In conclusion - one group of 'nuts' in 1996 may have very well voted for the 'fruit' Perot in fairly large number. It is doubtful that as many 'fruits' voted for the 'nut' Buchanon in 2000.
That accounts for the 27,000+ who voted for Perot but didn't vote for Buchanan. Are you saying that it's not even theoretically possible that 3,400 people honestly thought Buchanan was who they wanted to vote for?
Over 8,000 of those people voted for Buchanan in the 1996 Republican primary; is it that amazing that 3,400 of them would still like him?
I think this goes back to the same reason they're bitching about Lake county; more Reform votes than Reform members, even though the disparity there is smaller this time than it was in 1996.
They didn't "accidently" vote for Buchanan instead of Gore. They obviously meant to vote for Buchanan.
Actually, all joking aside, it looks like they probably did exactly that.
In 1996, 30,000 people voted for the Reform party. It doesn't take much of a stretch to assume than 10% of those people could have done so again this year.
As for the 19,000 ballots thrown out for double-voting; in 1996 it was 15,000. Some people don't follow directions.
Have any of you taken a look at the actual NUMBERS in this, to see where the problems might lie?
The Democrats are saying that the fact that 3,000 people voted Reform in Palm Beach county indicates somebody was comitting fraud.
The Reform party got 30,000 votes in Palm Beach county in 1996. Is it really that far-fetched that 1/10th of those people would vote Reform again, just four years later?
The Democrats are calling "fraud" because 300 people voted Libertarian in Lake county, while there are only 112 registered Libertarians.
However, in 1996, 259 people voted for the same Libertarian candidate, and there were even fewer registered Libertarians then.
In point of fact, there are several Libertarians in that area who are registered as Republicans and running for office, much less voting.
Al Gore is desperately trying to snatch a victory out of his defeat. He should just give up and start working on 2004.
Why does nearly every country but the US successfully have 3+ major parties?
Because the US has deliberately put laws in place to strengthen the position of the two dominant parties.
BTW, I have an Indian co-worker who believes that the two-party system is one of the great strengths of our system. I disagree with him, but I present his view (which he claims is widely held in Parliamentary-system countries) for discussion.
Who knows, maybe I'll be in the minority next...I'd like to be heard then, too.
You're voting for Phillips, and you think you might be in the minority someday? You guys came in 7th. The entire body of people who voted for Phillips could comfortably fit inside the Superdome. Some of them would have to stand on the field.
What we need to do is get rid of the "winner takes all" system in more states, and introduce Instant Runoff Voting nationwide.
This election shows clearly the fact that the two major parties have become damn near identical, and thus the electoral college makes it possible for a situation to arise where a third party wins with only 31% of the vote, if the major two only get 30% apiece.
Without the electoral college, all you get in that situation is no winner, which means the House of Representatives decides, which is like the Electoral College but without the accountability.
Last time they had to decide, they went against the popular vote *AND* the electoral vote.
I understand that when you Yankees vote, you actually vote for an electoral college, people who have promised to vote for candidate foo should they be elected. It seems pretty unlikely that one of these people would turn tail and vote for the wrong person.
It has happened several times, including in 1960 and 1972.
However, it hasn't decided an election ever, to the best of my knowledge.
So how do military members (and their families) who are from florida but not stationed there vote?
The laws I read are unclear. I have no idea what the precedents are.
The law would seem to indicate that if you request a Florida absentee ballot be sent to a non-Florida location, the request should be denied. Either that, or a ballot for your home precinct sent. It's not clear.
And cut this voting system involving electoral votes. Just vote on the person and count the votes. Or at least don't give the whole state to the winner.
And then what? You don't end up with a winner that way, in most elections.
What do you do in two month's time with no 50% winners?
"Resident" has different definitions for different purposes.
We're talking about voter registration here.
According to Title IX, Chapter 101, section 101.45, subsection 2, paragraph e, the simple act of putting your college address as where you want your absentee ballot sent to constitutes notification that you've changed your address for registration purposes.
In other words, if you have it sent to Mom and Dad's house and they forward it to you, you're a legal resident of Mom and Dad's precinct; if you have it sent directly to your dorm room, you're a legal resident of *THAT* precinct, and they are required to send you a ballot for your new precinct.
Florida has all sorts of weird differing residency laws for different purposes. A Maitland cop tried to give me a ticket once because my car was in the parking lot for more than 10 days without suddenly sprouting a Florida license plate. I was a temporary contract employee with a permanent residence in Oklahoma at the time.
And I wasn't even in Maitland; he just thought I was.:-)
None the less if you won't care about the rest of world, your diplomatic relations will cool down.
