Bush won fair and square...quit yer bitch'n

[ISiddiqui]

No, my first thought was better: disallow FL electoral votes.

Would this REALLY be a good idea? I mean, then it would have gone to the House of Representatives, where the Republicans and Democrats would have voted for their man, and you’d have an every MORE partisan wrangling (if that is even possible). Bush still wins though, but everyone hates each other a little more.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by cmkeller *
Despite the thirty-year time lag, the Nixon proceedings were generally cited as the model for how the Clinton proceedings should go forward. However, I couldn’t help but be struck by one interesting difference: During the Clinton proceedings, Republicans were constantly lambasted for being “partisan”, i.e., for attacking the president of the opposite party, while the president’s partisans in Congress backed him in lockstep fashion. The Nixon proceedings lacked that sort of partisanship…not on the part of the opposition party, but in that the president’s partisans in Congress abandoned defending him. But somehow, with Clinton, the expectations of what constituted non-partisan behavior were reversed.

I think that Republicans these days show a much broader allowance for internal dissent and/or party-line-crossing than Democrats do.

Of course, the problem with your example is people will interpret it according to their beliefs about the whole thing. While you interpret the Democrats’ defense of Clinton as showing lock-step behavior, we interpret the Republicans even making this into an impeachment issue to be the real sign of such lock-step behavior.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Actually, ISiddiqui, I believe each state delegation gets one vote, not each representative. Regardless of the hate, I would think this would have been a better solution – and the ONLY Constitutional soution – than letting SCOTUS deciding the matter. Bush would have won, though.

[kniz]

originally posted by polycarp
7. The fact that we’re still fighting about it 29 months later is indicative of a really great problem in America today – that very few people take the interests of the country as ahead of their “sectarian loyalties.” Heinlein referred to this as “the Spanish disease” because it destroyed Spain in the 1930s. I truly fear for my country while it continues.

There is a story that may be true or false but illustrates very well what polycarp is talking about. In 1960, there was also a very close election. The winner as everyone knows was [color=indigo]JFK. But right after the election there were questions about the votes in Texas and Illinois. The story is that Kennedy called Nixon and asked “What are we going to do?” Nixon replied “I am not going to challenge, because it will cause a split in the country. You are the president.”[/color]

Here is a cite. If you follow the link you will discover that it more than questions the story I just cited. That is so nobody gets all caught up with whether the story is true or false. The fact is that during that election there was a question about the outcome and somehow it did not come down to what has happened in the last election.

I freely admit to voting for Bush, but only as the best of the worst. Gore proved me right, when he challenged the outcome right off the bat. That not only showed “no class”, but was not good for the country.

[sup]In fairness I will quote the best argument made in opposition:

originally posted by ElvisL1ves
We still complain about it because we still care about democracy. Because we know and appreciate all that our ancestors have fought for so we could have the privilege of selecting our own leaders. Because we still have principles, larger than our own special interests, worth upholding. Because we know how destructive a narrow, divisive, dismissive-of-disagreement ideological orientation can be in our leadership. Because, if we accept it, it can more easily happen again. Because we accept the responsibility Franklin was dead right about : "A republic, if you keep it."

All that crap about votes in Florida being counted, not counted, this, that, are just: so much water over the dam.[/sup]

[RickJay]

skankweirdall, not to point out the obvious here, but the weight given New York and California is barely changed by the electoral college. Under the EC, California has 10% of the vote; under popular vote, it would be about 12%. It doesn’t make that big a difference.

The reason the EC exists is that the framers of the Constitution never really intended for the President to be elected by a popular vote of the entire population.

[skankweirdall]

*Originally posted by RickJay *
skankweirdall, not to point out the obvious here, but the weight given New York and California is barely changed by the electoral college. Under the EC, California has 10% of the vote; under popular vote, it would be about 12%. It doesn’t make that big a difference.

The point was that without an EC a few major population centers could indeed control the presidential election. I just used those two as examples.
The reason the EC exists is that the framers of the Constitution never really intended for the President to be elected by a popular vote of the entire population.
That would be correct and the reason for that is as I stated previously. At least I was paying attention during that part of class, not that I’m a constitutional expert though.

[RandySpears]

No. It’s there for a reason. A damn good reason too. It’s so that a couple major population centers don’t vote for the whole country. I don’t get where you guys with the popular vote thing are coming from. That’s the law. It was set up that way for a purpose and it works. If you went with a strictly popular vote you would in effect discount the votes of millions of Americans that don’t live in NY or CA. And isn’t that your stance to start with, counting everyones vote and making everyones vote count? Seems like a double standard to me.

But isn’t it, like, supposed to be a democratic form of government?

In the sense that the majority of the people decides.

[skankweirdall]

*Originally posted by RandySpears *
**But isn’t it, like, supposed to be a democratic form of government?

In the sense that the majority of the people decides. **

Nope, it’s a republic.

[RandySpears]

So are you saying that a republic is not a democratic form of government?

Or are you saying that in a republic the majority does not chose their government?

I don’t follow.

[skankweirdall]

*Originally posted by RandySpears *
**So are you saying that a republic is not a democratic form of government?

Or are you saying that in a republic the majority does not chose their government?

I don’t follow. **

Republic; * A state in which the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people (the electorate), and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to them.*

In other words the people elect the electorates, not the actual powers.

