwing around with the courts and pissing the military off and he will settle down and concede tomorrow. Or he can tie up the courts and the election and piss off the military, and ALL the residents of Florida.
The anti-salmon
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But it is also rather uncommon for the guy who wins the popular vote to lose the election. And rare and wacky events always seem to come in sets...
------
Let me give you the lowdown
Wow, I don't think I have heard the "Nader was a paid operative" wacko arguement yet, so thanks.
Next you'll tell me that Buchannan is actually beung funded by Mexican illegal aliens with co-funding from the National Meatball Circumfrence Safety Certiciation Foundation, right?
------
Let me give you the lowdown
Ah, the tally for Florida might be over, and the lawsuits might be pending, but don't forget about the good ole' electoral college system itself!
;)
We vote for electors, not candidates. Those electors "usually" vote how the state totals come out, but who knows if a few of them change their mind? They aren't legally required to vote a certain way in every state, just in a few of them. In certain states, mis-voting gets you a small slap-on-the-wrist penalty as an elector.
These electors aren't all high-ranking rank-and-file politicians. A lot of them are small-town regular joes. Bush may have won Florida, but it would only take a small handfull of electors to swing things back to Gore if they wanted to.
Then again, it would take several LARGE handfuls of them to give it to Nader and be done with it, but that's a fantasy I'll keep to myself
------
Let me give you the lowdown
More and more people I talk to are saying that we need a third party of some sort, because they are disgusted by the dirty politics of BOTH SIDES.
Just because I can't stomach some of the antics of Al "The Internet" Gore does not mean that I am a republican, and any republican who presumes that I am a supporter can take a very long vacation on the dark side of the Moon.
GWB will be the third president named George.
He needs to be very careful that he does not earn the name King George the III.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I believe it was the President of Zimbabwe who said (paraphrase) "I would like to offer officials from my country to act as official observers in your time of democratic crisis" or some such thing.
.sig
Whats really funny about this election is that the rest of the world is finding it terribly amusing - that the brash, vein, arrogant American's who always espouse the virtue of their 'example of democracy as being a shinning light' and all that jazz - funny thing is the system is corrupt, broken and ill-conceived. The Republicrats have seized control of the government, blatantly sell legislation to the highest bidders, the nation splits %50 - %50 in an election devoid of ideas or solutions to any real problems, and now Florida is going to drag the whole mess into months of litigation.
As a Canadian, who will take to the ballots tomorrow to elect our Prime Minister, I relish the debate that takes place between our - 5 - parties. I and most other people outside of the States think this whole affair is the funniest thing since the "Clinton Scandal" - America has become a parody of itself.
Here are the Four Things that anyone hoping for a better future can hope come from this Florida debacle:
A) Complete public funding of all elections, and an end to Big Business corrupting your 'democracy'. This is your absolute #1 problem, When/Why do people allow their politicians to openly take bribes?
B) See
C) Throw the electoral college to the trash.
D) Open the public airwaves to real civil debate -on a much larger scale- and remove the partisanship from the debate commission (who exclude all but 'there-own')
Well, at least bush will be the winner until the idiot lawyers get their hands on it tomarrow and steal the election from him. Quite frankly, I think that the hand counting is biased, because quite frankly humans are not impartial, we are going to see what we wish to see. If the lawyers and judicial system decide this election any further, I think I will move to Canada or some other country, because it will mean that all this country was founded on has been yet again trampled on by legal weasels.
If WORLD Then CHAOS = True Else OBLIVION = True End If
Absolutely.
Do one hand recount, at least of the undervoted punch-card ballots, preferably of the entire state to assuage the Bush camp's not unjustified concerns about selectivity.
That recount might well show Bush won. The margin of error would probably still be greater than the margin of victory, but at least we would have made a good-faith effort to determine the real result, rather than just saying "I won and I'm holding my hands over my ears so I can't hear anybody who says I didn't."
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.
Since the decision for whom to vote is truly binary (unlike most of life's decisions, for which we are usually offered only dichotomies, but closer inspection will prove that there are more than two choices)... I mean, voting is a matter of either you are voting for someone or you aren't. So why continue to blame the people who voted, rather than the mechanical issues of the voting system in Florida? IMHO Florida should be disqualified from voting in this election or future elections until they can be certified to have an election process that is not a circus. How's that for an unpopular argument?
