Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Election Ruling
Well, the United States Supreme Court has given their "ruling" concerning the Florida Supreme Court. They've asked for more information fromthe Florida Supreme Court. Update: 12/04 06:01 PM by H : You can read the the actual ruling as well. Update: 12/04 07:59 PM by H :Thanks to Mr. Sturkel for this much better analysis: "In today's posting of the Supreme Court ruling on the Florida ballot
case you state that the Supreme Court over turned the Florida State
Supreme Court case on manual recounts; this is incorrect. The High Court
"set aside" the case, not over turned it which is two different things.
In setting aside the case the Supreme Court asked the Florida Supreme
Court to re-examine the case and to explain and clarify further the
basis of their ruling, In a nutshell, The Supreme Court wants to know
why the Florida Supreme Court did what they did before issuing a final
ruling on the case."
Second, please show me where you get the information that Duval County "had over twice as many ballots thrown out than [sic] Palm Beach and Dade."
What is the [sic] for? Do you know what the proper spellings of than and then are used for? (psst!- here's a hint: you're wrong)
Damn, I'm glad I voted for someone who is not an idiot!
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Please explain where, in any of my statements, I made a liberal comment. I was explaining American electoral law.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
i feel small. i thought i had perfect grammar. i'll go back to my classes now...
*shrug* sorry
G
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
I think the Maine/Nebraska style allocation would be the most effective way to reform the system.
Now this is a completely stupid argument. Consider a similar situation: you are in a predominantly democratic state, but you are a republican. Your vote is worth nothing. Absolutely nothing. You *know* that no matter how you wote a democratic candidate will win. I suspect that this is the major reason why the voter turnover in the US is one of the lowest in the world. /dev/null. Florida is even worse. 50% of the wotes will be wasted because of this winner-takes-all scheme, no matter who actually wins. Think about it. 50%. Again, I am suggesting that this completely stupid voting system is the primary reason for the extrtemely low voter turnover in the US -- there is just no point voting when you know the outcome in advance.
Texas is a largely republican state, but 30% of the votes went for Al Gore. That is 30% of the votes went to
However, it can be improved significantly even without getting rid of your precious electoral college. The number of electoral votes a candidate gets from each state should be proportional to the popular vote the candidate received in that state. I belive this is called the split electoral vote (?), and several states have it already.
But anyway, given that, I think there is much more of an incentive to campaign in the smaller "swing states" under the current system, since, as I showed above, the votes there are potentially worth so much more.
uh-huh. When was the last time a candidate campaigned in Rhode Island/Vermont/Alaska/Hawaii/Kentucki/insert small state here?
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Gore won't concede. He's shown that already. Do not blame other Democrats for his pro-litigation stand since most of them don't agree with it either. Gore knows that his only chance at the presidency is now. In four years he will be running from a weaker position and he will have lost a significant amount of support because of his actions to date. I already know many Gore supporters who will not vote for him in 4 years no matter what happens because of his behavior during this election.
(Note: I'm a Democratic/Green voter. Feel free to flame.)
So we're doomed to a Republican president for the next 8 years? *sigh* Well, I suppose I should look on the bright side of things: even if Al Gore loses this contest, I see three benefits coming from this squabble:
1) New voting equipment, especially in Florida. California has already started upgrading much of the old machinery to touch screens.
2) A different Democratic candidate than Gore, perhaps a better (IMHO less religious) one. I would have loved to see the Jewish Senator Lieberman become Vice President. An obvious indication that America has made further progress in terms of equality. But I think we all know that Joe's religion would have been too much of a barrier for him to win in 2004, even though he would likely take the primary.
3) More attention is being paid to Electoral College. Perhaps after all this is over we'll finally be able to gut the accursed thing.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Again, as I said, it's a compromise. The main reason that I'm saying this is realism (or cynicism, call it what you prefer). The idea is that we won't be able to get rid of the electoral college, so let's make the current system more fair. Are you saying that the way that senate seats are awarded is biased towards landowners? (It is, but that's not the point -- the landowners have money and won't give it up easily). This is just a system that I think might be easier to convince the politicians to accept.
-30-
You are right, they are stupid. I agree with the original poster that the electoral votes should be split between the candidates. Some states already have it that way.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Hemos seems to have a problem with reading comprehension. He gets todays Short Bus Award. For those interested in what's the ruling means, CNN has a better explanation.
Several of my friends have written slashdot off as a waste of time. I'm starting to agree with them.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Logic Bomb is right. Give up on all straight political reporting. Among other problems, the moderation scheme breaks down. I've seen articles in politics rated up 10 points and down 8 points. Moderators in politics usually vote their opinion after ignoring the moderator guidelines.
Profit motivates invention.
Of course, it all doesn't matter in the long run. George W. Bush was the certified winner in Florida. All of these court cases are merely exercises in electoral law for the hundreds of lawyers down there to liven up their resumes. The election was over on November 7th. Bush won. The recount on November 14th... Bush won. The hand recounts in 2 highly democratic counties that were cherrypicked for Gore. Bush still won. Al Gore reminds me of the Black Knight from Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail. "There. The recount shows I win.. conceed." "No it didn't." "Yes it did! The numbers are right here!" "Tis but a scratch. My army of lawyers will overturn that."
In any case, I don't think Gore is the 'loser' here, though we think that now. This is a big stab at any party politics, and I don't think in 4 years, if it does turn out that a Bush & Rep. Congress was able to do a good job, that a Rep candidate is going to have a good shot just on party affliation alone. But chances are, the next 4 years will be ineffectual, the only person with real power in the gov't being Alan Greenspan.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/18/ seminole.county/
There have been more recent news stories to the effect that the democrats were not allowed similar access.
there is a more detailed and up to date story on ABCNews here
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I just find it amusing that the person responsible for the shift to fed rights screams "State's rights" every three sentances.
-B
When the smoke finally clears on this whole issue and the Gore bashing ends, can we plaese have an investigation of the Bush family regarding illegal ballot tampering in Florida. I'd love to see the answer as to how deep corruption runs in this country. Truthfully, I'm sick of the shit.
a/s/l here. Sorry, adding domain tags to your s
One...two....four...wait....one...seven......... .. crap
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
I think the Supreme Court did the right thing. They cannot decide for us who the president should be; assuredly they could not pin either of them upon us. More than likely, they had their own reservations about the two candidates, and in everyone's best interest, told us that it's Florida's problem. And it is. Perhaps they're sending those two a subtle hint: whoever backs down first will save face.
At the same time I cannot help but be disappointed. I have this feeling of dread knowing that the reason why voter turnout is so bad is because no one (as in general sentiment) wants these airbags to be our leaders. I feel mentally paralyzed by the actions of our leaders, by the way in which they're chosen. Mechanical punch cards are entirely unacceptable. Let's consider margin of error, folks. We're in the grey zone, and it cannot be undone. For the next four years, I don't think I'll be able to listen to The State of The Union Address; the complete uncertainty with which he was chosen will dishearten me, knowing it could just as easily have been a different man.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
--
--
I am hte Prezidint
The ruling, oddly enough, was an unsigned ruling (definitely not normal) where the court asserted that there was "there is considerable uncertanty as to the precise grounds for the decision" in the Florida Court's decision. Therefore they have invalidated the decision based upon precendent and sent it back to Florida to Reconsider. See the story from CNN
In the WumpusWorld of Law the Supreme court has determines that the Florida State Supreme court fell into a pit but thy have extra life to try again.
Despite the hopes of many this does not hand either side a victory really. In some sense it is better for bush because it invalidates a ruling favorable to Gore but it does not nevessarily give him the victory.
It seems like we won't really know until we hit the hard deadline of December 18th when the Electoral College meets. On that day (or more accurately 6 days before it the 12th, the State of Florda, by federal law, must have appointed it's electors.
I guess we stiull have time to wait before moving off. Perhaps I'll see you in Monaco.
Irvu.
All the liberals are now talking about the severe blow that "states rights" has taken in this ruling; really, though, is it a blow to states rights when different brances of a state's government are in conflict with each other?
Although seeing the liberals suddenly pretend to care about states' rights is funny, I have to admit.
(currently testing something about signatures here)
How many of the justices on the Supreme Court were apointed by Republicns, anyway?
Not that it matters, since it was unanimous, but still...
On Dec 12th Congress MUST BY LAW (CONSTUTUTIONALY) certify the electorial college. If there are no clear cut rulings, they MUST take the Fla. Certified count and electors.... If this drags out another 8 days Bush wins.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
LB:"Just link to an AP story or something and let it be."
Or to the MSNBC story if you want the Gore camp's version of events...
---
Strangelove's Law: All politicians are jerks.
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
Too bad we can't mod Hemos down enough to keep him from posting bullshit on the front page. :)
It deals mostly with logical inconsistencies in the Florida Supreme Court's arguments. I think my favorite argument is this:
--Long time reader, third time poster.
Well, we'll have one biased count produced under the rules spun by the secretary of state, and and other biased count produced under the rules spun by the New York Times.
Objectively - you are going to have a rough time running the country if the belief spreads that you didn't really win. So it was a dumb *political* move for Bush to rush the counting period and go for the gold.
your links to polls are BS... the first one is for a trash rag... hardly a respected news source... The second discusses a poll which does not ask who voters would choose if election were held today - it only asks opinion of how the candidates have handled the FLA mess -- many people vote for a candidate they may disagree with on one issue.
One Bourbon
One Scotch
and One Beer
Well, Bush can stick with his intellectual position until the cows come home, but this is politics, right?
I'm guessing you're a Republican. I generally vote Democrat. Still, I think the smart move for Bush would have been to challenge Gore for a statewide hand recount on the day after the election. Which Gore would have accepted, and Bush most likely would have won.
So, by now Bush would be the undisputed president-elect. But instead, his cronies put the screws down on the recounts, and now he's going to have to live with 4 year-long nasty political rainstorm that he might not have actually been elected. And you thought the country was nasty to Clinton for winning with 43% of the vote...
All your little dittohead arguments won't change that. Short term victory, but expect another Clinton in the white house from 04 to 12.
The political rational of going down and kicking some inbred cracker ass was "To Save the Union!" (which is a more exciting way of saying 'There goes nullification! Now give us your vimin, bubba!')
Most people up North didn't even know that Slavery had been abolished until a couple years after the war. Not that they cared that much until the 1940s when Blacks finally figured out they could get out of that shithole.
The decision of the Jutices voided the decision by the Florida court. If they reconsider the case and issue a new opinion, this puts us back on square 1 here. The more important case is the Judge Saul case. This will be announced at roughly 2 pm. No matter what, it will be appealed. In the case of a finding favoring Gore, Bush has the obvious appeal that Gore could not bring this contest under law since he is neither a citizen of, taxpayer in or candidate in a election in Florida. This last point is more important that you might think. How the Gore team missed having the electors bring the contest versus having Gore bring the contest is beyond me. The statute is plain in its language. The electors (since they are the candidates) MUST bring the contest not Mr. Gore (who is not the candidate). Mr. Gore has no standing in this.
Personally, I found the attitude displayed by the Gore legal team toward the "plain folk" at the end of the case to be an supremely arrogant example of "We are smart, you are stupid, now get lost and fuck yourself." Not at all worthy of them.
TO extend what you say, the winner-take-all aspect should be done away with (simply done by state legislatures). Then in Illinois, for instance, the Daley machine in Chicago could only influence some 10 electoral votes, reducting even further the potential for fraud.
Thank you for writing this. I hope it gets modded up. It's neat to know that (logically) per curiam decisions have less precedental value. I'm now starting to get annoyed with the real media sources which call this a unanimous decision.
I hope your post gets modded up.
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
Let's see, is that -1 flamebait or -1 troll?
You are arguing for the disenfranchising of the military on the grounds that they are too aggressive while liberals are arguing for giving the vote to violent felons? Have you no shame?
Right now, the US is in a precarious place. It has one party that thinks nothing of calling the other party, violent, fascistic, wife-beaters, and a host of other, ugly, ugly names. The scary part is that they actually think that way. You cannot have peaceful government in a situation where there is the good party and the evil party. The only reason we are not in a civil war over this is that the other party has not given up on civil discourse yet and they generally don't reciprocate the hate.
When republicans call democrats bolsheviks as often as democrats call republicans fascists, it's time to dust off the passport and make plans to sit out the civil war. Frankly IMHO, neither of them is worth dying for.
DB
--
--
I am hte Prezidint
The area where the Florida Supreme Court *did* act outside the law, in fact, rewrote the law, is extending the certification deadline to November 26th. I realize many people don't obey the laws anymore and liberals more than anyone tend to view them with a fuzzy looking glass when reading them, but this is a clear case of the Florida Supreme Court rewriting that specific law to change the deadline to November 26th. They don't have that power! They can rule the law unconstitutional but they can't go rewriting it! That's a power reserved for the Florida Legislature. I think this election is so screwed up at this point the only way to solve it will be for the US Congress to appoint the President and Vice President. Any other way will result in endless court cases and muckracking. The United States Constitution clearly has provisions for that and it should be exercised at this point. We need a concise and clear resolution to this situation.
There are a lot of strongcounterpoints and criticisms to this crap, mostly like, a lot of that stuff is nebulous and circumstantial and just fuels conspiracy theoryies more than anything real
"Imagine that the self-declared winner's 'victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother. " Conincidental at best, what if this happened in ANY other state?
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. Working based on assumptions in OTHER points, which just makes it more crap
Imagine that the self-declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some colonial holdover (electoral college) from the nation's past. Definately debatable in the first place since this puts more power in the hands of regular voters
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. PUH LEASE...
Each of those points is highly debatable
Jeremy
I forgot where I read this, but more recounting won't give a more accurate result, just a different one. Ballots may be lost, ballots may be damaged, ballots may be changed. Hand counting is subject to numerous inaccuracies.
We've discovered that our vote counting processes aren't exact, when it came down to a very close result. We need some improvements in the mechanics of vote-counting, but we also need significant improvements in election security. Right now, in most jurisdictions, it's very easy to vote multiple times. How many of you who voted were asked to produce an ID?
Gore supporters are complaining that many of their votes haven't been counted, but don't mention many of the military absentee ballots which were disqualified, nor the Seminole County absentees that Gore supporters are trying to disqualify, though no fraud is alleged.
We have a result that's within the margin of error. For the good of the country, it should be closed here.
There is yet another perspective to consider... we can all think of a recent election somewhere in Europe where the loser tried to claim that the election results showing him to be the loser were invalid.
Consider: after two or three recounts, the loser continues to be the loser, and yet continues to argue that the results as tabulated are not valid and require further recounts. Lawyers on the side of the loser are trying to invalidated many overseas ballots cast by members servering in the country's military. The loser claims to be clearly the people's choice, even though he only leads the popular election by a couple of hundred thousand out of one hundred million votes (probably within the popular election's margin of error, if you count up the ballots thrown out not just in Palm Beach county, but all the other counties).
I'm not trying to say that the Democrats are corrupt here; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to balance the discussion. You gave lots of examples why the Republicans are stealing the election, but there are plenty of examples on both sides that can easily be interpreted as corruption.
-Rob
I call window seat on the next plane to Canada!
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Since Florida had legally set what was acceptable and unnacceptable as far as votes, counting, and contesting of votes are concerned, it is not only foolish but completely illegal to go back on that now that the votes have been cast.
This would be like filming drivers on a road, then later reducing the speed limit, and then ticketing the drivers... who at the time were driving within the legally established speed limit.
I just hope that everyone takes heed of this and refines their respective counties and states voting process.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
This means that 2.5 million ballots didn't "count" (using Vice President Gore's terminology).
Do we really want to hand recount 2.5 million ballots without any sort of uniform standard at all? Before election day, nobody knows what the margin of victory is and can vote their concience. There is a bit of fraud (dead people voting, zealots voting for their family, bribing with cigarettes, etc.) that cannot be fully eliminated, but it probably evens out over all political sides.
The electoral college buys us the "Florida Recount" situation, in which we only need to worry about a few, specific, locations. If this were a popular vote, this problem woult be about 50 times worse because we'd have these cases in all states, and in all obscure counties. Was Pricislla Prinsley disenfranchised in Pensylvania? Was Indy Irvine disenfranchies in Idaho? Let's find out. We'd see Bush and Gore on television every night proclaiming that they need to ask for a recount in two dozen more counties and that they are contesting the certified recounts in half a score of others.
It would be insanity.
The electoral college is a fair compromise. It gives smaller states a little more power than they otherwise would have (and perhaps deserve), but at the same time it limits the scope of contests, as a sort of damage control. It is a firewall, if you will, for federal elections; it's not perfect, but it's much better than a popular vote in a relatively close election. As a side note: elections are always close.
Now, if we could get funding to create an electronic voting system with touch screens that print out paper ballots; we could probably get rid of all the ambiguity in the system and satisfy everyone. Those that don't trust technology could still have their paper ballots, while those that need huge type and pictures could have them. If you throw in enforced voter registration, we would never have undercounts, and this whole problem could go away.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
It seems to me that Slashdot's coverage of things political is just as bad as the regular media's coverage of things scientific.
How many times have we read this week that the space station is getting some wings? What good are wings in a vacuum? Sheesh.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I don't think this is an issue of state rights. But an issue of a higher court overruling a lower court that acted outside the bounds of its *constitutional* mandate. The Supreme Court made a lawful decision, while the FL Supreme Court didn't. Though to be fair I am not 100% sure this was a constitutional issue, so I will have to find out more before I can say with certainty. BTW those Seminole Seminole county ballots that had a number added to them... THEY WERE NOT BALLOTS. Sorry to scream, but I hear this error so often it is painful. The voter registration numbers were added to Absentee Ballot *Applications* meaning the numbers were added long before a vote was cast, and indeed no ballots themselves were handled.
They didn't really overturn it; they sent it back to the Florida state Supreme Court to reconsider.
"Extremism in defense of liberty is more fun."
The relevant standard is the intent of the voter. Not very objective, but with time and resources, can be determined fairly accurately. I would be very surprised if someone did not take the trouble to find out what actually did happen in Florida. Nearly a month and we still do not have accurate tallies of at least several Florida counties. No wonder the rest of the world is laughing at us.
I don't see how a system set up where each vote has equal say, regardless of which state it's in, could possibly not make each vote worth more. Like i said, i live in massachusetts. 66% of my state voted Gore. Disregarding everything else, the 1/6th that voted Bush and the 1/6th who voted Nader's voices weren't heard at all, because all of Massachusetts' votes go to Gore, rather than being cast in proportion to how the populace voted.
Likewise, i'm sure there were some Gore supporters in Texas, who's voices were blocked out by the overwhelming majority who voted for Dubya.
The whole phenomena of people trading their votes on the internet arose only because of the electoral college. If peoples votes mattered just as much no matter where they lived, there wouldn't need to be any form of vote trading even being thought of.