That'd hurt you (Europe in general, not the Czech Republic in specific) more than it would hurt us.
Wanna rely on Russia and South Africa for all your strategic metals? Think they're more sane to deal with?
That may work for CZ, with a GDP the size of our 5th largest corporation's yearly income, but the powers in Europe would have a harder time getting along without us than we would without them.
The US may have horrible flaws, and you can certainly find individual things that one country or another does better, but the fact is that where there were once two superpowers, now there is only one.
It doesn't mean we get to dictate terms to the rest of the world, nor should it; but it damn sure means you don't get to dictate terms to us.
When I went to my polling place today to cast my vote for an agenda I can support, instead of throwing it away by voting for Bush or Gore, I was once again reminded of one of the many signs that the Federal Election Commission and most (if not all) state Election Commissions are completely out of control.
My tax dollars go to pay for the printing of signs placed on every polling place in Florida that state that voting in the wrong precinct is a felony, punishable by a $5,000 fine and 5 years in prison.
How many people have voted in their old precinct after moving and forgetting to change their registration?
How many have moved during the "blackout period" when they couldn't change their registration if they wanted to, and still voted?
How many have voted absentee in their home city for four years while away at college?
Are these folks really as dangerous as other crimes with the same 5 year maximum penalty:
Assault with a weapon.
Battery on a police officer.
Battery of child by throwing, tossing, projecting, or expelling certain fluids or materials. (blood, urine, feces, seminal fluid)
Burglary of an unoccupied vehicle or dwelling.
Purse snatching (if you don't have a weapon on you.)
Child abuse that doesn't cause permanent injury.
Possession of child pornography.
Voting in the wrong precinct is considered to be as serious a crime as all of those in Florida. Does that strike anybody as just a tad irrational?
Hey you are more then welcome to start your own "Lets let murderers vote" campaign. I'm sure it will be real sucessful.
Felony does not necessarily equal murder.
It's a felony in many states to vote in your old precinct if you move and forget to update your registration. (In Florida, it's 5 years in prison.)
It's a felony in many states to have sex with someone to whom you aren't married.
It's a felony in some states to have oral sex with someone to whom you *ARE* married. (And this has been upheld in the courts.)
It's a felony to make an unauthorized copy of Microsoft Windows on your PC.
Do you really think people should lose their Constitutional rights over these transgressions, or any of the literally tens of thousands of other bullshit felony laws in this country?
The branch that passed the bill in the first place, which is the same branch as the branch that can ovverride vetos with a 2/3s vote.
Not all things are done with bills, I'm telling you. The EPA does things every day that are supported by their own regulations, not any law on the books.
The interpretation of the ADA is a hot topic in Congress, and in the Courts, because the Executive branch basically sets all of the law regarding it due to an incredibly vague law.
As for the "hypothetical" situation I named, Al Gore is proposing to do exactly that.
Should a third party candidate ever actually win office, then you can be sure that a good amount of people will start seriously considering 3rd party candidates for the LEGISLATURE, where appropriations(sp?) are created and passed.
Historically, it's the other way around. Look at the last third-party President who was elected; Abraham Lincoln. His party, the Republicans, had to claim massive legislature gains first.
It's less so now, with the popular vote loosely controlling the Electoral College, but it is still a matter of winning at lower levels first before you can win the Presidency.
That's why these numbers are important:
Number of elected or appointed officials in various parties around the country:
As usual, the candidates' stand on most of these issues is pretty irrelevant. The president is a member of the executive branch; they don't make the laws, they enforce them.
The majority of "laws" today are in the form of regulations from the executive branch that carry the force of law unless Congress or the courts rule on them.
I normally vote Libertarian, but the closeness of this election has me a little nervous. I'm going to be (gag, choke) voting for Gore, just because I'm afraid that Bush might win and push our government's spending on military supremacy and the war on drugs back into the 80's.
Then you are part of the problem.
You can't get smaller government by voting for a candidate who supports much, much larger government.
It's not possible to vote against a candidate; all you are doing is endorsing Al Gore's agenda.
Your vote carries far more weight as an endorsement than it carries as a vote for a candidate.
Look at the 1992 election; 20+% of the electorate voted Clinton/Gore into office, but their endorsement was seen by many as a mandate.
Those 20% carried weight like they were 55%.
BTW, Gore won't spend less on the drug war, and he'll continue the massive misdeployment of our military that renders it far less effective than budget cuts could ever reflect. If those are your criteria, he's no better than Bush.
