Gore wins! Now get over it.

[ElvisL1ves]

Since there haven't been many election posts in the last few days, try clicking this one (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/palmbeach.recount/index.html). Any comments from the "Bush won, now get over it" contingent?

Yes, yes, I know the multi-media full-state hand count is not yet complete. I'm just stirring the pot for now, and looking forward to how Bush apologists might explain it when (as I would bet, not if) his occupancy of our White House is shown to be illegitimate.

[Fenris]

Any comments? I normally avoid election threads, but since you asked I have just one: "yawn"

I'm sick of hearing about the election. It's over. We're stuck with the results. There is no chance that there Bush'll resign. There's no chance for an impeachment over this. Even if Gore did get the most votes (and there was no overwhelming evidence in that article one way or the other), at this point: who cares? Bush is in for the next four years, and all the yelling and whining about it is dull. All that this ongoing shrieking (not by you personally, but in general) is doing is desensitizing the populace to any legitimate complaints. I'd be saying the same thing if Gore had become president and the Bush supporters were repetitivly harping on it.

Fenris

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Everybody lost. We voluntarily (again) as a society eliminated the only logical reason for democracy, which was majority rule. Some people never even knew there was a logical reason for democracy. The 400 people who run this country had the best party of their lives. They think we're all idiots anyway for not even knowing they exist.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Fenris
desensitizing the populace to any legitimate complaints.

Sorry 'bout the word "legitimate". I meant to say "any complaints where the outcome could be affected"

Fenris

[bungie_us]

My only comment is that this latest news is further reason to eliminate the Electoral College, a grossly outdated sop to the slave states. Of course, maybe it would be better to simply eliminate the slave states altogether. Wait. That's a different thread, ain't it? Shit. Where's the remote?

[Monster104]

We voluntarily (again) as a society eliminated the only logical reason for democracy, which was majority rule. Some people never even knew there was a logical reason for democracy.

Except we don't live in a democracy, which kinda makes your whole post pointless.

[kiffa]

And, without more diligence, we may be stuck with someone who holds democratic values that are, ah, sometimes disposable. Let's look at another recent example of "throw the election results out" or "some votes are worth more than others"

Take the hog farmers, for instance. They were required to pay USDA money for each 100 lbs of pork sold. These funds were used to finance that ad campaign "that other white meat". About 15,000 small farmers said no we don't want to pay that anymore so an election was called and the continuation of this "free advertising" was defeated by the vast majority of hog farmers. Ok, that seems fair enough to me.

No way, said Bush. He ignored the election results and has insisted that hog farmers continue to pay USDA the money to continue the eat pork campaign because BIG hog farmers appealed to him to continue this free advertising. I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.

News source: National Public Radio

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

I'm not as easy to persuade and conquer as you are. Democracy is Jefferson's word. Subtract everything Jefferson did for this country and you would be correct by default. If you are suggesting we live in a dictatorship, I disagree. If you think a Republic (res publica) isn't based on democracy, most people would disagree, by definition of their right to vote.

[waterj2]

Yeah, those people probably meant to vote for Gore, but couldn't follow fairly simple instructions, and thus didn't. Those ballots, however, did not actually show a legal vote. They could not be counted. So far, every count of ballots that could legally be counted has shown Bush as the winner.

If you're going to suggest that some votes are worth more than others, I'll agree. The votes that have only one candidate selected are worth more than those that have two or more candidates selected.

[Stratocaster]

I still have no problem believing it possible that Gore had more voters intending to vote for him in Florida than Bush, even without Palm Beach County. With a statewide victory margin that narrow, anything is possible. The fact that this might be so demands that we do whatever we can to avoid this outcome in the future, to the extent it was a result of poor ballot design or murky standards. Personally, I don't believe any handcount or statistical analysis will ever prove anything conclusively one way or the other.

But that doesn't mean Bush was NOT elected legitimately, not if "legitimate" = "by the rules agreed upon prior to the election." Some problems, even if we concede they are real, have no remedy after the fact. It's not as if Bush could even have conceded (I'm not implying he was inclined to). Legally cast ballots decide the election, that's all. If we narrow our focus to consider Palm Beach County alone, there's just nothing to be done retroactively, it seems to me.

Or am I misunderstanding you? What should we (or Bush) do with this information? What reaction would please you?

[elucidator]

What would satisfy me?

Al Gore takes over for Dick (Hearthrob) Cheney as VP

George W. commits ritual seppuku in Rose Garden.

That would pretty much get it, I suppose.

[tracer]

Brian Bunnyhurt wrote:

The 400 people who run this country had the best party of their lives. They think we're all idiots anyway for not even knowing they exist.
Um ... if their existence is such a big secret, how is it that you know about them?

Besides, we all know the country is really being run by Roswell-esque gray aliens disguised as people.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Good question. Its simple really, I know that money is not happiness, so I am equal with them in this regard, but, I also know that money is control, so I also share this mindset with them. The folks who climb over themselves to get an extra dollar here and there don't know either. They don't know they aren't happy because of it, and that they are controlled because of it. The evidence that "those" people exist is real, just not served up on the information platforms they control.

If poor people want to think and act like an "ultra-rich" person, then they should vote for guarantees and services (such as healthcare and education and social security) that eliminate the need for money. That's crystal clear intelligence, and that's also beating them at their own game. If one doesn't have alot of money, then they should first help to make money less necessary to their survival. The best things in life really are free. What are the chances of poor people thinking like a rich person? I don't know, what are the chances of a rich person thinking like a poor person?

Note: Money is government property. So sad, so simple.

[Mac007]

It's now 401! :cool:

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
The folks who climb over themselves to get an extra dollar here and there don't know either. They don't know they aren't happy because of it, and that they are controlled because of it.
Nice rant, Brian -- but aren't you one of those climbing people? So you are saying you know you are unhappy and controlled and are therefore superior to the ignorant masses? Well yippee-ki-yay. :rolleyes:
If poor people want to think and act like an "ultra-rich" person, then they should vote for guarantees and services (such as healthcare and education and social security) that eliminate the need for money.
Last time we met, you were railing against the evils of communism (you even called Jesus a communist somewhat bizarrely). A week later you are suddenly an ardent supporter of government run institutions. What gives? I've heard of reeds swaying in the wind, but this is ridiculous.

[SPOOFE]

Hmm... I'll tell everyone everything the article contains, in two words: "More conjecture."

Conjecture don't win nobody the White House, m'boy. Gore won nothing. Unless you want to live in denial for the next four years.

[tracer]

SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:

Unless you want to live in denial for the next four years.
Just like Cleopatra's royal river barge?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Bob Cos

But that doesn't mean Bush was NOT elected legitimately, not if "legitimate" = "by the rules agreed upon prior to the election."

Well, which rules are we going by? Do we include the rule/law that states that the top candidates, Bush and Gore, should have been the first two voting holes on the ballot, but were not? Because if you include THAT law, then no, he wasn't elected legitimately. (And whether a democrat designed the ballot and whether others signed off on it is not the point. The point is that the ballot was not designed properly, according to Florida law).

Just picking some of the nits that have left me in a state of utter despair whenever I hear the words "president" and "bush" next to each other in reference to current events as opposed to history.

Stoid

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
Everybody lost. We voluntarily (again) as a society eliminated the only logical reason for democracy, which was majority rule.

The Founding Fathers would have cringed at your terminology. Our republic is designed to protect the individual from the mob, as well as the populace from the government. "Majority Rules" - Ack! Heaven forfend.

stoid

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Communism is just another form of hierarchy, and if you see the world in black (communism) and white (capitalism) then it proves my point. Also, it sounds like you are admitting much more than I ever was as per money-digging and unhappiness. Majority always rules by nature, whether they do it pro-actively or cowardly-passively, and where were your rosey definitions during slavery and women's insuffrage? You can't protect anyone from the majority unless the majority wills it, see marijuana laws, and please note that you demonize the majority by assuming they are dangerous to their own idea of rights. They cannot extend rights to themselves and not others and also call them rights, those would be called privileges. In other words, during slavery, freedom was a privilege. Did you mention terminology?

[DoctorJ]

I, for one, will "get over it" when one of two things happens:

1.) Republicans and their apologists, up to and including President Bush, admit that had the intent of all the Florida voters been accurately recorded and tabulated, Al Gore probably would have won the election. That is, Bush is in office as a result of a technicality, and not the true will of the people.

2.) Clear evidence emerges to the contrary.

(3.) Hi, Opal!)

The West Palm votes have always been the ones I was concerned with. You have to believe that about 90% of the Gore double votes were intended for Buchanan or McReynolds to believe that they didn't change the outcome.

The discrepancy was due to bias inherent in the ballot, NOT simply the inability of Gore voters to follow directions. In any election, x people are going to screw it up, and you not only have to do everything you can to minimize x, but you have to see that the x screw-ups affect the candidates proportionally. The second, I would say, is more important than the first. Neither was done with this ballot--the design was such that a Gore voter was somewhat more likely to make an error than a Bush voter. The vote was close enough that it made a difference. It is only unfortunate that no one had the foresight to anticipate this. (This is why I advocate rotating the names on the ballots.)

All that said, I don't think there was anything to be done about these votes after the fact. I admit that Bush won on the "technicalities", although he got spectacularly lucky in who had final say over many of the "technicalities". I don't ask for Bush's resignation. All I ask is that he and his supporters stop claiming that the arguments against the legitimacy of the election results are ridiculous.

Dr. J

[2sense]

Stoidela:

A mob is an unstable group of people roaming around waving torches and pitchforks and breaking stuff.
Majority rule is consulting citizens and taking the course most approve of.
I hope you can see the difference.
-

Monster104:

I had thought that we had stamped out the ignorance of "America is not a democracy".
Hie yourself off to the "Explain in detail why democracy cannot exist in a republic (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=56554)" thread.
-

I am content to wait for a more complete count is in before pigeonholing Bush defenders.

-----
Just my 2sense
Partisan mudslinging is Great Debates. - David B

[Jodi]

Well, I have to place my self in former Governor Racicot's camp: If there are two holes punched in the ballot, how can you ever establish who the individual intended to vote for? The article seems to assume the people intended to vote for Gore? What's up with that? How do you know who Betty Liebowitz, aged 87, intended to vote for? You don't, and any attempt to say to the contrary is "mere speculation," just as the Republican spokesperson said.

If the ballots are double-punched, they are invalid and cannot be counted. This to me is just common sense. To engage in speculating whom these people really intended to vote for seems to me to be nothing more than navel-gazing. The ballots were invalid; they were thrown out; Bush won. Gore would have won if the ballots had not been invalid or if they were all counted for him? So what? Gore presumably would have won if Bush had been hit by a truck the night before the election. But Bush wasn't and Gore didn't -- win, that is. He lost. And Bush is president. And I firmly believe that a lot of people should just get over it, though I see little indication that they will. I notice that a lot of people weeping over "democracy lost" and deploring how American ideals were compromised in the election do not seem to care much about the tenet of democracy that dictates that once a winner is chosen, the people accede to that choice and move on, much less the American ideal of supporting and respecting the office of the presidency, regardless of whether you personally care for the president.

[ElvisL1ves]

The question was asked by Bob Cos, quite reasonably, about what the people and Bush should do at such time as there is no longer a reasonable case to be made that he was elected either by the will of the people or by the technicalities of the law. Even though Bush is, in fact, President, the question does have answers.

First, as for Bush, he should recognize (privately will do, but publicly would be more honorable) that the hard-right agenda he's promoting so aggressively in this short window while the GOP has control of both houses of Congress is NOT what the people voted for or want, and that it's in his best political interest and that of his party to go back to the middle course we DID vote for. Simply put, he should practice being a "uniter, not a divider", just as he promised. A little more sense of how future historians will regard this episode would serve him well.

Second, as for we beleaguered voters, we should simply keep reminding him of the above, and expressing it at the polls. Meanwhile, we should keep pressing for the voting mechanisms to be fixed, of course (including the Electoral College or not) - no arguments to the contrary have reached these eyes or ears.

Those things have been true all along, though. What has also been true is that we have a right and an obligation to know the truth about what really happened.

[DSYoungEsq]

I'm not going to bother to read the intervening posts, I'm just responding to the OP.

We already knew that the butterfly ballot hurt Al Gore by resulting in considerable over-voting and/or mis-voting in Palm Beach County. We also know that any voter who turned in a ballot with either two identifiable votes for President, or with one identifiable vote for the 'wrong' slate of electors, made a mistake that would never invalidate the result of tabulation. Therefore, Gore did NOT win the Florida vote. At best, he should have won the election in Florida.


Of course, reading the response from Mr. Racicot makes one wonder why the Republicans have to resort to acting as if they are brain dead when dealing with this issue... :rolleyes:

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

You likewise assumed that people didn't know who they were voting for. The analysis in question can make certain assumptions. For instance, if Gore and Buchanan was punched, we can assume a mistake. We can assume a direction of the mistake by assuming how the mistake was made. We are not free to assume that because they screwed up then Bush deserves to be president. It was in ILLEGAL ballot in some instances. I don't share your assumption that we need to move on in all circumstances, there must be regret to injustice and if people feel that a mistake was really made, they may vote differently in four years to correct it. Also, some of us want to know if corruption had anything to do with it. I just spent four years watching Republicans demonize a lame-duck president needlessly. They have figured out that they not only want to throw Democrats off their game, but to make people afraid of them. There is nothing to be afraid of. They are proven hypocrites everytime they try to sell themselves as the moral alternative.

[Bill H.]

Man, I've read all the posts above, and I get the impression that noone even bothered to read the article.

It's total bullshit. It has absolutely zero grounding in logic. Basically it says that a number of people voted for Gore and an additional candidate. The article concludes from this that those voters really wanted to vote for Gore, therefore he won.

a) Why is it reasonable to assume that anyone who voted for two candidates wanted to vote for Gore?
b) Why is it reasonable to count the vote of someone who voted for two candidates?

What a load of crap.

Geez, when will this end? Get over it already.

[Jodi]

BRIAN --

You likewise assumed that people didn't know who they were voting for.

Incorrect. I'm sure each of them individually knew exactly who they intended to vote for. The point is that with two holes punched, there is no way to establish what that intention was.

The analysis in question can make certain assumptions.

No, we can't. That's the whole point. If the ballot indicates a vote for two different candidates -- which, being punched twice, it would -- then it must be invalidated, precisely because we may not make any assumption about what the voter intended.