Let's set up a hypothetical. In my state, with X electoral votes, you can vote for a Democrat, a Republican, or third party. My state is largely Democratic, so it is practically guaranteed that the Democrat will take the state. If I vote Democratic, my vote is worth something, in that it is part of the X electoral votes that are cast in favor of the Democratic canditate (usually, there generally isn't (and shouldn't be) anything binding the electors to vote as the popular vote goes). If it were a direct election, my vote would be worth much less, because it is now only 1 voice out of however many voted, rather than part of a collective that speaks for me, but also for everyone else in my state who either voted differently than I did or didn't vote at all.
I don't see how your example makes your vote count less... The only votes which would end up being "counted less" according to your theory, are the votes which weren't cast. And yes, prior to this election i refused to register for many a year, and i accepted that. We shouldn't rig a system to protect people who can't be bothered with voting.
And i don't think that ridding the country of the EC would decrease campaigning in the "swing states". In my opinion, as i alaready stated, I think it'd make for much more campaigning all across the coutry, because candidates would literally be going after each and every vote which they could. Yes, more people are concentrated in states like New York and California, but it's also much more expensive to reach those audiences compared to the same sized populations spread across the midwest.
Right now, presidential hopefuls spend MUCH more time campaigning in the big states iwth the most electoral votes, because the states are winner take all. And they completely neglect the states wihch they know they won't win for the same reason. get rid of the electoral college and you'll have hopefuls campaigning across the country, rather than trying to appeal to the greatest possible audience. In my opinion. Which is opposite of yours.
:)
It does not matter anyways. There is no way the US supreme court is going to stand by while a democrat is elected into office. As soon an Bush gets elected at least three will retire and guarantee a republican supreme court for the next 10 to 20 years. Of course you gotta feel sorry for any (democrat, black, gay, moslem, budhist) whose case might happen to go to the supreme court but what the hey that's our judicial system.
War is necrophilia.
inadverently GWB's case has transferred a significant amount of power from the States to the Federal Government
Obviously you did not read any of the briefs. Bush was asking the US Supreme Court to overrule the Florida Supreme Court on the basis that they overstepped their authority by assuming duties reserved for the Florida Legislature. In other words he was asking the US Supreme Court to decide which of the STATE branches had the authority to make the decision and law in this case. No authority was being lost at the state level or gained at the federal level.
The communist news network? Oh man republicans are sure stupid.
Why don't you go blow up a federal building or kill an abortion doctor or drag a black man behind your truck or something. Better yet get some skinhead friends of yours together and gang up a moslem or a fag.
War is necrophilia.
Amen bro.
States rights is an antiquated concept derived to form a union. The union exists now and the whole reason for states rights is gone.
War is necrophilia.
The most interesting statistic in this whole farce would be the correlation between those who say Gore is just a poor loser and vote Republican, and those who say they have been denied the right to vote, and vote Democrat. Lets face it, what are these crapola 'Vote-a-Matic' machines anyway. Sounds like they should have gone the way of the IBM 360 years ago, which is what I believe is their vintage.
For good or for ill (probably for ill), the Federal government has been taking power away from the states since about two days before the Constitution was ratified. In spite of the 10th Amendment.
Citizens choose candidates based upon the promises of "getting something done", "stopping something," "giving you something" that candidates make.
Invariably, these promises step on the toes of the states, who are either trying to do the same thing, do the opposite, or do nothing at all.
Statism, as opposed to Federalism, is a simple result of the tendency of voters to give away their votes for a buck or a sentiment, sometimes both.
Either quit bitching about the Feds, or learn to vote for candidates who promise to do nothing.
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
"The state judiciary has no right to dictate the terms of a state election, especially when not asked to do so."
No, but they must come to some sort of a decision when laws are contradictory, or when a law passed by the legislator violates the state constitution. This is their job.
I wonder who you voted for.
"In recent years, the Supreme Court has carried out what some observers call a states' rights revolution, tilting the federal-state balance toward the states in a series of 5-4 votes with Chief Justice William Rehnquist leading the majority."
It's interesting that the decisions concerning the power struggle between the state and federal governments have been so close. This just illustrates how important the Supreme Court appointments during the next administration will be. It's becoming more and more evident that whoever wins the presidency will be in a prime position to swing a bunch of issues (including YRO) whichever way they like through their court appointments.
Also, it's ironic that the current supreme court may end up choosing the president that chooses the next supreme court. Twisted.
This
This is faulty analysis. This ruling by the US Supreme Court is effectively a 'get out of jail free' card to the FL Supreme Court. The USSC is gently telling the FLSC that they don't know how the hell they came to their decision, and to explain its origins to the USSC's satisfaction or change it. This is the USSC's way of not embarrassing the FLSC by simply overturning them. How you can interpret this as onsolidating further power in the Federal judiciary is beyond me.
Were I on the Florida Supreme Court, I would suggest issuing a revised opinion: "In light of the decision handed us by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in light of the fact that the late-certified election results are being contested in lower courts anyway, we declare this case to be moot. And by the way, on January 21, we are all taking a long vacation, and anyone who tries to send us a brief will be summarily executed."
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Absolutely. None of this, to me, is an argument that Gore is particularly better- Gore scares the hell out of me, as I am interested in electronic civil liberties- but absolutely. Welcome to the United Bananas Of America. Not just a republic, but a first world banana republic! Now all we need is a collapsing economy- doh! :P
problem is the FL legislature is republican and by splitting the vote, al gore would have a majority and would become president. So that wont happen
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
The "Zimbabwe politician" should study more before writing.
1. The electoral college is NOT a holdover from colonial days. It was purposely created to KEEP majorities from always winning. If it were not for the electoral college, the more highly populated urban areas would always win by the shear weight of their populations. The electoral college ensures that the politicians listen to EVERYONE, not just the more populus factions.
2. Jeb Bush was elected in a FAIR election, without controversy.
3. The "voting irregularities" occurred in some of the richest, liberal counties in FL, if not the US, so which "most-despised caste" are you talking about? Wouldn't the liberals of those counties see to it that the downtrodden voted?
4. And where did the florida state police try to block people from voting? Where was this widespread voter fraud and WHY did it only become an issue a week after election day?
5. As far as recounts were concerned, it was the CHALLENGER that advocated recounts of disputed vote only in counties HE stood to win gains from.
6. GW Bush is NOT a human rights violator - at least no more so than the people he signs death warrarts for. The people on death row in this country go through an average of 10-15 years of appeals. Their cases are reviewed many times before their execution. What 3rd world countries do THAT?
7. Executing criminals who have committed heinous acts is NOT a violation of human rights. People ultimately possess free will. If they commit murder, they take away the right to life of someone else. It so follows that they must forfeit their own lives in exchange for their acts of violence.
The ballots were NOT poorly drafted and thrust upon unwary populace. BOTH political parties approved it. It was published in local newspapers and mailed to voters. After the election, it was shown on various web sites and on television. STILL NO OUTCRY. Where is the injustice??????
This country has a LONG way to go before we become anything like a banana republic. Most people in this country fail to see just how good we have it as opposed to the rest of the world. Having been to several 3rd world countries, I know what I'm talking about.
I was thinking about that this morning. There's nothing at all stopping a third party from electing a President. Unfortunately there hasn't been any third party candidates worth voting for in the last 40 years. Someone as liberal as Nader or as flippin crazy as Ross Perot is NEVER going to appeal to anyone but a bunch of staunch supporters. These guys need to learn to appeal to everyone in the nation. You NEED to be hypocritical and pander to both sides to be a politician. Didn't your mother tell you never to trust a lawyer or a politician?? :-)
*yawn* Let me guess-- you voted Republican.
If you've been following the opinion polls on all this, everything is sharply divided. About half the country thinks the Republicans are a bunch of crafty, evil, election stealers. The other half of the country thinks the Democrats are a bunch of crafty, evil, election stealers. Each side comes up with a lot of boring, self-righteous rhetoric. The truth is, each side is trying their damnedest to win the election, ideals be damned. The Democrats say "every vote should be heard", and then fight to get military ballots invalidated. The Republicans say, "this should be decided by the people, not the courts", and then are the first to file a lawsuit.
The truth is, both candidates are going to come out of this looking bad, and low on support. They're both going to have trouble with re-election.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. managed to stay out of the entire shitstorm by not making a decisive decision about how the election results should be treated. They may catch some crap for that, but most people are quite happy that they have some enough respect for state's rights to stay out of it.
If the US SC determines that this is the case, then restoring the Florida legislature's power (by restoring the laws established before the election) is a win for Florida and all states, since it reaffirms that the judicial branch (generally non-elected at the SC level, although FL has a "no-confidence" process for their SC) may not hold the other (generally elected) branches of government hostage by altering laws ex post facto.
I don't know if I'm being as clear as I need to here, so let me reiterate in the abstract. The Bush camp is presenting this as a case about seperation of powers, about proper delegation of powers. A SC ruling in favor of proper delegation is a moral victory for those who wish to see power delegated differently to the states, as well as those who are strong believers in the Constitution.
I don't see how Bush's lawyers are betraying his ideology here, even though just about anyone running for president (with a few exceptions, Nader fans) is really a whore in a suit.
~wog
Before you go around claiming things, do your research. The 55 MPH speed limit was perfectlly constitutional and is classified as Block Grant Policy. This is where Congress will give extra money to a state in return for passing laws that are of benifit to the entire nation. The national speed limit was removed because of popular opinion, not because of the Supreme Court.
Only 120 characters... who can summarize their entire world understanding in 120 characters?!
These 2 jackasses should do the right thing - compromise. They're pretty much the same in policies so whichever becomes "president" doesnt really matter. One should be prez, and make the other a cabinet member. Instead these two children will whine and bicker with each other and attempt to use the legal system in a way it wasnt designed to be used. There is a reason we have seperate branches..to keep the judicial system and legislative systems separate but equal. The judicial system cant decide the legislative system which in turn will have a hand in the next judicial system.
It's a pity these 2 puppets won't see beyond their own ass enough to do the right and honorable thing. Its a shame to see honor and compromise have decayed to what they have. More proof that our current political system and parties are due for a complete overhaul.
-
NONONONO! It can't be over, because I have bet with my girl that it will not be over one year after the american election. At stake is a dinner in a very good restaurant. (Over meaning that both parties finally agree on who has won)- ------------
-------------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just smells funny...
-------------------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just sme
A copy of the Supreme Court's slip opinion is quoted below: Source: Dec. 4: High court ruling on recounts.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Ok now if the FL Supreme court rolls back the time the fat lady sings for the last time since the 10 contest period was over before it even started. And yes the FL Supreme court will roll it back because their ruling was explicity against the US Constitution.
Got Code?
The funny thing is that this decision means very little in the battle for the Presidency. I don't need to state my claims for that, as I'm sure everyone's heard enough about that lately.
Where this decision does make a large difference is in state's rights, and more particularly, the power of a State's Supreme Court.
Here is how I read the situation:
According to Article II of the Constitution, the States shall chose electors as seen fit by the legislature. BUT the legislature is bound by that State's own constitution. So it is up to that State's Supreme Court to determine if the electos are chosen legally under that State's and the federal Constitution.
The problem is that that wasn't even the issue being addressed by either Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court was handed two contradictory statutes and told to rectify the problem from a judicial perspective. So they had a job to do: determine which statute was more "legal" than the other. They chose the importance of the recount over that of the deadline. So instead of scrapping either statute, they moved back the deadline. This was not creating legislation from nowhere, this was manipulating two contradictory statutes so that they would no longer conflict - that is what all judges must do when rulling on contradictory statutes.
The problem is, that their solution effectively did NOTHING. All that was done was they moved back the deadline just far enough to look like something was being done, but in effect to leave the exact same problem they were supposed to resolve. There was still not sufficient time for a full recount.
So what does this mean? The Florida Supreme Court made a ruling which did nothing except get a lot of people up in arms. Why complain about a ruling which accomplished nothing? Well, now the Supreme Court is in the place of being able to strip away power from State's Supreme Courts. Why? Because one court tried to look like it was doing The Right Thing(tm) while actually doing Nothing. Draw your own conclusions.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
I'm sorry but you can't seriously believe that the Florida court just interpreted the law.
The law *was* contradictory. Behind door number 1 it says that the secretary of state shall reject late votes. Behind door number 2 it says that the secretary of state may reject late votes. Interpretation would mean picking between door number 1 and door number 2. In neither case did the law allow for what Al Gore needed to win this election.
The Florida Supreme Court chose go off and do their own thing and said that the secretary of state must accept the late counts. And even with that bit of judicial reworking the rules after the fact, Al Gore still lost and now has to sue his allies on the county boards claiming that they were against him. It's bizarre.
DB
Yawn....more pathetic incorrect political coverage on /.
It's really a shame that the goal is to be first rather than to be right.
What's even funnier is the link is just as wrong.
When the time for re-election comes, I recommend USA to ask UN to appoint international observers to verify that all goes as planned. People from countries with more experience in difficult elections, like Serbia, Columbia, and North Korea! That should assure that things are done properly and thoroughly, and that there will be no doubt of the result afterwards.
In Murphy We Turst
this is slashdot. they can't get science news right, either. are you surprised they didn't get some legal stuff right?
jose nazario jose@biocserver.cwru.edu
Madeleine Allbright would be easily the most annoying personage ever to make the presidency and probably remain so for a long long time. Imagine the busybody policies such a person could enact...
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
I have to agree and disagree with you on that point. As far as I can tell digging through the Florida statutes governing elections and election results, all hardcoded deadlines seem to be dependent upon the date of certification of the results (time to contest, etc.). I can't, however, seem to find anything on a deadline for certification of the vote. Seems kind of a fuzzy area...feel free to enlighten me.
--Just Another Pimp A$$ Perl Hacker
El riesgo vive siempre!
I don't want to be rude, but you are simply wrong regarding the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court's slip opinion, which I posted below, does not reverse the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, it instead vacates and remands the decision in order to obtain clarification. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically states: Thus, even this specific matter is far from over. The Florida Supreme Court could clarify its decision, make it clear that it knows that the Florida Constitution does not circumscribe the legislature' s authority under Art. II, 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and reach the same result. The U.S. Supreme Court could then review the new decision by the Florida Supreme Court.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
I don't think his conduct post-election has anything to do with his potential electability in 2004. If he couldn't win by a definite margin as the sitting VP, he has no chance to do it in four years. I'd say it's time for him to run for Senate again. Or maybe he could just get a real job, you know, like a real person, instead of a member of a ruling family.
I do not have a signature
There were three reasons that Nixon conceded in 1960: (1) Winning Illinois would not have made Nixon the winner anyway (2) Republicans did not want examination of Republican-led voter fraud in southern Illinois and (3) so he could secretly look into contesting the election after the concession.
Last two may not be true, I have read it in at least two accounts, one of which I trust a good deal.
There is really no comparison between 1960 and 2000.
"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
The disputed ballots were requested by voters, not Republican party officials as you stated. The party officials wrote the voter numbers on the ballots, because the ballots incorrectly had phone numbers, rather than voter numbers, on them.
Because of his conduct through this entire affair, his chances of being elected for the next term of office are slim to none- even if he "wins" this term (Him winning and turning out to be a very good president would really be his only chance at this point, I think...).
If he really wanted any chances of being elected four years from now, he should have conceded a LONG time ago instead of this whining, etc. that they're all guilty of. Basically speaking, Gore's politically self-destructed.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
--
--
I am hte Prezidint
Agreed. Hemos is in way over his head here - he may be able to install Debian, a feat of some magnitude, but he obviously doesn't know beans about the American political system.
Case in point: In NO WAY did the US Supreme Court decision "transfer power from the states to the federal government" - in fact, what's happened is just the opposite: the US Supreme Court has *upheld* the US Constitutionally-granted right of the state legislature to determine the way in which electors are determined. This ruling simply says that the Florida Supreme Court had better have had a damn good reason to (apprently) violate federal law as well as Florida's own laws regarding the conduct and certification of elections. There's no way that can be construed as a "transfer of power".
Sorry, Hemos, but it's hard to get things any more backward that you did here. Leave the political commentary to those that paid a little bit of attention in seventh grade social studies class.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
None of this will be over with until December 18th when the electors from every state place their vote. Theres predictions of rogue voting and what not too, so thats when the final day of this entire election process will happen.
This means that wife-intimidation may have tipped the scales in favour of Bush : that is a sad but true fact.
Since you want to start throwing around maybes and mights, a larger portion of the military men are married to foreign nationals than the US electorate as a whole. Those foreign nationals can't vote. So their "violent natures" as wife intimidators can be counteracted by the fact that more of their wive's can't vote because their not officially US Citizens.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If Nixon had requested a recount in Illinois the Republican ballot box stuffing in the southern portion of the state would have been brought to light as well. They were both dirty, Kennedy just did it better.
While Kennedy may have been popular he wasn't a great president and I think, if thinks had been different (he hadn't been shot), he wouldn't have gone down as such a great president. LBJ, now there was a president. I would say the best (with Clinton being a close second) since, maybe FDR.
Reuters is wrong.
The ruling was per curiam .
It's pretty safe to bet that there was some major dissent within SCOTUS but they knew that they couldn't afford to issue a split decision, so they fell back on the slightly cute per curiam dodge saying "we're confused".
What they mean is "we're arguing, rewrite your decision so we can stop arguing".
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
And what would you put in place of the winner take all rules? Do you like the Maine rules or do you have your own proposal?
DB
This would give the Whitehouse to:
There was no machine recount Election night.
Bush did win the second machine recount.
Gore requested a hand recount, which has not been completed.
Gore is contesting the certification. This is perfectly legal; in fact both the Secretary of State and Bush explicitly stated that the reason for not changing the certification date was to allow time for challenges. Then, surprise, Bush said the election's over, forget that stuff about challenges, let's get this over with.
If Bush had not kept throwing obstacles in front of the counting process, it would be over. Don't blame Gore for Bush's trying to run out the clock.
"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
"Makes me wish that we actually lived in a democracy, rather than a republic" The United States was chartered as a Republic, back in the day when nobody but landowners could vote. Is that what you meant?
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.
No, a very large portion of us, those of us who have not been coddled into believing some myth about elections in the US being fair, would take this as business as usual and go about our way without losing a beat.
Democrats are always on the up-n-up? Never use thug tactics or underhanded means to 'get the vote out'? Never look for ways to stop the counting when the first pass is in their favor?
Man, I want some of what you're smokin'!!
As for the human rights violations charges...
One man's 'human rights violation' is another man's 'justice'.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Sorry, but even the Communist News Network arm of the Gore media spin machine is reporting that the opinion is indeed unanimous...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
What it does show is that the Florida Supreme Court has acted outside of the law
No, it only means that the Florida Supreme Court wasn't explicit enough in the BASIS for their decision (whether statuatory or constitutional).
This is basically a non-ruling, it says "try over, and delete all the stuff about the constitution so there are no federal laws involved at all".
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Do you honestly think that Bush's conduct has been any better? The running out the clock business and manipulating public sentiment through the media is not any better than what Gore has been doing. Both sides have been completely within their rights, but they have both made mistakes.
