I’ll give you another potential out. Since you seem convinced that this is merely a gambit to insure that ‘some’ slate of electors would be submitted, would your position change with this: Note the date
I’m assuming that what you mean is “A slate of Bush electors has already been chosen, therefore the only reason for the legislature to get involved is to shut out any idea of Gore getting Florida electors”. If that isn’t what you mean, then please clarify and feel free to ignore my current rebuttal.
However, the certification currently on file exists only based upon the state of information available at the time. Should that information be changed- that is, should Bush have votes tossed out, or Gore gain votes in a recount- that certification is null and void and a new certification will be made.
Therefore, should matters still be in flux come the twelfth- lawsuits and appeals still unresolved, or mandated counts unfinished- Gore could easily argue for Florida’s electors to be excluded based upon the fact that the certification has been voided (as the certification would be based on incorrect information), and the Electoral College would vote without Florida (based upon some interpretations I’ve heard). Since the Constitution states that the Electors will be chosen in a manner approved by the state legislature, a legislature-chosen slate of electors would be harder (though not impossible) to oppose, and thus Florida would get a chance to submit electors.
So it doesn’t change my opinion at all- the legislature is trying to make sure that electors are submitted to the EC, and should Gore gain victory in Florida by the 12th, I fully expect the legislature to step down and allow the Gore slate of electors to be submitted. Again, while I don’t doubt that there are some legislators who would still wish to force a Bush slate of electors, I doubt that there would be enough legislators willing to overturn a result.
yes, that is what I meant.
Ok, so what’s the deal? If by any means (FSC, recounts, disputed absentee ballots etc.) Gore is named the winner, then I believe that the FSL will step in and re-certify the Bush slate. That’s my position.
Of course, this is pretty much a given, since in your scenario:
-
Courts could all rule in favor of Bush, no action would need to be taken.
-
Courts could rule in favor of Gore, Bush would immediately appeal, and the FSL would ‘have to’ step in and certify Bush the winner. Please note, I do NOT believe, for one second that should the courts rule in favor of Gore, and Bush appealed, the FSL would certify a slate of electors favoring Gore (as being the last clear winner) in order to “keep Florida’s voice heard”. Do you? Do you think there is any chance at all that if the FSL steps in to certify a slate that they would be for Gore? Thought not.
So, it’s a QED - all Bush has to do is file an appeal somewhere alleging something. wouldn’t have to be significant, even. And the FSL would have all the justification it would need.
The electors are not bound by any such laws, anymore than you are bound to obey the speed limit. Their votes count, no matter who they choose. They may face fines or even imprisonment in their own states, but those states can do nothing to change an elector’s vote.
Some seem to be expressing the sentiment of “The horror! The horror!” regarding the Fla. Legislature proscribing which slate of electors will count. And it’s the sentiment I’ve heard incessantly from Democrats on TV the past 24 hours.
Keep in mind that there has been a certified final vote, and Bush has been declared the winner.
While I believe the Legislature would respect a court’s ruling in the election contest that hand recounts should be finished, I do not think they will respect what I saw on MSNBC a couple of Saturdays ago, as a Democratic hack on the Broward canvassing board gave EVERY questionable ballot to Gore, like a damn conveyor belt.
Look at the numbers. They made up several hundreds of votes for Gore in Broward in, essentially, a day of counting. You may say, “Well, that shows the votes are there, and we need to keep counting.” I, however, would say something different (and it would likely have lots of four-letter words in it).
Which of the below do you think would cause more of a public outcry in the nation?
A) Gore winning via dimpled chads ultimately interpreted for him by Democrats, using standards that have varied numerous times since the election was held.
B) Gore winning by tossing out 15,000 absentee votes that voters correctly cast, after harping on, “When people vote in this country, we count the votes.” (BTW: Anyone want to argue that Gore forces aren’t behind, or at least involved in, the Seminole and Martin county cases? Please.)
C) The Legislature determining that the hand-count process is not reflecting the will of the voters of Florida, and deciding the state will be represented by Bush electors, who have been certified as the legal winners of the state by the Secretary of State and State Elections Board, in whom the authority rests to decide such things.
I think it will be A and B, without a doubt.
Elgur: Yes, that’s exactly what we need to defend democracy, a popular uprising where Bush gets thrown out by force. Uh-huh.
Did you happen to notice all the other states where Bush won? I mean, they aren’t recounting the votes in North Dakota, are they? So that’s not in dispute. Florida is in dispute, because it is the only state that makes a difference in the electoral college that was so close. Both candidates got half the votes, within the margin of error. It is entirely possible that Gore got a few more than Bush, it is entirely possible that Bush got a few more than Gore. But you’d have to be very obtuse to not recognize that both got approximately half the votes. The fact is that given the technical situation it is not really possible to get an accurate count down to the last vote means. No one is really arguing about “counting”, if it were all about counting it would be over.