We are not free to assume that because they screwed up then Bush deserves to be president.

Actually, this is not an assumption, it is a value judgment ("Bush deserves to be president") or a flat-out fact ("Bush is president"). I have no problem with awarding the election after discarding invalid ballots; in fact, I see no alternative. If the ballot is "screwed up" to the extent that it is invalidated (which these were) then it is not counted -- precisely because the intention of the voter cannot be ascertained and the magnitude of the error cannot be surmounted at all, and certainly not be assuming the intent of the voter, which obviously cannot be ascertained.

It was in ILLEGAL ballot in some instances.

These ballots were illegal? I don't think so. I think they were confusing, which is not the same thing.

I don't share your assumption that we need to move on in all circumstances, there must be regret to injustice and if people feel that a mistake was really made, they may vote differently in four years to correct it.

I realize some people do not agree with this. And you'll have four years to fume about it.

Also, some of us want to know if corruption had anything to do with it.

There is no indication from the article in question that corruption entered into the design of the ballot or the discarding of the invalid votes. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

I just spent four years watching Republicans demonize a lame-duck president needlessly. . .

Blah blah blah. I don't care what excuse people make for refusing to accept that the election is over and the president is a man named Bush. I don't care whether the people in question like him or not. I just wish they would give the Florida issue at least enough of a rest to show respect for the office if not the man. He IS the president. He WILL BE the president for the next four years, like it or not. These are not statements made out of bragging or to lord it over Democrats; they are simple, incontravertible facts. Deal with it.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

You missed the point, perhaps entirely. We were talking about an analysis of who would have won, not who should now become president. As such, we can make assumptions about who a voter intended to vote for based on probablity and the direction of the mistake minus margin of error. Sounds like you're the one in denial here. Bush is illegitimate, get over it.

[Jodi]

You missed the point, perhaps entirely. We were talking about an analysis of who would have won, not who should now become president.

No, "we" weren't. "We" were talking about whether the article referenced in the OP (you remember the OP?) made any difference to "Bush apologists" (of which I do not consider myself) and how "we" would explain it. "We" explain it by merely pointing out that the Palm Beach Post cannot trumpet BUTTERFLY BALLOT COST GORE THE ELECTION without assuming that all or most of the invalid votes would have gone to Gore -- and we cannot assume that. There is no way to establish the intent of the individual voters and therefore NO assumption that may be drawn from their ballots -- except that they are invalid as being insufficient to express the voter's intent.

As such, we can make assumptions about who a voter intended to vote for based on probablity and the direction of the mistake minus margin of error.

Ah, I see. So now you assume whom the voter would "probably" have voted for because you admit that you cannot prove whom the voter tried to vote for. And this advances the argument how?

Sounds like you're the one in denial here.

I don't think so. At this point, Bush is president; the intent of the voters in question cannot be established; and assumptions and/or conclusion as to what might have been, based on probability or guess-work, mean less than nothing in the real world. If you sense denial in any of those statements, feel free to point it out.

Bush is illegitimate, get over it.

No, I'm pretty sure his parents were married. He IS the president. He WILL BE the president for four years -- these are incontestable FACTS that you appear to be unable to digest. Whether his presidency is "legitimate" or not in YOUR eyes is frankly something I can't exert myself to care about. Like I said -- spend the next four years eating your own liver over this, I truly don't care; I just don't see that it's very productive.

[Guinastasia]

We've had "illegitimate" presidents before-they were voted out after four years, the country moves on.

I really wish Gore had won, but he didn't, and I think he's probably going to make a better come back later on, hopefully. If not, then hopefully we'll get someone better.

Just as long as Bush stays away from the environment. Please God, don't let him near the environment.
Or the nukes. PLEASE. Just put a big Mister Yuck STicker on the nukes.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

We can assume the voter's intent based on certain information. Just because you don't want to doesn't mean we can't. We merely assume they intended not to double punch.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Just as long as Bush stays away from the environment. Please God, don't let him near the environment.
Or the nukes. PLEASE. Just put a big Mister Yuck STicker on the nukes.


You forgot the Supreme Court.

And the economy.

But I agree...if I have to pick just one thing he has to stay away from, I'd have to go with the environment.

[Guinastasia]

NO, the nukes. We don't want him playing with them. Mr. Cheney better make sure little Georgie won't touch. They're so nice and shiny....
MOMMY!!!

Like Dennis Miller said-just don't fuck anything up-just kick back and don't screw with things. Right now, that's the best advice we could hope for sometimes...

[SPOOFE]

We can assume the voter's intent based on certain information.

Sure we can. We can assume all day long. We can assume the Moon is made of cheese. We can assume the world is flat. We can assume that magical fairies fly around putting dreams into little children's heads.

Assumption doesn't equal fact. And you can't choose a President based on "assumptions". Well, a rational person can't, anyway.

You need "facts". You know what "facts" are, Mr. Bunnyhurt? 'Cuz, in all the threads I've seen you in, you seem short on them.

[PunditLisa]

Just as long as Bush stays away from the environment. Please God, don't let him near the environment.

Oh, please. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

If the environment is in trouble, blame yourself. Some of the most damaging pollutants are by-products of energy production. And as long as WE Americans remain the #1 users of energy in the world, we will be the biggest polluters in the world. Especially since it's well documented that we don't want to be bothered with cleaner though more expensive alternatives, such as solar energy. (Jimmy Carter was the only President in recent history who really pushed for an alternative to fossil fuels. And remember how quickly we booted HIM out of office? Why? It certainly wasn't our concern for the environment. It was the ECONOMY, stupid.)

If you haven't traded your car in for a bike, if you haven't turned off your a.c., if you haven't organized a car-pool in order to reduce toxic emissions, then please quit yer bitching. Because you don't need a Presidential mandate to trade in your Yukon for a Yugo.

Finally, might I remind you that the U.S. was the lone hold-out on the nuclear testing ban proposal...under President Clinton?? Not that nuclear testing damages the environment any.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Stoid
Well, which rules are we going by?
The rule that the Supreme Court has the final say. If you didn't like that rule, you should have tried to have it changed before the election.

Brian Bunnyhurt
You missed the point, perhaps entirely. We were talking about an analysis of who would have won, not who should now become president. As such, we can make assumptions about who a voter intended to vote for based on probablity and the direction of the mistake minus margin of error. Sounds like you're the one in denial here. Bush is illegitimate, get over it.
Make up your mind. Are we talking about who would have been president given some hypotheticasl situation, or are we talking about who should be president? "Legitimacy" is about should, not would.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Its called natural deductive reasoning, no facts required. Is this one of your attempts to dismiss the use of reason again? Anyway, it is a fact that Bush did not receive the majority of votes nationally and does not deserve the presidency for other reasons too. This will handicap him in the next election. Some concerned voters, especially those who think for themselves, regret illegitimate presidents.

Ryan,

Make up your own mind, this is about who should be president, not who is president. When an injustice occurs, we investigate to find out what went wrong, not everyone is a religious fatalist. When someone is murdered, we often say, that should not have happened. A fatalist will say, via scripture, that was meant to happen. See why conservatives are mostly religious now?

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Stoid
Originally posted by Bob Cos

But that doesn't mean Bush was NOT elected legitimately, not if "legitimate" = "by the rules agreed upon prior to the election."

Well, which rules are we going by? Do we include the rule/law that states that the top candidates, Bush and Gore, should have been the first two voting holes on the ballot, but were not? Because if you include THAT law, then no, he wasn't elected legitimately.
Stoid, enlighten me (seriously). Even if we concede that the ballot was designed in violation of the rules (is this actually a fact? I've heard both sides make contrary arguments), what did the pre-election rules dictate we do after the votes were cast? What was the remedy for Palm Beach specifically? What would have assigned legitimacy for you from the Bush camp in response to a problem that was not of his design, that he had nothing to do with?

That's my point/question, nothing more.

[SPOOFE]

Its called natural deductive reasoning, no facts required. Is this one of your attempts to dismiss the use of reason again?

Are you some sort of twisted, LSD-induced Vulcan or something? What you're spouting is NOT reason, it is conjecture. It is not reasonable to proclaim someone the winner of an election based on an assumption. Especially when the facts (Bush got more votes, in every single friggin' recount) fly in the face of that assumption.

Reason is based on facts. Reason is NOT based on conjecture. Reason is NOT based on "guessing". Reason is NOT based on "he MAY have gotten more votes". Reason is based on fact.

Repeat those five words, Mr. Bunnyhurt, over and over. "Reason is based on fact... reason is based on fact."

[SPOOFE]

Even if we concede that the ballot was designed in violation of the rules (is this actually a fact?

Yes, that's a fact. The law calls for a certain set of requirements for a ballot, and the "Butterfly ballot" violated some of the requirements.

The reason why this was such a troubling issue is because the "Butterfly ballot" had been in use for a long, long time... years, I believe it was... and nobody noticed something was wrong until this election. Which really sucks for everyone... but if you can't count the vote, you can't count the vote. That's just the way things go. The alternative? Violate another law to get the votes counted... but last I heard, two wrongs don't make a right (but three lefts do!).

[Milossarian]

What do I think, Elvis? I think the same thing I thought when the Miami Herald came out with a story showing their recounts pointed to a Bush win - irrelevant, but interesting.

That will be my view when the next newspaper shows Bush actually won, then a TV station shows Gore actually won, etc. etc.

I think the certified election results after numerous recounts show us who actually won. Well, that and the guy living in the White House.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Assumptions are assumed facts. You have made a few assumptions yourself, namely that Bush winning was “right” and that double-punched ballots cannot be speculatively reconsidered after the fact due to a faulty ballot, even though they are legally considered to be admissible as such before the deadline. "Conjecture" would only apply if we "guessed" who voted for whom based on exit polls and then implied corruption or a mistake. But for reasons, there are assumed "facts" to consider. We have a case of an illegal confusing ballot that people complained about before the count. This resulted in a disproportionate number of people punching two holes for both leading candidates having been led to think it was needed for a VP (assumption based on much testimony), thus the statistical analysis was performed (by assuming it was a mistake, not a freak coincidence of stupidity, which is the assumption being made by default and ignores the faulty ballot).

An unbiased statistician compares the rejected ballots and infers a pattern. The assumed fact here is that there is an underlying cause to the mistake, and the intention can be re-determined by the evidence in order to make logical sense of it, otherwise it remains a deliberate mystery, which is a contradiction. (Of course, it already makes sense anyway to most people who are unbiased because they fairly "assume" that things go wrong occasionally and it makes sense, by definition, to try to figure it out, otherwise we would be unscientific by waiting for unproveable facts to appear when we could logically deduce the phenomenon). Repeat: The fact that two holes were punched and the mistaken part of the ballot is identified means that we can infer intent based on the knowledge of the mistake and the set of holes punched (not all cases would make sense, and would be thus discarded). In other words, the counter-example would be non-sensical or meaningless or unexplained, not the other way around. No facts other than a mistaken ballot and normal behavior are required to proceed.

Reasoning is a process where reasons makes sense of related phenomena, it is not merely a reiteration of proven facts, but is most often invoked in lieu of the proven facts to construct theories. Hence assumptions, or assumed facts to justify a conclusion to make sense of the phenomenon. This is the process of scientific knowledge. We can in many instances, for example, call reasoning a string of facts, minus one, and then theorize as to what the missing fact is, if we can eliminate the possibilities to one. Furthermore, unrelated to this ballot debate, I can draw conclusions from valid logical assumptions without knowing they are scientific facts per se, and these assumptions would then become factual if the conclusion were consistently true by corresponding to other related conclusions. Such is the case with evolution, where theoretical reasoning establishes facts by the evidence because the only counter-example violates the laws of physics (too bad if there is a competing idea that promises greater rewards). In fact, we cannot easily assert an unseen scientific cause without reason or theory, and cannot refute it by mere denial or magical substitutes.

You are attempting to deny an argument without arguing it at all with a counter-example. You are asserting that knowledge or understanding is impossible "before the fact." This is your negation based on an opinion, but it is wrong by pretending to be factual or based on reason. By the way, an opinion is that which is not purely based on fact or reason, but that doesn't make it false either. We can't deny an argument based on the idea that it is invalid regardless of the assumption of conclusion. You say we can't know who they intended to vote for, when we already know who they tried to vote for on a simple faulty ballot design. Even if counted as half-votes, they seem to beat Bush.

I surrender this defense to statisticians, who should be debating this thread, not I.

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by PunditLisa
(Jimmy Carter was the only President in recent history who really pushed for an alternative to fossil fuels. And remember how quickly we booted HIM out of office? Why? It certainly wasn't our concern for the environment. It was the ECONOMY, stupid.)

Just to add some interesting notes about Jimmy Carter (who I like):

Jimmy Carter also pushed relatively heavily for production of US coal resources and coal power, in addition to looking to alternative energy, including solar, and conservation. He had a much more balanced approach to energy, IMO, than Clinton ever did.

Oh, and so no one calls me a liar again, I have some links:

Jimmy Carter's 1980 State of the Union Address (http://carterlibrary.galileo.peachnet.edu/su80jec.htm)

Our Nation will then have a major conservation effort, important initiatives to develop solar power, realistic pricing based on the true value of oil, strong incentives for the production of coal and other fossil fuels in the United States, and our Nation's most massive peacetime investment in the development of synthetic fuels.

Encyclopedia Americana - Jimmy Carter (http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/bios/39pcart.html)

In mid-1979, in the wake of widespread shortages of gasoline, Carter advanced a long-term program designed to solve the energy problem. He proposed a limit on imported oil, gradual price decontrol on domestically produced oil, a stringent program of conservation, and development of alternative sources of energy such as solar, nuclear, and geothermal power, oil and gas from shale and coal, and synthetic fuels. In what was probably his most significant domestic legislative accomplishment, he was able to get a significant portion of his energy program through Congress.

Jimmy Carter (http://library.thinkquest.org/12587/contents/personalities/jcarter/jc.html)

In April 1977 Carter gave the first of a series of major addresses to the nation on energy, which was to become one of the dominant concerns of his administration. Congress approved several of Carter's energy proposals, including the deregulation of natural gas prices, by 1985, and incentives for such conservation measures as conversion to coal in industry and fuel-saving improvements in the home.