Personally, if Bush does ultimately win, I think the real winner is Hillary Clinton. I think Bush has shot himself in the foot for a 2nd term with his conduct. Gore may not be electable now due to public opinion (read: media opinion) -- and there really arent any other democrats of her prominance and national recognition/appeal. So if she proves to do well in her first couple years in the Senate, I wouldnt rule out her candidacy.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Actually, some states do use a system to proportionally decide who gets the electoral votes. However, the US Constitution leaves the task of choosing how electors are picked up to each state. As far as changing it goes, it's one of those easier said than done issues. Besides, I'm sure some states like having the winner-take-all system, in order to receive more political attention in the case of a close race.
Actually, it's a declaration of the incompetence and/or incoherence of the Florida court. You would think that getting to the highest court in the state would require the ability to write a reasoned opinion based on the law. Apparently not.
DB
In keeping with the kinds of technicalities being invoked throughout this whole affair, I'd like to point out that the correct acronym for our nation's highest court is SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States), not USSC.
case has transferred a significant amount of power from the States to the Federal Government power from the States to the Federal Government
Are you sure about that? The question was about a constitutional right given to the state's legislature. Article II Section 1, paragraph 2, Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to...
I don't necessarily agree that the case should have been brought to the Supreme Court, but I don't think their ruling on it usurped any power.
Have you read my journal today?
GWB's case has transferred a significant amount of power from the States to the Federal Government.
If you read the Supreme Court ruling, this case did NOT transfer states rights to the federal government. In fact, it reaffirmed a piece of states rights.
The problem lies here: Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 states that the authority of electing electors for a presidential election lies with STATE LEGISLATURES. The US Supreme Court said that the ruling by the Florida Supreme Court ursurped the Florida Legislature's authority in conducting the election for the electors.
So, here's the best outline for the steps of the problem:
I. Election [eventually] concludes that Bush is the winner, as directed by FL state law
II. FL Supreme Court declares that FL state law is bad
Here's where the confliction comes in. The FL SC has the right to overrule FL state law, except when federal law comes into play.
III. US Constitution says that FL state law holds power over electing electors for federal election.
Normally, the FL SC would hold the authority in its opinion, but because it ursurped power that is directly granted to FL state law by Federal law, it's unconstitutional.
The opinion for this case gave state legislatures quite a bit of power in how they conduct their elections for electors. What it ceased was the state supreme courts' ability to overturn a federal grant of power to the states.
Technically, the real conclusion you can draw from this case is that if State Law has a discrepency over it's law for electing electors, it can only be overturned by the US Supreme Court (since the law is a direct link between the state and federal governments).
--
--
I am hte Prezidint
If you think about it. Texas is THE state that hates to transfer power to the fed government. The supreme court gave texas candidate an edge while take away state's power. That's irony.
I don't know what you mean by "a result that's within the margin of error." If you mean that the margin of error far outmeasures the margin of victory, you are correct. But if that's what you mean, how should the result be "closed"?
The sad truth is that we will never know who won the popular vote in the state of Florida. The number of votes which are up for interpretation far outnumber the margin of victory. The scary part is that an election whose results will never be accurately known is going to decide the next president. We will truly have a government "Of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers" as we begin the 21st century.
Too bad nothing good will probably ever come of this. What is happening this year is just an extreme example of a systemic problem with the way we elect our President. The simple fact is that a margin of 1000 votes should not be deciding the election. The current electoral college system paired with winner-takes-all election in Florida is what created this mess. If Florida choose it's electors in proportion to the popular vote, this would be a non-issue. If the president was elected via popular vote, this would be a non-issue. Sure, the national popular vote was close also, but Gore's lead in the national popular vote is at least an order of magnitude larger than Bush's lead in FL.
Nothing will change, though. Most potential voters don't even bother to show up. The rest don't realize that the current two-party system is engineered in the election laws. They take it on faith that there are two parties because people want only two parties. Most Americans don't realize the severity of the current problem, much less see the systemic weaknesses causing it. Americans have no clue that the rest of the world is looking on thinking that our country is being run like some third rate "fledgling democracy" with rigged elections and everything (plus the largest nuclear arsonal in the world.)
Frankly, I don't quite understand why everyone is getting so upset about the way slashdot covered this story (and stories like it).
;)
The cold, hard fact is, slashdot exists to make money. Money comes from selling advertisement space and advertisers will pay more money for pages that get a large amount of hits. Those hits come from people who want to read and post on a story, and the simple fact is: on slashdot, controversial stories (ie misleading, flamewar topics, etc) generate hits. So an easy method of making money with slashdot is with controversial stories; one way to do that is have Hemos act like a fool and post something misleading so that the hordes of crazies out there in Slashdotland flood in with their precious eyeballs, "eating up" the ads and thus generating revenue.
Come on, why do you think Jon Katz is still on staff? At least I assume he is still on staff; I've had him filtered out for so long he may not be.
IMHO, it is foolish to depend on slashdot writeups for coverage on a topic likely to generate flamewars (like politics, guis, etc), because the writeup is likely to be skewed to bring out the crazies. In some sense, you are being exploited. So why stick around slashdot? The fact is, because the community can create content (ie posts), we are not limited to the sometimes inaccurate content that slashdot provides. A lot of smart people still gather here (although I admit less so today than yesterday, both literally and figuratively), so it is still worth reading.
The bottom line is, if you want to encourage slashdot not to skew news, DON'T READ AND POST THOSE STORIES--IGNORE THEM. All they want from readers is a response--good or bad--because that is enough to generate money. Hit them where it hurts (by not generating hits) and if they have any sort of business sense, they will change. I admit that I am only encouraging this type of story by reading and posting, but if this post stops two people without ad filtering proxies from doing so, then good has been done. (And yes, taco, I filter your ads--all of them.)
If you are generating lots of hits on this story, it is *your* fault that slashdot tolerates writeups like this.
This sig is false.
She wasn't born in the United States.
--
--
E_NOSIG
Man.
I got asked. And looked up in a book.
And I live in Chicago!
Cheers,
Tom
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
The states *can* do recounts. In fact they have done recounts. Sorry buddy, Bush still won. But we have a federal government in order for it to provide some minimum standards like federal officeholders are to be elected by rules that are established before election day. Palm Beach county threw out ten year old rules as to how votes should be counted and, by my count, imposed four different sets of rules on various parts of the recount, each time at the prompting of the Gore statisticians who figured out that they weren't getting "enough" votes under the rules in use.
That's vote stealing. The Florida Supreme Court gave these democrat dominated boards extra time to manufacture more votes. The Supreme Court just stepped in and told the Florida court that they need to have some basis in the law to make judicial judgements and their tissue of fantasies didn't make the cut for even deciding whether or not it was wrong.
In short, the Supreme Court didn't say that the Florida Supremes got it wrong. They said that they were incoherent to the point where the federals couldn't even figure out whether the state court was right or wrong.
The Florida Supremes need to be out on the basis of incompetence.
Now the rest of your post makes it clear that you believe that GW Bush's policy prescriptions are so bad that a little vote stealing is OK if it saves the US from him. Shame on you.
DB
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I was incorrect when I stated the Republican party requested the ballots, but the court case is still outstanding. Until that issue is decided, the results are still up in the air.
Bryan J. Casto
bryan.casto(a)gmail.com
I don't think any state would be more negelected by getting rid of the EC, because every single vote would count more, not less. No candidate will get 100% of CA, TX, and NY votes. They'ed still have to go and fight for votes elsewhere.
Any candidate that concentrated solely on those 3 states would get pummelled at the national polls, i think.
I think getting rid of the EC would actually make candidates go and fight votes harder than they do. Right now, for instance, there was basically now campaigning of any sort in Massachusetts, because a Gore win was a given. If there weren't any electors involved, then you can be sure that both Bush and Gore'd have been here rallying the troops, trying to eke out ever single additional vote they could.
I do like your idea about yes and no votes, though... And that'd work fine with regular vote for vote voting rather than with the EC. Give each person 5 votes that they can do with as they want... You could put say 1 vote for gore, 1 for nader and 3 against bush. But that'd probably end up being way too hard to explain across the nation and probably won't happen. A "None of the above" choice would be a nice option to have on all elections.
This is not a news site. This is the "I get alot of hits so i'll post my misinformed and ignorant opinion" site. Did anyone see the episode of the simpson's where homer became Mr. X, creating his own website and posting "news" on it? Hey slashdot, its a spoof of you!
-
You have quite a conspiracy theory going there mister. There was also a president once upon a time that was elected during a time of controversy. He had another Daley working for him at that time and the election was riddled with scandal of corruption and fraud. That president went on to be one of the most popular. So.. why aren't you condemning the 1960 election of JFK? If Nixon had ordered a recount and been as stubborn as Gore is being these days he may very well have become the President.
Before you do that, read this article from Discover a few years ago:
http://208.245.156.153/archive/output.cfm?ID=907
I think it makes an interesting point, and I do believe some balance should be struck between the most populous and least populous states. The electors themselves should be given the boot, but I think the system still makes sense.
Interesting point. My friends and I have discussed this very issue at length, and we've agreed that the electoral college is a somewhat flawed notion.
A prime example is California, which has a boatload of electoral votes (54 I believe). If the race goes 49%-51% (or even closer!), then the party who took the 51% gets ALL of the votes for the state of California. Suddently 49% of the state population (which is actually still larger than the entirety of most other state's populations) effectively don't get their voice heard in the electoral college. Sure it's a somwhat skewed example, but it serves it's purpose.
So then you think about the popular vote. Maybe we should directly elect by popular vote. Well, then you get into the whole recount situation again, only this time it's on a nationwide scale. Suddenly an election where the margin of victory is 500,000-1,000,000 votes becomes close enough for a recount. What a mess that would be.
So then we started thinking about changing the electoral college rather than doing away with it. If I'm not mistaken, as it stands now each state gets two votes in the Electoral College, plus 1 vote for each congressional district in the state. But the states go all-or-nothing when allocating electors. What if they broke it down so that each district sends an elector based on who won the majority in that district? Then the two extra votes could go to who won the popular vote in the state.
You'd still keep the degree of granularlity that they have now in voting districts, and any recounts would be done on a district basis, making the numbers much more manageable (if ever a recount was needed). But the benefit to it is you get a more accurate representation in the electoral college of what the will of the people truly is. And I don't just mean in terms of the percentage of electoral votes that go Republican or Democrat, because this opens it wider to third parties.
In this last election the Green party got a respectable number of votes in the Pacific Northwest, but they didn't get a single electoral vote. But if it were broken out by district that probably wouldn't have been the case. Not that I'm a Nader supporter, but a lot of people were. Getting the smaller parties involved would be a good thing, I think.
Splitting a voting population up into areas (states) to be won or lost forces canidates to broaden their appeal and not just preach to a 50.01% majority. This prevents a tyranny of the majority.
Now, do you agree or disagree with this logic?
Elaborate.
Here's my best manual HTML translation (with some necessary formatting changes and perhaps new typos) of the original PDF of the decision:
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Also, military men are trained to be highly agressive. Fool.
Military men are trained to follow orders. Millitary men are trained to do what is in the best interest of their country, too. So since they are trained to keep the nations best interests in mind, should their votes get double counted?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Only because the state (florida) screwed up.
I was going to mention New York as a good place for him to do this. *grin*
I do not have a signature
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The War of Northern Agression Continues...
8*)
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Actually, it's not clear-cut that this is a states rights issue.
Since the state's highest judicial body over-ruled (in the name of equity) what is the clear will and intent of that same state's legislative body (which is the official "voice of the people"), it could be argued that the question at hand is whether a state is to be directed by the people's representatives (its congress) or by an elite few (its judges).
That seems to be at the basis of the US Court's decision: If the FSC was issuing a ruling based on what it viewed as a proper interpretation of Florida law, then the US Supreme Court doesn't have a right to interfere. However, if the FSC has appealed in its decision to either the US Constitution, or to no higher law in particular (just "this is the way we feel") then the US Court can overturn that ruling, based on that ruling's own grounds.
-----------------------------------
--When you buy proprietary software, you don't get better software. What you get is the right to complain about it.
There are two problems with that statement:
1. Earlier, the Democrats were expected to lose the popular vote, but win on the electoral college.
2. The electoral college serves to normalize the power distribution. With a straight popular vote, smaller states would get glossed over, with presidential candidates focusing on the population centers. What the electoral college does is guarantees that those smaller states have a voice. The bigger states still wind up with more electoral votes, but the margin between them is reduced.
well, that should make both our candidates happy.
---
Don't be so sure about the benefits of closely divided government. A fuzzy government with a lot of bipartisan handshaking is likely to produce government greased with bribes to the district back home. pork barrell bribery is the only way they are going to be able to move forward on any major issue. You can bet there will be a lot of it.
DB
Instead we get the tyranny of the MINORITY. Democrats received the majority of votes for the House of Representatives, the majority of votes for the Senate in the past two elections and the plurality of votes for Presidentcy. Yet the Republicans will control all three come January 20.
I have an idea-- Moderation options based on the story type. For example, for hardware articles, we could have "-1: Beowulf Cluster". And for political articles, we could have "-1: Petty Partisan Bickering".
"But startled," I hear you say (or perhaps "but d0000d"), "we already have -1: Flamebait, and -1: Offtopic, and so on and so forth". Ah, but a look at the parents of my post points out that regardless of that status, the babbling incoherent posts get modded down -1: Flamebait, and the more coherent ones get +1: Insightful, but at the heart they're both Petty Partisan Bickering. No one browsing at +3 wants to read them.
The one flaw with my system is that this article was originally posted in the Internet category (since fixed). The options would have been "+/-1: Bitching About JonKatz".
Here is the text the Supreme Court's findings.
--
"A dessert without cheese is like a beautiful woman who has lost an eye." -- Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin
No, that was the NRA. Oh wait. Same thing.
Never mind.
Shouldn't this be under "USA" or whatever it is called (the flag). I don't really get the significance of this message for the Internet
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
There is a lesson to be learned in this for Americans, although I don't think its the same one that the writer of this (who was probably not who he claims to be, but anyway) intended. What American's should take from this, is that we should not be so quick to judge OTHER countries elections as we often do, since we don't necessarily have a good understanding of what their laws and political climates are. Every single statement in the above post is either purposefully misleading or simply uninformed, meaning that the author is either trying to be inflamitory (which is most likely) or simply does not have enough information to judge. Maybe we should not be so quick to judge in the future either...
-- Point? None! Cob.
The FL constitution, like most states, provides that the legislature may step in in case of a crisis, such as potential failure of FL to get its electors certified, which would mean that its votes did not count. If the legislature had stepped in that early, it would have been on shaky grounds, but now that the court challenges leave the situation in limbo, the legislature can legally declare a slate for whomever they please...
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
This ruling may have transferred power for states to feds, but is this necessarily a bad thing?
:)
If states cannot be trusted to uphold their own laws and conduct accurate votes, then maybe it should be controlled by the government.
Just watch out for Big Brother, now.
How you see the world is how the world sees you.
Oh yeah, like a direct election will really make you votes count. In a direct election, all a candidate would need to do is appeal to 50.001% of the populus. Thats still a margin of 4,000 votes, over double what the margin was in Florida.
The electoral college prevents what James Madison called "The tyrrany of the majority." With a direct election, we could have a candidate that says fuck the minorities. The electoral college forces candidates to pay more attention to more diverse regions and demographic groups. IMO, the electoral college is a good idea, but could be done better, (i.e. not only allot votes to states, but also to other demographic groups not necessarily region-based). All in all, I think the electoral college gets us a President that more accurately represents the ENTIRE country, not just the majority of the country.
Unfortunately, as the article states, this long arguement over Florida will continue as Gore continues to try and get extra recounts. Now, I am not really a supporter of either camp. I just want this to be over. All I can think of is, if either Gore was able to carry his home state, or Bush was able to win his brother's state with a larger margin, we wouldn't be having this problem. Makes me wish that we actually lived in a democracy, rather than a republic. Or at least did away with the electorial college.
Eric Gearman
--
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
... unless some examples of that "justice" has been declared to be a "human rights violation" by organizations such as the U.N. or the E.U. Do you realize how sickened many parts of Europe (such as Italy and Sweden) are by the conduct of states such as Texas and Virginia WRT the liberal use of the death penalty?
I'm not defending democrats. This election was essentially between two ideologically near-identical candidates, and thus they got near-identical votes. I'm just saying you may want to consider what the rest of the civilized world has to say about your opinions before you continue espousing them so self-righteously.
-jdm
Oh yeah, the CIA did such a great job in Afghanistan and for the Iraqi Kurds. They're a great Big Brother-ish organization. Pshaw.
Okay, first, what kind of jerk are you? Are you saying that Republicans want to kill blacks? (I assume you mean blacks by "most dispised caste" -- I suppose you could mean Jews or rednecks or hillbillies) First off, screw you, Republicans don't want to kill blacks, and you're a facist demagouge to imply so.
Second, blacks represented 14% of the Floridian population, but represented 16% of the counted votes for Gore. You can take that two ways:
What you CAN'T do is say that the "most dispised caste" was marginalized.
Okay, this is an out and out lie. The hand-recount counties -- Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade -- were not "hotly contested" or anything like it. They were very comfortably in the Gore column by a significant margin. There were pretty massive "undercounts" in those counties (ballots that did not get counted due to machine error, ballot error, or similar), but there were worse undercounts in other counties -- counties that went Bush and had Republican Canvas Boards. Gore wanted more votes (I don't blame him -- you know good and well that Bush would have done the same), so he focused his staff and media attention on those three Democrat counties.
Here's the thing -- I agree with this Zimbabwe ministers opinion. We're forever poking our noses into other countries elections (Danny Ortega? Anyone remember him?), and our noses DON'T BELONG THERE! We wouldn't put up with Saudi Arabian princes coming over here exclaiming, "By Allah, you are not allowing each man's seven wives vote!" -- and they shouldn't put up with American busybodies getting all hot and bothered about their elections.
Here's the trick to avoid American interventionism in your country's elections -- Don't accept our money. Those IMF and World Bank and UN loans are (by and large) funded from American dollars. Our government gives your government sometimes millions, sometimes billions of dollars (OUR dollars). If you take our money, expect our pointy American noses and large American asses getting in your shit -- we think that we've bought the right to do so.
(Proud Harry Browne supporter and voter -- "See, We Told You So!")
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Of course, he did the whole public "I accept defeat" deal, but he by no means backed down gracefully. He even went so far as to claim that Ike had encouraged him to "look into Illinois" but that he declined "for the good of the country". That's how Nixon describes it, at least. In reality, Ike withdrew support for a recount after 1 day.
See The fallacy of Nixon's graceful exit at salon for more info.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Anyway Hemos is already straighting his position as Bush's next campaign manager...
But he must be careful now, as Gore may now sue him for giving too much Slashdot effects on "And the winner is Bush"...