Uhhhmmmm, the Fortune 500 is publically owned... Ever hear of stockholders???
That doesn't meet their definition; they want laws in place to prevent any significant fraction of the stock being held by one person.
The more radical among them (you know, the kind of people Nader would appoint to cabinet posts and Supreme Court positions) want the government to own the majority of the stock, and thus directly control the companies, "in the public interest".
Isn't it amazing that the government manages to take half my income every month, but still can't pay their employees very well?
BTW, those of you voting for Nader, know that he won't help the problem; the Green Party has recently removed this from their platform in order to get him elected, but their platform used to include public ownership of the top 500 corporations.
That's right, basically every corporate job in our industry would become government work. So if you'd like to get paid this shitty, Vote Nader.
As for those who work in the corporations 501 through infinity, you'll just need to deal with the fact that your computers, automobiles, and consumer electronics will be built by the folks responsible for $600 toilet seats and $200 hammers. Also, that all your package delivery services would be run by the folks responsible for the sorry state of affairs in the Post Office.
Slashdot Mirror
In conclusion - one group of 'nuts' in 1996 may have very well voted for the 'fruit' Perot in fairly large number. It is doubtful that as many 'fruits' voted for the 'nut' Buchanon in 2000.
That accounts for the 27,000+ who voted for Perot but didn't vote for Buchanan. Are you saying that it's not even theoretically possible that 3,400 people honestly thought Buchanan was who they wanted to vote for?
Over 8,000 of those people voted for Buchanan in the 1996 Republican primary; is it that amazing that 3,400 of them would still like him?
I think this goes back to the same reason they're bitching about Lake county; more Reform votes than Reform members, even though the disparity there is smaller this time than it was in 1996.
-
They didn't "accidently" vote for Buchanan instead of Gore. They obviously meant to vote for Buchanan.
Actually, all joking aside, it looks like they probably did exactly that.
In 1996, 30,000 people voted for the Reform party. It doesn't take much of a stretch to assume than 10% of those people could have done so again this year.
As for the 19,000 ballots thrown out for double-voting; in 1996 it was 15,000. Some people don't follow directions.
-
I should also add:
The Democrats are claiming fraud because 19,000 ballots in Palm Beach county had to be thrown away because people punched two candidates.
In 1996, 15,000 ballots were thrown away in Palm Beach county because people punched two candidates.
BTW, not all those "two candidate" votes were Gore and Buchanan. How do you explain the ones that were for another combination of candidates?
-
Have any of you taken a look at the actual NUMBERS in this, to see where the problems might lie?
The Democrats are saying that the fact that 3,000 people voted Reform in Palm Beach county indicates somebody was comitting fraud.
The Reform party got 30,000 votes in Palm Beach county in 1996. Is it really that far-fetched that 1/10th of those people would vote Reform again, just four years later?
The Democrats are calling "fraud" because 300 people voted Libertarian in Lake county, while there are only 112 registered Libertarians.
However, in 1996, 259 people voted for the same Libertarian candidate, and there were even fewer registered Libertarians then.
In point of fact, there are several Libertarians in that area who are registered as Republicans and running for office, much less voting.
Al Gore is desperately trying to snatch a victory out of his defeat. He should just give up and start working on 2004.
-
Tell them that they're welcome to be treated like a business, the day they start acting like one.
Stop accepting taxpayer money; either make a profit, or go out of business.
Then they can take the things they produce on my dime and start requiring me to pay again if I want to use them.
They accept taxpayer money, they work for the taxpayers; if they produce something, it was a work for hire belonging to the taxpayers.
Not the University, not the Government; the taxpayers themselves.
-
Why does nearly every country but the US successfully have 3+ major parties?
Because the US has deliberately put laws in place to strengthen the position of the two dominant parties.
BTW, I have an Indian co-worker who believes that the two-party system is one of the great strengths of our system. I disagree with him, but I present his view (which he claims is widely held in Parliamentary-system countries) for discussion.
Who knows, maybe I'll be in the minority next...I'd like to be heard then, too.
You're voting for Phillips, and you think you might be in the minority someday? You guys came in 7th. The entire body of people who voted for Phillips could comfortably fit inside the Superdome. Some of them would have to stand on the field.
What we need to do is get rid of the "winner takes all" system in more states, and introduce Instant Runoff Voting nationwide.
You're talking about an electorate where several thousand people can accidentally vote for Buchanan instead of Gore. You want them to be able to figure out a ballot where they have to cast FIVE votes for President, instead of just one?
-
No single, non-transferable voting scheme for direct election would have 50% as a requirement for winning.