I’m starting to scare myself. I’m not sure what happened that day in class as I usually have the attention span of a 6 month old Labrador Retriever. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

[Pencil_Pusher]

From Grolier’s

Democracy is a form of government in which a substantial proportion of the citizenry directly or indirectly participates in ruling the state. It is thus distinct from governments controlled by a particular social class or group or by a single person. In a direct democracy citizens vote on laws in an assembly, as they did in ancient Greek city-states and do today in New England towns. In an indirect democracy citizens elect officials to represent them in government; representation is typical of most modern democracies. Today the essential features of democracy, as understood in the Western world, are that citizens be sufficiently free–in speech and assembly, for example–to form competing POLITICAL PARTIES and that voters be able to choose among the candidates of these parties in regularly held ELECTIONS.

The definition that skankweirdall is using is not a standard one.

[RandySpears]

Rephrasing : are not the electorate supposed to be democratically elected by the people in a republic?

[skankweirdall]

*Originally posted by Pencil Pusher *
**The definition that skankweirdall is using is not a standard one. **

Really, it’s straight out of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary.

quote
Rephrasing : are not the electorate supposed to be democratically elected by the people in a republic?
Yes that would be correct. However my original point was addressing the EC that some people seem to misunderstand.

Synapses are sputtering now, got to go to bed. Good night everyone.

[John_Mace]

Randy:

The US is differnet from Sweden (in more ways than one). It’s a federation of states, and the original idea was that THE STATES elect the president. Kind of like the EU, but not quite as loose. It’s a bit of an anacronism at this point, but there are still a lot of folks (me included) who like the idea that the States are supposed to be the primary form of gov’t and that the feds have very restricted authority.

[Tejota]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
**Can you provide a cite for this? Thanks. **

Everything the New York Times Thinks About the Florida Recount Is Wrong! (from Slate)

Just when you thought the Florida recount story was settling down into a familiar bitter partisan dispute, the Orlando Sentinel has changed the story line again. The Sentinel, remember, was the paper that first uncovered the hidden cache of valid, uncounted “overvotes”—seemingly double-voted ballots that, as the massive media recount of Florida has now confirmed, were the key to a potential Gore victory, if only he had known it.

…

But the Sentinel had the wit to call up Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, who was actually supervising the real-life recount on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped it. Lewis told the Sentinel that "he would not have ignored the overvote ballots."

(emphasis mine)

[Stoid]

Originally posted by kniz *
** That not only showed “no class”, but was not good for the country.*

Meaningless bull. The earth didn’t open up and swallow us, now did it?

[RandySpears]

Originally posted by John Mace
The US is differnet from Sweden (in more ways than one). It’s a federation of states, and the original idea was that THE STATES elect the president. Kind of like the EU, but not quite as loose. It’s a bit of an anacronism at this point, but there are still a lot of folks (me included) who like the idea that the States are supposed to be the primary form of gov’t and that the feds have very restricted authority.

Yep our countries are different, it’s a fact. But we do have many things in common too! Dr Phil on tv for example

Anyhow, sentiments towards your federal state do seem to differ hugely among US citizens. I acknowledge that you and others may want to preserve substansial authority for the individual states.

But your presidential office is a federal instance.

From my discussion with skankweirdall, it seems to me that the electorate in a republic ought to be chosen in a democratical process. It also seems that this was not the case proper in this last election. Therefore america cannot presently be said to be a Republic proper. And neither a democratic* country proper.

Isn’t this a problem?

(*) A republic is still a “democratic” country, am I right? Hope i’m not too confused about the terminology here…

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Tejota *
Everything the New York Times Thinks About the Florida Recount Is Wrong! (from Slate)

Damn, Ive been duped by that conservative, Bush-apologist rag, the NY Times! But, wait a minute, your own cite also says:

**Though he stopped short of saying he definitely would have expanded the recount to include overvotes, Lewis emphasized ‘I’d be open to that.’

**This is not what you stated previously, which was “And, in fact, he gave an interview and said that if SCOTUS had not stopped the count, he would have ordered that ALL ballots rejected by the machines be recounted by hand.” That’s not what he said, according to your own cite. Assuming your cite is accurate, his statement is an after-the-fact point that is neither definitive nor consistent with what the Florida SC specifically permitted to proceed. FWIW, your cite also points out:

**P.S.: Does this mean Gore’s undervote-obsessed recount strategy wasn’t foolish, as previously charged in this space? Not necessarily. By the time the issue of the overvotes was raised before Judge Lewis, on Dec. 9, it was almost too late to count them before Dec. 12, the date accepted (foolishly!) by Gore’s lawyers as the deadline for selecting Florida’s electors. Any recount, even if it put Gore ahead, would have been chaotic and disputed, as this Sentinel companion story suggests.

**Bottom line, there was nothing on the table that could have resulted in a Gore victory. SCOTUS did not “steal” anything, whatever your opinion is of their decision, or else I am missing some key fact.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Pencil Pusher *
**Bob Cos, you have been duped. It’s not your fault. The media was actively trying to dupe you. <snip> Notice that every time you count the entire state, Gore received more votes **

My point is not that there is no recount scenario that could conceivably have resulted in a Gore victory. My point is that a statewide recount was not on the table, not at any point. SCOTUS could not have prevented something that was never going to occur.

[Evil_Captor]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
**]Bottom line, there was nothing on the table that could have resulted in a Gore victory. SCOTUS did not “steal” anything, whatever your opinion is of their decision, or else I am missing some key fact. **

yes, you are missing the key fact that never, under any circumstances, will you admit that the Pubbies stole the 2000 election, even if somebody raided the White House and found a document entitled “2000 Election Theft Plans” detailing exactly how they did it. When you put all the other shenanigans up against the Database, Inc. exclusion of thousands of qualified voters, you have a picture that clearly spells “FRAUD” but you just won’t ever see it.