I believe in the absentee ballot cases you're referring to, that the recipients *were* the ones who requested the ballots but the applications had a printing error -- no space was supplied for the voter identification number, therefore many were returned w/o having the number supplied. These ballot applications were summarily rejected as required by law. Then, a Republican operative(s) found out about this and was permitted to add these numbers and resubmit -- and the applications were accepted. Thus, there was no ballot tampering, and the Bush camp is correct that this is largely a technicality due to a printing error -- and there is no evidence of other malfeasance, like the ballots being pre-marked or so forth. Under the Gore's "will of the voter" doctrine, these clearly should still be admitted; whereas they want to count dimples (which can merely indicate indecision and hesitation -- quite possible given that neither candidate was outstanding) as clear votes, these were clear votes. However, both the official who permitted this, and the operatives, quite probably should be charged under that law.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
There are two problems with Hemos's description of this article
One, the SCOTUS has not overturned the SCOFL ruling, instead they have "vacated" it. That is similar to annulling a marriage as the decision is basically wiped off the slate. The SCOTUS has asked the SCOFL to make a ruling that is consistent with the Article II limitations of the US Constitution, and the "safe harbor" provisions of the US Code.
Two, their has been zero power transferred from the States to the Federal Government. What has happened is we were reminded where the power really lays. The power to appoint electors for the US Presidency is granted specifically to the State Legislature. Not to the State Supreme Court, not to the People of the State, but only to the Legislature of the State.
--
DiStan
Damn, I get tired of spin. Let's see. The SC didn't overule the FSC. They simply stated, "Are you going to base your decision on law, or what?" So, a SC filled with libs and conservatives decided unanimously that the all lib FSC acted without precedent. And this bothers no one? The all lib FSC breaches seperation of powers and decides to become a legislative branch and overrule state law that sets a definative deadline. The FSC decides that the law isn''t "fair" and extends the recount period. So, they usurp the power of the legislature and create their own guidelines. And this bothers no one? What's next? Guns? Property? Rights? "We'll the judicial system has found the Constitution unconstitutional and decide to pass an edict declaring what is 'fair' and what you're 'new' rights will be." Democrat or Republican, you better pray that the FSC reconsiders it's spurious decision and bases it's next one on actual law.
Amen to that. The other thing, Hemos, is that the Justices have in recent history consistently been shifting the power _back_ to the states, not away from them, and I fail to see how this request for clarification reverses that trend.
~Religion is O.K., as long as it gets you laid.
is that this was considered a race of two evils, and people considered GWB the lesser of two evils. I personally supported Ralph Nader in my home state, but after careful analysis, I realized that a vote for Nader would take a vote away from Gore, giving GWB that advantage. Unfortunately, it appears that it didn't help. Germany, here I come.
How Jaded Are You?
Yes, conducting elections are the responsibility of the individual states. However, certain laws in the constitution govern these elections as well. The Republicans claim that the Florida SC overruled constitutional laws when they changed the rules governing the certification date after the election. What this ruling says is that the FLSC must find some Florida law regarding elections that shows they did not change Florida law with their decision.
All the votes in Florida have been counted. Twice. The media might try to make you think that there's a sealed ballot box full of votes that was somehow left out, but the fact is all known votes were counted twice by machine. All that's left now is to decide whether or not hand recounts should be allowed, and that is all in the hands of the Florida courts.
The electoral college is NOT a holdover from colonial days. It was purposely created to KEEP majorities from always winning. If it were not for the electoral college, the more highly populated urban areas would always win by the shear weight of their populations.
Why, then, do highly populated states, like California, New York, Texas, and Florida have far more electoral-college votes than less-populated states, like in the midwest?
California has 54 electoral-college votes and Texas has 32, while some midwest and north-west states have as few as 3.
What they decided is really rather simple. That is, if the State Supreme Court makes the case Federal Issue because it is a Federal Election then the State Supreme Court should have referred its justification under USC5. Since the State Supreme Court did not make clear any argument under USC5 and the USSC agrees that it is probably a Federal issue nor is it clearly an issue where the State Supreme Court has circumscribed the authority of the State Legislature then the State Supreme Court must artculate its reasoning better. In fact the USSC points to the case law in BLACKER that makes use of USC5.
States rights do not include the ability to violate federal law.
You're a political scientist? First of all the civil war was fought over the idea that states could violate federal law (nullification doctrine) since, according to Bush et al, states give up a lot of their power for the federal government to exist in the first place, and although the war was settled, the issue never really was. Now, on to the matter of the court. It didn't really overstep its bounds at all- it did not override the legislature but instead pointed out that under existing, preset florida law, the certification deadline COULD be extended as needed. Hence there's no surprise that "SCOTUS" (as in supreme court of the united states, not "beam me up scotus") sent the Florida ruling back- it said that the REASONS were weak. Nothing about the ruling being unconstitutional. I realize it's hard to be objective, but please: It's hard enough getting accurate information about politics on Slashdot (not that I try) without having to worry about people whose only news comes from Bush's campaign hq. For these and other political points, why not watch some of the roundtable discussions they have? CNN has a pretty good one, though the name evades me now- Hardball on MSNBC also raises a lot of points and it's fun to figure out whether the host is a democrat or a republican on any given day. That said, please TRY to remain objective if you're going to feign knowledge. There's a precedent for every point out there and I'm not surprised by the ambiguity of the ruling.
BTW, I'm not a political scientist. I just know what I'm saying.
I am a polictical scientist, but I make comments out of my ass.....
Look at the ruling, The USSC just said they did not understand how the FL SC came to its conclusions and sent the case back for further consideration.
You limited analysis does not include all the bits of law involved.
Read the decision, then comment.
What the Supreme Court sent back was not a unanimous ruling, but an unsigned ruling, meaning that we have no idea how many of the justices supported the decision. It's extremely likely, in fact that this was a bittrly fought split decision.
That's what I keep reading from people who defend the idea, but IMHO this reasoning is flawed. It mixes up two unrelated issues: keeping the big states under control, and keeping the citizens under control (which also was one of the original considerations, even if people don't like to say that aloud anymore). One of the things that are being overlooked in this way, is the goal of coming to a fair representation of what the citizens of each individual state want.
So why don't you guys (I'm not American) do this instead:
- Keep the electoral college, adapting the number of representatives from each state as you see fit to protect the smaller ones.
- Within each state, use a proportional representation within the college, such that it cannot happen that 50% of the people in any given
state are not represented at all in the college.
That way, one can have the best of both worlds: a college that reflects the propular vote more closely, but that at the same time protects those who feel threatened by the urban centres.--
Linux user since early January 1992.
Clearly, this does NOT mean that GW has ceded more power to the federal government. What it does show is that the Florida Supreme Court has acted outside of the law. I think its high time that Gore understands that he has LOST the count, LOST the machine recount on election night, LOST the next machine recount, LOST the absentee count, and LOST the hand recount. George W. Bush has been President-Elect since November 7th, no matter how much the media in this country and the liberals in this country don't like it.
"Chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are exceedingly rare, but... you never know." - MIT Physicist Bob Jaffe
I don't see how you think that this transfers more power to the federal government. First of all, it is a federal office (presidency). But that's not even the point.
The point is that the Florida Supreme Court attempted to re-write the laws passed by the Florida Legislature. If the court (any court) is allowed to do this...look out, we are all in trouble.
It is this system of checks and balances that keeps us all sane. Remember that the next time you have to appear in court that at least the judge can't go changing the rules on you!
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
IAAL, but more importantly, I can read. 95% of the slashdotters who have posted on this subject have obviously not even bothered to read the short order issued by the Supreme Court (7 pages). (Of course, based on the teaser for this story, it doesn't look like Hemos read it either.) 1. The order was issued "PER CURIAM" which means "by the court." Black's Law Dictionary defines "PER CURIAM" further: A phrase used to distinguish an opinion of the whole court from an opinion written by any one judge. Sometimes it denotes an opinion written by the chief justice or presiding judge, or to a brief announcement of the disposition of a case by court not accompanied by a written opinion. 2. Although the Supreme Court remanded (sent back) the decision to the Florida Supreme Court, it made clear that the Florida Supreme Court could NOT rely upon some of the grounds cited in the opinion - - like the right of suffrage the Florida Supreme Court found in the Flordia Constitution. But it remains possible that the Florida Supreme Court could write (although it probably couldn't do it with a straight face), that it was merely interpreting conflicting state statutory provisions, and that as a matter of statutory interpretation it determined that the deadline was flexible, etc. Why hasn't anyone in the media bothered to point out how ridiculous some of the logic in the Florida Supreme Court decision was? The court found a conflict in two provisions: one that said the Secretary of State SHALL disregard late ballots, and another saying the she MAY disregard such ballots. How can anyone rationally say that the way to resolve this supposed conflict is to combine "MAY" and "SHALL" into "CANNOT!??"
In his editorial comment, Hemos stated: Perhaps I shouldn't say this, but the editorial staff of Slashdot have as much business commenting on complex Supreme Court decisions concerning federalism, constitutional and statutory construction as I have commenting on the Linux kernel -- i.e., not much.
First, the U.S. Supreme Court's slip opinion, which I posted above, does not reverse the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, it instead vacates and remands the decision in order to obtain clarification. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically states: Thus, even this specific matter is far from over. The Florida Supreme Court could clarify its decision, make it clear that the Florida Supreme Court saw the Florida Constitution does not circumscribe the legislature' s authority under Art. II, 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and reach the same result, which the U.S. Supreme Court could then review.
Secondly, that statement that the "case has transferred a significant amount of power from the States to the Federal Government," is simply wrong. The Supreme Court's decision is extremely narrow, and deals with the rare (and perhaps unique) situation where the U.S. Constitution delegates federal power to a state legislature. The U.S. Supreme Court took great pains to make sure that this case does not effect other federalism issues and Supreme Court precedents.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Well it looks like George W's brother and Katherine Harris succeeded in undermining democracy.
Yes they did, and good for them, because the US is a republic, not a democracy, and that is PRECISELY the issue in this case.
The democrats, true to their name, believe that the US is a democracy and that "the right to vote" for president transcends all else. Unfortunately for them, there is no right to vote in a presidential election other than that created by statutory enactment of the state legislature.
In particular under Florida's election statute, your vote "may be ignored" if it isn't expressed as a machine readable ballot and if an *optional* manual recount doesn't find it within 7 days. Scalia demolished the "right to a recount" idea during the oral arguments by reading the statue.
The Florida Supreme Court said that ignoring such votes violates the right to sufferage, but we can know see that this statute defines and creates all aspects of the limited right to vote. Once you chop off all extra-statutory avenues to recognize a conflicting concept of voting rights, the Florida Supreme Court's opinion crumbles.
The beauty of today's order is that it forces the Florida Court to try to ground their bogus concept of voting rights back in the statute that they invalidated because of it. Today's order is a brilliant salvo -- they avoid looking political, but ennunciate principles that assure the result.
They sort of said to SCOFL "Demonstrate how your perpetual motion machine works again without using the secret power supply that is hidden under the table." It's almost sadistic: everyone will now look to SCOFL as they try to demonstrate the impossible.
Exactly, as I said above, republicans did not alter ballots, only absentee ballot applications. The abcnews story you quote has "because local Republican officials completed 1,700 to 2,500 absentee ballot applications that were not fully filled out by voters", emphasis mine.
Also in the same story, "no ballots were ever touched and claim the people who voted using absentee ballots did so legally."
The debate is whether or not to throw out absentee ballots. I am not saying that they should not be thrown out, only that the ballots themselves were not altered by anyone. Does it look to me as if sometihng was done by republican officials that shouldn't have been? Sure. Does that merit that all 15,000 votes in the county should be thrown out? Personally, I don't think so. Sounds kind of funny coming fromthe same guy that "wants every vote to count".
1. Point #1 is irrelevant, because had that happened we would still be in the same situation, only the roles would be reversed.
2. The electoral college doesn't do all that much to normalize power distribution. Vermont gets 3 electoral votes and California gets 54. How often do you hear of presidential candidates campaigning in Vermont? Never. How often do you hear of them campaigning in California? All the time.
When you really look at it though, does it matter in this day and age where the candidates focus their compaigns? Every state has PAC's that run commercials bashing the opponent and glorifying their candidate. You get national news covereage no matter what state you live in. You get so much campaign coverage that it's almost sickening regardless of where you live. In my entire life I have never once been to a candidates rally, yet I know where they stand on the issues, especially those that are important to me.
Back in the day when the Electoral College was devised, there really wasn't much of an American nation...just a relatively loose federation of independent states. People were much more inclined to refer to themselves as a Virginian or a New Yorker than an American. That's why the small states were afraid of being steamrollered by the larger states.
Nowdays, it really doesn't matter that much. Candidates will always campaign to the largest blocks of voters. In the old days it was to Virginians or New Yorkers. Now days it's to blue-collar workers, housewives, or farmers.
The US Supreme Court remanded the case to the Florida Supreme Court WITHOUT reaching the merits of the case and WITHOUT even considering the federal questions. What does that mean? It means they didn't decide ANYTHING based on federal law.
The supremes sent the case back to Florida because the Florida Supreme Court did not clearly spell out how they reached their decision.
It appears that IF the Florida decision were based on an interpretation of the Florida state constitution, it would possibly be a problem. Remember, the US Constitution gives authority over the presidential election to the state LEGISLATURES.
However, IF the Florida decision were based purely on interpreting the Florida voting statutes, which remember, were enacted by the Florida legislature, then there probably is NO federal issue. It is simply a state court interpreting state election law.
Now we know the 7 justices of the Fla Supreme Court are all democrats, so you can well imagine that when they clarify their ruling, they will be sure to say it was merely an interpretation of state LAW and they wouldn't even DREAM of involving the Fla. constitution.
In my unlearned opinion, the reason today's Leon County decision was delayed is that the judge relied on the Fla constitution in his decision. He's now reconsidering his decision in light of the Supreme Court ruling and taking all references to the Fla constitution out of his decision.
To me, that is a pretty clear sign the Leon County judge will order a recount. Initially, he was probably relying upon the Fla constitution, and now he'll argue the Fla statutes alone require one.
Now imagine the alternative: Al Gore as president, and Mrs. PMRC herself, Tipper Gore as first lady. Yuck. Just what I need, a new guy in charge of telling me what I want and what's good for me.
Good point. There's also Joe Lieberman. Back in 1993, he started a crusade against violent videogames. He was throwing around absurd charges, like Sega being responsible for the arcade version of Mortal Kombat (it was actually Midway). I don't want a politician to tell me what I can and can't play, either.
You keep using the term 'self-declared winner'. It seems to me that GWB has been declared the winner in Florida by the consitutional officer empowered to do so in Florida.
Unfortunately, /. (both the owners and the participants) is so obviously biased against GWB, there is no sense in trying to have any kind of debate on this subject.
There was an interesting parody on PRN's All Things Considered yesturday... Basically it stated that the election would obviouslly have to end up in court. Kennedy may have bought the election, Nixon tried to steal it, Reagan sold it, and Clinton was impeached... Obviously it's a criminal offense to be president so they must go to court... I guess the best jailbird won hehe
There's no winner because we nominated 2 losers.
Time for a corporate merger. Bring Mexico, and Canada while we're at it, into the Union, and install Vincente Fox as CEO.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Can you imagine the state legislators taking over this case? Wow. It will be 5 times as much as Monica gate. O well. Clinton can sit in for another four years. Looking at the candidates I don't think anyone will complain.
Your news is false. The Supreme Court did NOT overturn the Florida Court, but remanded the case back to them for clarification of their reasoning, as CNN and the Washington Post are now reporting. Legal terms have specific meanings. Learn them before you throw them around.
I understand China is sending the U.S. 50,000 cases of Viagra.
They heard we can't get an election...
Correction. The founders CERTAINLY foresaw the current abuses, and the Constitution was an effort to mitigate them. Jefferson, Franklin, and others had some choice quotes on the subject. It is ironic that the courts pervert the Constitution to reach the ends of the people that appointed them. (Honestly, who could EVER construe the 2nd ammendment as being a right reserved to the STATES?)
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
We all knew that Bush was going to end up as president. I just hope Gore makes it as painful for him as possible. Then I hope all the leading democrats take turns beating the crap out of Gore for losing to such a half-wit.
Good thing the LDP picked up more seats in Canada's election. If only they'd get rid of those stupid hate-speech laws. I'm toughing out the US until Roe v Wade gets overturned, and then I'm packing up the car and heading to Vancouver.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
A summary of the State of the Nation
(http://www.ihatelinux.com/images/TIME_cover.jpg)
NO CARRIER
Oh, I don't know. I'm sure there's probably a good reason somewhere. Probably something silly to do with the constitution of either (or both) the US and of FL. Or maybe something even sillier like state law requiring how the electoral votes are to be awarded. I mean, damn, why let those stupid things get in the way...
I will let others describe the legal and constitutional procedures for electing presidents, but the U. S. Supreme Court basically told the Florida Supreme Court that it had to play by the rules.
{soapbox mode on}If we would pay more attention to what the document actually says, the feds would not own us to the extent that they do. I could go on and on about this, but Washington has no business doing most of the things that it now does, and the Fouding Fathers of this nation never intended that the present abuses of power that are the norm these days would never occur.
As far as political partisanship goes, Goerge Washington was against it from the start, and knew that politicians would over time give more allegience to their party than to the good of the nation.{soapbox mode on off}
{political plug inserted here}I voted for GWB in an effort to keep Communist Al out of the White House, but I am registered as a member of the Constitution Party. Before you cry foul, let me say that we favor a return to government limited to that outlined by the Constitution of the United States. In other words, we espouse freedom from government as it is presently (mis)administered, for the most part --- even freedom from the IRS, with is patently unconstitutional, and was never ratified as an amendment thereof. Before you flame or moderate negatively, at least load the link I posted ...ok?
Need a Linux consultant in New Orleans?
(with apologies to rec.humor.funny)
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
It is significant that the decision is unsigned, given the pundits' comments regarding a unanimous decision versus a divided decision.
According to the actual decision, Governor George W. Bush ... filed a petition for certiorari to review the Florida Supreme
Court decision. (The above link to the decision on MSNBC spaz's out due to junkbuster.) A petition for certiorari is a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision. The decision by the SC was that the Florida court wasn't clear in their decision and needed to revisit it. The Florida court can essentially write a new decision, ruling the same way but answering the SC's specific questions as to the grounds of their decision. If they do so, the SC may either accept or reject the decision.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Actually, Slashdot kind of helps us determine whic stories are "good" and which aren't, content-wise. On the bottom of each description on the front page it says something like '86 of 213' comments or something to that extent. I usually tend to read stories with high positively moderated comments (I browse at 2). So a good way to ignore stories is to avoid writeups that sound sensationalistic or have something like ('12 of 450 comments') on the bottom (an exaggeration).
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Well if undermining democracy is not allowing an activist partisan florida supreme court legislate law instead of interpret law, then your brand of democracy is better suited for Cuba, not the U.S.