I know, but he didn't propose a scheme; he just said we should "get rid of" the electoral college.
I was hoping to make him:
a) Think
b) Articulate the thought.
-
But a 3rd party will never get to 31% support because so many people are afraid that voting 3rd party is to "throw their vote away".
That's what the pundits said about the Democrats and Whigs in the 1840s.
Seen any Whigs lately, since the third-party Republicans came along and swept them out the door?
-
You're completely backwards.
This election shows clearly the fact that the two major parties have become damn near identical, and thus the electoral college makes it possible for a situation to arise where a third party wins with only 31% of the vote, if the major two only get 30% apiece.
Without the electoral college, all you get in that situation is no winner, which means the House of Representatives decides, which is like the Electoral College but without the accountability.
Last time they had to decide, they went against the popular vote *AND* the electoral vote.
-
I understand that when you Yankees vote, you actually vote for an electoral college, people who have promised to vote for candidate foo should they be elected. It seems pretty unlikely that one of these people would turn tail and vote for the wrong person.
It has happened several times, including in 1960 and 1972.
However, it hasn't decided an election ever, to the best of my knowledge.
-
So how do military members (and their families) who are from florida but not stationed there vote?
The laws I read are unclear. I have no idea what the precedents are.
The law would seem to indicate that if you request a Florida absentee ballot be sent to a non-Florida location, the request should be denied. Either that, or a ballot for your home precinct sent. It's not clear.
-
Never mind, answered my own question:
They finished the bloody thing and you can download it.
It's 26 minutes, Quicktime only. (dammit)
-
Has anybody heard anything new about that Australian prequel?
-
And cut this voting system involving electoral votes. Just vote on the person and count the votes. Or at least don't give the whole state to the winner.
And then what? You don't end up with a winner that way, in most elections.
What do you do in two month's time with no 50% winners?
-
"Resident" has different definitions for different purposes.
:-)
We're talking about voter registration here.
According to Title IX, Chapter 101, section 101.45, subsection 2, paragraph e, the simple act of putting your college address as where you want your absentee ballot sent to constitutes notification that you've changed your address for registration purposes.
In other words, if you have it sent to Mom and Dad's house and they forward it to you, you're a legal resident of Mom and Dad's precinct; if you have it sent directly to your dorm room, you're a legal resident of *THAT* precinct, and they are required to send you a ballot for your new precinct.
Florida has all sorts of weird differing residency laws for different purposes. A Maitland cop tried to give me a ticket once because my car was in the parking lot for more than 10 days without suddenly sprouting a Florida license plate. I was a temporary contract employee with a permanent residence in Oklahoma at the time.
And I wasn't even in Maitland; he just thought I was.
-
None the less if you won't care about the rest of world, your diplomatic relations will cool down.
That'd hurt you (Europe in general, not the Czech Republic in specific) more than it would hurt us.
Wanna rely on Russia and South Africa for all your strategic metals? Think they're more sane to deal with?
That may work for CZ, with a GDP the size of our 5th largest corporation's yearly income, but the powers in Europe would have a harder time getting along without us than we would without them.
The US may have horrible flaws, and you can certainly find individual things that one country or another does better, but the fact is that where there were once two superpowers, now there is only one.
It doesn't mean we get to dictate terms to the rest of the world, nor should it; but it damn sure means you don't get to dictate terms to us.
-
One of the purposes for a absentee ballot is too allow university students to vote in their place of residence.
Residence is defined as 10 consecutive days in Florida.
So unless you drop out of school in 9 days, your "place of residence" is where you live September through May, not where you live in the Summer.
Just because something is widespread and encouraged on College campuses doesn't mean it's necessarily legal.
-
Well, it is voting fraud.
Yes, but still, is that really as serious as child pornography? Child abuse? Assault with a weapon?
-
When I went to my polling place today to cast my vote for an agenda I can support, instead of throwing it away by voting for Bush or Gore, I was once again reminded of one of the many signs that the Federal Election Commission and most (if not all) state Election Commissions are completely out of control.
My tax dollars go to pay for the printing of signs placed on every polling place in Florida that state that voting in the wrong precinct is a felony, punishable by a $5,000 fine and 5 years in prison.
How many people have voted in their old precinct after moving and forgetting to change their registration?
How many have moved during the "blackout period" when they couldn't change their registration if they wanted to, and still voted?
How many have voted absentee in their home city for four years while away at college?
Are these folks really as dangerous as other crimes with the same 5 year maximum penalty:
Assault with a weapon.
Battery on a police officer.
