Ok, (by the way, thanks for the links to the law, I’d spent some time before I posted in reading it - and failed, as the FSC did, in finding what remedies were presented)
while I would agree that there were people who had been identified as legitimate voters, it is possible that (especially in the Martin case where ballot requests left the building, but also in the Seminole case where ballot requests were not monitored), that an address change may have diverted the ballot from the voter to some place else. Don’t necessarily think that’s what happened, but hell if my republican friends can talk about ‘manhandling’ pieces of cardboard =vote ‘mischief’ under close scrutiny, I can certainly speculate that nefarious stuff went on when otherwise legitimate applications may have been ‘altered’ at other than the individual voter’s wishes without any scrutiny at all.
However, as I’ve pointed out in the other threads, it won’t matter. They could find 10,000 uncounted votes in Tallahassee, all for Gore, and the FSL has announced their intentions of enacting legislation to determine the slate of voters. There’s still court cases about absentee ballots (both counted and not counted), cases about these, cases about recounts of under votes etc. and the legislature is fully prepared to ignore any results from any of those. So, it will all be moot, I suspect.
A quick question for DS (also good job on everything so far):
Since there are two almost identical cases going on simultaneously can the two judges actually confer at all so they make sure there is some consistentcy in interpretation?
I am pretty sure the answer is no, but just want a more substantial confirmation then the voice in my head.
I have no cite available, but it was reported on TV tonight that the judges WERE going to talk about the cases before they ruled. I don’t know what effect this has on their ruling, but it seems they can at least discuss the cases.
There is no reason a judge couldn’t talk about a case with anyone they wanted, other than any of the parties ex parte (means without everyone else in the case present). BUT, the judge can’t be listening to evidence from the other case and using that to make up his or her mind in the case at bar. Thus, if the Martin County judge tells the Seminole County judge about some expert testimony that came into evidence in HIS case, but wasn’t introduced in HER case, and she uses that to rule on the Seminole County case, then there would be trouble.
While it’s ridiculous to assert that any party is alone in its proclamations of responsibility, I don’t see why the Libertarians are any less “the party of responsibility” than any others. At least if you’re talking about personal responsibility. If you mean some form of mandated social responsibility, I guess you’ve got a point.
DSYoungEsq - please don’t tell anyone, but I was watching one of those ‘talking heads’ CNN MSNBC or whatever last night, panel of legal experts, and they brought up the same concept that I did - that the FSL in enacting these tough standards about absentee ballots missed the ‘itty bitty’ technicality of ‘what do you do now’ with large amounts of tainted applications after the fact.
which brought me to this thought:
What if these facts had been brought to the courts attention before the election? would there have been a mechanism to disallow absentee ballots at that point (for those in town)?
Anyhow. One thing I did find refreshing (oddly enough) was Orin Hatch being quoted as saying the FSL would only step in if the courts “made the wrong decision”. I’ve felt all along that was the understood beneath all of the “well, we have the moral authority to insure that the citizens of the State of Florida blah blah”, and they’d said it so often that some of the more partisan republicans around here actually claimed that the FSL would support a Gore slate ‘if the court decision went that way’.
[rosannadanna]I think it’s about time we started talking Seminoles! Miami was a fluke and I don’t think Oklahoma is all that hot anyway and…oh…NEVER mind! [/rosannadanna]
Actually, I think you’re referring to another of Gilda’s characters, Emily Latille (sp?) who would go off on a rant having misunderstood the topic “what’s all of this about violins on television, I think they’re a perfectly nice instrument and…oh, what’s that? Violence? well, that’s very different. Never mind”. But thanks for the memories, anyhow.
While there has been plenty of rhetoric regarding DS’ postings of Florida Statute asking for more laws about the same thing??? Where is the DNC basis for disqualifying ANY of these ballots by statute? I have yet to see a shred of evidence (not a liberal paper’s article, but actual statute citings) from the hardcore Dems on this. There was nothing, absolutely NOTHING, illegal about the ballots. The ballots were 100% legitimate, legal votes. That the DNC (I believe even Al Gore has removed himself from the idiocy of these charges) has stooped to invalidating legal votes to get their man in office, is deplorable.
I cannot believe the claims that the GOP is trying to steal this election when it is quite overtly the opposite.
DNC cries foul on the butterfly ballot format. It is declared difficult to read and illegal. This argument didn’t work to win them the election.