Energy Programs Under Carter (http://www.wld.com/conbus/weal/wenergy.htm)

The goal of a comprehensive national energy program was achieved with the passage of the National Energy Act of 1978, which consisted of five distinct pieces of legislation. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 8201 et seq.) set standards and provided financing for conservation in buildings. The Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 8301 et seq.) encouraged the transition from oil and gas to coal in boilers. The Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 2601) granted Congress authority over the interstate transmission of electric power. The Natural Gas Policy Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 3301) unified the gas market and promoted the deregulation of the natural gas industry. The Energy Tax Act (26 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.) approved tax credits to promote conservation.

and finally, since this has been hijacked enough,

DOE History (http://www.osti.gov/html/doe/about/history/doehist.html#ZZ5)

Carter's National Energy Plan consisted of approximately l00 proposals ranging from administrative actions to new laws and regulations. The plan placed heavy emphasis on reducing energy consumption, implementing conservation, and developing alternative energy technologies. Although Carter abandoned hope of achieving energy independence, he anticipated that by 1985 the United States could reduce growth in energy demand, reduce oil imports and gasoline consumption, increase coal production, and install insulation and solar energy in millions of homes and businesses.

[Tranquilis]

Originally posted by DoctorJ
I, for one, will "get over it" when one of two things happens:

1.) Republicans and their apologists, up to and including President Bush, admit that had the intent of all the Florida voters been accurately recorded and tabulated, Al Gore probably would have won the election. That is, Bush is in office as a result of a technicality, and not the true will of the people.

2.) Clear evidence emerges to the contrary.



You'll get neither.

And I don't care if you like it or not. This is one of those ugly things that grown-ups just gotta deal with.

Go out and fix the system. I think that's my new sig line...

[elucidator]

Lord, how I do admire you hard-headed realists, the way you go straight to the point, focusing on the cogent issues, sends gasps of admiration in my fuzzy-thinking little mind.

"He is occupying the White House" Well, that cuts right to the quick, doesn't it. Irrefutable. Plain truth, any fool can see.

Nonetheless, it buggers the question. The central issue is legitimacy. I have heard much blather and bloviation about "The Rules". Everybody agreed to the same rules in advance, therefore any outcome that adheres to the strict letter of the Rules is inherently legitimate.

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!

If Al Gore had discovered an arcane Florida law that permitted him to take 10,000 Bush votes and drop them in the Pacific, would you then be saying "well, that's the rules, get over it". More Americans voted for Gore than Bush. Recent evidence strongly indicates that more Floridians went to the poll intending to vote for Gore. The will of the people is the only source of legitimacy, the rules are secondary, as they have no other purpose but to ensure that the will of the people is made manifest. If they serve to thwart that end, then they cease to be legitimate.

After all the self-righteous fooforaw about Clinton's character, this poses the question: what display of character are we witnessing of a man who claims a victory he has good reason to believe is, at best, questionable, and then proceeds to behave as though he had received a unimpeachable mandate. Have you seen any pangs of conscience displayed? Any hint that the manner of his election troubles his thoughts?

The White House is legally ocuppied, all the stamps and seals are in place, and thats that. That makes it a fact. It doesn't confer legitimacy. The man who occupies that seat should not be doing so.

That, too, is a fact.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
You missed the point, perhaps entirely. We were talking about an analysis of who would have won, not who should now become president.

Make up your own mind, this is about who should be president, not who is president.
What's the point of arguing with someone who can't even decide what he's talking about?

[SPOOFE]

A piece of advice, Mr. Bunnyhurt... a long-winded speech does not a cogent point make.

Assumptions are assumed facts.

That doesn't mean it's true. The Unassumed facts - that is, the fact that Bush won every single count and recount - contradict your "assumed facts" entirely. Therefore, the assumed facts are not true.

You have made a few assumptions yourself, namely that Bush winning was “right”...

I didn't make the assumption that Bush winning was right... the Unassumed fact that he got more votes tells me, with 100% truth and accuracy, that him winning was right.

Try this... in any of the counts or recounts, did Gore EVER get more votes than Bush? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice... you don't need a 5000 word essay to respond.

and that double-punched ballots cannot be speculatively reconsidered after the fact due to a faulty ballot

To even consider the double-punched ballots, one would have to guess as to what the person voting wanted... you cannot choose a President based on a freaking GUESS. You need Unassumed facts... and, once again, there are no Unassumed facts that indicate that Gore got enough votes to be President.

An unbiased statistician compares the rejected ballots and infers a pattern.

Even the most even-minded and unbiased statistician cannot divine the Will of the Voter when there are two clearly-marked holes in a ballot. Or are you suggesting that "Unbiased" equals "telepathic"?

You are attempting to deny an argument without arguing it at all with a counter-example.

There is no argument if there are no facts to support the argument. Your argument is that we can assume Gore got enough votes to be President. My argument is that only a mentally-deficient person would even consider trying to choose the President based on assumptions.

You are asserting that knowledge or understanding is impossible "before the fact."

Rather than simply call you a liar, I will simply ask that you back up this claim with a cite. Where did I assert this?

This is your negation based on an opinion, but it is wrong by pretending to be factual or based on reason.

No, this is a negation based on an Unassumed fact.... the Unassumed fact that we have standards for a REASON, which is to judge the results of the event for which the standards exist.

Are you suggesting, however, that rules and standards DON'T or SHOULDN'T exist, and we should allow everything to be based on the opinions of hundreds and thousands of random people? No. The standards are UNBIASED... people are NOT unbiased, no matter how hard they try. Changing the standards after-the-fact is BIASED.

Elucidator...

If Al Gore had discovered an arcane Florida law that permitted him to take 10,000 Bush votes and drop them in the Pacific, would you then be saying "well, that's the rules, get over it".

That's exactly what I'd be saying. Try to prove otherwise.

More Americans voted for Gore than Bush.

Too true, too true. And Bush got more Electoral College Votes than Gore. Remind me... which vote, the Popular or Electoral, counts more? Legally, that is.

Recent evidence strongly indicates that more Floridians went to the poll intending to vote for Gore.

And the facts Undeniably indicate that more Floridians actually DID cast a legal ballot for Bush. That's why he won, each and every count and recount.

The will of the people is the only source of legitimacy, the rules are secondary, as they have no other purpose but to ensure that the will of the people is made manifest.

The rules are secondary? Please, by all means, hint at a manner in deducing the will of the people. An unbiased manner, that is. One that doesn't involve calling LaToya Jackson.

what display of character are we witnessing of a man who claims a victory he has good reason to believe is, at best, questionable, and then proceeds to behave as though he had received a unimpeachable mandate.

That's the character of the man who, by law, is the rightful President of the United States of America. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the law.

Have you seen any pangs of conscience displayed? Any hint that the manner of his election troubles his thoughts?


I would hope not. That would be indicative of a truly weak-willed leader. It's strange that you would wish such terrible things on your country. How selfish of you.

The man who occupies that seat should not be doing so.

The Man Who Got The Most Relevant Votes should be President. Guess who go the most relevant votes? (Relevant votes being those cast by the Electoral College... while you may debate whether or not the EC should exist - and, personally, I don't think it should - it is also a fact that it DOES exist, and that it and it alone determined the outcome of the last election).

[Polycarp]

You know, I have come to hate the post-election recrimination threads. But there are two points that are really worth making here:

If early news reports are accurate, there were people who erroneously punched butterfly ballots and were denied replacements in contravention of Florida state law, which specifies that they can receive up to three ballots if they so request. And the people who erroneously punched Buchanan, and were told by election workers to also punch Gore and circle the vote they meant to make, which would be manually counted.

I will agree that determining whether a pregnant chad, or two punches including a minor candidate with opposing views to the major candidate also punched, is a matter of judgment call, and perhaps should not be left to that. I will never concede that people who were told one of the above were not disenfranchised by the Florida election debacle.

There is also the figure bandied around that one can expect an error rate of 2% in vote counts. How many of us work at a job where 98% accuracy on data is acceptable? Even the "d'you want fries with that?" fast-food worker is not going to get away with "Well, I know the register tape shows $502 but here's $493 from the drawer."

George W. Bush was duly elected President according to the Supreme Court's reading of the law involved. It's clear that Mr. Gore had a higher popular vote and may very well have been entitled to electoral votes awarded to Mr. Bush. Nothing we can do about that right now, unless Mr. Bush should by some wild chance decide that he himself is committing a fraud against the American people and should resign in Mr. Gore's favor (as opposed to Mr. Cheney's, who is his legal successor), and convince the courts that he's right in doing so. The probability of this is somewhere in the same range as David B. starting a thread where he calls on us all to repent and accept Jesus and is serious about it.

However, I would think that any honest Republican, disturbed that his party is being accused of "stealing the Presidency" on other-than-lunatic-fringe grounds, would join with honest Democrats who are less interested in proving that Mr. Gore shoulda won than they are in preventing the same sort of mess from happening again, and get our electoral laws, national and state, reformed into something that really works.

Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, but that's what I'd like to believe would happen.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by elucidator


The White House is legally ocuppied, all the stamps and seals are in place, and thats that. That makes it a fact. It doesn't confer legitimacy. The man who occupies that seat should not be doing so.

That, too, is a fact.


Master, I had neglected to publicly declare my slavish devotion to you of late. Permit me to correct that.

I am utterly devoted to you. You rock my world. Command me.

stoid

[elucidator]

[blush!]

[Sofa King]

Okay, here are a couple of facts, as I understand them:

* The Palm Beach ballot's design was, in fact, illegal (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0101/ch0101.htm) according to 101.151 (4) of the Florida state statutes.

* George W. Bush was confirmed by the House of Representatives as President. As a result, he automatically took that office at noon on January 20. All of the fiasco that preceded that moment ceased to be relevant when that happened.

* There are 1410 days remaining in this man's term of office, with each day dripping by like molasses in a snowstorm.

You know, I think you Republicans should sit back for a minute and think about what exactly it is that you are supporting when you try to defend the results of this election. By attempting to explain away the fact that we don't know who won the election and the disturbing events surrounding it, you are helping to perpetuate the perception that Republicans care less about elections, ethics, and the law than they do about securing their power base.

Think about it for a minute. Nixon's condoning and attempting to cover up an overtly criminal act performed in support of his own re-election bid. Reagan defying the explicit instructions of Congress and then feigning no knowledge of the crime (and "Reagan knew everything," according to Oliver North). A Republican Congress attempting to remove a President after over half a decade of the most minute investigation of that President revealed that he lied to a Grand Jury about a f*cking blow job.

And now this.

Walk carefully, my friends. The eyes of the world are upon you, and many of them already do not like what they see.

[Tranquilis]

Originally posted by Sofa King
By attempting to explain away the fact that we don't know who won the election and the disturbing events surrounding it...

Indeed. Here we have an accurate observation. Any declaration of Bush's legitamacy, or lack there-of, as a 'fact' has missed the boat.


A Republican Congress attempting to remove a President after over half a decade of the most minute investigation of that President revealed that he lied to a Grand Jury about a f*cking blow job.


Lying under oath to a Federal Grand Jury about anything is a serious crime. Period.

[Milossarian]

Polycarp:
However, I would think that any honest Republican, disturbed that his party is being accused of "stealing the Presidency" on other-than-lunatic-fringe grounds, would join with honest Democrats who are less interested in proving that Mr. Gore shoulda won than they are in preventing the same sort of mess from happening again, and get our electoral laws, national and state, reformed into something that really works.
Do you have any evidence that Republicans aren't working with Democrats to ensure that this mess never happens again? I've linked evidence in more than one thread that shows that they are.

I'll await your evidence to the contrary, which I suspect will be as forthcoming as evidence of fraud and corruption in the Florida election.

Sofa King - The fact that we don't know who won this election? The majority of us aren't having that problem, regardless of political affiliation.

[minty green]

Originally posted by Milossarian
Sofa King - The fact that we don't know who won this election? The majority of us aren't having that problem, regardless of political affiliation.There's a significant difference between who may or may not have won the election and who won the presidency. Only the former is in doubt.

[Sofa King]

What minty said.

[Jodi]

POLYCARP:

However, I would think that any honest Republican, disturbed that his party is being accused of "stealing the Presidency" on other-than-lunatic-fringe grounds, would join with honest Democrats who are less interested in proving that Mr. Gore shoulda won than they are in preventing the same sort of mess from happening again, and get our electoral laws, national and state, reformed into something that really works.

(My emphasis.) POLY, I'm with you on this. But I see very little evidence, either in the article that prompted this thread or in the majority of election threads to date, that the majority of Democrats still obsessing over this issue are more interested in sorting out the mess than they are in attempting to prove Gore should have won. The latter appears to be their main focus. As long as Democrats continue to focus on undermining the legitimacy of the current presidency, as opposed to election reform, the Republican focus will also remain on defending the legitimacy of the current presidency. In other words, what's sauce for the Republicans is sauce for the Democrats as well.

I am 100% behind people who say "the situation in Florida was a fuster-cluck of mythic proportions and an object lessen that small problems may have enormous consequences. We must reevaluate the system to ensure that this never happens again." Lead on, MacDuff, I'm right behind you. But that's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing "Gore should have won/would have won/did win," all of which is unproven and quite probably unprovable as a statistical certainty, given the vagaries of human error. If any one can give me a PRACTICAL REASON to attempt to prove at this late date that Gore should have won, other than to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency, I would love to hear it. It surely can't be to prove the election process is flawed and needs to be corrected; that is proven already, and is manifeslty NOT the issue the Dems (or some of them) continue to obsess about.

[Polycarp]

I am 100% behind people who say "the situation in Florida was a fuster-cluck of mythic proportions and an object lessen that small problems may have enormous consequences. We must reevaluate the system to ensure that this never happens again." Lead on, MacDuff, I'm right behind you. But that's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing "Gore should have won/would have won/did win," all of which is unproven and quite probably unprovable as a statistical certainty, given the vagaries of human error. If any one can give me a PRACTICAL REASON to attempt to prove at this late date that Gore should have won, other than to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency, I would love to hear it. It surely can't be to prove the election process is flawed and needs to be corrected; that is proven already, and is manifeslty NOT the issue the Dems (or some of them) continue to obsess about.

So? It's not like you and I haven't fought the Battle of the Middle before, is it?