Republican party officials did not request absentee ballots 'instead of the voter'. What happened is that each party printed up its own absentee ballot applications (apparently this is the normal procedure there), but the Republican applications had an error: no space for the newly-required voter ID number!
The local Republican party asked for permission to correct the error, and was allowed to fill in the voter ID numbers. The Democrats did not make the same mistake on their applications, and did not ask for permission to fill in incomplete applicatons.
In the heated election debate, this correction of a clerical oversight has been mischaracterized in all sorts of ways, from Bryan's error above, to crys of "BALLOT TAMPERING!!!".
Hopefully, the Florida courts will have the same zeal in preserving the 'right to vote' for Republicans in Seminole County as they have for Democrats in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties.
This ruling is a major, major win for Bush. In fact, it is the absolute best possible outcome for him. Some people will doubtless say that he did not win the case on the merits. True enough. However, if he had won completely, it could have really come back to haunt him.
How?
Well, there are a few lawsuits by Gore's supporters attempting to throw out absentee ballots that heavily favored Bush. A SCOTUS ruling that basically said to enforce the letter of the law as of election day might have provided cover to the Florida supremes to throw out all those ballots on technicalities. Now the Florida court is somewhat left back to its own devices. In that case, having first ruled against a "hyper technical" interpretation of the law to extend the deadline for Gore, they would be hard pressed to adopt that standard in throwing out absentee ballots.
Additionally, by overturning and remanding the case, Bush is the public opinion winner, which is what this was really all about in the first place since the actual outcome of the vote would not have been changed. Bush won the certification either way.
But most importantly, this ruling results in a delay of the challenge lawsuit ruling. Time is the enemy. If Bush is able to run out the clock to December 12, he's pretty much in, IMO. Even if the courts somehow try to appoint an alternate slate of electors after that date, I'm guessing the House would say Bush's are the real ones because they were certified as of the deadline. Even a one day delay in starting any recounts could be fatal to Gore's case.
Of course Gore only has to win one of the innumerable lawsuits he and his supporters have filed, so don't count him out yet.
It doesn't mean a thing! If we asssume for the sake of argument that half the remaing races in the state ( 86% of pop. so 1/2 is 43%) voted for gore we can see quite handlily that they obviously represent more than 43% of the people of other races that voted for Gore (the remainder being 100%-16%=84%)
So... to recap: Apples =! Oranges
An interesting implication of your bad math if followed to it's logical conclusion would be:
Assuming NO blacks voted for Bush (not all that unlikely) then 86% of the Population of Florida is non-black yet non-blacks represent 100% of the votes Bush recieved, where did he get those extra votes from? FRAUD! I tell you FRAUD!
I stand corrected. Of course (getting back to the subject), given that this is actually a republic, couldn't it be SCROTUS? Sorry...it has been a long day :).
I hope you're kidding. This Guardian article is based on the plaintiff's claims. Basically, the NAACP issued a press release, and the Guardian printed it as fact. Pretty sloppy journalism. My high school journalism teacher would've failed me for doing this.
The Florida black population came out in DROVES this election year. The Democrats did a great job in getting blacks to the polls (some say too great -- apparantly a few severely retarded blacks and black criminals voted as well) -- 14% of the FL population is black. 16% of Gore's support were "black votes" (as if votes from blacks are bound up and delivered to Jesse Jackson to distribute or something).
I'm sure there were instances of questionable behavior in FL on both sides, Dems and Reps. It's only because the election is so close is this news. If somebody comes up with a story in National Review that claims that Democrats were tossing Republican votes in the crapper, will you trumpet this as a sign that Al Gore and Joe Lieberman are undermining democracy? No? Then shut up.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
You write: "GWB's case has transferred a significant amount of power from the States to the Federal Government". The power has always been with the Federal Government in these issues, just ask George Wallace!
Unfortunately (oh, well, as I'm European, it doesn't matter that much to me), I have strong doubts that anything like this will be put into practice any time soon. While individual states might decide to go for a (more or less) proportional system (I doubt that any of them will, though), the stuff you propose will in the end require a modification of the US consitution, even if one would try to avoid this by changing the rules on a state by state basis. This is because making proportional systems work well in small states may imply giving these states more votes in the college. And then, in order to maintain the current balances between states, the larger states need to get more votes too. And then, for sure, some other issue that also needs to be rebalanced will be raised by some interested party that feels it might loose in the deal...
With a country that's divided 50-50 along party lines, and that just went through the current mess, I'd be extremely surprised to see anyone even propose for real to change the constitution. Especially if one considers that, had the rules been changed before this year's elections, the (likely) winner would likely have been the looser and vice versa.
Just my 2 Eurocents.
--
Linux user since early January 1992.
Since you seem to have been on Mars at the time, perhaps you didn't know that the reason republicans were outraged at the early call was that they called the state before the polls had closed. The VNS and all the networks promised that this would not happen. The networks made the lame excuse that they "forgot" that Florida is in two time zones.
As for a complete, final, accurate count, that's not possible at this late stage. The ballots have been handled by two many people to be absolutely certain that a few thousand here or there haven't been altered. It's absurdly easy to take a wire to a stack of votes and punch down on the Gore chad in Palm Beach county and thus invalidate legitimate Bush and Buchanen votes wholesale (by turning them into double punch votes). Frankly, I don't buy it that only 60% of republicans voted for Bush in Palm Beach while the numbers are much higher in every other county in the state. At the same time the number of double punched ballots is much, much higher in Palm Beach. As for Buchanen. He got over 8k votes in '96. I don't see how 3k votes in '00 is so far-fetched.
Now, you claim a count done under FOIA is somehow believable. Dream on. A partisan organization asks for the ballots, counts them under their own private rules, and then declares Gore the winner. Surpries, surprise. If anybody on the republican side has spine, they'll be doing their own FOIA count and I predict that it will be astounding how different the count will be.
DB
It simply says that the FL Supreme Court acted illegally by trying to usurp power delegated to the FL legislature. The FSC is there to enforce state laws, and the USSC is saying that they a) misinterpreted the law or b) didn't care about the law. Either way, they acted unlawfully and the USSC is saying so.
(Do try to read up on what actually happened before saying something incendiary.)
From what I understand:
The US Supreme Court said it wanted the Florida Supreme Court to review the decision and take into account some issues they've (US) brought to their (FL) attention.
It IS NOT an overturning of the original decision.
Florida could come to the exact same conclusion and reach the same decision, as long as they take the US SC's 'suggestions' into account and properly base their decision on Florida law, rather than the Florida constitution.
i might've been born yesterday, but i stayed up all night
When state officials violate state law, appeals to the Federal level.
You can take a traffic ticket to SCOTUS if you can show that law enforcement and the local judicial authorities are all against you. That's how, for instance, the FBI gets brought in on civil rights cases; homicide is a local affair, but when it's done with the connivance of the state officials, it's Federal. Deal.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
No, setting aside a decision is different from overturning it. There were sufficient problems in the decision to question how it was reached; specifically, it appeared the decision was reached in violation of the U.S. Constitution which gives the legislature the authority to choose the manner of selecting electors.
But that is markedly different from overturning. They temporarily set aside the decision, which means that after reviewing it with the opinion the Supreme Court has given, the Florida Supreme Court can re-issue the same ruling, though hopefully with a rationale that does not include usurping the legislature's authority.
The distinction is very important. SCOTUS avoided ruling on the actual manner of the election; i.e. saying "you have to accept hand recounts" or "you can't accept hand recounts". Had they done that, it would have been a huge blow to state's rights, and a shocking decision. But you could tell they weren't going to do that from the beginning, when their questions mainly focused around one problem: how is this case a federal issue?
The Simpsons are more relevant now than ever:
"No matter WHO you vote for your planet is doomed.. DOOMED!!"
"Go ahead! Throw your vote away!!"
So, who wants punch?
You should take your own advice. "THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS THEREFORE VACATED, AND THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. . . ."
Vacated = annulled, set aside, cancelled or rescinded....
Basically, the US Supreme Court is allowing the state Supreme Court to save face. The grounds cited by the state court were rejected by the Supreme Court. . . . The USSC ruled unequivocally that the Florida Constitution is irrelevant, that there is no individual right to vote, and warned the state court "against any construction of the [state] Election Code that Congress might deem to be a change in the law." (by changing the legislatively-imposed deadline for certification, for example).
"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."
--
Remove Me-Kilt
Remove Me-Kilt
The National Soc For The Prevention Of Jimmy Hill
Those hits come from people who want to read and post on a story, and the simple fact is: on slashdot, controversial stories (ie misleading, flamewar topics, etc) generate hits. So an easy method of making money with slashdot is with controversial stories; one way to do that is have Hemos act like a fool and post something misleading....
I don't think this is relevant at all. The story would have been read regardless of whether or not Hemos had got it right. How about this potential writeup:
"Well, the United States Supreme Court has given their "ruling" concerning the Florida Supreme Court. They've temporarily set aside the ruling that extended the deadline and required hand recounts. This could be a final step towards declaring Bush the winner, or it could simply tie things up even longer in Florida Courts."
That would be more accurate, and generate just as many posts (minus the 5 or 10 "Hemos is an idiot" posts). But if you don't believe me, here's one that would generate even more posts, and still be more accurate than the original:
"Well, the United States Supreme Court has given their "ruling" concerning the Florida Supreme Court. They've only temporarily set aside the Florida court's ruling, so they might catch a lot of heat for potentially prolonging the proceedings. However, that won't at all compare to the heat they're about to catch over today's other decision: they still refuse to hear any case over Natalie Portman and hot grits. A Beowulf cluster of Al Gores still hasn't issued a statement, and the Penis Bird couldn't be reached for comment."
Tennessee hates him and with good reason. I have a Tennessean friend, and he said of Gore, "He's no longer a native son.", so, if Gore wishes to win a senate seat, he'll have to do it on one of the coasts as a carpet-bagger.
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
Damnit Hemos...to be perfectly honest, political coverage on /. is horrid. Anytime a post-election item has been put on the main page, it's always accompanied by a totally uninformed blanket statement like "Bush is the winner." It's STILL not over -- to be precise, the Supreme Court decision was that the justices were not convinced that the Florida Supreme Court could rely on the Florida State Constitution for what they did, and said the Florida court needed to find a different way to justify its decision, like statutory clarification. One possible (and likely) scenario is that the Florida Supreme Court will look for a way to rewrite its opinion, probably just by removing any references to the state constitution so that it is merely deciding a conflict between two seemingly contradictory laws. This is beside the fact that simply reversing the Florida Supreme Court's decision does not end the election anyway because there are proceedings in other courts that remain uneffected.
Anyway, PLEASE don't attempt to be a political reporter! It can be very misleading if you don't know all the details. Just link to an AP story or something and let it be.
Actually, it's later. The _sealed_ envelope containing the electoral votes is not opened until Jan. 6th. We won't know for sure (how much/if any) rogue voting took place until then. And meanwhile the rest of the world laughs at our electile dysfunction problem...
For the love of god, read the damn thing.
I encourage you and other Republicans to be vigorous in your explanations to the people of Florida that they do not, in fact, have any right to vote for President; that right is reserved for the State Legislature. While technically true on US constitutional grounds, all 50 states have delegated, via their election laws, the right to choose the electors for president to their populations, via direct popular vote in the state.
You write cleanly, but your quoting of Florida election law engages in the same selective quotation that virtually all Republican reading of the law engages in. I therefore encourage you to download and read the Florida election code for yourself. Read it in its entirety; don't simply dive straight for the Republican salvation of 102.111. 102.111 must be taken in context, particularly with regards to 102.112.
Florida law sections 102.012 through 102.151 deal with the normal course of an election in Florida. The remaining sections deal with what to do when there is a problem. Everybody seems to fault the Florida code, when in fact it seems quite clear to me.
You state that a vote count "may be ignored" in Florida if not returned within the 7 day period. Competent reading of this section as a whole indicates that, while the deadline is highly desirable, it is optional. Late, normal returns are subject to either a fine ($200 per day, per canvassing board member, paid out of personal funds) for tardiness. It says nothing about applying the 7 day rule to manual recounts. This is a key distinction that seems to not have been made elsewhere, and it perplexes me that it has not. The 7 day rule for normal returns is entirely sensible; subjecting the recounts to that same rule is foolish.
So what does the Florida law say about recounts? It certainly doesn't say that recounts are optional. The language in the law is a little convoluted, so try to stay with me. It says that in the event of a protest, the canvassing board MAY, at its discretion, perform a manual recount of ballots in at least three precincts, of at least 1% of the votes. The canvassing board must then compare the results of the recount to the original count, and if it is found that the difference may result in a change in the outcome of the election, they SHALL a) correct the error and recount the remaining precincts OR b) request the department of state to verify the tabulation software OR c) manually recount all ballots. Confusion in interpreting this statute largely rests in those persons that have trouble separating the mention of the manual sample recount from the consequential recount of all the ballots.
So that is that. There is just no way you can read this statute to say anything other than the following: A candidate can protest the vote. A canvassing board can choose to do a sample recount. If the sample recount shows a difference that could change the outcome, the canvassing board MUST recount. And doesn't that make sense? The Republican position is that you can't have a manual recount unless the machines have had an error of some kind.
The Republicans out there aren't going to believe me, probably haven't read the statute themselves, and might find out by following the link at the top that they're wrong. So I might as well quote it directly and force them to look at it:
102.166 Protest of election returns; procedure.--
(1) Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest.
(2) Such protest shall be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 5 days after midnight of the date the election is held, whichever occurs later.
(3) Before canvassing the returns of the election, the canvassing board shall:
(a) When paper ballots are used, examine the tabulation of the paper ballots cast.
(b) When voting machines are used, examine the counters on the machines of nonprinter machines or the printer-pac on printer machines. If there is a discrepancy between the returns and the counters of the machines or the printer-pac, the counters of such machines or the printer-pac shall be presumed correct.
(c) When electronic or electromechanical equipment is used, the canvassing board shall examine precinct records and election returns. If there is a clerical error, such error shall be corrected by the county canvassing board. If there is a discrepancy which could affect the outcome of an election, the canvassing board may recount the ballots on the automatic tabulating equipment.
(4)(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested.
(b) Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 72 hours after midnight of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later.
(c) The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. If a manual recount is authorized, the county canvassing board shall make a reasonable effort to notify each candidate whose race is being recounted of the time and place of such recount.
(d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts.
(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:
(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;
(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or
(c) Manually recount all ballots.
(6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.
(7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:
(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.
(b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent.
(8) If the county canvassing board determines the need to verify the tabulation software, the county canvassing board shall request in writing that the Department of State verify the software.
(9) When the Department of State verifies such software, the department shall:
(a) Compare the software used to tabulate the votes with the software filed with the Department of State pursuant to s. 101.5607; and
(b) Check the election parameters.
(10) The Department of State shall respond to the county canvassing board within 3 working days.
>You should study your nation's history and political science more careful. The electoral college was created to ensure that the people were not swayed by a populist president.
Yes but the number of electoral votes given to each state did intenionally over represent smaller population states (on a per capita basis). And this was an anti-majoritarian comprimise. So I don't see how orignal statement is wrong.
Duuuuude! Q. Fabius Max! Where you been these 2200 yrs??
The key problem, which honestly does come under federal jurisdiction, since it is a matter of interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is that SCOTSOF (Supreme Court of the State of Florida) interpreted Florida state law in light of the Florida constitution, applying the principle that the right of citizens to vote is important. The issue here is whether the constitution of the state of Florida can override powers explicitly vested in the state legislature by the U.S. Constitution.
SCOTUS noted that the citizens DO NOT choose the electors; the legislature of the state chooses the electors. This is spelled out explicitly in the U.S. Constitution. SCOTUS validly invoked the federal interest in reminding SCOTSOF that citizens do not have a constitutional right to vote for president. The state legislature may give citizens such a right, but they may choose not to. Decisions made on the basis of a fictitious right to vote for president are contrary to the U.S. Constitution and must thus be vacated by SCOTUS.
This raises the interesting question: If the legislature voted to appoint electors in a certain manner and the governor vetoed this law, would the law hold in spite of the veto? By SCOTUS's opinion, it would seem that the governor would have no power to veto any laws relating to the selection of presidential electors.
Someone in charge in Florida should just do the obvious...
Statistically, the count in Florida should be considered a tie. Therefore, the electoral votes should be divided.
Simple, to-the-point, fair, non-partisan, and enough with the wanking around. Is there any conceivable reason why this wouldn't be the way to go?
This doesn't give the election to Bush. It just makes the contest phase for difficult for Gore. The contest is still going to continue, but now it will be that much harder for Gore to make his case.
--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
You should also consider that at the time that the EC was invented there were no states like California with 54, (yes 54 is correct), EC votes to throw around. The "extra" two votes and the advantage they confered on small states meant more then. I think that thanks to the winner-take-all rule now used by all states except Nebraska and Maine the advantage has swung back to the big states. Consider the current election as proof. The popular vote is, in percentage terms, practically 50/50. Gore won mostly big states. With the notable exception of his home state of Texas, Bush won mainly small states. Would you guess from the foregoing that Bush would have an electoral vote lead thanks to the small state electoral vote advantage? Uh-huh: with Florida, (a big state), still not in the count Gore leads Bush 255 to 246 EC votes. This shows how powerfully the winner-take-all rule works to the advantage of big states.
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
The conflict is really between the law which states there is such-and-such a deadline, and the law which states that a candidate may request a recount. In the case of a large county, it is realistically impossible to complete a recount before the specified deadline. Thus, the legal conflict which the court resolved.
I would be more sympathetic to the Bush camp if they would have announced immediately that, secure in their victory, they did not feel threatened by any recounts since those recounts would still show Bush to be the victor. The fact that they have instead opposed any recounts on any and all grounds possible makes their opposition appear politically motivated and really not within the spirit of the democratic (small 'd') to me. If this were any other country in the world, the American people would be united in supporting a full, impartial recount of all ballots in any areas where there were questions about electoral procedures. A true statesman (not that I'm assigning Al Gore that label either) would support a full recount in such a cloudy situation, regardless of their potential personal gain or loss.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
This is being played as a victory for Bush but the opinion is really more ambiguous.
Really all that happened is that the Supreme Court asked Florida's Supreme Court to more specifically address the Federal statute at issue. The Florida decision was not reversed. A reversal would end the matter decisively. Instead, Florida just has to take another look at the issue.
MSNBC got it right:
First off, it's not really a state matter. It's a fedral matter, becuase it's about electing the leading of the country. If the government let states have 100% control over the elction, then every state would have thier own method and rules of electioning the highest office in the country. There has to be laws somewhere that controls this.
Second, there's a nice little law that pretty much states you can't change the rules after the election. Say you're playing a game. Someone changes the rules on you, is that fair? Hell no! You're a lier if you say yes. Ok, how about you change the rules on them. Is that fair? No. That's what Florida Supreme Court did, they changed the rules on the elections.