DNC cries foul on punch card ballots, and while over 50% of all voters live in Counties with punch card ballots, they select three counties housing a 61:39 Dem to Rep ratio to divine the intent of the 52:48 Dem to Rep ratio of all punch card style voters. The hand count isn’t allowed by SOS.
DNC cries again, files for an extension of time to present the recounts. Not enough votes are added by this process to make Gore the winner. PBC intentionally takes more time than necessary to count the votes. This enables the DNC to extend their alleged view of potential uncounted votes.
The DNC sends notices to their stronghold BoEs instructing them how to disqualify out-of-country votes. After being caught, they side with the Reps that the military vote should be counted.
Running short on options and not finding the necessary votes to win the election for Gore, the DNC alleges that APPLICATIONS were incorrectly filed and the resulting, valid, accurate and undeniably legal ballots should be disqualified, dispite the voters intent.
Now, I voted for Bush more to support my idiot over the other Parties idiot. If Gore had half the personality of Clinton, he could have won my vote, not to mention handily winning the election. But I am definately Republican and assuredly therefore see things tainted at least to a degree. But the improprieties of the DNC during this post-election contest are staggering. I suppose my morals are simply too high to even remotely picture myself supporting the latest crap.
I can see myself opposing the illegal butterfly ballot form. I can see myself supporting a hand recount of punch card ballots. I can see myself supporting exclusion of the incomplete overseas ballots. I cannot, no matter how hard I attempt to be objective or left, I simply cannot see the moral or legal basis for this request to throw out votes based on potentially illegal actions by three Reps. Please state the law instead of believing that the DNC must be right with no other than blind reasoning.
This is just looking like a propaganda feed to build up Democratic momentum for the 2002 and 2004 races now. They are simply making things up to incite division of the nation, if not rioting in the streets. I hope that even the most weak minded of both Parties eventually see through all the crap and look at coming politics for the character of the candidate rather than the color of their Party.
Put the Country before the Party. I hope we all can agree on that one.
Or at least that’s what Bill Andrews is saying is his motivation. Bill Andrews is a FS Legislator ‘representing’ Palm Beach County. He’s a republican, his district went heavily for Gore during the election. According to This, he intends to vote in favor of a legislative bill selecting Bush electors to the electoral college based, obviously, not on being ‘representative’ of his district, but because he believed that the State of Florida was ‘better off’ with Bush, citing that having the President be the brother of the states governor would ‘fare better’. Yep, that’s sure putting the country’s good before the party.
Regarding the queries about cites for demonstrating that votes should be tossed out etc. - the election laws cited do not (as far as any of us can tell) provide for specific remedies for rampant disregard for the law (don’t sugar coat it- what they did was in violation of the election laws in the State of Florida, designed expressly to minimize the potential for fraud). So, the remedy is apparently left up to the court system. in a prior case (already cited, and it is not a direct correlation), the entire election was thrown out. The courts will rule on this soon. FTR, I don’t believe they’ll toss out votes. But that shouldn’t be misconstrued into thinking that ‘nothing was amiss’.
I don’t see how the final sentance follows from the fact that there is no remedy. Does this apply everywhere? If a law is passed without a penalty attached, is a court entitled to just make one up? I would say if there’s no “remedy” specified, then there is none. For a judge to make one up is just more good old judicial legislation.
As for the previous case, it is not comparable, in that some of the votes were nonexistant. That is that the ballots were not actually cast by voters. In such a case the tossing out of such ballots does not represent a “remedy” invented by the court, but rather a recongnition of the fact that these were not actual votes.
I already stated that the Miami case was not a perfect analogy. however, let’s also remember that in Miami, they tossed out all the legal votes as well as the illegal ones.
In terms of your first objection, we shall see, won’t we? And, of course, although Gore has announced that he’d take the FSC as the final word, regardless of how they rule, Bush has announced that he’ll appeal any unfavorable ruling.
These are two separate issues. One is the tossing out of legal votes along with illegal ones. The other, which I was addressing, is the idea of tossing out the “illegal” ones themselves, even if it were known which they are.
Apparently there is some basis in a Florida statute which allows for votes to be tossed out if there is “substantial noncompliance” with election law. Judge Clark questioned whether this non-compliance was on the part of the voter or on the part of the election officials. But I would also question whether this non-compiance was “substantial”.