"It is manifestly clear that all the accumulated data of science and the theories founded on them by inductive reasoning are all wrong except when they support our belief because it's obvious that one chapter of the Bible must be read in the literal sense, and anybody who doesn't believe this is supporting the Antichrist, atheism, and compusory pederasty."

versus

"Well, God did not show up in a large purple cloud of smoke two years ago last Tuesday and do a Robin Williams imitation when I allowed for the sake of argument that it was remotely possible He might exist. Therefore I have conclusively proved His non-existence."

The game's the same; only the names are changed.

[Tranquilis]

Originally posted by Jodi
I am 100% behind people who say "the situation in Florida was a fuster-cluck of mythic proportions and an object lessen that small problems may have enormous consequences. We must reevaluate the system to ensure that this never happens again." Lead on, MacDuff, I'm right behind you. But that's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing "Gore should have won/would have won/did win," all of which is unproven and quite probably unprovable as a statistical certainty, given the vagaries of human error. If any one can give me a PRACTICAL REASON to attempt to prove at this late date that Gore should have won, other than to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency, I would love to hear it. It surely can't be to prove the election process is flawed and needs to be corrected; that is proven already, and is manifeslty NOT the issue the Dems (or some of them) continue to obsess about.

Whoo-Hooo..!

Jodi, you rock!

I've only been going on and on about this. It's so gratifying to have others validate my point.

It seems that rather than take the high road, many Dems have dug in their heels, and are, in fact, making themselves look like a bunch of snot-nosed, whiny, sore-loser, spoiled little brats. How dare anyone but a Dem occupy the White House! (Hint: It doesn't belong to you, or any party. It belongs to the Nation!)


Listen-up Dems!
You want my respect? EARN IT! Stop snivelling, and go out and help fix the system! We can't put the Humpty-Dumpty of the past election back together again, so quit crying over it and move forward! If you're offended by what happened in Florida, maybe you ought to research the other states where similar things happened. It wasn't just Florida, you know! And it wasn't just Dem's that were wronged. The Democratic Party Machines in many places are just as corrupt. Don't go around blaming the State officials: WE ELECTED THEM! It's OUR(The people as a whole)FAULT! We got the election we deserved! Why? Because we've been a bunch of lazy asses, and haven't required the level of accountability that we ought to have done. We've disengaged in smug self-righteousness, convinced that we have superior political system in this here country. Well, this is reality come a-callin'! Our system SUCKS because we've allowed it to wither and become corrupt. Now get out of your ivory towers, off your oh-so comfortable behinds, and join me in the dirty job at hand: Fixing the System!


Whew...

Glad I got that off my chest.

Places to go, people to see, things to do:
1) State and local boards/supervisors of elections: Find out who they are, and how they got there.
2) Look at the track record of local & State elections. Do you like what you see? If no, then make a list of issues, present it to the appropriate level officals.
3) Follow-up.
4) Make non-responsive officals PAY for their lack of response by publicising their failure, and by working to have them replaced.
5) REWARD responsive officials by publicising their good work and working to help them keep thier jobs.
6) Do all the above at the National level.
7) Repeat as necessary.
8) Make your own list of tasks. Share it.
9) Listen to others for good ideas. Use them.
10) Support the authors of good ideas: They may have more.

[ElvisL1ves]

[i]Originally posted by Jodi If any one can give me a PRACTICAL REASON to attempt to prove at this late date that Gore should have won, other than to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency, I would love to hear it.[/B]

Glad you asked, then. No, it's not about "undermining the Presidency"; that occurred in November and December and future historians will not be kind to Bush, the GOP, the Supreme Court right wing, or their cheerleaders. I don't see how you can blame us common folk at this point for that while giving a pass to the insiders who got the result you wanted when it mattered.

The issue now is demonstrating sufficiently clearly to the "We got our guy in, now screw you whiners while we ram our agenda into your orifices" bunch on the Republican right exactly which set of policies, philosophies, and overall approach to governing was chosen by the majority of Americans wanted and chose. That stands regardless of the narrower "who really won" question, but the fact of the party affiliation of the current White House occupant has been allowed to let members of that party think they have a mandate - Bush himself has been acting on that premise. Without the delusion that the right-wing agenda has a mandate, it will undermine the argument that we need and want a deep tax cut, no gun control, no environmental protection, no workplace safety etc. (yes, I'm caricaturing for effect).

It's true that the election was about the will of We the People as it stood on 11/7/00, and that date is receding. The popular will may indeed shift to support Bush and the right-wing agenda he's pushing, in spite of that "I'm a uniter" lie he kept telling, and that would indeed legitimize his Presidency. But that hasn't happened yet, and it isn't happening, and keeping up the public pressure on the issue of his legitimacy is a way to help make it happen.

[minty green]

Originally posted by Jodi
If any one can give me a PRACTICAL REASON to attempt to prove at this late date that Gore should have won, other than to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency, I would love to hear it.[Henry Higgins]

You say legitimacy, and I say policy.

Legitimacy! Policy!

Let's call the whole thing off.

[/Henry Higgins]

I'm not interested in whining about Bush's "legitimacy" as president. But a presidential election is held not just to select the head of the executive branch, but to broadly determine the political philosophy and policies the nation should adopt for the next four years. And on those counts, who won the election matters every time Bush attempts to shove another right-wing position down the throats of the American voters.

[wring]

Tranquilis, Jodi, I am really, very happy to see that you admit that things went very badly in Florida (and other places). Yes, we all want to fix the system.

Wouldn't it be helpful, though, to understand what went wrong afore we tried to fix it though?

And, wouldn't it be helpful if we all admitted that not only did things go terribly wrong, but that one effect of those things going horribly wrong was that legitimate voters did not get their votes counted. That actual people went to the polls, attempted to vote correctly and their votes were either not allowed or not counted. Both the Civil rights folks and the bipartisan commission set up by Jeb have made that statement.

[Tranquilis]

Originally posted by minty green
...attempts to shove another right-wing position down the throats of the American voters.

Carefull, now. Roughly half the nation is saying the same thing about left-wing positions. They hate the idea of having to listen to another Democrat in the White House as much as you hate the Republican. Half (roughly) of the Nation thinks Bush is just dandy.

[Jodi]

I asked "Can give me a PRACTICAL REASON to attempt to prove at this late date that Gore should have won, other than to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency?"

. . . to which ELVIS replies:

The issue now is demonstrating sufficiently clearly to the "We got our guy in, now screw you whiners while we ram our agenda into your orifices" bunch on the Republican right exactly which set of policies, philosophies, and overall approach to governing was chosen by the majority of Americans wanted and chose.

1. Under the system of electing a president through the Electoral College, what "the majority of Americans wanted and chose" is NOT the overriding factor in deciding who becomes president. This is not news, nor is it innovative to the Bush Jr. administration. It is perfectly possible to win the majority of the popular vote and lose the presidency -- it has happened before.

2. Whether Bush won by one vote or one thousand or one million in no way impacts his right, ability, and authority to pursue whatever presidential agenda he sees fit now that he is President. And people who disagree with his policies do not have to attack his right to hold that office in order to disagree with those policies.

3. Bush does NOT have a clear mandate to govern; this is proven by the very closeness of the election; that point does not become any more or less telling by attempting to prove that Gore should have won -- a point that is very likely unprovable at this point in any event. Even IF Gore had won, with such a close election he would not have emerged with a clear popular mandate, either. Those are the breaks for BOTH the winner and the loser when the election is a close one.

That stands regardless of the narrower "who really won" question . . .

My point.

. . . but the fact of the party affiliation of the current White House occupant has been allowed to let members of that party think they have a mandate - Bush himself has been acting on that premise.

Actually, I've seen little indication that Bush believes he has a mandate, as opposed to merely the de facto and de jure authority to govern that being sworn in as President obviously conveys. The one exception I can think of is tax cuts, where he can pretty safely claim a mandate since few people would argue that most taxpayers are not in favor of tax cuts of some form.

It's true that the election was about the will of We the People as it stood on 11/7/00, and that date is receding. The popular will may indeed shift to support Bush and the right-wing agenda he's pushing, in spite of that "I'm a uniter" lie he kept telling, and that would indeed legitimize his Presidency. But that hasn't happened yet, and it isn't happening, and keeping up the public pressure on the issue of his legitimacy is a way to help make it happen.

(My emphasis.) This merely begs the question, which was "can anyone give me a reason to keep beating this dead horse, other than to attack his legitimacy?" You have now flat-out admitted that the reason for the "pressure" is PRECISELY to attack the legitimacy of his presidency. You are free to continue to do so, just as I am free to consider it just so much boo-hooing and -- worse -- undermining of not just this president, love him or hate him, but of the office he occupies.

MINTY --

You say legitimacy, and I say policy.

Surely we can agree that legitimacy and policy are not the same things. "Legitimacy" refers to his right to hold the office; "policy" to the goals he might choose to follow while holding it. I realize that some Democrats continue to choose to attack Bush's legitimacy because they don't agree with his policies -- ELVIS just admitted as much -- but I continue to consider that a pretty craven thing to do -- concentrating on the "red herring" of legitimacy rather than the more difficult-to-tackle questions of policy. If we want to argue policy, fine with me -- but "Gore should have won" is manifestly NOT an argument about policy.

A presidential election is held not just to select the head of the executive branch, but to broadly determine the political philosophy and policies the nation should adopt for the next four years. And on those counts, who won the election matters every time Bush attempts to shove another right-wing position down the throats of the American voters.

No, actually, it doesn't. Because Bush IS president and he DOESN'T have a popular mandate -- just as Gore would have lacked a poplular mandate had he won such a close race. Whether Bush or Gore was the "real" winner will not, at this late date, change either of those facts. It will not change the fact that Bush is president, and it will not create for him a popular mandate where one obviously does not exist. Again, the only PRACTICAL reason I see for continuing to keep the issue of the "true" winner alive -- as opposed to concentrating on election reform or Bush's lack of a clear mandate -- is to attack Bush's legitimacy. This IMO is stupid: He's the president. The end. Carping about how he shouldn't be -- again, probably unprovable anyway -- just sounds like sour grapes and, worse than that, an underhanded way to attack his policies, as opposed to his right to hold the office. If you don't like the man and oppose his policies, then be up front about that. There's ample room for debate there, I'm sure. But don't waste all our time by continuing to focus on a dead issue that is NOT going to change, no matter how long and hard people whine about it. It sounds like whining to many Republicans because it IS whining. And it sounds underhanded because it IS underhanded -- as Elvis's post makes clear. For many, outrage about the election is just so much smoke to obscure the fact that some people just don't like the guy and will do anything they can to undermine his presidency. I don't think it is smug or paranoid or unreasonable for Republicans to recognize that and respond accordingly.

I will also say, parenthetically, that I found it amusing that both ELVIS and MINTY would talk about Bush's policies in terms of what he is "shoving down the throat of the American public" (throat or other orifice, apparently). This to me highlights that many people cannot even TALK about this issue without employing inflammatory rhetoric that obscures the main point which, again, IMO is this: There is no practical reason to continue to attempt to award the election to Gore except to say that Bush does not have the legitimate right to be president. It has nothing to do with a mandate; it has nothing to do with election reform; it has everything to do with undermining the presidency of an individual that you just happen to dislike. I don't personally find that a very laudable goal, but to each their own.

[ElvisL1ves]

Jodi, you've totally misconstrued my point about maintaining the questions about how Bush got into office. I thought I and others made it clear that the issue is the legitimacy of his policies more than his person or party affiliation. They are most definitely not the same thing. We did NOT, as a country, vote for a right-wing agenda in the Executive Branch, and the only way you can say we did is to essentially repeat "Our guy's in, now quit whining".
I don't know where you got this concept that the President is equivalent to a monarch, but it couldn't have been from the preamble to the Constitution. That's where the fundamental principles of republican democracy are stated, what really matter here, not in the procedural details of the Electoral College, but you're putting the emphasis on the latter instead. Why? Does it simply suit narrower purposes you happen to agree with?

If I'd been unclear, I'm sorry, but I don't think I was. I think you've read what I've said the way you wanted to read it.

[minty green]

Mandate, schmandate, Jodi. What I'm talking about is the moral authority to govern under a particular agenda. As someone once put it:We hold these truths to be self-evident ... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.No consent, no just powers.

It seems quite clear to me that, even putting aside the issues of the electoral college vs. majority rule, the American voters intended to reject the Bush agenda on election day. But, oops!, we screwed up and now we have the Accidental President, who is attempting to govern as if the voters' consent has legitimized all aspects of his agenda. I beg to differ, and so do the press-sponsored studies of the ballots in Florida.

That's why it matters to me. If anyone else wishes to discount "the consent of the governed," that's your business.

And I second Elvis' post.

[Polycarp]

Consider the point Tranquilis made above.

It's my considered opinion that there could not have been a "legitimate" winner of the Presidential Election of 2000. A fair proportion of the Left today is claiming that Bush, with the "connivance" of the Supreme Court, "stole" the Presidency from Gore.

But consider what would have happened if the situation had been reversed -- if the vote-counting had been allowed to continue and eventually shown a Gore majority. Isn't it obvious that the Right would have said the same thing about Gore, with the idea that "voter intent" was read into disputable votes by county election boards with the support of the Democratic Florida Supreme Court? They are effectively saying that that is what he tried even after winning.

What Bush does have is a claim under the rule of law to the Presidency for four years, and a mandate to govern in a bipartisan manner -- which he recognizes and gave lip service to in his "acceptance speech" when Gore finally conceded. He has not shown this in much of what he has done -- but that's playing power politics as usual: "Get as much as you can for your agenda, while the iron is hot."

There are a number of interesting results coming from this election, not the least of which is that for the first time in history, we have an evenly divided Senate -- and the deciding vote -- and a position "one heartbeat away from the Presidency," to coin a phrase ;) -- belongs to Dick Cheney, a rational, moderate conservative who dearly loves his wife and daughter -- and the woman his daughter fell in love with. That fact has got to stick in the craw of every Christian Coalition member. (I noted over on Fathom that John the ex-Cyberian, affectionately remembered by many longtime posters here :eek: , was asking "who should replace Mr. Cheney when he resigns due to this heart condition" -- which I have grave doubts would cause him to resign unless pressured into it by the Far Right.)

You can take it from there.

[Jodi]

Jodi, you've totally misconstrued my point about maintaining the questions about how Bush got into office. I thought I and others made it clear that the issue is the legitimacy of his policies more than his person or party affiliation. They are most definitely not the same thing.