I do not have a signature
BTW, Gore's lawyer, Boyd, is the lead government lawyer in the Microsoft case, don't know if anyone's mentioned that yet.
Probably not, since his name is Boies.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
See the problem with the electoral college is that it makes this country seem pretty silly. It's an antiquated device that was questioned when it was first established. We've moved toward straight majority elections over the years; the senate is now popularly elected, and some states have revised the way they assign electors; however, it's not really enought. The US harps on fairness in other democracies, yet we can't even do it ourselves. Runoff elections would help; that way, Ralph Nader and other crazy third party candidates wouldn't rob the incoming president the chance for a strong mandate from the people. I think a straight majority should dictate the presidency; it's the fairest system we could devise, and any overhaul of our elections (especially after the circus in florida) would be a good thing. The point is that we really need to work on things; it's screwed up pretty bad. OK. Flame on...
Insightful? Interesting? Blacchhhh. Somebody with some mod points take this guy down to at least a 4. Insightful is right out. Interesting has a case -- since a bunch of people followed up to this post.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
It finally appears to be drawing to a close. Is it the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?
Personally I know not. Only time and the courts will tell.
Both candidates have their good points and they certainly have their bad ones: Gore is an eco-fascist with the sensitivity of a chainsaw and Bush, well let's just say that he's just the son of his father.As many have pointed out it is no longer the people that decide the agenda of government but the large corporations and lobbying groups who have themoney, time and above all connections to stack up the votes for their concerns.
Ultimately though I think that despite all the averse publicity and so forth Americans should, to a certain extent, be proud that they have a country where the people can vote and have a chance in hell of their vote counting.
Elgon
the fact that there's almost 1000 posts suggests that perhaps this won't be over on /. for a while
But the question has to be asked, When will it be over? I for one enjoy the civics lesson, but this election can never be decided with 100% certainty. It is absolutely impossible, barring a new election that uses a ballot that can be read with complete certainty of a "voter's intent." We will never know the true outcome of the Florida (or for that matter, any other state) vote.
So there must be another way to conclude this thing, and the Supreme Court is the law of the land. I'd like the candidates to say, "I will drop all other lawsuits so long as we both agree that the Supreme Court's decision is the state of Florida's decision."
That or a coin flip.
--
Long time reader, first time poster.
I am a Republican, and voted for Bush, so obviously I'm biased.
However, I clearly think that if Gore continues to go ahead with his lawyers in front of Democrat judges (who already have rewritten the law, in effect changing the rules of the game after the ball has been put in play), he's going to destroy his party.
Americans hate lawyers, as do I. In my view, the person who, after multiple counts and recounts is resorting to using lawyers for the sole purpose of getting a judge to appoint him President.
I believe that at this point he doesn't stand much of a chance of succeding... Surprisingly, weeks of recounts being done in Democrat counties that voted OVERWEALMINGLY for him, using hand recount rules made and remade on the fly by DEMOCRATS didn't change the results.
Gore going any further proves that Gore thinks more of himself than the country to continue to be the cause of damaging faith in the Constitution, law, and fairness. And he is the SOLE cause of all this. Some day, when less biased historians write of this era will paint this election and Gore's actions as the final chapter of the corrupt Clinton machine.
BTW, Gore's lawyer, Boyd, is the lead government lawyer in the Microsoft case, don't know if anyone's mentioned that yet. This shakes my faith in the Reno case against them, IMO, he has damaged his credibility severely by arguing specious cases on Gore's behalf.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"NOTE:Whenever said user admits freely and openly to listening to Rush Limbaugh, please ignore all subsequent statements as they are irrational, unfounded and unnecessary.
/."
Please continue with your regularly scheduled
Not only do I listen to Rush Limbaugh, I also used to host a talk radio program on AM 930 WRVC in my home town about 2 years ago.
What's wrong with conservative views? Don't mistake conservatives for Republicans who like corps. I don't.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
If machine recounts are more accurate than hand recounts, why was there a difference of 1400 votes after the second machine recount? Sure as hell doesn't sound like "two votes in a million" to me.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the ballot boxes that kept turning up that poll workers had just "forgot" to turn in. Woopsie. "Hey.. I realize this is like.. my ONLY obligation in this whole process.. to turn in this box.. but I just plum forgot. Hey look at that.. 95% of the votes happen to be for Al Gore. Isn't it a good thing I found this box of ballotsin my trunk?"