One question that occurred to me was that if the illegality of these votes is the fact that they were filled in by someone other than the voter, what is the difference if they were filled in before or after they were received by election officials? IOW, the Democratic ballots should be equally illegal, because they were filled out by the printer prior to being sent out. This must not be a legitimate question, or someone else would have brought it up by now, but if someone is familiar with the distinction please fill me in. (Maybe the voter’s signature renders it all okay?)
thought you’d like to know - in both Semonole & Martin counties the judges ruled that the absentee votes stand. Don’t know if any penalties were doled out, though.
There’s apparently no statute, just case law, which is just as forceful. But if you’ll only believe something if it’s said by a hard-right source, there’s no point in discussing it, really.
Unless you think it was in no way difficult to read, or illegal, then that does NOT support your thesis about “stealing” the election - quite the opposite.
That’s their right. It’s not fair, it’s partisan, sure, but Bush had his chance to do the same in the other counties and repeatedly passed it up - including in the oral arguments before the FSC case which caused him to appeal to the US courts on the basis of it being unfair not to do so. It would have been fairer to recount the entire state, sure, but the fact that it was not done is due to Bush’s failure to go along, not Gore’s for asking.
So how does that support your contention of Gore’s attempt to steal the election, except by your implication that it was an attempt to add votes?
Except that actual legal violations of the absentee ballot procedures should be discounted as “hypertechnical” when Bush is the beneficiary. I see.
Not the DNC, a guy named Harry Jacobs, actually.
The only rioting I’ve heard of so far is the thing by GOP Congressional staffers sent by DeLay to intimidate the Miami-Dade recounters.
We can all agree on that, and I certainly do. But the trick is to act like it, and we’re not all succeeding.
How about THIS view of the election: The Republican wins the popular vote by a small but solid margin. OK, the Democrats say, but that doesn’t matter under the Constitution. Fine. Well, the Republican wins the electoral vote too, in 49 states, by a 267-246 margin, with 270 needed. The Democrat needs 24 of the 25 electors in the last state. There, where his own brother is the Governor and his own campaign chair is the Secretary of State in charge of the ballot counting but refuses to recuse herself, he comes up short by a margin of 1 vote in 10,000, using methods with an error rate of 1 in 20. The campaign chair, er, SoS, rushes to get that result locked in and does everything in the office’s power to shut off any challenge.
The Republican has real questions about the integrity of the process and files suits to get a more accurate count, as is his right under the law. These are grudgingly granted. It is becoming increasingly clear that more voters actually intended to vote for the Republican than the Democrat in the state, but are not able to show it due to a variety of problems with ballot design, polling-place intimidation, partisan efforts by holders of offices that are required to be operated nonpartisanly, etc. Meanwhile, the Democrat’s attorneys are stalling at all possible points to run out the clock and exhaust the patience of We the People.
When it becomes clear that a more accurate recount has a likelihood of reversing the result, the Democrat’s allies send a squad of people from Washington to intimidate the recounters into quitting. Finally, when it looks possible that the courts might actually order the procedures to occur that are the Republican’s right under the law, the Democrats controlling the state legislature openly discuss blowing off the vote entirely and assigning the necessary electors to the Democrat.
In that scenario, who appears to be “stealing the election”? What’s that you said about a “propaganda feed” and “inciting division”, again? I must have missed something when you were talking about putting country before party.
Well…Yes, I guess part of what I would say is that my view of responsibility is a bit more collective. To only have responsibility to one’s self seems quite narrow to me. Of course, the bigger problems come when one’s own rights conflict with others. Thus, when you start talking about actions that harm the environment, for example, I don’t see it as being very responsible course of action to do something for your own pleasure that is harming the environment (and thus others). And, while I seem to be able to get some libertarians to agree that these sort of externalities have to be dealt with, I don’t see it as any big part of, say, Harry Browne’s platform that we get some sort of cost estimates of the externalities involved in, say, automobile usage and then tax it accordingly.
Hehehe, not to brag, but I was right.
These cases NEVER had the possibility of resulting in the remedy requested. The cases where absentee votes were disallowed all involved actual fraud, in significant amounts. These cases were always much closer to the Beckstrom case, even though the attorney for the plaintiffs refuses to admit that.
Substantial noncompliance? None. Resulting in the will of the voters not being represented? Not provable, not proven. Result? What the law specified.
Result on the inevitable appeal? Affirmed.