The man is president. He institutes policies as president. The only way that those policies can be illegitimated by attacking the election is through him. "The president is not legitimate, ergo his policies are not legitimate" is the obvious reasoning. His policies were not elected. No policy ever is.

The legitimacy of a policy may be attacked as a matter of law or a matter of opinion. Take, say, increased isolationism. You could say "Bush's increased isolationism takes the form of prohibiting any export [a totally made up example]. This is illegal and therefore the policy is not legitimate." Or you could say "I think increased isolationism is stupid and counterproductive and therefore in my opinion it is not a legitimate strategy." But you cannot say "Increased isolationism is an illegitimate policy because of the election." It is only illegitimate in so far as the election is concerned if the person propounding the policy is illegatimate, and HIS illegitimacy then taints all his policies. To try to say "we are attacking his policies, not his right to hold the office, through attacking the election" seems to me to be so patently false that I am astonished to see anyone propound it. You can only attack his policies by attacking him, at least insofar as the election is concerned. The policies were not elected; the man was.

We did NOT, as a country, vote for a right-wing agenda in the Executive Branch, and the only way you can say we did is to essentially repeat "Our guy's in, now quit whining".

Ah, baloney. In one sense, we, as a country, voted in such a way that the election results were so close that neither candidate could EVER claim that "we, as a country" elected him. That's what I said: No mandate. But in another sense, "we, as a country" certainly DID elect him -- and thereby sign up for his agenda -- which, like a policy, is never elected or "voted for," by the way. He IS the president in the wake of a legal election, and he is the president because a LOT of people DID vote for him -- your posts implying the contrary notwithstanding. So either we accept the fact he is president and get over it, or we continue to attack his legitimacy -- with no practical good to come of it, and perhaps serious damage to be done to the office of the presidency because of it. But since no good comes of the incessant and pointless complaining, many people will inevitably label it whining.

I don't know where you got this concept that the President is equivalent to a monarch, but it couldn't have been from the preamble to the Constitution.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution stands for the whole "no-monarch" thing, but thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:

That's where the fundamental principles of republican democracy are stated, what really matter here, not in the procedural details of the Electoral College, but you're putting the emphasis on the latter instead. Why? Does it simply suit narrower purposes you happen to agree with?

Sigh. We do not run elections according to the Preamble to the Constitution, which I'm pretty sure (. . . reciting to self . . .) make that very sure does not address how elections shall be held. And we are not a country that embraces as a "fundamental principle of democracy" changing the rules mid-stream (i.e., "We have always used the Electoral College, love it or hate it, but since in THIS case, our guy got most of the popular vote, let's throw it out.") I focused on the Electoral College (obviously) because it explains how Gore could receive the majority of the popular vote (which I don't believe anyone disputes) and still lose the election. Why in the world would you focus on the Preamble to the Constitution?

If I'd been unclear, I'm sorry, but I don't think I was. I think you've read what I've said the way you wanted to read it.

I don't know how to respond to this. I do not "read" things with a particular motivation. I read the words as you type them. If I have misunderstood you -- which I doubt -- then you WERE unclear. You now appear to be saying that attacking the election is a way to attack the legitimacy of the President's policies and not the President's right to hold office. If THAT was your point, I can only say that I missed it because the separation -- as if the policy exists without the person propounding it, and as if the policy, and not the person, was elected -- is to me so transparently artificial that it would not have occurred to me to be a point anyone would even attempt to make.

[Jodi]

MINTY -- Mandate, schmandate, Jodi. What I'm talking about is the moral authority to govern under a particular agenda. . . . No consent, no just powers.[/quote]

Oh, c'mon, MINTY. You're about the last person I would expect to hear this from. When the election is too close to call and irregularities are alleged, then the whole thing gets thrown to the Electoral College and the legal issues are taken up by the appropriate forum -- the courts. This is EXACTLY what happened here. That's democracy in action. It is ridiculous to say that because the election was not a "clean" one, the resulting president lacks "consent" and "just powers." What is your alternative? Anarchy? Let's just throw out the entire 200 + year old system and refuse to have a president because YOU think he lacks the moral authority to govern? Hogwash. At some level he is president because SOMEBODY had to be president. A "do-over" is not an option, and our system does not function without an executive. I would note, AGAIN, that this is a direct attack on his legitimacy as president -- something that whether YOU like it or not has been conclusively proven by the Electoral College and the courts.

It seems quite clear to me that, even putting aside the issues of the electoral college vs. majority rule, the American voters intended to reject the Bush agenda on election day.

Really? Maybe you should lend your crystal ball to the major news outlets, because what is clear to you is not clear to me or to many. Again, Bush may not have a mandate -- a clear endorsement of his agenda -- but then neither would Gore have had one if HE had been elected. And I do find it damn presumptious of you to declare what "the American voters" intended to reject -- in a contest this close, it is beyond argument that almost half intended to endorse him and his agenda.

But, oops!, we screwed up and now we have the Accidental President, who is attempting to govern as if the voters' consent has legitimized all aspects of his agenda.

What do you mean, "legitimized his agenda"? His agenda is not subject to being "legitimatized," except to the extent it is legally pursuable. Apart from legality, all else regarding policy and agenda is a matter of opinion. His agenda does not need to be "legitimized;" it is what it is -- his agenda. And he is the president.

I beg to differ, and so do the press-sponsored studies of the ballots in Florida.

I have yet to see a study of the election concern itself with the legitimacy of the president's policies or agendas, as opposed to the election itself, and I would love you to point me to one that does. Policies and agendas are not elected. No one said "I vote for higher tariffs" or "I vote for aid to Israel." Bush or Gore -- those are your choices.

That's why it matters to me.

Why? I really don't get it. If Gore was in office under similar circumstances, would you be decrying his lack of authority to govern, even though elected by the Electoral College and sanctioned by the Supreme Court? Somehow I doubt it. Just as POLY says, if the shoe was on the other foot, I somehow doubt you'd be so concerned about the "will of the people." In any event, the election DOES represent the will of the people as expressed by the Electoral College -- which is the way it been expressed for centuries.

If anyone else wishes to discount "the consent of the governed," that's your business.

I do not discount it. I merely point out that when the will of the people cannot be finally discerned, some accommodation must be made and someone must give way, so that the country can move forward. At least Gore had the sense to realize this, even if some others do not.

[minty green]

Hmmm, a Republican who's incredulous when the Democrats when they say they find a valid distinction between the office-holder and the agenda. Where have I heard that before? ;)


No offense intended if these labels do not match any posters' actual political persuasions. But it's not near as funny otherwise.

[Jodi]

Hmmm, a Republican who's incredulous when the Democrats when they say they find a valid distinction between the office-holder and the agenda. Where have I heard that before?

MINTY, do not misunderstand me. There is obviously a valid distinction to be made between the official and the agenda. You know this, and I know this, and I know you know it (and you know I know that you know . . . ). BUT you can only attack the OFFICE-HOLDER through attacks on the election, because it is he who was elected, not his agenda. So for someone to say, as ELVIS has, "In attacking the election, I am not attacking the MAN, I'm attacking his POLICIES" seems to me to be . . . well, facile, among other things. This is not to say that no such distinction exists; it is to say that it is not a distinction that can be made in the context of an election, so long as we continue to elect human beings and not agendas.

[Stoid]

about some Republicans "just wanting to fix the system" and having no interest in proving who won? It was mere days ago that we had the "Bush wins! Again!" thread, where a whole bunch of Republicans were gleefully jumping up and down about how Bush supposedly really is legitimate.

It's only a partisan waste of time when the Democrats are doing it about Gore. What is it when the Republicans are doing it about Bush?

feh.

stoid

[Jodi]

Oh, irony, thy name is STOID.

Be honest: How many separate threads bitching, moaning, kvetching, whining, and crying about the election have you, personally, started -- not just participated in, but STARTED? It has GOT to be in the double digits. Shoot, even THIS thread was started by Gore apologists attempting, on the most flimsy of "evidence" to claim the election for Gore and asserting, which diddly as evidence, that it's just a matter of time until Bush's presidency is found to be "illegitimate."

It seems to me self-evident that Republicans do not have the same impetus to "prove" the election as Democrates do. Bush already IS the president. He doesn't have to prove he won; he's president either way. But proving he lost the election could enormously damage his administration -- or such, I gather, is the hope of some Democrats. Which I find ironic: Clearly he will not be removed from office, but some seem content to render him as powerless and ineffectual as possible. I am certain that should such tactics succeed, the Democrats will in turn reap what they have sown in divisiveness and refusal to respect the office if not the man, and it is the system as a whole (and the prospect for bipartisan cooperation on any issue) that will eventually suffer. This to me is Not A Good Thing -- for any of us.

For this reason, I would devoutly love the nation as a whole to put the issue behind us and just SHUT UP ABOUT IT ALREADY. (ESPRIX started a whole Pit thread on this very issue recently.) But I see little indication that people will do so, and in my experience it ain't the Republicans who keep bringing it up.

[minty green]

Jodi, here's the difference between using the election to attack the office holder and using it to attack his policies.

A) "More people voted (or intended to vote) for Gore! You shouldn't be president, you punk-ass chump!"

That's a facially ridiculous proposition under the rule of law, as you've repeatedly pointed out.


B) "More people voted (or intended to vote) for Gore! Don't you dare shove that right-wing nonsense down the voting public's non-consensual vote, you punk-ass chump!"

Seems reasonable to me. Bush still gets to be president, but he doesn't get to pursue far right policies without being reminded ad nauseum that the voters rejected those positions. It's also perfectly legitimate politics, exactly as the Republicans would--and should--be doing if the shoe was on the other foot.

[minty green]

"non-consensual throat"

[Jodi]

MINTY --

Jodi, here's the difference between using the election to attack the office holder and using it to attack his policies.

Actually, there isn't, as I will again attempt to point out.

A) "More people voted (or intended to vote) for Gore! You shouldn't be president, you punk-ass chump!"

That's a facially ridiculous proposition under the rule of law, as you've repeatedly pointed out.

I'm glad we agree at least to that extent.

B) "More people voted (or intended to vote) for Gore! Don't you dare shove that right-wing nonsense down the voting public's non-consensual vote, you punk-ass chump!"

And why can't he "shove right-wing nonsense" down the voting public's throat? Because they didn't vote for the "nonsense," or because they didn't vote for HIM and it's HIS nonsense? To me, the answer is obviously the latter. As long as we are electing invididuals and not policies, the individual's policies can only be attacked (in the context of the election) by attacking the individual -- because he was the one on the ballot. Not his policies. And, again, you are treading a very fine line by insisting that ANYTHING he does is "non-consensual" in terms of "the public" when you know or ought to know that a LOT of the public -- statistically, almost exactly half -- ENDORSES those policies.

Seems reasonable to me.

It doesn't to me, for the reasons given above. You can only claim to attacking policies and not personal legitimacy by artificially removing the individual from the election -- as if we elect agendas and not people. I see no way to do that.

Bush still gets to be president, but he doesn't get to pursue far right policies without being reminded ad nauseum that the voters rejected those positions.

Except, of course, that they didn't. The voters made no distinction between "far right policies" and "middle-right policies" and "middle-left policies" and "far-left policies;" they voted for individuals. There is no mandate against far-right policies -- there is no mandate AT ALL. That is what a close election means, much to Bush's chagrin.

It's also perfectly legitimate politics, exactly as the Republicans would--and should--be doing if the shoe was on the other foot.

I do not find it "perfectly legitimate politics" to attack far-right policies not because they are defective or distasteful or not a good idea -- as many of them are (or are not, as the case may be) -- but rather because the election was a close one. That, to me, has diddly to do with questions of policy. It doesn't even serve to illuminate why a particular policy should be attacked or discarded. Under this same rationale, NO policy of Bush's -- conservative or liberal, good idea or bad, far right or far left -- can EVER be considered legitimate. I find the continued concentration on the election at the expense of actual, meaningful discourse on policy to be the antithesis of "perfectly legitimate politics;" it is, rather, an attempt to undermine the man's ability to do his job by concentrating on something that is in the past and manifestly will not be changed. I fail to see why that is a good idea for ANYONE. I fail to see that it accomplishes (or even attempts to accomplish) anything other than undermining the president and, by extension, the office he holds. And I don't believe that the fact that I consider that A Really Bad Idea has much to do with the fact that I'm a Republican. Democracy depends on the people being willing to accede to being led, sometimes by people they don't like, if that's the result dictated by the election -- whether it's a landslide or a squeaker. In this case, some people appear to be unwilling to do so, and I consider that very dangerous. It is also, I will note again, not a position held by Gore, the person you purport to support.

[minty green]

And why can't he "shove right-wing nonsense" down the voting public's throat? Because they didn't vote for the "nonsense," or because they didn't vote for HIM and it's HIS nonsense?Both.To me, the answer is obviously the latter.Then we disagree.

[Tranquilis]

Originally posted by Stoid
about some Republicans "just wanting to fix the system" and having no interest in proving who won? It was mere days ago that we had the "Bush wins! Again!" thread, where a whole bunch of Republicans were gleefully jumping up and down about how Bush supposedly really is legitimate.

It's only a partisan waste of time when the Democrats are doing it about Gore. What is it when the Republicans are doing it about Bush?

feh.

stoid


Stoid, that's me you're talking about. I'm a Republican, what used to be called a Rockerfeller Republican. Go back and read my posts in the various Election Threads. I'll wait.

Now, what were you saying?

I find myself almost exactly halfway between Bush and Gore, ideologically speaking (not that that's so big a gap). I spent weeks deciding for whom to vote, only to have to re-evaluate time and again as new info came to light. I find Blind Ideological Loyalty to be one of the more contemptable examples of intellectual cowardice, but 'till now, have refrained from fully expressing my disgust.

This is a board supposedly dedicated to the banishment of ignorance, but I find this forum (GD) in general, and the Election Threads, in particular, to be filled with dogmatic adherance to position, Religeously Political thuggery for various parties and/or causes, inflamitory posturing, hackney sterotypes, sly jabs at personal character, and other manners of disappointingly childish behavior. My three year-old shows more maturity than some of positions taken in here. I've even caught myself descending to the general level of hatred and discontent.

It appears some people just can't get off their asses (positions) and move on. Well, I'm moving on. I'm outta this thread. If you want to respond to me in here, fine, but it'll not be answered in this thread.