Of course the republicans are the same group that believes in right to life and possesion of gus and the death penalty. What does this mean? It means that they want mothers to have there unwanted children, so they can grow up and get guns and then kill people and then after they have lived a life in which they were never wanted, they execute these killers. I'm sorry, but just because people can have children does not mean they should!
Come on. No one would rob someone if they knew theier victum were packing heat. If you were a robber would you? Hell no! Think about for one second. You are a robber, rapest, murder, what ever. You want a victum. You have me, with my 9mm on my side, a knife in my boot, a shotgun in my house, and being a hand to hand combat expert, are you going to fuck me with me?! Hell no!! Now take the unarmed fool on the street. Are you going to get shot? Hell no, no gun. Are you going to get stabed? hell no, no knife. Are you going to get your nuts blasted off when you break into his hosue? Hell no, no shotgun. Are you going to get your arm bent in ways god never intended? Prehaps. That fool looks alot easier then me with the 9 right? Needless to say, I never been mug or generaly fucked with in my life. Have you?
Did you know that in texas there are people that have been executed and were later found to be innocent? Did you know that many of these people were african american?
Are you trying to play the race card? How about this. Ok say 50% of murders are commited by blacks, 20% by whites, and 30% by others. Would there be more black or white people be executed? BLACKS!! They commited more crime!!
Ok now since we are on crime, how about this little fact about Gore. Out of all the counties won by Gore and Bush, what was the murderer living in the counties? Give up? Gore, 13 out of 100,000; bush 2.3 out of 100,000. Who voted for gore? The black, poor, murders, rapests, cheats, liers, a few males and most females of the country.
You do realize that Bush does not know enough about technology and privacy to help the internet in any way shape of form, and if you think that he is going to appoint people who do you are sadly mistaken. He is going to turn this country back 10 years. Just you watch.
I rather have that then someone that want ISP's to log everything and later impose a email tax.
I voted or Harry Browne, btw.
MarNuke
Take a minute and look at the issues still outstanding at the time this story was posted.
- The opinion by the US Supreme Court just sends the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration and clarification. If the FL SC justifies their actions a little better, then the ruling is not vacated.
- There is still a lawsuit pending on whether or not to include thousands of ballots in some of the counties where Republican party officials requested absentee ballots instead of the voter or their family, who are the only ones who can legally request a ballot. If the absentee ballots are thrown out in that county, there could be a net loss of ~3500 votes for Bush.
It's been said before, and it will be said again, but the Slashdot editors need to be a little more judicious on their decisions to post articles, especially when all of the facts are not clearly understood or presented.
Bryan J. Casto
bryan.casto(a)gmail.com
Whoever is elected president is going to have one big fear on his mind. Due to the openness of Florida "sunshine" laws, someone has a good chance of doing a manual recount of the ballots themselves, and if they do, their is a chance that their findings will be that the wrong man was given Florida's 25 electoral votes.
Just imagine being president, and 1/4 of the way through your term, Dateline runs a nice little special on how the other guy *really* won.
Geez, people, please activate brains before speaking. The U.S. Supreme Court decision does not make Bush the automatic winner yet, but it IS still a victory for Bush. It does NOT override state's rights, the High Court simply stated (coincidentally, or not, as the Republicans have been saying the whole time) that the Florida Supreme Court violated Federal law with their decision, and forced the issue back to them to reconsider. States have plenty of rights thanks to the Tenth Amendment, but they do NOT have the right to override Federal law, which says that the laws governing an election can't be changed after the election is over. This is precisely what the Florida court did. The High Court ruling negates this. If that ruling stood as is, the manual recounts would be completely invalidated, since all the recount activity occured after the mandated 7-day deadline. So we're basically back where we started, Bush with a 930-vote lead. This will still drag on for a while, but the balance of power is definitely shifting toward Bush.
Pay attention folks! The case was not ruled in W's favor, it was sent back to the Florida supremes. I think it is better for W than for Al but it wrong to say that W won the case.
I don't know of him saying anything one way or another, but i would'nt pronounce it dead yet. A lot of people thought when Reagan got in it would be the end of the suit against AT&T, but it didn't happen.
calvin: I work best under pressure.
What's interesting here is that inadverently, GWB's case has transferred a significant amount of power from the States to the Federal Government.
What this shows is that the Florida Supreme Court went outside it's legal bounds according to it's own constitution. Would you have the Florida Supreme Court decide it's own guilt? You must appeal to a higher authority. That authority is ultimatly, if not immediatly, the US Supreme Court. It's like your parents saying "Are you sure you want to do that?" When you've clearly overstepped your bounds.
Nate Baxley
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Here is what the rulling actaully means. The Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Courts decision was unbased and unclear. They remanded the case back to the Florida Supreme so that they could clarify themselves and base their ruling on something. The US supreme court was unsure of where the Florida court took the authority from and is basically asking the Florida court to `tell us where you think you have the authority to do this.` What this means is that the current vote count stands at the first certification total (Bush by 900). This has no effect on the current contest the election by Gore, which would include the second hand counts if a ruling is in favor of them. So in totallity, if Gore wins the contested lawsuit, then any hand-counts done up-to-this point would be included. If he loses the vote total would be the first vote count (bush by 900).
I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with the moderation of my posting as "Redundant". I spent about an hour retyping the entire decision for the benefit of those without the ability to read the PDF directly. I did this before the link was added to MSNBC's page with an HTML-ized version of the decision. Unlike that page, I retained italics and block-quote indentation from the original PDF, so this version is more readable than the MSNBC one. Other formatting was lost due to Slashdot's restrictions on HTML in comments.
Lest anyone think the posting was mere karma-whoring, I might point out that I'm already frozen for having a karma rating over 50. (Actually, it just dropped a point because of this unfair moderation, despite the balancing "Informative" moderation...)
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Dude, you're wrong. Powell was never a secretary of state. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, yes, SoS, no. Sorry.- ---------------
-----------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
There have been vastly more wiretaps approved under Clinton's administration than ever before in history. The "War on Drugs" has escalated to the point where Big Brother can suspend the Bill of Rights and do as they wish. The "Communications Decency Act" was Clinton's baby, as well as various other incarnations of same. And now we have Carnivore and increasing awareness of Echelon. There are more police on the streets than at any other time, and the number of laws which can potentially violate civil liberties has increased significantly during the past 7 years.
Why is it that so many of you here who groan and moan, or maybe speak out in opposition to so many of these things when they come up, so conveniently forget where they came from in the first place?
No, this is not a comment supporting Bush or any other candidate. In fact, I chose not to vote in this election, and I am more happy about this decision now than ever before. Each candidate has been preaching "Your Vote Matters(tm)". This would appear not to be the case (at least not as long as there is an electoral college). Gore moans that "Every Vote Must Be Heard(tm)", but then wants to reject overseas ballots (most notably those from the military - why? because they were overwhelmingly in support of Bush - plain and simple).
I didn't feel that any candidate was worth my time: Bush is ALMOST as much in favor of censorship and control as Gore's draconian views. Nader is an outright communist. No thanks. Get some real candidates, then maybe I'll consider.
Wake up people and start to think for yourselves instead of following the media spin, which is apparently just as rampant on the 'net as anyplace else.
Remember Elian (another product of Clinton's reign of terror... oh... and Waco)
Welcome to Amerika.
The US Supreme Court is not asking Florida for more information, and they have issued a final ruling. Read the decision yourself.
They didn't overturn the decision, that's true. They vacated it. What's the difference, you ask?
Overturning a judge is turning to him and saying, "You made the wrong decision. We're making the decision for you." The overturned judge gets no say in what's going on.
Vacating a decision, however, is turning to the judge (or in our case, the Florida Supreme Court) and saying, "You made the wrong decision. Make a new one that doesn't conflict with our opinion."
This is not a request for new information. This is not a "temporary" ruling pending further information. The US Supreme Court couldn't care less why the Floridians ruled the way they did.
What the Supreme Court said is that they don't understand why the Florida court made its decision, and that the decision is wrong. Therefore, the Florida Supreme Court must go back and correct its mistake.
That's the final ruling.
There are potential situations, however, where the Fla. Court makes a new decision which is inconsistent with the US Court ruling, whereby Bush or another party may take up the matter with the US Supreme Court. That isn't a reconsideration of the present opinion, though; that's a separate legal matter which deals with a court's noncompliance with the US Supreme Court order.
If you don't believe me, look at the bottom line of the ruling: "It is so ordered." If they were requesting more information, they wouldn't issue an order. The last line would be, "This decision is valid pending further information from the Florida Supreme Court."
Sheesh, get the damn news straight already.
I do not belong in the spam.redirect.de domain.
I like the Socialist version of humans rights better than the Capitalist version.- -----------------
---------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
I have a few problems with what you have said. Keep in mind that I agree with a lot too. The problem is that it is now too late do decide within reasonable extents who was dully elected President on November 7th. What I am going to say is purely my opinion, and I don't want to sway anyone who's made up their mind. If you still think Gore won, fine. If you think Bush won, fine. If you think Nader deserves those 25 electoral votes, you might have a case too.
So let me start with "The states *can* do recounts. In fact they have done recounts." Everyone knows that is not true in Florida with regards to this election. Many recounts have *started*, but none have been finished within the counties where there are realy disputes with any degree of finality. But you are right, at this point, Bush has won. And Palm Beach did throw out ten year old rule, and there's even more you didn't mention which doesn't really matter. The fact is that the ballots were cast (albeit some incorrectly and/or erroneously) but counted poorly. There are problems here which both sides have addressed validly, and neither side has been able to debunk the other. That's the problem when you have two valid arguments, you can't convince the others who believe differently. This is a slightly skewed image, but think of an atheist and a devout Christian, or Jew, or Buddhist, or Moslem (etc.) getting into an argument over God. Neither side will nor can win. Your fundamentals are different, and your belief in who should win out will prevail. Period.
Which brings me to your arguments about Florida's Supreme Court. Ugh. At them, not you. I think the Florida Supreme Court is filled with scum for very different reasons than you. You say that they FSC delayed the deadline in order to rack up more points for the Democrats. Come on. They were playing partisan harball, and wanted it to look like that: after all, they are up for re-election by Democrats. In truth, the FSC did nothing! Really. All they did was push back a deadline a little to make it look like they were doing something while actually doing nothing. As Justice Scalia pointed out (and I normally don't agree with him, but here he was right on), the FSC didn't push back the deadline far enough to actually resolve the issue brought before them. The issue was the conflict between the deadline and the need for time in populous counties to perform a recount. After they ruled, there was still not enough time, so their ruling did nothing. Bush lost 400 votes he didn't really have, but was still ahead by 537. He still won. It's dirty and disgusting, but he was certified, and the games should really be stopping, because at this point whoever is elected will be largely screwed on valid charges of illegitimacy. The longer this goes on, the stronger those valid claims will look, regardless of who is in the White House.
The rest of what you say is very crisp and clear and I agree completely. This is really the case of an imcompetent court or a court so hamperred by politics (hey, they made it look like they did something while doing nothing at all, after all) that they are renderred inactive when they must act. That is just as bad, or possibly worse.
Florida needs a new Supreme Court. America will have a new President. The President will be plagued by claims of invalidity, be he Gore or Bush, and the only way things will be accomplished is if an end is put to this ridiculous partisan bickerring on captitol hill. Will that happen? How would I know?
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
He was eating the wrong cereal.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Given that msnbc is the primary source of information for most of the commentators here, much of this converstation isn't surprising... www.FindLaw.com provides complete and timely PDF's of all original filings, briefs, etc. as well as mp3's etc of testimony. Take a look at:c tion2000.html 0 0836final.pdf
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/ele
They have every filing from every legal action related to the issue. Today's SCOTUS ruling can be found at:
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/usc
bob wyman
It seems strange to me that so many states have a all or none voting system. What happened to reason? This would not have been a problem if they had allocated votes in some reasonable way like say 12 votes for republicans, 12 for the democrats and 1 for misc/other. There's talk about changing the constitution but its not what's broken. It says the state gets to pick its electors anyway it wants. In this case the states voting system is broken.
This could get very interesting if the Florida legislator decided to do something rash.
It's ZipperGate, get it right. ;P
As far as I have heard, the US Supreme Court merely 'vacated' the Florida Supreme Court ruling, which is not the same as overruling them.
In effect, they set aside the verdict, and told the Florida court to reconsider the case - which may be done with, or without, further hearings. In essence, the Florida court did not give enough information in their ruling for the Supreme Court to fully discern their intent and consideration of various legal ussues (which we've all been hearing about ad nauseum)
The Supreme Court is hesitant to step on the toes of the state supreme courts, and since it was unable to discern the 'quality' and 'correctness' of the legal thinking behind the ruling, they merely sent it back for clarification, in effect.
--
Do I play Hockey?
What you say!!
US supreme court DID NOT say that Bush won. The case was remanded for further proceedings, which means the Florida Supreme Court would have to take another look at it. Article here at "CNN".
The actual ruling can be read here in this "document".
what me worry?
Some little redundant comments from remote europe
1) Dont whine about people laughing at the USA,
instead fix the electoral system.
2) Here in Europe, we typically need two hours
to count the votes manually. You can't convince me
that an old broken mechanical counting
machine can produce better results.
3) Since you were defending GWB's death row record:
What about his brother Jeb? Lately I read a very
interesting story about a coloured man, sentenced
to death in FL and found innocent some twenty years
later. What did the state attourney do? He offered
a deal: plead guilty in a minor case of manslaughter, thus
accounting for the twenty years
in prison, and we let you go. He offered that to an innocent man
sitting in the death row. So
much about justice in Florida.
-- gorgonite
Your analysis is probably incorrect. The Florida Supreme Court could probably, upon reconsideration, clarify its opinion, satisfy the concerns of the U.S. Supreme Court, and reach the same result. I will explain why and how below.
The key passage of the U.S. Supreme Court's slip opinion is where it states: First, the Florida Supreme Court would have to rule, "after careful reconsideration"
Secondly, the Florida Supreme Court would have to make sure, as indicated above, that its new ruling complies with the Federal Statute 3 U.S.C. 5. As the U.S. Supreme Court's slip opinion states: In order to comply with this section, the Florida Supreme Court need only make it clear that the state "laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors," include two components: (a) the "hard" deadline the Republicans are relying upon; and (b) the statutory provisions for both machine and hand recounts. Next, the Florida Supreme Court states that there is: (1) statutory ambiguity not in the "hard" deadline alone, but when the statutes [(a) and (b)] are construed together; and/or (2) a conflict in the statutes [(a) and (b)] in that it is not possible to comply with the "hard" deadline and still have a recount, and particularly a hand recount, as provided by statute. A basic and frequently used principle of statutory construction is that when there is either an apparent ambiguity or conflict in a statutory scheme, the court should do its best interpret all of the statutes in the scheme in such a way that none of them is rendered meaningless, superfluous, or impotent. The Florida Supreme Court would then conclude that, as the highest Court in the state of Florida, and exercising its duty and power to interpret Florida law, that the "hard" certification deadline is subject to the right to machine or hand recount. In other words, there can be a machine or hand recount after the certification, if the requirements for a recount are satisfied. The Florida Supreme Court could point out that such a result is not at all dissimilar from the analogous result that nobody has challenged -- i.e., that there can be a challenge after certification. The Florida Supreme Court could also argue that to rule otherwise would nullify and vitiate the statutory right to recount.
This result would satisfy both Art. II, 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and the Federal Statute 3 U.S.C. 5. In other words, it would satisfy the federal questions raised by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court does not have any power to challenge the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of state law.
You might complain that the Florida Supreme Court would not be interpreting the law, but instead "making it." If you read the U.S. Supreme Court's slip opinion (which I posted below) that was not precisely its concern. (The U.S. Supreme Court's federal question concerns are specified and addressed above.) Further, courts "make law" all of the time when they interpret statutes. The U.S. Supreme Court knows it because it does it all of the time. For the U.S. Supreme Court to call into question the right and power of the Florida Supreme Court to interpret state law would only serve to undermine the doctrines of statutory interpretation and judicial review, and, most importantly, undermine the U.S. Supreme Court's right and power to interpret federal statutes and constitutional provisions.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Fat lady for singing role in Florida.
As to today's ruling: it can by no means be considered to be contrary to states' rights. Conservatives are not 100% "states' rights," if by that you mean that the states trump the Constitution all the time. They do not.
The Constitution specifies that it is the state legislatures (not the state judiciaries) that determines how electors are appointed. That fact means that this is NOT just a states' rights issue. It is Constitutional.
Furthermore, the federal law in U.S.C. 3 that requires the election laws to be in place before the election is perfectly in keeping with both the Constitution and simple justice. Ex post facto "law" is not law at all; it is tyranny, and no judge or court has the right to change the rules after the game has been played. But this is what Al Gore et. al. have been attempting. They have been desperately seeking a judge to overturn the laws of Florida. It's pathetic.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Richmond, VA. -- (CSNews) -- December 1, 2000 -- A resolution to the election is finally at hand. President George W. Bush of the Conservative States of America (CSA, the states in red 11/08, not to be confused with the Confederate States of the 1860s) announced that he and President Al Gore of the Liberal States of America (LSA, and please don't call them the "loser" states) have reached a momentous agreement that solves the impasse of the election of 2000. Mediated by the United Kingdom, the United States of America(tm) is hearby
dissolved and is split into two nations based on the red and blue states of 11/08. The CSA will have its capital in Richmond, VA. And the LSA will retain Washington D.C. The UK takes over trademark rights to the name "United States of America" as compensation for its mediation.
Further, despite public opinion to the contrary, the new presidents immediately set to work accomplishing key agenda items. For example,
with the LSA split, having states on both coasts, they needed transportation rights between them on the interstate highways, railways and air space. President Al Gore comments, "We are very excited to have negotiated an arrangement with the CSA for access to their transportation space. We have enacted a new tax on the citizens of the LSA to pay for these at the rate of 100% of the previous costs to do so under the USA(tm) and have met one of my key goals for new taxes." President Bush added, "This is working out much better than the old system. President Gore gets his tax increases, while I can implement my tax cuts."
Additionally, the LSA will disband its military and offer the option for its people to join the CSA military or the LSA Internal Revenue
Service, which now will be armed. President Bush comments, "Well, they (the LSA) were against a strong military anyway. We might as well take it over and let them allocate resources where they see fit. We will vigorously support the Monroe Doctrine of 1820 and defend the rights of LSA citizens to pay taxes." Al Gore concurred, "This is great! I'm accomplishing so much more in the LSA than I could have possibly done in the old USA!"
President Al Gore also got his Congress and states to repeal the 2nd Amendment concerning arming the people. President Gore comments, "Under our new law, only the IRS, special police forces and criminals have the right to possess guns. The people of the LSA don't believe that honest people know how to use them properly nor control themselves. We will collect the guns and auction them to the highest bidder amongst those groups and the citizens of the CSA."