The media nightmare that the election of the presidency has become is just insane. I read somewhere something that hit the nail on the head: The reason the election was so close was becuase we, the American Public, had been given two candidates who were nowhere near adequate to truly lead this country. Whomever comes out of this mess, the the current story is that Bush has it, will not be truly fit to do the job as it should be done.
That is why the election was so close. Not only in Florida, but all over this country, people saw the candidates being presented to them and did not know what to do. What does one do with two mediocre choices,
when there is no other worthy option? Most chose to find things they believed to be the better of two evils, the candidate with the least amount of undesirable characteristics. Others, out of desparation from being faced with such inadequacy, did the only thing that would seem right and choose the impossible, and nearly as mediocre, third or fourth candidate. Whatever the choice, we all will end up with one who in all truthfulness, shouldn't be in the
Oval Office.
I believe the source of this difficulty is not the lack of good candidates, but something else. The early race for the election saw some good candidates, and some good potential. But they all faded away, dropped out, and disappeared. It begs the question, why?! Perhaps it has something to do with the wide held belief that we live in a Democracy; that it is the majority who rules, and the government that shall rule us. This is a complete fallacy. This country, as you would hear in any Elementary or High School History class, is Republic. It was designed to be run, for the people, by the people, with a small government serving them, not the other way around. That is why goverment-business and property is always called public, becuase it belongs to the people. We are living in an age where the original goals of this country have been lost. The people no longer hold any control in this country; it is the government, the political machine, the media, and the corporations are the ones who control this country. (More info on why we live in a Republic, here.)
Then we have the media. They were so swayed by those in charge of the parties, that we had no choice but see the people that they chose us to see. The politicians don't campaign to the people anymore, they only campaign to the media. I'm sorry, but the media isn't the one in the voting both, it is the people. Those politicians who don't pay up the dues or the news anchors choose not to pay attention to get no coverage. Then, the best eople, those who by all rights would be the best leaders for our country, choose not to even attempt to run, in fear of what the media machine would do to their lives. It seems there is something critically wrong here
So now what? Well, for now, I think all we can do is put up with the ludicracy in front of us. But meanwhile, we need to begin to take back what was ours. This country was designed for the people, and only the people are the ones who will be able to take it back. If we do nothing, and expect the next guy to do it, well then, we deserve to be sucked into the media corporate madness that has evolved around us.
-Julius X
-Julius X
remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
About two days after the "selected counties" recount offer, Gore offered to hand recount the whole state. Bush politely declined and went running to federal courts to stop any recounting. It was an odd move for someone who values state's rights so much.
Basically, this whole situation reminds me of a football (either kind) game where the last play is disputed. The winning team will run into the locker room as quickly as possible. The hope is that the officials will decide that it's too much of a hassle to get the other team back on the field and just call the game.
-B
obviously you are a troll, but...
The people have spoken? The people are pretty evenly divided on this issue. And with all of the lawsuits and count-lawsuits, I don't think we will see the end of this until the Electoral College votes. And maybe not even then -- wouldn't it be a hoot if one of the electors change their vote from Bush or Gore to Nader, and we ended up without anyone having the 270 required to win?
The only ray of light in this entire process is perhaps the hope that some sort of standardization of voting proceedures and machinery will happen nationwide
This is sort like when you keep telling your boss that you need to invest in new technology because it is broken (underpowered, unreliable, etc.), and they keep saying "no", until the day that their business is seriously affected by the old systems in place (computer dies, the backup system doesn't work anymore, etc.).
Maybe it will finally become a priority to spend some money to upgrade to optical scan technology in those places that are still dealing with punched cards and hanging chads.
Unfortunately, I can also see local election boards saying "wow, we will never have an election that close again, so now we don't have to worry about it".