Battery of child by throwing, tossing, projecting, or expelling certain fluids or materials. (blood, urine, feces, seminal fluid)
Burglary of an unoccupied vehicle or dwelling.
Purse snatching (if you don't have a weapon on you.)
Child abuse that doesn't cause permanent injury.
Possession of child pornography.
Voting in the wrong precinct is considered to be as serious a crime as all of those in Florida. Does that strike anybody as just a tad irrational?
-
Hey you are more then welcome to start your own "Lets let murderers vote" campaign. I'm sure it will be real sucessful.
Felony does not necessarily equal murder.
It's a felony in many states to vote in your old precinct if you move and forget to update your registration. (In Florida, it's 5 years in prison.)
It's a felony in many states to have sex with someone to whom you aren't married.
It's a felony in some states to have oral sex with someone to whom you *ARE* married. (And this has been upheld in the courts.)
It's a felony to make an unauthorized copy of Microsoft Windows on your PC.
Do you really think people should lose their Constitutional rights over these transgressions, or any of the literally tens of thousands of other bullshit felony laws in this country?
-
The branch that passed the bill in the first place, which is the same branch as the branch that can ovverride vetos with a 2/3s vote.
Not all things are done with bills, I'm telling you. The EPA does things every day that are supported by their own regulations, not any law on the books.
The interpretation of the ADA is a hot topic in Congress, and in the Courts, because the Executive branch basically sets all of the law regarding it due to an incredibly vague law.
As for the "hypothetical" situation I named, Al Gore is proposing to do exactly that.
Should a third party candidate ever actually win office, then you can be sure that a good amount of people will start seriously considering 3rd party candidates for the LEGISLATURE, where appropriations(sp?) are created and passed.
Historically, it's the other way around. Look at the last third-party President who was elected; Abraham Lincoln. His party, the Republicans, had to claim massive legislature gains first.
It's less so now, with the popular vote loosely controlling the Electoral College, but it is still a matter of winning at lower levels first before you can win the Presidency.
That's why these numbers are important:
Number of elected or appointed officials in various parties around the country:
Libertarian: 313
Green: 72
Reform: 7
Constitution: 1
Natural Law: 0
-
Are you sure about that?
Here's a hypothetical for you:
Congress passes a law giving schools $20 billion to be used on Internet technology, to be administrated by the Department of Redundancy Department.
President Bore's appointee to the DoRD implements a regulation that says "in order to get this money, you have to install filtering software."
Now which branch's opinion on filtering technology is more important?
Things like this happen daily.
-
As usual, the candidates' stand on most of these issues is pretty irrelevant. The president is a member of the executive branch; they don't make the laws, they enforce them.
The majority of "laws" today are in the form of regulations from the executive branch that carry the force of law unless Congress or the courts rule on them.
I normally vote Libertarian, but the closeness of this election has me a little nervous. I'm going to be (gag, choke) voting for Gore, just because I'm afraid that Bush might win and push our government's spending on military supremacy and the war on drugs back into the 80's.
Then you are part of the problem.
You can't get smaller government by voting for a candidate who supports much, much larger government.
It's not possible to vote against a candidate; all you are doing is endorsing Al Gore's agenda.
Your vote carries far more weight as an endorsement than it carries as a vote for a candidate.
Look at the 1992 election; 20+% of the electorate voted Clinton/Gore into office, but their endorsement was seen by many as a mandate.
Those 20% carried weight like they were 55%.
BTW, Gore won't spend less on the drug war, and he'll continue the massive misdeployment of our military that renders it far less effective than budget cuts could ever reflect. If those are your criteria, he's no better than Bush.
-
Uhhhmmmm, the Fortune 500 is publically owned... Ever hear of stockholders???
That doesn't meet their definition; they want laws in place to prevent any significant fraction of the stock being held by one person.
The more radical among them (you know, the kind of people Nader would appoint to cabinet posts and Supreme Court positions) want the government to own the majority of the stock, and thus directly control the companies, "in the public interest".
-
Isn't it amazing that the government manages to take half my income every month, but still can't pay their employees very well?
BTW, those of you voting for Nader, know that he won't help the problem; the Green Party has recently removed this from their platform in order to get him elected, but their platform used to include public ownership of the top 500 corporations.
That's right, basically every corporate job in our industry would become government work. So if you'd like to get paid this shitty, Vote Nader.
As for those who work in the corporations 501 through infinity, you'll just need to deal with the fact that your computers, automobiles, and consumer electronics will be built by the folks responsible for $600 toilet seats and $200 hammers. Also, that all your package delivery services would be run by the folks responsible for the sorry state of affairs in the Post Office.
-