On the new Constitution in general, President Bush states, "We're working to grant more freedom to the States and the People of the CSA. We're not yet ready to make any announcement, but will soon." President Gore adds, "We're working closely with the CSA on these Constitutional issues. Whatever new freedoms they develop, we're going to make sure to outlaw them in the LSA."
And in a final statement on the settlement Governor Jeb Bush announced and agreement with Mayor Rudolph Guiliani of New York City on the transfer of Palm Beach, Broward and Dade counties of the Sovereign State of Florida to New York City as the 6th, 7th, and 8th Boroughs. Governor Jeb Bush states, "Well, those people have a lot more affinity with New Yorkers than they do with the rest of the CSA especially in terms of voting skill and political beliefs. Both sides felt it was for the best."
Asked why he picked Richmond, Virginia as the capital of the new CSA and not Austin, President Bush adds, "Well, I want to be close to Washington D.C. so that I can work closely with President Gore. I think it was an appropriate choice as well to enable us to meet more often and get a lot accomplished as we have already demonstrated."
(tm) USA and United States of America are trademarks of the United Kingdom.
Aide: Grant drinks too much to command an army. Lincoln: Find out what he drinks and give it to my other generals!
>Do you have any examples in mind, or is this just another bald liberal attempt at insinuating that neither side is different from the other?
Medical Marijuana laws. Not an exlusively Republican domain of federal power grabbing, but I don't see them taking any kind of stand here.
Article II, Section I, US Constitution
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
She's a citizen, and has been a gov't employee for fourteen years.
J.J.
This is going to end ugly.
The republicans will obstruct Gore right up until the Dec.12 deadline.
If Gore loses the case for the "discarding" of the doctored republican votes then he will have one hope left to save America's faltering democratic principles.
To change the votes of the electoral college by appealing to their better nature
The one good and clean thing that will happen from this election though is that after all the shouting is over and done and whoever is in the White house. All of the votes in Florida ARE going to be counted. The liberal laws in Florida will allow this to happen.
We will know, in the end, who should have won.
God help George Bush if he get's to the Whitehouse and hasn't actually won Florida.....
sic transit biscuitus
<i>1.Imagine that we read of an election occurring 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). </i>
<p>
This might b one of the few good point of this post.
<p>
<i>2.Imagine that the self-declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some colonial holdover (electoral college) from the nation's past. </i>
<p>
Self-declared winner?! Wtf!! Bush won on the election night, the first recount, and the second recount!! I wouldn't call that a "Self-declared winner".
<p>
Colonial holdover?! This colonial hand over is what PROTECTS the smaller states from mob rule!! Name one country in the world this large, with this many people, that has freedom and isn't ruled by the mob.
<p>
<i>3.Imagine that the self-declared winner's 'victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother.
</i>
<p>
There was disputed ballots all over the county!! You want to make it seam like this was the ONLY states were there was a disputed votes!! Sorry, but the NATIONAL average of undercount on votes is 1% to 2%.
<p>
<i>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.
</i>
<p>
The ballots were design by the supporter of the loser. The ballots were used else were in the countries were there has never been any problems.
<p>
<i>5.Imagine 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. </i>
<p>
huh? In fear of thier lives? Is anyone going to die becuase Gore was going to get into office?
<p>
<i>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.
</i>
<p>
Name one person. One damn person that was prevented from voting!! JUST ONE DAMN PERSON!!
<p>
<i>7.Imagine that six million people voted in the disputed province and that the self-declared winner's 'lead' was only 300 votes. Fewer, certainly, than the vote counting machines' margin of error. </i>
<p>
Yeah and imagine that 30,000k went back home after the media called the state. ANd imagine 900 votes were through out by the man and women servering this country.
<p>
<i>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. </i>
<p>
Oh heavan forbid!! Let's count dimpes and pargent chads... let's see how many votes didn't vote correctly.
<p>
<i>9.Imagine that the self-declared winner was himself the governor of a major province, which had the worst human rights record of any province in his nation and which actually led the nation in executions.</i>
<p>
Lower crime though.
<p>
<i>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. </i>
<p>
What the fuck are you talk about here!?
<p>
MarNuke
(democrat, black, gay, moslem, budhist)
Yeah, Clarence Thomas - a Republican appointee - probably just loves to stick it to those black people.
Not that I agree with all of the conservative justices' opinions, but implications of racism and not getting a fair interpretation of the law by minority groups is unfair and uncalled for.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
THis is not legal advice, although I am an attorney. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your own jurisdiction.
No, that's not what the Constitution requires. Here is what and
when is required:
1) Polls must close on the same day for representatives (and now
senators). Congress may set this date by law, or take the
Tuesday following the first Monday of November (which it has
set by law).
2) The Constitution requires that in some form or another, the state
legislature choose electors. All 50 states have chosen to have
elections.
3) A federal law requires that elections for these electors be held
on the same date as in 1). It does *not* require they be elected,
nore could it (this would violate the directive that the legislature
choose a method).
4) All electors must vote on the same date, which is December 18 this year.
Those are required. Addtionally, law provides that *if* electors.
have been chosen at least 6 days prior to the date in 4)
Whether or not a legislature having chosen elections on the date of
1 can change their mind after that date is not clear, but would seem
to lose the safe harbor of the statute. Also, given that the electors
*have* been chosen, it is not clear that the legislature can change its
mind at all (it's a close call).
hawk, esq.
In particular, the FSC's argument that they were simply resolving an ambiguity in the Florida statutes is very weak, and the USSC justices' questions in this regard were quite direct in a few instances. They pointed out that:
- if a deadline seems rather short, then it's incumbent upon the canvassing board to obtain the resources necessary to meet that deadline. Large counties should be able to just bring in more vote counters if they intend to recount all their votes.
- the Florida SC's moving of the deadline wasn't actually a solution to the problem, since there were still counties that didn't complete their counts before the new deadline.
- moving the deadline for the protest period actually caused a new conflict with the time allotted for the contest period.
Because of all of this, the Florida SC's decision rather arbitrarily altered a whole scheme that had been set up by the legislators - a body that has the ultimate constitutional authority in determing the rules for an election. The USSC reiterated that ultimate authority in their decision, in effect saying, "If you mess with rules set up by the legislature, you'd better have a *damned* good reason."P.S. Yes, I've seen the little anal posts asking everyone to use SCOTUS. When I intend to shorten the "Supreme Court of the United States", I'll use that acronym (or if I'm writing them or my congressman directly). Here on
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
In your eagerness to find the figures an attack on Gore, you miss my point. I'm not accusing the Dems of fraud. I state it could be a possibility, not a certainty.
Okay, numbers, then (some uncertainty to these numbers, of course, but numbers were pulled from CNN.com, msnbc.com, and census data):
Total votes: 5,816,627Votes for Gore: 2,907,451
% of FL population who are white: 83%
% of FL population who are black: 15%
% of FL population who are hispanic: 14%
% of white Floridians who voted for Gore: 40%
% of white Floridians who voted for Bush: 57%
% of black Floridians who voted for Gore: 93%
% of black Floridians who voted for Bush: 7%
% of hispanic Floridians who voted for Gore: 48%
% of hispanic Floridians who voted for Bush: 49%
With the black vote counting for 16% of the Gore votes (as reported) and take these numbers into account. It's not an indictment, and I don't intend to make it such. It's just very, very interesting.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
If you actually read the Florida Supreme Court decision, you'd retch in disgust. Their logic went something like this:
FL statue: the FL Secretary of State CAN certify results at her discretion, and there is a penalty associated with late filing of results that the FL Secretary of State accepts.
FL Supreme Court: because there is a penalty associated with filing late results, the FL secretary of state MUST accept late results; if late results were not acceptable, they would not be penalties associated with them, thus there is no discretion on the part of the FL Secretary of State when it comes to accepting vote counts.
US Supreme Court: huh?
What's lucky in this instance is the US Supremes were able to intervene because it's a Federal question. Most state cases that have logic like this probably aren't reviewed by anyone.
--- only for the squeamish
decision
The U.S. Supreme Court could then review the new decision by the Florida Supreme Court.
Right, but the USSC isn't going to just let the FSC move a few words around in some disingenuous attempt at keeping their same conclusions without seriously reworking their arguments.
The USSC was obviously trying to both give the FSC a chance to save face while also enforcing conformance with the US Constitution and Federal Statutes. If the FSC doesn't back track a bit and try to avoid the appearance of changing Florida statutory law after the election, their decision will be vacated again or maybe even permanently reversed.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
And there is also the lawsuit in Seminole county where it is alledged that Republicans were allowed to correct the paperwork on 5000 absentee ballots, thus letting them count, while conveniently tossing out 2000 Democratic absentee ballots in similar condition.
if Gore wins that one, the Republicans will be royally pissed off.
remember, if GWB becomes prez, he will be the third president named George.
Long live King Georg the III !!! [snort]
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
In fact they do not. By virtue of the electoral college system, they could easily win - or give themselves the opportunity to win - by appealing to a region or a specific demographic concentrated in certain states. For example, one could concentrate on urban voters, winning some of the states with the greatest urban populations. Or, one could appeal to agricultural states, or states near your home. Whatever. In fact, in the past most candidates were regional candidates. In this election, as well, the patterns are very clear; urban voters fell for Gore's lies and rural voters fell for Bush's lies.
All that said, the original poster was dead-on right: nobody in either of the major parties gives a rat's ass about anything but holding onto the reins of power. This situation, of course, is exactly what the framers of the US Constitution hoped to avoid by limiting the power of the federal government so much that nobody would go on a power trip over it.
The reality is that you can thank Abraham Lincoln for all of this. It wasn't until he decided that there existed a pressing need to keep the union together (in spite of the fact that the neither the union nor the confederate states really wanted to be together) that the states were really subjugated. I am saying that the vast majority of Americans (depending on when slavery would have ended in the confederacy, maybe all Americans including CSA citizens) would be much better off today had the CSA won. Fun to play What If, isn't it?
It's more interesting to me how states' rights issues seem to come up only at election time now. Nobody even bothers questioning any more the numerous Constitutional violations that go on day to day and are propagated by all levels of the federal government, but suddenly when we go to count votes nobody is willing to ignore the Constitution. I haven't any real idea why this is.
exactly...the reason why? IMHO, it is a "federalist" supreme court realizing they really don't have the grounds to overturn it outright; and even if they did, not wanting to set that kind of precedent. So they'll send it back to the FSC, which will probably make the same decision, and the USSC gets out of the loop unscathed (having neither denied the case or overturned a state court).
If things go badly in the courts, the Florida Legislature can appoint electors directly (presumably electors favoring Bush). The the final judgement as to the legality of this move will be made by the Congress in January, when the votes are counted.
Federal law (3USC15) specifies how the counting is done. If there is an objection to a state's electoral vote (there almost surely would be such an objection if the Florida Legislature appointed the electors directly), the objection is considered by the new Congress. If both House and Senate reject the state's vote, it is not counted. If more than one vote is presented (for example, one certified by the Governor, and one by the Florida Supreme Court), then the House and Senate, acting together, will choose the vote that will be counted.
If it came to such a point, we can assume that the new House (controlled by Republicans) would favor Bush, and the new Senate (tied 50-50) would favor Gore, with Gore himself casting the tie-breaking vote. The Congress would therefore be deadlocked. In that case, according to federal law, the state's vote would not be rejected, and if more than one set of votes were presented, the vote certified by the Governor (Jeb Bush, George W.'s brother) would be counted.
Therefore, the Republican Florida legislature can now ensure Bush's election, if it so chooses.
au contraire, mon frere: "If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it." -George W. Bush,St. Louis, Mo., October 18, 2000
Meanwhile, the world turns foolishly on and ants tickle his butt.
Someone needs to get over to ThinkGeek and order up some of those WTF? coffee mugs and send them to the Florida Supreme Court for Christmas.
The USSC didn't take power away from state government, it gave back power to the Florida legislature. The Florida SC ignored laws and essentially wrote it's own legislation with it's ill-founded ruling. Now they're looking like jackasses because of it. :)
Disclaimer: I didn't vote for either one of these clowns.
> It was purposely created to KEEP majorities from always winning. If it were not for the electoral college, the more highly populated urban areas would always win by the shear weight of their populations.
You should study your nation's history and political science more careful. The electoral college was created to ensure that the people were not swayed by a populist president. The electors were meant to be a way for states to put a buffer on the people's emotions. Electors were not supposed to be party hacks, but instead they were meant to be educated and informed individuals who would in turn _interpret_ the will of the people.
I am Canadian and I have to explain this to you? BTW in Canada we just had a federal election where over 64% of the population voted (a 100 year low) and ALL the ballots were counted by hand - in one DAY. So much for America being the torch bearer of democracy - the world is laughing at you.
-Shieldwolf
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
The didn't overturn - they vacated - very different. They asked the Forida court to reconsider which put's the whole thing back in limbo.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck load of tapes
From what I understand they(the united states supreme court) didn't actually overturn the florida state supreme courts decision, they just sent the matter back to them for clarification.
I read an article recently that said something to the effect that we need to stop this nonsense before we seriously damage the face of the political process. To this I say: Too late.
"Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it."
I hereby request a manual recount of the decisions by the Supreme Court justices.
(Snip the part about the military tending to be more violent, and hence more likely to intimidate wives into voting the way they want them to.)
My question is, will the Democrats use this to call into question the moral legitemacy of Bush's victory?
I would most certainly hope not! That would be a disaster of epic proportions. Go back and read what you wrote, and what you are suggesting we consider. You are suggesting that we consider that some people's votes are more "morally legitimate" than others-- that some people might have a better "right" to vote because they have taken some morally approved path for choosing whom they vote for.
You don't really have to go to far from there to get to deciding that all votes not cast for Nader are not "morally legitimate" because they represent votes by people who were influenced and bamboozled by environmental polluters... or that all votes not cast for Browne represent votes by those cowed by totalitarians, and hence are not morally legitimate in a "free country."
Let's not get into elitists arguments of deciding who is smart enough, or morally legitimate enough, to vote. If you're going to do that, then you shouldn't even pretend to have a democracy where the people choose the leaders. If the legitimacy of your vote is going to be based on one set of ideological criterea, just appoint somebody with the right ideology as dictator.
-Rob
Ok here we go....
:^) ) use this presidential court battle we could possibly get some candidates on capitol hill and bump republicans or democrats. I say take away the majority of either the Republicans or Democrats.
If one look at poll numbers on how many people are gettin tired and irritated, we are starting to see a shift in American public opinion of the top two political parties.
This CAN be a decisive and pivitol point for third parties. All the talk shows are talking about the 2002 elections already and how usually the party that holds the White House loses seats in congress. Well my proposal is NOW is the time for third parties to come out of the wooodwork. I as a new Libertarian (former Republican) feel that if third parties (specifically the Libertarian party
I don't know about you but I have had it with this two party system BS! It doesn't work any longer! We need third parties to shake things up! The American political system has gotten so corrupted by big money funneled in from big businesses and lobbyists etc.. BOTH parties are corrupt period! It shows!
I think people really need to go back and read the Declaration of Independance, The U.S. consitution, The Bill of Rights and really take a hard look at what this country has become. Neither of the major political parties give a raging rats a$$ about you joe average american, they only care about their political future, and their parties agenda.
Gore talks about wanting to help the average person, the Democrats say they want to protect the rights of minorities. Yet the Democrats are the ones keeping them DOWN! What in the last 8 years have they done to HELP THEM! Nothing! Gore talks about a tax cut for the "right people" - who are the right people? No one - Democrats don't give tax cuts!
Bush talks about giving everyone a tax cut. Yet as the numbers have shown the rich get the biggest tax cuts of all. There are those who argue, "but they pay the largest share of taxes." this may be true but what about all the corporate welfare. Are those programs not "tax cuts". Big businesses are given billions of dollars in "tax incentives" to brign their business to certain states, given many corporate welfare programs for this and that. Please -- the Republicans are for BIG business not the American people. I have not seen the Republicans do anything for minotites as well.
"We the people...." Do any of these FOOLS in either party remember these words! It does not say "We the politicians..." This is a "Government of the people, for the people and by the people." even though the top two political parties seem to think it is "Government of the government, by the government and for the government".
People, we need to take our country back! We need to do it peacefully using THE VOTE! Before some radical militant groups decide they are going to use force. Our vote can be powerful if used correctly. Folks it is time to start thinking about the future. 2002 is right around the corner and 2004 will be nearing soon. If "We the people..." organize we can take our country back in 2002 and 2004. If your a republican - tell the republican party you will no longer put up with their BS! and will leave the party if necessary if they don't get their head out of the arse and start listening to "We the people..." . If your a Democrat do the same thing. ENOUGH of this partiasn bickering BS! Let "We the people..." show the "big shots" in the top two political parties that "We the people..." can do what they can't. Come together and work with each other to put this country back together.
All Americans are part of "We the people..." whether your black, white, Asian, hispanic etc.. All need to stand together and be counted!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
How many times have you heard EITHER side say, "The constitution doesn't give you that right and so therefore it isn't a right"?
But they won't find out what "actually" did happen. Which standard do you use?
If you put in three teams of democrats, and three of republicans, you *will* have thre *different* counts showing Gore wond, and three *different* counts showing bush won.
We have accurate tallies for all of the counties. What we don't have is subjective tallies of what those who can't or won't fill out a ballot properly "intended."
Last night, in response to one of the "Do you really think that Bush
wouldn't do the same thing?" questions, I started to respond that,
"No; he wouldn't be what I thought I was voting for if he did"--and
then rememberd again that I didn't vote for him
And no, I didn't vote Nader--I'm an economics professor, for crying out
loud; I could never vote for Buchannan or Nader. Come to think of it,
I don't even know what color the sky is in Nader's world
Overall, though, the correllations that you suggest would be high, but
right now, to get the high proportion of voters that think Gore is a sore
loser, a portion of those are folks who voted for Gore. That is, there
are more people calling him a sore loser than voted for Bush.
I don't know the exact age of the machiens, but I first used one
in Jr. High in 1976.
And I have voted on butterfly ballots, though I couldn't tell you
offhand whether it was in califorina or Nevada. Anywone who was confused
by that shouldn't have been voting . . .
hawk
Actually, it's the Clinton Administration that's attempting to override states rights' to allow the distribution of medical marijuana. Which, I think, is incredibly ironic and hypocritical considering Clinton's background.
Hope someone can answer this for us laymen. Okay, after the SCOTUS ruling today, the Florida Supreme Court said that they would work to clarify their ruling and said that the Bush and Gore legal teams should submit their arguments (up to 20 pages each) by tomorrow afternoon.
My question: If SCOTUS is asking Florida's court to explain how they arrived at their decision, why should new filings have anything to do with it? To me, it sounds like Florida's court isn't sure that they can explain the basis for their decision (i.e., simply wanting Gore to win wouldn't really be an acceptable reason), and they're looking for Boies, et al., to help them come up with some valid reasons after the fact for making the ruling that they did. Or is this just standard operating procedure for when a higher court makes a ruling like they did? Thanks for any help.