[Esprix]

{ahem} I, as many of you know, am a staunch liberal Democrat, and I say unto thee... Shut up, SHUT UP, *SHUT UP* and MOVE ON! (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=61514)

Thank you.

Esprix

[2sense]

Disparaging the man is expected.
Our last President was impeached. His predecessor was successfully labelled a liar. His predecessor was a smiling puppet. His predecessor was a devout incompetant. His predecessor was a bumbling stooge. His predecessor was a criminal.

I think Jodi ought to have a bit more faith in our government.
In many nations attacking high officials is dangerous ( and consequently dangerous for the person speaking out. ) In Czarist Russia and Aparthied South Africa popular upswells brought down the old guard. In some parliaments, Italy being the example I've heard most, divisiveness led to chaos. The American system has evolved into a wonderfully balanced machine for collecting and diverting popular movements into safe channels. Extreme political rhetoric isn't irresponsible because nothing will come of it. The oval office remains secure, if a bit uncomfortable, for its occupant.

-----
Just my 2sense

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Jodi
Oh, irony, thy name is STOID.
Because I started lots of election threads? You have an incredibly loose definitiion of "irony", Jodi.
Originally posted by Jodi

It seems to me self-evident that Republicans do not have the same impetus to "prove" the election as Democrates do. Bush already IS the president.

Me too! That would be why it is so strange that Republicans are doing exactly that.
Originally posted by Jodi
I am certain that should such tactics succeed, the Democrats will in turn reap what they have sown in divisiveness and refusal to respect the office if not the man,

Now THIS is ironic, coming from a Republican supporter. I have no idea how you personally felt about Clinton, or what your opinion of the way the Republicans treated him was, but if you were behind them 100%, then how in heaven’s name did you manage to choke this sentence out?

As for "bi-partisianship", well, no personal offense meant, but blow me. Minty Green had it exactly right. It would have been one thing if he’d taken office and acted in a manner remotely reflective not only of the incredibly stinky way he took office, including the fact that Gore unquestionably received a greater amount of support from all Americans, but of his own stupid, lying rhetoric. He didn’t even try to fake it.

Again, feh.

[ElvisL1ves]

[i]Originally posted by So for someone to say, as ELVIS has, "In attacking the election, I am not attacking the MAN, I'm attacking his POLICIES" seems to me to be . . . well, facile, among other things.

Please, Jodi - you accused me of supporting the undermining of the institution of the Presidency itself, not the occupant or his policies. Any "facility" etc. in that argument is in your own mind, not arising from what I said (and which I urge you once again to read and digest before replying to it).

You also raised the issue of the election being an extremely close call, and therefore making "divining the people's will" a tossup. On the Electoral College side, you're right, but not on the popular-vote side that more directly reflects the "people's will" you claim to be interested in, it wasn't all that close.

If you want to be convincing, a little more honesty would be a great help.

[ElvisL1ves]

Esprix, for someone expounding the view that we all should "shut up and move on", you're setting a fine example.

This thread is deep into its second page. Why are you still reading?

[Esprix]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves

Esprix, for someone expounding the view that we all should "shut up and move on", you're setting a fine example.

This thread is deep into its second page. Why are you still reading?

Haven't, didn't, won't. My name was mentioned and I was therefore summoned.

Feel free to disregard anything I have to say.

Esprix

[SPOOFE]

That would be why it is so strange that Republicans are doing exactly that.

Actually, it seems like a tactic to get the whiners to just shut up.

"You're wrong, there's no way Gore could have won. Now shut up and whine about Jerry Falwell or Rush Limbaugh or something."

There's a difference between trying to criticize, and trying to stifle inaccurate criticism.

[Jodi]

I asked "And why can't he "shove right-wing nonsense" down the voting public's throat? Because they didn't vote for the "nonsense," or because they didn't vote for HIM and it's HIS nonsense?"

. . . to which MINTY replied: "Both."

But this is my exact point. It is artificial and facile to say "attacks upon the validity of the election are not attacks upon the individual but upon his POLICIES." That's what I'm saying, and why I dismiss claims that concentration on the president's legitimacy are about "policy" as opposed to about the president.

TRANQUILIS:

This is a board supposedly dedicated to the banishment of ignorance, but I find this forum (GD) in general, and the Election Threads, in particular, to be filled with dogmatic adherance to position, Religeously Political thuggery for various parties and/or causes, inflamitory posturing, hackney sterotypes, sly jabs at personal character, and other manners of disappointingly childish behavior. My three year-old shows more maturity than some of positions taken in here.

I agree entirely, and as today's Exhibit A would offer the thread that takes exception to Bush reversing himself on policy -- a legitimate beef -- but sports the title "Is Bush Capable Of Telling The Truth?" No bias there! :rolleyes:

STOID:

Because I started lots of election threads? You have an incredibly loose definitiion of "irony", Jodi.

No, it's pretty much right out of the dictionary. You bitch and moan and piss and whine and cry and kvetch about the election until people want to toss their lunches, and then you complain if a Republican posts a pro-Bush election thread. THAT'S ironic.

Now THIS is ironic, coming from a Republican supporter. I have no idea how you personally felt about Clinton, or what your opinion of the way the Republicans treated him was, but if you were behind them 100%, then how in heaven’s name did you manage to choke this sentence out?

Let's just parse that sentence down to the idiocy it is. You admit that: (A) you do not know how I feel about Clinton; (B) you do not know how I feel about how the Republicans treated him; and (C) you do not know if I was behind that treatment 100%. But then you "wonder" how I could post something dependent on a specific feeling about A, B, and C -- having just admitted you don't have any idea how I feel about A, B, or C. Maybe you ought to wonder about how many hypotheticals you can shoe-horn into a single sentence and still expect it to make any sense.

As for "bi-partisianship", well, no personal offense meant, but blow me.

For my response to this, I intend a minor hijack of your "sunshine and light" thread, so I will direct your attention there. I believe the hijack will appear on the second page. Unlike you, I am well-aware of the posting parameters for Great Debates, and I intend to abide by them.

ELVIS:

You also raised the issue of the election being an extremely close call, and therefore making "divining the people's will" a tossup. On the Electoral College side, you're right, but not on the popular-vote side that more directly reflects the "people's will" you claim to be interested in, it wasn't all that close.

What? According to the certified election results (source: Federal Register), it was 50,996,582 for Gore and 50,456,062 for Bush -- or a little more that 1/2 million votes out of 101.5 million votes cast. If my math is correct, that's a margin of around one-half of one percent. You do the math on that and then get back to me on how you can construe it as "not all that close."

If you want to be convincing, a little more honesty would be a great help.

Tread very carefully. I take accusations of dishonesty extremely seriously. You may well say that I have misundertood you or you have misunderstood me, and we will have no problem. But if you are going to accuse me of being dishonest, you had better be ready to back that up.

[Jodi]

I'm just reminding myself of why I so rarely wade into these election threads, and it's not the brilliancy of the arguments. It's dealing with people who continue to feel so strongly about the issue that they cannot even DISCUSS it without recourse to over-blown rhetoric ("stuffing right-wing agenda down the unwilling public's throat" -- three of four separate references, I believe) or flat-out insult, either direct ("blow me") or implied ("If you want to be convincing, a little more honesty would be a great help.")

No wonder my basic reaction remains "get over it," despite the manifest evidence that some people never will. I mean, there's very little use it trying to rationally discuss the matter anyway.

[Gaudere]

Stoid:
As for "bi-partisianship", well, no personal offense meant, but blow me.

[Moderator Hat ON]

"No personal offense meant"? Shyeah right. That comment was inappropriate for this forum. Don't post stuff like this again.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[minty green]

Originally posted by Jodi
I asked "And why can't he "shove right-wing nonsense" down the voting public's throat? Because they didn't vote for the "nonsense," or because they didn't vote for HIM and it's HIS nonsense?"

. . . to which MINTY replied: "Both."

But this is my exact point. It is artificial and facile to say "attacks upon the validity of the election are not attacks upon the individual but upon his POLICIES." That's what I'm saying, and why I dismiss claims that concentration on the president's legitimacy are about "policy" as opposed to about the president.There ain't much left of that horse you're beating, Jodi. ;) Look, this whole thing started when you asked:If any one can give me a PRACTICAL REASON to attempt to prove at this late date that Gore should have won, other than to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency, I would love to hear it.Several of us responded in close order that it served the "practical" purpose of undermining Bush's policies. Not a one of us said anything about using the election results to kick Bush out of office or otherwise undermine his presidential powers. (Except for whoever it was back on page one who called on Bush to resign, which is, of course, ridiculous.)

Nowhere in Article II is the president granted the power to push any particular agenda. That's a question of politics, not the powers and duties of the executive branch. He's president, and there ain't a damn thing anyone can do now to undermine his presidential powers. But if the voters (even under the archaic and undemocratic rules of the electoral college) intended that the election should have gone the other way, it weakens the political capital that the president needs to pursue those parts of his agenda the voters attempted to reject. Bush still gets to sign or veto the bills that come across his desk, but the things that make it there will (hopefully) be somewhat less to his liking, and more to mine.

I understand your point, Jodi, and have ever since you first made it. As I said before in attempting to drop this subject, I simply disagree. And this is ansolutely the last thing I have to say on the policy/president distinction.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Jodi
You bitch and moan and piss and whine and cry and kvetch about the election until people want to toss their lunches, and then you complain if a Republican posts a pro-Bush election thread. THAT'S ironic.

If that's what I'd done, you'd be right. But it wasn't, so you're wrong.

Originally posted by
Maybe you ought to wonder about how many hypotheticals you can shoe-horn into a single sentence and still expect it to make any sense.


If hypothetical applies, question asked based on that. Pretty simple. Sorry if you were confused about it.

[Jodi]

STOID --

If that's what I'd done, you'd be right. But it wasn't, so you're wrong.

That was EXACTLY what you did, and it's not just my opinion and you damn well know it. Shoot, you were the recipient of two separate dedicated Pit threads about your inability to let the issue go -- and you STILL can't let it go. But feel free to tell me I'm wrong again; that's ever so effective as a debating technique.

If hypothetical applies, question asked based on that. Pretty simple. Sorry if you were confused about it.

But if any of three hypotheticals do not apply then question asked is based on nothing and is therefore senseless and idiotic. Pretty simple. Sorry if you were confused about that.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Jodi
What? According to the certified election results (source: Federal Register), it was 50,996,582 for Gore and 50,456,062 for Bush -- or a little more that 1/2 million votes out of 101.5 million votes cast. If my math is correct, that's a margin of around one-half of one percent. You do the math on that and then get back to me on how you can construe it as "not all that close."

Yes, please check the math and tell me which number is larger. "Not all that close" means there's no plausible chance that this is statistical error. Bush LOST the popular vote. More people voted for Gore and his agenda and views than voted for Bush and his views. Simple fact. Deal with it. If you care to dispute that it's a fact, or could be construed as meaning the opposite, go ahead - you'll be the first I've ever seen to try that approach, though.

If you want to be convincing, a little more honesty would be a great help.

Tread very carefully. I take accusations of dishonesty extremely seriously. You may well say that I have misundertood you or you have misunderstood me, and we will have no problem. But if you are going to accuse me of being dishonest, you had better be ready to back that up.

It has been pointed out multiple times how you have inferred a meaning exactly opposite to what has been said in my posts and others'. "Tread very carefully" before making accusations as scurrilous as the ones you've made already, based on exactly the opposite of what has been said. Your motivations are your own concern, but the effects of your statements on the ones they are directed toward are not.

Now, if you still have trouble seeing that a politician and his agenda are different things, well, it's been discussed in detail here multiple times. I'm sorry that hasn't penetrated, but at this point that's nobody else's fault.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves

It has been pointed out multiple times how you have inferred a meaning exactly opposite to what has been said in my posts and others'. "Tread very carefully" before making accusations as scurrilous as the ones you've made already, based on exactly the opposite of what has been said. Your motivations are your own concern, but the effects of your statements on the ones they are directed toward are not.


What Elvis said.

stoid

[Maeglin]

do not find it "perfectly legitimate politics" to attack far-right policies not because they are defective or distasteful or not a good idea -- as many of them are (or are not, as the case may be) -- but rather because the election was a close one. That, to me, has diddly to do with questions of policy. It doesn't even serve to illuminate why a particular policy should be attacked or discarded. Under this same rationale, NO policy of Bush's -- conservative or liberal, good idea or bad, far right or far left -- can EVER be considered legitimate. I find the continued concentration on the election at the expense of actual, meaningful discourse on policy to be the antithesis of "perfectly legitimate politics;" it is, rather, an attempt to undermine the man's ability to do his job by concentrating on something that is in the past and manifestly will not be changed. I fail to see why that is a good idea for ANYONE. I fail to see that it accomplishes (or even attempts to accomplish) anything other than undermining the president and, by extension, the office he holds.

I manifestly disagree with your analysis here, Jodi. Before I try to fire full salvo, I would ask you to elaborate on what exactly "legitimate politics" are.

In my opinion, meaningless concentration on the election has tremendous practical benefits. I see little reason to debate the president's policies on their own terms, as it were, when it is both easier and more effective to mobilize one's base with accusations of Bush's illegitimacy in certain situations. Such accusations would not untrue either, regardless of whether Gore would have been placed in precisely the same position. Since there were serious and indisputable problems with the election, such claims would at worst be dubious inferences, certainly par for the course in "legitimate politics."

Furthermore, it is my goal to undermine Bush's tenure as president, and I am not shy about admitting it. Genteel policy discourse is a luxury among equals. Those in power have not shown a tremendous willingness to engage in such discourse since they now have the opportunity to pass their agenda. Disobedience and dubious inferences are just two of the tools disaffected individuals and organizations who are no longer in power can employ, and I'll be damned if I am going to give them up in favor of high-minded "discourse" with those in power. I am firmly committed to the idea that most of Bush's policies will in fact be deleterious to the United States: hence I am obligated to pursue whatever avenues of dissent are available to me.

I would also ask you to fill us in how such accusations undermine the office of the president itself. It makes a nice phrase, to be sure, but it smacks a little too much of ahistorical idealism.

Regards,
MR

[Jodi]

ELVIS --

Yes, please check the math and tell me which number is larger.

Checking . . . Gore's number is larger. But then I've already acknoweldged he won the popular vote -- back when we were discussing the Electoral College.

"Not all that close" means there's no plausible chance that this is statistical error.