But the Bush campaign HAS and IS engaged in the same thing. The whole fluster over the absentee ballots revolves around stretching the law. By law, unpostmarked ballots shouldn't be counted. But the DEMOCRAT in charge of making that decision finally decided to bend the law and allow them. So in one case it's "screw the technical law- it's the will of the servicemen GOD COUNTRY BLAH BLAH AT TOP VOLUME" and in another it's "we MUST follow the strict technicality of the law! GOD COUNTRY ALL THAT IS HOLY AND GOOD!" It's isn't hard to find such positions totally hypocritical. In one famous example, Bush lawyers lobbied intensely to disqualify 13 absentee votes from country employees that they believed to be for Gore, but were without precisely proper ID. When they found out that the votes were mostly for Bush, however, they dropped all challenges. I also find it hilarious that this supposedly "states rights" "we trust local politics over those fatcats in Washington (just not those good Republican fatcats- they're all right)" party is the one appealing to the Supreme Court (a move quite disturbing in it's implications for the ever expanding power of federal courts, espcially considering how flimsy the rationale for a federal suit is)- the one saying that local people just can't be trusted. That doesn't exactly paint the Gore camp as saints. They are quite craven and willing to fight. But at least there's little question of that. But the fact is, there is legitimate ground for a fight here. I really can't say which side is right. And I'm fairly suspicious of someone who claims that they can. And hey, you are a hypocrite, because you only look at a situation long enough until the view you get pleases your preconcieved notions.
Your aims are laudable (I don't want those wackos in New York and Los Angeles picking my president), but the electoral college does not solve the problem. Instead, it gives disproportionate representation to large cities in rural states, such as Fargo, ND.
My personal opinion is that a successful candidate for president must receive more than half of the votes cast nationwide, and a majority of the votes cast in each of at least 26 states. Clearly there is no fair voting system that can guarantee this, so you would have to leave the current president in office, or leave the position empty, until a new election could be arranged.
A brief rant on the vice-presidency: I really think the idea of "presidential tickets" is counter to the spirit of checks and balances. Particularly in a close race like this one, a large number of people think that both candidates should be in the Whitehouse. Perhaps the prospect of your opponent being in your office every day for the next four years would make candidates more positive during campaigning.
--
--
E_NOSIG
First of all, I'd like to point out that before all this madness occured, it was thought that Bush may win the popular vote, but Gore win the electoral vote. Gore didn't complain about that possibility. Now we come to the interesting proposition that Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Now (gasp!) Gore doesn't think that the electoral system is fair.
Is that so?
Can you produce a single quote or statement since this election concluded where Gore has called for the abolition of the electoral college, advocated hearings to investigate it, or "whined" about the electoral college "not being fair?" Don't waste your time trying, because he hasn't. Plenty of people -- on both sides of the aisle, I might add -- have done exactly this, but Gore has not been among them. He has, in fact, done the opposite; he has defended the electoral college as the law of the land, which it obviously is.
(But far be it from me to rain on your fire and vitriol!)
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
It seems that for the most important political job in the US (and arguably much of the world) the applicants should be the greatest of the great statesmen. They should be the brilliant minds that make people want to listen, the kind of person who could (literally) write _the_ textbook on politics. Instead, we get dolts who get ramrodded through the system. Is being governor of a state enough of a qualification? I don't think so. Neither is being a lawyer.
How we got into this mess is beyond me.
OK, here's what I suggest in order to prevent that from happening again... You have to look at the problem in a scientific/statistical way. When you know that the difference in votes is in the order of 1000 for a whole state, you already know that the result, after recounting, WILL NOT BE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT... whatever you do.
There is then only one solution that makes sense: Put the two names in a hat and draw one. This is as scientific as the recount, but it saves lots of time and money. Of course, since I'm not american, I cannot vote for that law...
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Let me bounce these facts off you:
I wish this was over too, but it ain't. Gore gave them a chance to do it right -- hand recounts in ALL of Florida's counties. But Bush refused, because he knows he'll lose if votes are accurately counted. Whether or not he'll get away with this swindle remains to be seen, but I fully support the efforts of the Gore team to see justice done here.
Well, no, not really. :-) The balance of power between the States and the Federal government is a dynamic one, the result of ~200 years of subtle and non-subtle pushing by both sides. The Federal government can exert strong control over some things which it has been given direct control of (and this is a suprisingly small list of things to people living in other countries), every thing else it basicaly has to persuade the States into doing.