Cheers,
We ARE a Republic, and hopefully always will be. We are UNION of STATES. We are NOT France. Get over it.
When you vote, you vote for your state. If you are from Delaware, you cannot determine which president Kentucky will choose.
I do NOT want my country's future decided by a bunch of Californians and mid-western Union Drones alone.
The Electoral College (whether it originally intended to or not) also makes fraud more difficult. Without it, a massive fraud in one state could turn the election. With it, you'd have to organize fraud in more than one state, increasing your chances of being caught or not risking it in the first place.
If I had my way, each state would have ONE electoral vote.
Long Live The Electoral College!
**>>BELCH
Ok, you'll need 3/4th of the states to say ya. Ok... we have 50 states... that means WE would need oh, 38 states to adgree. Ok.. how many states are willing to have this? Hmm better count it the other way... How many states don't want to get rid of the Election college... looking on a map... I can see... oh 20 states that in NO WAY IN HELL will be willing to have your New England leftist vote over rid thiers.
Gorons live in six parts of the Nation. The West Coast, New Mexico, on the mississippi, New England, South Texas (geeze, i wonder where they cam from) and the tip of Florida. The rest is Bush country. Look at the map! http://www.boortz.com/themap.htm
MarNuke
No, it prevents the states from doing things on the fly that affect U.S. types of issues.
This decision forces the Florida to justify it's decision (what was the law the decision based on). If they had a good reason, the U.S Supreme court will back them.
The federal law pertaining to Presidential elections (maybe Federal in general) does not allow the rules to change after an election.
I personally do not think anyone has won here, I say we lost much more.
Put all politicians on the space station and conviently forget the fuel to keep it going...
I know it's en vogue on slashdot not to actually READ the linked story before commenting, but I'd have hoped the slashdot staff was above that. Apparently not. All this opinion says is, in essence, "We don't know why you did what you did. Please explain." This is HARDLY a "transfer of power" from the states to the Federal government.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
I don't know what Gore's problem is - desides being a big, hairy, pussy. Florida already gave its votes to Bush! Anyone who voted for Gore is nothing but a sheep wanting the government to control/tell them what to do.. How many recounts does Gore need to prove to himself that he sucks and he lost? What a fucking sore loser, he is just pushing it on until Dec. 13th when the 12th amendment takes over - leaving all of our votes invalid.. If he ends up becoming president after all this bullshit, I feel sorry for the american people who voted for him - it will be all your fault when he makes our country "for the people by the government" instead of "for the people by the people". It will be a sad day in history..
We're a UNION of STATES. You have no right to affect Florida's vote if you are a citizen of Massachusetts. End of that thar story.
**>>BELCH
... all you programmers (Java-style).
The Citizen->PresidentialCandidate->GeorgeWBush class passed as input the return value from the State->Justice->SupremeCourt->Florida object to the Federal->Justice->SupremeCourt object. The Federal->Justice->SupremeCourt has thrown an InsufficientLawPrecedentException. The detail fields of that Exception has been repassed to the State->Justice->SupremeCourt->Florida object, along with the original parameters. We are waiting for the return value.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Well, comsidering that federal supremacy has been the norm since McCollough v. Maryland in the early 1800s, I wouldn't be real surprised by this ruling. The Florida Supreme Court severely overstepped its bounds by adding time to the election procedings, which is a violation of the Article II of the US Constitution which gives control over election procedings to the state legislatures. The state judiciary has no right to dictate the terms of a state election, especially when not asked to do so.
This is a very easy ruling for the SCOTUS, as there was a clear violation of the Constitution by the Florida Supreme Court. Not only that, but the case Roe v. Alabama sets a federal precedent against changing election procedures while an election is still being counted. Clearly the SC was acting within the confines of federal and Constitutional law, and was not eroding state's rights in any way. States rights do not include the ability to violate federal law.
BTW, IANAL, but I am a political scientist.
Although USA Today and CNN dont mention it (at least on a quick scan), the vote was unanimous according to Reuters. Story at Yahoo
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When we'll stop, no one knows.
The Supreme Court merely told the Florida court they didn't have the authority to extend the counting deadline, and wanted an explainition of where they had the authority. Sounded honest to me.
-----------------------------
1,2,3,4 Moderation has to Go!
now kill me if im wrong, but wasnt the bush campaign running with the motto "vote freedom first" or something along that line? I was under the impression that elections were a state's buisness. Shouldnt it stop at the state level? I guess florida should succeed from the Union and take it all the way if they want all their votes counted. Another thing this election has shown us is how elected officials in lower offices (secretary of state, county prosecutors, circut court judges) will follow their party lines. Some of them are not supposed to be biased in their decisions, but their party favors (pun intended) show what side of the bed they sleep on. for a good time call http://www.megatokyo.com/
"No one will smell that."
I think there may be some surprises regarding Republican handling & marking of absentee ballots. The Miami mayor was tossed out on a similar issue a little while back. If the absentee ballots in the two counties are tossed, then Gore wins by thousands of votes.....
Yeah!
MarNuke
I don't think presidents really exist... They have all been fabricated by the CIA so that we won't know that Mulder was right and we are being dominated by a secret alien military stile government. Also fabricated by the CIA is Santa Clause (his sleigh was abducted by aliens in 1962), the Tooth Fairy (was shot down over libia in 1983), The Easter Bunny (Road kill 1975 RT 66), and the band Hanson (really just 4 mop handles with hair and eyeballs glued on)
I didn't say it would be easy. I said it probably could be done. Certainly, my use of the term "probably" does not imply "easy."
I still think it probably could be done (i.e., probably meaning > 51% chance of succeeding) for the reasons stated below.
You further state: You raise good points. However, there are some problems with your argument:
- You do not quote anything from the U.S. Supreme Court's slip opinion, you instead quote from questions presented at oral argument. I addressed the specific Federal constitutional and statutory points raised in the slip opinion. This brings us to the second point --
- You rely on questions presented by individual Justices at oral argument. Who, and more importantly, how many? Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas (well, Thomas almost never says anything, but he also almost always does whatever Scalia does), but who else? Do you get to five? Maybe, but I don't think so.
This brings me back to the point I raised in my post above regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's interest in protecting and preserving its own right and power regarding judicial review and statutory interpretation. If the Florida Supreme Court did what I said, would a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court really hold that the Florida Supreme Court went too far? That the interpretation of Florida state law by the highest court in the state of Florida was incorrect? That said interpretation amounted to improper legislation? If the U.S. Supreme Court did this, it would be, to my knowledge (which while not unlimited is also not all that limited), unprecedented, indeed revolutionary. Would the same U.S. Supreme Court do this that has consistently refused to overturn Roe v. Wade? If ever there was a piece of judicial "legislation," it is Roe v. Wade.Could the U.S. Supreme Court do what you say? Yes, it could. If it did, I think that it would try to limit the scope and effect of its decision by saying that it only applied in the rare (if not this unique) situation where a state legislature is exercising a power delegated by the U.S. Constitution or Congress.
However, I also think many of the Justices -- probably the majority -- would realize that the reasoning and rational of any such decision would serve to undermine the U.S. Supreme Court's own precedents and power. Certainly, Rhenquist, Thomas and Scalia wouldn't be bothered by this. I think the majority would.
It is a close and interesting question. You may be right. I think you are probably wrong.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
I may not be from the US, but surely now that the integrity of this election has been so badly comprimised and brought into question, a new ballot makes sense. Although our voting laws are quite different here in Australia, the fact that our laws and procedures ensure everyone's vote always count should be a good example for everyone.
The people of the USA seem to be having very little say in what is happening in the presedential race at the moment, so surely giving them their right to vote again would be the best solution.
Hemos/CmdrTaco:
Please cease and desist. You're wasting bandwidth which could feed starving children overseas in....uhm...Indiana.
Oh please, shut up Mr. I-don't-believe-in-evolution man.- ---------
-----------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
You owe me a beer if you're wrong. :)
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
I suppose now I'm speaking as a statistician, rather than a lawyer . . . [so many hats, so little time . . .;)]
There is no way to come up with a count from those "uncounted" ballots that shows the results were changed.
THose aren't uncounted ballots, but ballots without a valid vote. The "count" that would come from them would depend upon the biases of the "counters", as to how big of a prick on the ballot to count for their candidate, and how much larger it must be when counting for the other candidate.
The only objective standard is the one already used--any other standard leaves room for argument
Someone brought up the 10th Amendment. Throughout much of the 20th century that amendment was ignored because it was convenient to do so. Only in the 1990s was it revived and used, by conservatives to oppose federal mandates, which were largely for liberal-esque programs.
You want evidence that conservatives ignore states' rights on occassion? Well you see what's gone on in the Supreme Court...
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
I am also Canadian and the reason Canada is so screwed up is because of self-righteous liberal idiots like you. With who we just elected in Canada we are just guaranteed more of the same stupid policies to keep Canadians unemployed and poor. Although, as in the US, it was just a choice between lesser of evils. I am not enamoured of any of the choices, in the US or Canada.
No, but when Reagan got it, he *did* end the case against IBM...
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
Actually the Supreme Court didn't overturn the verdict so much as they told the Florida Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling. The Court didn't seem to buy the Bush team's conviction that the case even belonged in Federal court. Why isn't this a win for Bush? The USSC has given authority on the matter to the Flordia Courts, which have been anything but for Bush. Read the relevant details on CNN's web site
/. never has inflamatory, inaccurate headlines! wait a second...
--
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
The entire point of the federal government existing is to bring unity and commonality to American law, as opposed to having 50 different sets of laws. I see no problems with states having very little opportunity to wiggle out of a federal law. It takes a long-ass time for the feds to agree on anything, not to mention implement it, and when it does get implemented it's usually watered down. So when the feds decide something, the states should live with it.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
Actually, all the US Supreme Court has done is remove the Florida Supreme Court ruling and asked the Florida Supreme Court to clarify if the Florida Supreme Court made their ruling based upon permissable (Florida legislative) or not permissable (Florida constitutional) basis.
Oh, well. Didn't see that someone posted it already, although the previous post makes it seem like the politician from Zimbabwe actually said all these things. If this politician actually exists (who knows, it's an email), he didn't say anything beyond the statement about election fraud not being a third-world phenomenon.
-N
There are many reasons why the US Supreme Court has an interest in looking at this case. The most important of which are Equal Protection and Due Process. These two CONSTITUTIONAL guarentees is what helps keeps our flavor of democracy from becoming "mob rules." Think Germany, 1938.
I'm still long tired of the Slash Leaning Left.
As a libertarian, I'm enjoying the fact that our government will be fumbling for the next two years, incapable of reaching its greedy hands out accross more of our liberties.
...writing this headline?
This decision in no way takes any power away from the states.
All this ruling does is tell the Florida Supreme court that 1. It did not seem to take into account federal laws that govern presidential elections and 2. the decision was not clear enough to rule of any legality of the Florida decision.
In other words - the U.S. Supreme court is telling the Florida Supreme court to take federal law into account and rethink their decision. The final decision is still with the Florida Supreme court - and if they really want to they can defy the federal "Safe Harbor" law - but the U.S. Supreme court has ADVISED them that if they do, do not be suprised when U.S. Congress challenges their Electors.
-Nick
-Nick
My name is Obi-Wan Kenobi. You killed my master. Prepare to die.
"What's interesting here is that inadverently, GWB's case has transferred a significant amount of power from the States to the Federal Government."
Democrats are all for the federal government stomping over states rights to impose the federal nanny state. Only when they want their man in the White House, to they find that old time states rights religion.
Republicans are all for states rights when it comes to gun laws and restricting abortions. When your state decides to decriminalize medical marijuana or physician-assisted suicide, the Republicans come out of the woodwork to impose the power of the federal government on these uppity states.
Just goes to show that both major parties are inconsistent and hypocritical when it comes to states rights. The one good thing that can come of the mess is a new resurgence in third-party voters. This Libertarian doesn't have much hope, but there can't be a clearer example that the major parties stand for nothing. There is no principle that they will let get in the way of their victory.
No this does not mean that Bush is the winner... not by a long shot. Gore can continue contesting in florida (and he will), in fact however the court case in florida goes, it will get appealed, and will end up in front of florida supreme court again... and possibly the supreme court again.
I wish this meant it was over (as I'm sure many people do), but no, its just gonna keep going.
-- Point? None! Cob.
USA Today, man. What a junk paper. If you look at a reliable new source it says there was no ruling. The only unanimous decision of the court was not to sign the ruling. That's right they just sent the case back to Florida for carification and further consideration. And anyway, you think that even if the supreme court ruled against him that GOre would give up? Gore will not give up until November 2, 2004. After the supreme court, there is the International Court of Justice, and then Gore will probably promote space exploration to find a higher court, ruling over the galaxy. I would not be surprised if this "case" ended up in the hands of the imperial senate. Politics in America are a joke...and not a very good one at that.
I also find it interesting that you belive each candidate cares about federal/state power. Each candidate wants all the power concentrated in the hands of the chief executive and wants to be that chief executive. This election was obviously the a horse race of slime from the start. I cast my vote for Nader who, when he says he cares about "people" does not just mean himself and his running-mate (though gore obviously doesn't care about his running mate & chose conservative leiberman to pander to the right, hoping that picking a jew (yes, I am jewish too) to appease liberals.
-----
# cd /
The Bush campaign did not ask for the decision to be overturned, they specifically asked for it to be set aside. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Bush, so as requested the Florida decision was set aside.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Here's the ruling. (The decision is in the last few lines.)
/. should be using wonkish acronyms, don't you think?)
First off, I think you put this in the wrong category--I'm pretty sure this isn't an Internet issue. (Okay, I see you fixed that while I wrote this. Good.)
Second, the Supreme Court did not overturn the Florida Supreme Court. They remanded the decision. The proper headline is "SCOTUS Sends Case Back to SCOF" (since
Third, as others have pointed out, it wasn't a "unanimous ruling", it was an unsigned ruling.
Fourth, "meaning that Bush is the winner" is misleading and vague, particularly since it doesn't say what he is the winner of. And he didn't really win anything, except more PR fodder.
Fifth, you should present some justification for your conclusion about the transference of power; I expect you can't, particularly since the news about this decision is vague and incomplete. Even if SCOTUS had ruled against the Florida Supreme Court, that wouldn't have transferred power away from the states to the federal govt., it would have transferred power away from the people and the courts to the legislative and executive branches.
However, I want to say that I don't particularly blame CmdrTaco for being so misleading, since the coverage has been confused--as the story first came out on the Net, the one-line reports were changing. General media coverage has been confusing, but they're starting to fix their sites and get the story right--I hope CmdrTaco will correct his post as well.
Finally, I want to say that I am very thankful that CmdrTaco posted this, because for anyone who cares about the long-term health of the republic and believes in the ideals of democracy this election is of utmost concern.
So, thank you, but get your facts straight.
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
The one point I fundamentally disagree with you is on the issue of recounts. Here, you are factually wrong. All counties in Florida, by law, had to do a recount (machine recount). They all complied with the law. But it didn't stop there. Of the three counties that wanted to go forward under the extension that the FSC gave, the actual results were that Palm Beach missed the deadline, Miami-Dade gave up and missed the deadline, and Broward completed on time. This is why GWB's margin shrank at the certification from over 900 to substantially less.
There's been enough false facts around that I like to correct mistakes when I can.
DB
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem& item=518711395
No, I didn't have anything to do with it -- but at least I got in a bid before it got too high :-)
+++++
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
First of all, I have read the statute, the briefs in most of these cases, and many of the court transcripts. Secondly, you quote the sections that prove my point.
I made two contentions that you take issue with:
1) I said that a vote "may be ignored" if it is not machine readable and isn't found by a manual recount within 7 days.
Your response is that the 7 day deadline is for the "normal course of an election" and doesn't apply to "recounts". No statutory text supports this proposition. The law provides for protests and contests, but nothing in the statute indicates that the duties of the Election Canvassing Commission (ECC) defined in 102.111(1) and 102.112(1) are altered in such event. To the contrary, the absense of any such text proves that they are not modified, especially so because a contest has certification as a prerequisite.
2) I stated that manual recounts are an option, not a right, and that the choice to proceed with one is constrained by the deadline.
You disagree, citing the very text that proves my point. After the preliminary 1% recount, if an error in vote tabulation exists, then 102.166(5) gives three alternatives, which I very reasonably call "options". Only option (c) is a full manual recount of the county. Options (a) and (b) are also offered to the county, and assuredly would take less time than option (c). Thus, even if the 1% manual recount does show an "error in vote tabulation", the statute even then does NOT require a manual recount.
Your statement that "If the sample recount shows a difference that could change the outcome, the canvassing board MUST recount." flatly ignores 102.166(5)(a) and 102.166(5)(b) which provide other options. I note that you added the emphasis to the word "or" between these.
Justice Scalia mauled Tribe on this point, so you can take the issue up with him if you have further confusion on what the meaning of the word "or" is.
The Florida Supreme Court concluded at the end of their statutory construction argument only that discretion does exist. They read 102.112's "may be ignored" as taking precedence over "shall be ignored". The lower court had ruled the exact same way in supporting the Secretary of State's choice to do what the statute says she "may" do.
The conflict that lead SCOFL to find abuse of discretion was that of enforcing the deadline when doing so deprives people of "the right of sufferage" guaranteed by the FL Constitution. That contention is flawed because there is no such right and even if there where it was the County boards who abused their discretion by choosing option (c) which could not be completed in time when (a) or (b) could have been.
If not counting a machine unreadable hanging or dimpled chad is a violation of this supposed right to vote, then the only tenable conclusion would be to ALWAYS do a manual recount in all counties using punchcard ballots. That clearly is not consistent with a statute that does not even allow manual recounts in Counties unless there is a protest. You would have to conclude that the Florida Legislature passed an election law that inherently thwarted the very idea of this imaginary "right to vote". The correct remedy to this absurdity would be to throw out the whole election as inconclusive, which is precisely what the Florida Legislature is about to do.
By the way, I did not vote for Bush, but it's clear to me that there is no scenario in which Gore will win, nor in which Gore "should" win.
<SARCASM> Don't you realize that this is just another effort by the evil United States Armed Forces to disenfranchise women? To keep women from being an effective voting block by padding them out with foreigners?</SARCASM>
<SARCASM> tags provided for the irony-challenged.
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
I made no claim that I agreed with these views. It says right at the top that it was in a chain letter via email. I just posted it to point out how screwed and hypocritical our country continues to look. I don't recall ever claiming the Democrats wer on the up-n-up.
-N
Y'know, I'm suprised that nobody in the Florida legislature (or whatever body has jusistiction on such things) hasn't done a Wisdom of Solomon on this:
With a margin of ~1000 votes, well within the margin of error, why not split the electoral votes betweem the 2 candidates, with W getting the extra remainder for apparently winning.
So Gore gets 12, and W gets 13. Case closed, and the world could get back to business.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book