Uhhhhh . . . in whose world does "not all that close" mean "no statistical error"? "Close" and "certain" do not mean the same thing. If you weigh 150 pounds and I weigh 149, are you going to tell me our weights are "not all that close" so long as they are not subject to statistical error? Two is a number that is close to one. This has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with the generally accepted meaning of the word "close." With 101 million votes cast and a difference of one half of one percentage point, the election cannot possibly be described as "not all that close."

Bush LOST the popular vote. More people voted for Gore and his agenda and views than voted for Bush and his views. Simple fact. Deal with it. If you care to dispute that it's a fact, or could be construed as meaning the opposite, go ahead - you'll be the first I've ever seen to try that approach, though.

I have already SAID this. But MY point is that if 49% voted for one guy and 51% voted for another, NEITHER can claim a mandate. NEITHER can say "I represent the wishes of the American public" -- because almost half (or just over half) of the American public voted the other way. The election was so close that claiming to be the "popular winner" means next to nothing. It got you an extra one-half of one percent. What possible legitimate claim can Gore make on that? He has no more of a mandate than Bush does.

It has been pointed out multiple times how you have inferred a meaning exactly opposite to what has been said in my posts and others'. "Tread very carefully" before making accusations as scurrilous as the ones you've made already, based on exactly the opposite of what has been said.

Please point out where in this thread I have made ANY "scurrilous accusations" to or about you. I am stone-cold serious and I expect an answer.

Now, if you still have trouble seeing that a politician and his agenda are different things, well, it's been discussed in detail here multiple times. I'm sorry that hasn't penetrated, but at this point that's nobody else's fault.

Jesus. Allow me to try one more time:

1. A politician and his agenda are two different things.

2. A politician is elected. His agenda is not. We do not vote for "increased aid to Israel" or "tax cuts" except to the extent that the candidate pledges to seek those things -- pledges that are not binding in any event. We vote for people. The POLITICIAN is elected. The AGENDA is not.

3. So long as you are attacking the legitimacy of the ELECTION, you are attacking the POLITICIAN and his right to hold office. You are not attacking the legitimacy of his agenda, except as a corrollary to attacking the politician himself -- "Bush is not legitimate, therefore his agenda is not legitimate." Note that you could just as easily make this argument -- and more effectively IMO -- by pointing not to the fact that the election process was questionable but by pointing to the fact that he lacks a mandate: In office legitimately or not, he does not have a clear public mandate to do [whatever you object to him doing].

4. My point is that you CANNOT say "the politician and the agenda are two different things [they are], and by attacking the ELECTION [as opposed to the mandate or lack thereof], we are attacking his agenda and not him." As long as you are talking about the legitimacy of the ELECTION, you are automatically talking about the POLITICIAN, since it was he -- and not his agenda -- that was elected. Now, in the context of the election, you can talk about BOTH the politician AND, by extension, his agenda ("Bush is illegitimate and therefore his policies are as well") OR you can talk ONLY about the politician ("Bush is illegitimate, period"), but you CANNOT talk JUST about the agenda. The agenda was not elected. What the heck is so hard about this?

And I expect you to trot out a "scurrilous accusation" or two or retract your accusation that I have been less than honest. As I have already stated, I take such things extremely seriously, and since you have now decided to compound an accusation of dishonesty with one of scurrilousness you had damn well better have some proof of both.

[SPOOFE]

Jodi, I respect your dedication. But many others have tried what you're doing, a couple months back... and all they got were headaches.

Just so you know what you're getting into.

Yes, please check the math and tell me which number is larger. "Not all that close" means there's no plausible chance that this is statistical error.

Little things mean a lot, Elvis. Big things turn out to be little when compared to bigger things.

Our galaxy is 100,000 light-years across. That's big, right? A good-sized chunk of real-estate. None of us will ever, ever, EVER travel that distance in our lifetimes. But compare that to the distance to our closest galactic neigbor, the Andromeda galaxy, which is 2,000,000 light-years away. Suddenly, that 100,000 figure doesn't seem so large.

Jim Carrey earns $20 million per movie. That's a lot of money, right? You can live nicely off that amount of money. None of us will ever, ever, EVER have that amount of money in our lifetimes. But compare that amount to Bill Gates' total worth, which is estimated near the $70 billion range (give or take, depending on how his stocks are doing). Suddenly $20 million doesn't seem like a lot of money, does it?

Why do I bring this up? Because you seem obsessively hung up on the difference of 500,000 votes. 500,000 votes is a lot of ballots. None of us will ever, ever, EVER cast that amount of ballots in our lifetimes. But compare that amount to the total number of ballots cast in the entire election, which was over 100,000,000. Suddenly, 500,000 doesn't seem like so many ballots, does it?

I hope you appreciate this little lesson in perspective. I trust that you will use it wisely for the rest of your days. If not, I'll simply bookmark this post and C&P it whenever you lose your perspective on things.

[Jodi]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
do not find it "perfectly legitimate politics" to attack far-right policies not because they are defective or distasteful or not a good idea -- as many of them are (or are not, as the case may be) -- but rather because the election was a close one. That, to me, has diddly to do with questions of policy. It doesn't even serve to illuminate why a particular policy should be attacked or discarded. Under this same rationale, NO policy of Bush's -- conservative or liberal, good idea or bad, far right or far left -- can EVER be considered legitimate. I find the continued concentration on the election at the expense of actual, meaningful discourse on policy to be the antithesis of "perfectly legitimate politics;" it is, rather, an attempt to undermine the man's ability to do his job by concentrating on something that is in the past and manifestly will not be changed. I fail to see why that is a good idea for ANYONE. I fail to see that it accomplishes (or even attempts to accomplish) anything other than undermining the president and, by extension, the office he holds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAEGLIN --

I manifestly disagree with your analysis here, Jodi. Before I try to fire full salvo, I would ask you to elaborate on what exactly "legitimate politics" are.

Sorry, MAEGLIN, but I am not willing to do so. The response you quoted was just that -- a reponse -- to someone else's assertion that it is "perfectly legitimate politics" to continue to harp on the election (and, by extension, Bush's legitimate right to be president) as opposed to what you're REALLY concerned with, which is the job he will do or is doing as president. I was not attempting to define "perfectly legitmate politics" but rather to say that IMO this is not an example of it. This is only my opinion in any event.

In my opinion, meaningless concentration on the election has tremendous practical benefits.

In the abstract, I would agree. It is both distracting and obfuscating to continue to concentrate upon the election, which I have no doubt some consider to be good things. I am not required to agree.

I see little reason to debate the president's policies on their own terms, as it were, when it is both easier and more effective to mobilize one's base with accusations of Bush's illegitimacy in certain situations.

How refreshingly honest. :) Certainly it might be "easier" and "more effective" to continue to hamstring the man's ability to do his job rather than legitimately attack the specifics of the job he is trying to do, but I am not required to think that is a particularly honorable thing to do -- which I don't. (Note that this is not an attack on you personally, but rather my opinion of the position you appear to be advocating.)

Such accusations would not untrue either, regardless of whether Gore would have been placed in precisely the same position. Since there were serious and indisputable problems with the election, such claims would at worst be dubious inferences, certainly par for the course in "legitimate politics."

I admit I am politically optimistic, and that I have an over-developed sense of honor which probably means I am ill-suited for politics, but I do not find the pushing of "dubious inferences" to be "legitimate politics."

Furthermore, it is my goal to undermine Bush's tenure as president, and I am not shy about admitting it. Genteel policy discourse is a luxury among equals. Those in power have not shown a tremendous willingness to engage in such discourse since they now have the opportunity to pass their agenda.

Ah. So down into the mud you go? That is your right, but with your permission I'll stay up here on the bank.

Disobedience and dubious inferences are just two of the tools disaffected individuals and organizations who are no longer in power can employ, and I'll be damned if I am going to give them up in favor of high-minded "discourse" with those in power.

And I'll be damned if I will view such tactics with anything other than unvarnished contempt. Again, this is not an attack on your personally, but I can hardly let the regard I have for you as a debater allow me to view such a position as anything other than unworthy. I have a great regard for civilized discourse, and a firm belief that good governance is produced because of it, not in spite of it.

I am firmly committed to the idea that most of Bush's policies will in fact be deleterious to the United States: hence I am obligated to pursue whatever avenues of dissent are available to me.

Again, I accept that is your right. You may be the Shining Path of politics and employ whatever guerrilla tactics you deem fit. But I am neither required to join you nor to have a high opinion of those tactics.

I would also ask you to fill us in how such accusations undermine the office of the president itself.

I have already done so, right after the passage you quoted. I said:

And I don't believe that the fact that I consider that A Really Bad Idea has much to do with the fact that I'm a Republican. Democracy depends on the people being willing to accede to being led, sometimes by people they don't like, if that's the result dictated by the election -- whether it's a landslide or a squeaker. In this case, some people appear to be unwilling to do so, and I consider that very dangerous.

The continued carping about the election boils down to either Bush isn't really the president (which he obviously is) or Bush shouldn't be the president, and so we should not allow him to do his job. This to me is not in keeping with the ideal that we will submit to governance even if we don't like the elected official, because that's how the system works. This is not to say that people cannot loathe Bush's agenda and work against it. But in my mind the intellectually honest thing to do is to loathe it directly, for its innate loathe-ability, rather than continue to focus on the election returns. You have been quite frank in stating that you continue to focus on the election because it is an "easier" and "more effective" way to undermine the agenda; I'm willing to agree that it probably is, and I can and do admire your honesty if not your tactics.

[Maeglin]

Sorry, MAEGLIN, but I am not willing to do so. The response you quoted was just that -- a reponse -- to someone else's assertion that it is "perfectly legitimate politics" to continue to harp on the election (and, by extension, Bush's legitimate right to be president) as opposed to what you're REALLY concerned with, which is the job he will do or is doing as president. I was not attempting to define "perfectly legitmate politics" but rather to say that IMO this is not an example of it. This is only my opinion in any event.

Although I confess to being a bit disappointed, this seems fair enough. ;) I think I have a pretty good idea what you mean by "legitimate politics" at any rate.

In the abstract, I would agree. It is both distracting and obfuscating to continue to concentrate upon the election, which I have no doubt some consider to be good things. I am not required to agree.

Good only insofar as they are utile. Debating the moral worth accrued to the individual who pursues these actions is another issue entirely.

How refreshingly honest. Certainly it might be "easier" and "more effective" to continue to hamstring the man's ability to do his job rather than legitimately attack the specifics of the job he is trying to do, but I am not required to think that is a particularly honorable thing to do -- which I don't. (Note that this is not an attack on you personally, but rather my opinion of the position you appear to be advocating.)

I take no personal offense. I might as well be honest: I am not trying to sway anyone to my side here nor do my remarks here have any real effect on Bush's policy. ;)

I don't think this course is particularly honorable either. Hence I am trying to get out of professional activism and find a new job. ;) Nevertheless, it is a job, and it has proven to be quite effective.

Leading the general public, or even our base of knee-jerk liberal supporters, to develop a real understanding of the issues has been a trying task. Meetings, educational forums, electoral reform campaigns, etc are only showing nominal benefit, IMHO. Yet I have already taken a call from one woman this morning who asked what my organization was doing to undermine the legitimacy of the president. There are thousands more like her, all angry and ready to vote.

It may not be pretty, but it's what the people want. It's what will get us votes. It's what will get rid of individuals in power who are not interested in respecting our liberties. I don't mean to sound elitist, but in my experience as an activist, it seems to me that more people are interested in ideological tidbits than in real policy. So should I bang my head against the wall and alienate my supporters with "irrelevant" facts or give them a meaningful ideology to cling to?

If I don't bring in the votes and protect my freedoms, which I do feel are in danger, am I really behaving honorably?

I hate to reduce this to an ends/means discussion, yet I see no other choice.

I admit I am politically optimistic, and that I have an over-developed sense of honor which probably means I am ill-suited for politics, but I do not find the pushing of "dubious inferences" to be "legitimate politics."

Then if it's not inherently legitimate, it's certainly been legitimized by acclamation. Use it or lose it, as they say.

Ah. So down into the mud you go? That is your right, but with your permission I'll stay up here on the bank.

It's easy for you to stay high and dry: you support the winner. Evidently you don't have quite as many problems with the right wing agenda as the losers in this election do. I can't picture you screaming bloody murder if Gore had won, but I seriously doubt you would have taken such a high-minded position. The mud would have at least covered your toes. ;)

At any rate, I hardly consider this position to be "mud", as it were. You may find it annoying or useless, but concentration on the election returns is hardly unmerited. The two major newspaper coalitions (NYT, WSJ, AP and the MH, USAT, K-R) have released preliminary findings which place Gore over 7,000 votes ahead of Bush. All we have to do is disseminate these findings. They speak for themselves, though differently to every individual.

And I'll be damned if I will view such tactics with anything other than unvarnished contempt. Again, this is not an attack on your personally, but I can hardly let the regard I have for you as a debater allow me to view such a position as anything other than unworthy. I have a great regard for civilized discourse, and a firm belief that good governance is produced because of it, not in spite of it.

I can sooner stomach your contempt than I can the Bush agenda and its implications. ;)

I have a tremendous regard for civilized discourse. Hence I believe this is the first election thread I have even posted to. :D However, I have not experienced the miracle of such discourse leading to good governance.

It appeared that Bush's lack of mandate might have resulted in some real communication between the winners and the losers of the last election. But Bush's reversal on CO2 emissions and Dick Armey's new tax cut plan are challenging my faith.

Again, I accept that is your right. You may be the Shining Path of politics and employ whatever guerrilla tactics you deem fit. But I am neither required to join you nor to have a high opinion of those tactics.

I have a high regard for you as a debater, too, Jodi, but when I recruited my core membership for the SDMB cell of the Self-Destructing Liberal Terrorist Front, your name wasn't on the A-list. :D

You may hold whatever opinion you like of said tactics, but your opinion in and of itself does not make them wrong, bad, or [/i]useless[/i], all of which you appeared to imply in your earlier posts.

Democracy depends on the people being willing to accede to being led, sometimes by people they don't like, if that's the result dictated by the election -- whether it's a landslide or a squeaker. In this case, some people appear to be unwilling to do so, and I consider that very dangerous.

I would not go so far as to agree with you here. Democracy depends on adhering to the rule of law which its people set for themselves. Automatic adherence to authority, IMHO, undermines some of the greatest tools of democracy: civil disobedience, mass assembly, and freedom of expression.