A prime example of this is the 55 MPH speed limit on the nations roads. For (what, 15? 20? 30? know it was in effect when I was a little kid 15+ years ago), this was pretty much universal across the country. The Federal government did not put this into place by fiat (even though they did build the interstate highway system), but rather by saying ``if you (a State) wish to gain the benefit of Federal highway and transportation funds, here is what you must do...", a list that included a raising of the drinking age from 18 to 21 and a lowering of the speed limit to 55 if applicable(which really, really sucked by the way in a state like Texas where I live, becuase the place is so goddamn big (bigger than France) that at 55 it takes quite a while to drive from one major city to any other).
It's not like the States are trying to make an issue out of this, it's something they genuinely have the right to determine at the state level (furthermore, the State can't say anything about how some things are done ``on the ground'' by the local election boards, or else you know that Ms. Harris would kick the Palm Beach board straight in the ass...). The only way the Feds could try to influence this would be to try something similar to the highway funds thing (i.e. indirectly through money, like by offering a carrot of grants to pay for the upgrade(s) or by offering a stick in terms of taking away funding if they are not done).
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
There's not supposed to be *any* margin of error in the actual vote. That "margin of error" phrase has been drummed into our heads by pollsters.
Regardless of who wins in the end, one of the first acts should be to pass legislation for a new, modern vote system verifyable by some kind of encryption key to preserve anonymity.
I've been thinking that each ballot should have a public key attached, and that each voter should get a card with a private key when they vote. If there was any disputed ballot, the public keys would be posted by precinct both on line and in major newspapers (think full page, fine print, and hopefully a low percentage of disputes).
It would be each voter's responsability to check and make sure that their key was not on the disputed list. In order for them to verify their votes, they would have to use their private key. The vote could be ammended anonymously online via SSL or in a private booth at the local courthouse. If the disputed ballot is not ammended within a certain time frame, it should be thrown out, case closed.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
They could have graduated from MIT with honors and it wouldnt matter; my original point would remain the same: just because Bush (OR Gore for you repubs) has a different ideology from you _doesnt_ mean you have to make unsupported and idiotic claims about them.
It's not just ideology though. I didn't like his father that much, but I recognized that he was basically a competent president. I voted for Clinton, but I didn't worry about Dole; he seemed a decent man who would do a fine job if elected. The claims against Bush aren't unsupported or idiotic. He has made several factual errors in his speeches; he has misrepresented himself as a moderate when in fact he is to the right of most of the Republican party; and he has basically no real credentials to be President.
--
------------
Don't blame me. I don't live in Florida.
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
Yes, California doesn't need to tally the absentee ballots in their race, since Gore won by over a million, but those ballots could put Bush into the lead in the POPULAR vote! Neither side can claim the popular vote in this election. This lie has been propagated in the media, and ignores the many uncounted votes in this close election (200,000 votes, and with Bush garnering a 2-1 margin on those military ballots, the California vote COULD easily swing the poplar vote his way).
Its far from over. This is now going to go to the Florida suppreme court. Basically, they said Bush wins, but without counting ANY of the hand counted ballots, but instead is going from the number from the machine count. So its far from over, It could still go either way. But right after they announced this, Leiberman was there announcing that Gore is contesting. Now its up to the courts. This had to happen, because now it can be argued. We'll see what happens. Expect to see Bush's people talking about 'we need closure, we won, lets call it an election', and expect to see Gore's people say 'Every vote must count, we must have fair results' Get ready for another few weeks....
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
James Brents
Does it really matter what practices are used elsewhere?
Changing the rules after the election is intrinsically unfair. Can any rational person deem it otherwise?
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Given the choice between Evil and Stupid, i'll take Stupid just about any day.
;)
I voted for Browne, btw.
closure with a President with the qualifications of a head of lettuce is still closure
Certainly 49,819,600 people can't be all that wrong now can they? This is more votes than CLINTON got so I guess that means good 'ol Billy Boy has the head of a rotten squash?
I've also yet to see a head of lettuce graduate from Harvard AND Yale. Didn't Gore drop out of college at one point? I think yes.
And with this I suggest a new filter option in my profile, as well as giving me the ability to filter out Jon Katz, I suggest we also now have the option to filter out bleeding heart liberal editorializing that only goes to show why almost 50,000,000 people in this country DO NOT agree with you and your views.
Bush is infinately more qualified as president than CmdrTaco and company are qualified at editorializing.
Of course that's not saying much, but most people do forget that Bush is a Harvard AND Yale graduate.
RevT
proud Florida Browne voter
This is a mantra we hear frequently, but which misses the point entirely.