I will not advocate breaking the law over Bush's questionable presidency, but I certainly will not accede as if nothing happened, or even throw all of my weight into forward-looking electoral reform.

The continued carping about the election boils down to either Bush isn't really the president (which he obviously is) or Bush shouldn't be the president, and so we should not allow him to do his job. This to me is not in keeping with the ideal that we will submit to governance
even if we don't like the elected official, because that's how the system works.

Although I admit to being too young to make the following pronouncement with any real authority, I would nevertheless say that I detested Reagan considerably more than I dislike GW Bush. Yet I had no problem submitting to his lawful authority, as unpleasant as it certainly was. I am not merely opposing President Bush because I do not like the man or his agenda: I feel that he is the poisoned fruit from the poisonous tree, and should be opposed in kind.

This is not to say that people cannot loathe Bush's
agenda and work against it. But in my mind the intellectually honest thing to do is to loathe it directly, for its innate loathe-ability, rather than continue to focus on the election returns.

These are not two mutually exclusive tactics. I like to think that I am doing both. Unfortunately, I have a much greater impact by spreading the "news" regarding the election returns.

Furthermore, I take slight issue with your idea of intellectual honesty. In order to be intellectually honest, I would have to be true to myself. If I loathe it both directly and indirectly, why should I artificially restrict my feelings to only one sphere? If you could demonstrate how undermining Bush via the questionable election is somehow wrong, then honor and morality would demand that I rein myself in. But so far you have only given me your opinion, strong that it is.

You have been quite frank in stating that you continue to focus on the election because it is an "easier" and "more effective" way to undermine the agenda; I'm willing to agree that it probably is, and I can and do admire your honesty if not your tactics.

Thank you. I just can't help but find that the ideological arguments and appeals to fairness that most of my comrades in arms are espousing are both politically and intellectually bankrupt. Needless to say, it makes my professional life in a progressive organization rather difficult. I mean no offense to any of my liberal friends on the boards, but I can't be the only one who thinks these tirades are kinda stale, even if continued "carping" on the election certainly is not. If we are going to bitch and moan about the election, we might as well do so for the right reasons and with open eyes.

Regards,
MR


{fixed code. --Gaudere}




[Edited by Gaudere on 03-15-2001 at 09:32 AM]

[Hazel]

Originally posted by Jodi
Well, I have to place my self in former Governor Racicot's camp: If there are two holes punched in the ballot, how can you ever establish who the individual intended to vote for? The article seems to assume the people intended to vote for Gore? What's up with that? How do you know who Betty Liebowitz, aged 87, intended to vote for? You don't, and any attempt to say to the contrary is "mere speculation," just as the Republican spokesperson said.

If the ballots are double-punched, they are invalid and cannot be counted. This to me is just common sense. To engage in speculating whom these people really intended to vote for seems to me to be nothing more than navel-gazing. The ballots were invalid; they were thrown out; Bush won. Gore would have won if the ballots had not been invalid or if they were all counted for him? So what? Gore presumably would have won if Bush had been hit by a truck the night before the election. But Bush wasn't and Gore didn't -- win, that is. He lost. And Bush is president. And I firmly believe that a lot of people should just get over it, though I see little indication that they will. I notice that a lot of people weeping over "democracy lost" and deploring how American ideals were compromised in the election do not seem to care much about the tenet of democracy that dictates that once a winner is chosen, the people accede to that choice and move on, much less the American ideal of supporting and respecting the office of the presidency, regardless of whether you personally care for the president.

Jodi, I think you're overlooking an important point. Yes, for any one single voter, we can't know for sure what his intentions were. But we can be sure that ninty-plus percent of Gore-Buchanan double votes were intended for Gore. We know there's no way Buchanan did substantially better in West Palm Beach then elsewhere. If what one is interested in is, who would have won if this West Palm Beach ballot problem had not ocurred, this is an important question.

Leaving West Palm Beach, statewide in FL, a lot of so-called "double votes" were not really any such thing. A lot of people voted for a candidate by punching a hole or whatever, then also wrote in the same candidate. In FL, the standard is the intent of the voter. Surely in these cases, the intent of the voter is crystal clear. These were, IMHO, valid votes that could not be found in a machine count, but which would have been found in a hand count.

Bush is President; that can't be changed. But did Gore really lose? I consider it very important that we determine who really got the most votes. And I consider it very important that we solve the various problems we've discovered with our electoral system.

[Hazel]

Originally posted by elucidator


(snip)

If Al Gore had discovered an arcane Florida law that permitted him to take 10,000 Bush votes and drop them in the Pacific, would you then be saying "well, that's the rules, get over it". More Americans voted for Gore than Bush. Recent evidence strongly indicates that more Floridians went to the poll intending to vote for Gore. The will of the people is the only source of legitimacy, the rules are secondary, as they have no other purpose but to ensure that the will of the people is made manifest. If they serve to thwart that end, then they cease to be legitimate.

After all the self-righteous fooforaw about Clinton's character, this poses the question: what display of character are we witnessing of a man who claims a victory he has good reason to believe is, at best, questionable, and then proceeds to behave as though he had received a unimpeachable mandate. Have you seen any pangs of conscience displayed? Any hint that the manner of his election troubles his thoughts?

The White House is legally ocuppied, all the stamps and seals are in place, and thats that. That makes it a fact. It doesn't confer legitimacy. The man who occupies that seat should not be doing so.

That, too, is a fact.


I am mystified by the mindset that believes that if the rules are followed, the results are automatically right. Sometimes, we have no choice but to follow the rules, even tho doing so does not produce the right result. Can't we at least acknowleged that that's the case? Instead of trying to claim that the result was not a miscarriage of justice.

[Jodi]

MAEGLIN:

It's easy for you to stay high and dry: you support the winner. Evidently you don't have quite as many problems with the right wing agenda as the losers in this election do. I can't picture you screaming bloody murder if Gore had won, but I seriously doubt you would have taken such a high-minded position. The mud would have at least covered your toes.

Well, we don't know (obviously) but I kind of doubt it. My concept of supporting the system if not the actual result -- which I'm sure is a direct carry-over from my dedication to the justice system despite its frequent failings -- probably would not allow me to attack the means (meaning, the Electoral College and the Supreme Court, not the faulty ballots) as opposed to the ends. I might not support Gore's policies -- though I very well might, I was hardly overwhelmed by either candidate -- but I would attack them as policy, not as being illegitimate because he didn't "really" win.

I have a tremendous regard for civilized discourse. Hence I believe this is the first election thread I have even posted to. However, I have not experienced the miracle of such discourse leading to good governance.

I didn't say it led to a miracle of good governance; I said it was more likely to lead to good governance than undermining the legitimacy of the office and slinging mud.

I have a high regard for you as a debater, too, Jodi, but when I recruited my core membership for the SDMB cell of the Self-Destructing Liberal Terrorist Front, your name wasn't on the A-list.

Ha! So my plans to eliminate your organization have failed? My masters will be most displeased.

I would not go so far as to agree with you here. Democracy depends on adhering to the rule of law which its people set for themselves.

But it is precisely the rule of law that dictates that once the election is over and the president is chosen by legitimate means -- the Electoral College and the Supreme Court -- we accede to his right to be president and accept him as such, loathe as we may the things he tries to do while in office.

Automatic adherence to authority . . .

I am not talking about automatic adherence to authority. I am talking about recognizing that Bush DOES in fact HAVE authority. He IS the president, and legitimately so, though under circumstances that mean he lacks any sort of meaningful mandate. This has nothing whatsoever to do with inhibiting public discourse, civil disobedience, or the rights to expression or assembly. I don't even expect people to admit this -- "Okay, I hate you, but you won" -- I just expect (futilely) that people will shut up about the election now that it's over and done, and if they hate Bush for what he stands for or is trying to do, then talk about that.

In order to be intellectually honest, I would have to be true to myself.

I disagree. I think all kinds of honesty require you to be more than true to just yourself. In particular, I think intellectual honesty requires us to recognize a fait accompli as such, and to move past things we cannot change to things we can -- unless there is reason not to. To you, undermining Bush's legitimacy is a reason not to move past the election; to me it is not. Please note that I am in no way accusing you of intellectual dishonesty, but I'm not sure we agree on precisely what that means.

HAZEL:

Jodi, I think you're overlooking an important point. Yes, for any one single voter, we can't know for sure what his intentions were. But we can be sure that ninty-plus percent of Gore-Buchanan double votes were intended for Gore. We know there's no way Buchanan did substantially better in West Palm Beach then elsewhere.

No, HAZEL, we do not "know" this, because we cannot prove it. We can presume it based on what we know about he Palm Beach voters, but we cannot know it to a certainty. And we cannot award the election -- or try to re-award the election at this late date -- based solely on unproven and unprovable assumptions. If you think that it is objectively provable that a specific person or persons who double-punched their ballots really intended to vote for Gore, please explain how you would go about proving this.

I am mystified by the mindset that believes that if the rules are followed, the results are automatically right.

How can you follow all the rules and reach the wrong result? I am not talking about the will of the people, which by popular vote was for Gore anyway, and which in Florida was arguably so screwed up as to be indiscernable. I am talking about utilizing the mechanisms in place for dealing with such problems -- the courts and the Electoral College -- and allowing them to sort the matter out precisely as they were intended to. Even if you don't like the results, how can you say they were "wrong"?

Instead of trying to claim that the result was not a miscarriage of justice.

I think it is not to much to ask that people acknowledge that many of us do NOT believe the result was a miscarriage of justice. You do not have to agree with my characterization, but then neither do I have to agree with yours.

[Hazel]

Jodi said, "According to the certified election results Gore and 50,456,062 for Bush -- or a little more that 1/2 million votes out of 101.5 million votes cast. If my math is correct, that's a margin of around one-half of one percent. You do the math on that and then get back to me on how you can construe it as 'not all that close.' "

Yes, the popular vote results were close, but IMHO there is no real doubt that Gore came out ahead. In Florida, OTOH, the official results had Bush winning by 537 votes out of approx 6 million cast. That's one one-hundredth of one percent. The counting error is greater then that. Statistically, the FL results were a tie.

[Jodi]

HAZEL:

Yes, the popular vote results were close, but IMHO there is no real doubt that Gore came out ahead. In Florida, OTOH, the official results had Bush winning by 537 votes out of approx 6 million cast. That's one one-hundredth of one percent. The counting error is greater then that. Statistically, the FL results were a tie.

Okay. And . . . ? Let's accept for the sake of argument that the results in Florida were a dead die. Then what happens?

[minty green]

You flip a coin.

Or was that the law in New Mexico...

[Hazel]

Originally posted by Jodi
HAZEL:

Yes, the popular vote results were close, but IMHO there is no real doubt that Gore came out ahead. In Florida, OTOH, the official results had Bush winning by 537 votes out of approx 6 million cast. That's one one-hundredth of one percent. The counting error is greater then that. Statistically, the FL results were a tie.

Okay. And . . . ? Let's accept for the sake of argument that the results in Florida were a dead die. Then what happens?

Ignore for the moment all the other problems with Florida's election, and focus on the fact that the official result was a statistical tie. The inevitable margin of error in counting 6 million votes was more then the spread between the two front runners (1/100 of one percent). There was no possible way to determine who really won. One possible solution would have been to disallow Florida. Just leave it out. Another would have been to split Florida's electoral votes between Bush and Gore.

For the 2000 election, no doubt these are solutions that the rules did not permit. But it seems plain that we need to reform our methods of conducting elections. Perhaps one of the things we need to do is write some new rules that address the question of what one does when an election results in a statistical tie.

Or we could eliminate the winner-take-all aspect of the Electoral College. Right now, 48 states are winner-take-all; two are not. Any of the other 48 can, if they so choose, change to apportioning the electoral votes according to the election results.

There is nothing to be done re the 2000 election. I'm still focused on it because I believe that we need to establish exactly what happened and why, and we need to face up to our electoral problems. If we are to solve these problems, we need to (a) admit they exist, and (b) analyize them.

By the way, I don't think the 2000 election was settled according to the intentions of the founders. Their intention was that disputed elections be settled by Congress (a large elected body), not by the courts (small appointed bodies).

[Stoid]

elucidator puts everything very well. He does, after all, elucidate. :)

That's why he's my hero.

stoid

[Hazel]

Jodi asks, "How can you follow all the rules and reach the wrong result?"

I ask, how can you even ASK!?

Rules are created by falible humans. Following the rules does not always produce the intended results. Unforseen situations arise. Unusual complications crop up. Put the 2000 election out of your mind for the moment, and consider this as a general question. To me, it seems utterly plain that "following all the rules" does not guarentee a right result. Even if the rules were written with the best possible intentions.

It seem to me that the proper objective is not to follow all the rules blindly, regardless of consequences. The proper objective is to determine what is right and try to find a way to achieve the right result; the just result; the fair result. If rules get in the way, the proper thing is to try to find a way to do what's right dispite the rules. This is not always possible, but it should be the objective.

Returning to the 2000 election now-- In the aftermath of this botched election, I think we need to take a close look at everything that went wrong (in every state, not just in Florida) with an eye to improving both the methodology of -- AND the rules governing -- elections.

In some cases, improving the methodology will preclude the need to improve the rules. Rather then write new rules to try to avoid the problems that resulted from the use of punchcards, and of butterfly ballots, I would prefer to quit using punchcards and butterflys.

[Hazel]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/113000-101.htm
Published on November 30, 2000 in the Boston Globe-- "Indecision 2000: Heads or Tails?" by Stephen Jay Gould

And a quote from the article:

"We can count for every metaphor of eternity, until Kingdom Come, hell freezes over, or the cows come home, and we will never know because the vote is tied by any achievable standard of measurement. Any method, machine or human, ineluctably embodies an intrinsic margin of error. Differences smaller than this margin cannot be resolved, and any contest with a measured difference within this range is a tie. The disparity between Bush and Gore in Florida lies well within this range - not even near an outer edge that might be tweaked by special care - using any method of machine or hand counting. To cite the excellent metaphor presented by J.A. Paulos in the New York Times, any attempt to determine whether Bush or Gore won Florida is equivalent to trying to measure a bacterium with a yardstick."

(I think J.A. Paulos is the guy who wrote "Innumeracy" and "A Mathmeticial Reads the Newspaper")