It may very well be that more votes were cast in favor of Bush than Gore. The fact remains, though, that at no time has the margin of victory been more than 1,725 votes, or about .02% of the Florida votes cast.
In a single county, Miami-Dade, there are more than 10,000 ballots that punchcard readers registered as having made no vote for president. We know that in many counties votes have been undercounted because these "hanging chads" sometimes get pushed back into the hole when they are fed into the machine.
The current margin of victory is 537 votes, or about 1/20th of the number of undervotes registered in Miami-Dade alone.
So it is ridiculous to be saying "we counted the votes, and Bush won, and then we counted them again, and Bush won!" In point of fact there are thousands of votes that haven't been counted at all.
We're not talking about dimpled chads or butterfly ballots. We're talking about holes clearly punched in ballots and not counted by machines which, while neither Republican or Democrat, are also old and poorly designed. Is anybody on Slashdot really prepared to take the position that mechanical devices -- particularly 40 year-old mechanical devices -- can do everything automatically and never need human intervention?
So we counted some of the votes, and we didn't know who won, and then we counted some of them again, and didn't know who won, and then in two counties we counted all of the votes.
And apart from those two counties, we still don't know who won. And we won't until we count all the votes.
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.
volatile int president;
while (!president)
{
recount();
whine();
sue();
}
More people voted for Not Bush than for Bush or Gore; therefore, Not Bush wins.
However, more people also voted for Not Gore than for Gor or Bush; therefore, Not Gore wins.
So, with Not Bush and Not Gore in office, I guess we're stuck with someone else. But who? Nader? BRAK? OOG? Slashdot Cruiser?
ANARCHY!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Ok:
---
First, we don't have a "popular vote". The so-called "popular vote" is really just the sum of each state's votes. The campaigning by both candidates, as well as the actual voting by the country, are made with the electoral college in mind. Both the candidates and the voters would have behaved totally differently under true popular vote.
Secondly, the margin for Gore's victory in the so-called popular vote is something like 0.3%, well within of the margin of error. So not only can we say that recounts (like those we've had in florida) could result in shifting of numbers, but we can also reasonably presume that the slightest change in behavior of either of the candidates could have overcome that margin (i.e., under a popular vote).
Thirdly, the electoral college is the law of the land. We simply cannot violate it based on whim.
Fourthly, there are good arguments for and against the electoral college. If you're going to argue against the status quo, you should at least make a strong case for it.
Fifthly, Gore was more than ready to win on an electoral vote (see his tapes on CNN and company) when that was what the media was predicting.
> On to the subject of the dimpled chad and all that. There were ballots that were clearly punched through for all other offices but "dimpled" for president. Was this voter incapable of punching the holes? I think not.
You should have said, "I think. Not."
There is ample legal precedent for counting dimpled ballots. Counting the voters' intent is even the law in backwards places like Texas now, thanks to a law supported and signed by none other than GuuB himself.
Why so? Because the whole point of holding an election is to find out what the voters want.
> As far as the whole military absentee ballot thing goes...
Pure spin by the Republican attack dogs. See my post on the topic elsewhere under this article.
> On an added note, in Palm Beach County, FL a local news station took that "butterfly ballot"...
Another thing that the "liberal media" isn't bothering to tell everyone is that "butterfly" ballots caused so much confusion in the 1984 election that the US Congress ordered an investigation (General Accounting Office, IIRC), and the investigators reported back that such ballots were inherently unreliable, and recommended that they should not be used anywhere.
The shame is that state and local officials are not aware of these things. I wonder how many voting systems are just snake-oil solutions being peddled by someone out to make a profit? (I hear that the county commissioners in the county where the capital of Texas is are going to vote within a month about whether to upgrade to a slick new computer voting system. They probably don't have the first clue about the pitfalls with such systems, as recently discussed in comp.risks. Their decision will be based on the fact that they tried it in a single booth during this election, and "didn't have any problems with it". In the event, they are dragging their feet because of the price tag rather than because of concerns for system integrity, auditability, and the other issues recently identified by people researching computer voting.)
> They only recounted Democratic counties.
Agreed. IMO any election in any jurisdiction with less than a 2% difference between the top candidates should trigger an automatic hand recount throughout the jurisdiction. (And here the "jurisdiction" would be Florida, since that is the source of the block of electoral votes.) Notice that under my rule, a couple of other states would have needed statewide recounts as well.
> And, as far as I'm concerned, the changes in counts are more due to human error now than machine error then.
There is absolutely no basis of this claim, other than by invoking the Republican SpD's as authorities. Before this election, everyone agreed that hand counts were more accurate in a tight situation, and machine counts were just useful because of their superior speed and cost effectiveness whenever an election was not too terribly close.
> By the way, this isn't even the worst election in US history. Take John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.
Also, a very complex situation with Rutherford B Hayes, ultimately resulting of a postponement of the inauguration until March of 1877 (IIRC). And some decisions by the US Congress that sound distinctly unconstitutional to me.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Really, how would that be any worse than what we have right now? Whoever becomes President will lack any kind of mandate, that much is clear. What is more important, though, is that no one really wants either of them. Like in the 1800s with Hayes and Tilden, the election was so close there that they finally came to an agreement: Hayes will be Pres. (Republican), but would not seek a second term, and he would not change any policy substantially. This should be what happens here -- preserve the status quo, get rid of the two of 'em as soon as possible, and start fresh in four years.
Yeah US History!
OK, I can't represent a completely British point of view here (not having had time to personally consult with all 60 million+ Brits), but amongst my friends there are two very basic faults with the voting system:
1. Americans don't know how to make ballot sheets.
Surely every state should have the same design for ballot sheets, and they should be boring and completely free from any attempts at design. A simple table which contains a cell for the candidates name, and a cell next to it for the vote is all that is needed, nothing more, nothing less.
2. Americans don't know how to count votes.
In Britain you have to put an X inside the box next to the the candidates name. If the X even touches the box, then that vote is declared spoiled, and the ballot slip is thrown away. If something other than an X is used, then the ballot is spoiled and the ballot slip is thrown away. That may seem harsh, but the rules are clearly laid out for everyone to see, and they are uniform across the whole country. The reasoning behind it is that if you are too stupid to follow the instructions, then you are too stupid to have your vote count. The idea of a judge being allowed to change a vote because the voter intended to vote for someone else is ludicrous. If there is more than one vote on the ballot slip, then it is spolied, end of story, and one stupid voter has lost the chance to have their say.
That's all that was needed to make this whole election an open and shut case; simple ballot papers, and simple rules.
Find funky gifts
First of all, I'd like to point out that before all this madness occured, it was thought that Bush may win the popular vote, but Gore win the electoral vote. Gore didn't complain about that possibility. Now we come to the interesting proposition that Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Now (gasp!) Gore doesn't think that the electoral system is fair.
Next point it why Gore won the electoral vote. He won by a margin of somewhere in the vicinity of 200,000 votes. He won by a greater margin than this in New York City alone. What this means is that, outside of NYC, Bush had the greater popular vote. So, is it really that unfair, Al? This is one reason for having the electoral college - so one city can't choose the president.
On to the subject of the dimpled chad and all that. There were ballots that were clearly punched through for all other offices but "dimpled" for president. Was this voter incapable of punching the holes? I think not.
As far as the whole military absentee ballot thing goes, Gore just managed to upset the people who risk their lives for this nation. Probably not a very good plan...
On an added note, in Palm Beach County, FL a local news station took that "butterfly ballot" and replaced the candidates with cartoon characters. They then asked small children which circle to mark to vote for a particular character. Guess what? They figured it out... (and, keep in mind, that ballot was approved by the Democrats, published in the newspaper, and sent to the home of every registered voter prior to the election.)
Even if Gore had won the Florida recount, what would it mean? They only recounted Democratic counties. And, as far as I'm concerned, the changes in counts are more due to human error now than machine error then.
Of course, it's not over yet- but it should be. I think everyone is entirely sick of this. Time to move on.
By the way, this isn't even the worst election in US history. Take John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Jackson won both the popular and electoral votes. BUT he didn't have a majority. Henry Clay had managed to take enough electoral votes away that no one had a majority. So, the two candidates with the most electoral votes go to the House. Clay threw his support to Adams, who won the election despite an obvious loss to Jackson. Interesting stuff....
The above is my opinion on a few of these matters. You're entitled to your's too. Don't troll me. Don't flame me. Let me be.
"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." -Richard Feynman