No, we are arguing about which ballots to accept. And any reasonable person would agree that it is not that easy. We can agree on the easy cases, where everything is clear. But you must admit that the vote is so close that ballots where people disagree as to whether they are legal or not will make a difference. 99% of elections are not close enough for this to happen, it is clear who won without having to argue over which ballots are legally cast and which aren’t. But Bush didn’t steal the election, even if more people in florida supported Gore. How are the sneaky Republican operatives going to know IN ADVANCE that everything would come down to Florida, and that it would be so close thay they would have to intimidate, confuse, and stuff the boxes? We have to follow election law as it stands on the day the election is held, anything else is impossible.
Your ranting and raving about how we need an uprising isn’t very helpful.
Wait, back to the OP. No, I just can’t see it. Even if the Florida Supreme court orders a recount, how can the recount be finished before the 12th? It can’t. If the counties begin the recount but aren’t finished, then the Florida election will have been unable to choose a slate of electors. Therefore, it goes to the legislature, who choses the Bush slate. Therefore, the Bush slate goes. And if a Gore slate also shows up in DC congress the republican controlled house will vote to set the Bush slate. But the senate is divided 50-50, with Gore casting the tiebreaker. If the senate votes to accept the Gore slate, the law says that if Congress cannot agree then it goes back to the state legislature. Who picks the Bush slate.
Gore’s only hope is that the court orders a recount. But since they cannot complete a recount, he has no hope. Even if they could complete a recount in time, Bush might still win. And if Gore wins, the legislature has enough cover with the allegations of fraud and irregularity to throw out the Gore slate and send the Bush slate. So, no matter what happens, it seems a Bush slate is going to be sent to DC. The only question is whether a Gore slate is going to show up as well. But even if the Gore electors show up it still won’t make a difference, Bush will win.
Are you really contending that the FSL would vote to certify a Gore slate? As I saw it, the only reason the FSL would come into play at all is if the courts ruled against Bush. and only then would then contend that the ‘true’ intent of the Florida voters had been thwarted. So, they’ve already decided what the ‘true’ intent is. Why is it so much more palitable that the FSL make that determination vs. say, the board of canvassers at the precincts? or the FSC?
In any event Milo I know you don’t like being called ‘partisan’, but to suggest that an action by the FSL wouldn’t be percieved in a negative viewpoint by ‘people in general’?? Even the head of one of the houses (either the Senate or the House, can’t remember which), backed away from this action as soon as he could, only to see it trotted out again now that the FSC has agreed to hear the case.
Your stipulations of A is incorrect, in that the decision about votes is not made by “Democrats”. Canvassing boards are making the determinations.
Regarding “B” I believe the FSL (remember them?) enacted tough legislation to make it more difficult for wholesale voter absentee ballot fraud to occur. Court cases will handle these. I didn’t see remedies posted in the laws (I looked 'em up), but I doubt that these will be tossed.
OTOH, let’s look at a Bush win:
-
Numbers of minority voters were stopped by police blockades in front of the polling places.
-
Numbers of absesntee ballots were ‘helped’ (and in the quaint terms of another poster ‘they didn’t know it was a no-no’) by only Republicans, while Democratic ballot requests were tossed aside and not validated.
-
Numbers of ballots that failed to register as voted on the machine, but were determined by hand counts (multi-representational handcounts) to have distinct votes were ** not ** allowed to be considered because of time constraints, political and legal maneuvering.
-
A partisan legislature announced their intent to certify electors, before the results of court actions
Yea, that’s a clear, decisive authority. Face it. Neither guy has such a thing. But, please don’t succomb to the delusion that action by the FSC counteracting their own court systems would be seen as a pallitable thing to folks.
I certainly don’t advocate an uprising or anything like it. At least Lemur is admitting that Florida’s vote could be rationally seen as going either way. (actually, tho’ Lemur both parties knew going in the Florida was one of about 6 states that were key)
Do NOT watch TV 24 hours a day. That is bad for your mental health.
Well, that certainly settles that. Why, he’s been certified! If only we’d known!
Gore doesn’t need them. If you count every ballot where there is a clear physical impact of an object (the stylus, presumably) on the ballot, Gore will win. Not by much, mind you. “Tis not as deep as a well, nor as wide as a church door, but 'tis enough, it will suffice”
You guys like to imply that the IBM-type cards involved are the merest gossamer, that a stern look will create a “questionable” ballot. Hogwash! A “dimpled chad” has a hole punched through it. If the voter didn’t put it there, how did it get there?
Indeed I do. Thank you for making my case so eloquently.
OK, lets set the standards. The card must have an undeniable physical impact, no “double voting”, no presumption of intent. Gore wins that.
Keep 'em. Give Gore a fair count of the uncounted ballots, and that will do. Keep in mind, Bush is ahead by by .003% even with all those ballots. In my opinion, those ballots are merely tainted, but not illegal. So bet it.
A “certified” lie is still a lie. Let us assume, just for argument, that every voters intention is fairly and clearly ascertained. Is it your contention that in that instance Bush would have more votes than Gore? If that were in fact the case, we would have no argument. It isn’t.
If George “Bambi” Bush wins fair and square, so be it. Hell, I survived Nixon, I ain’t afraid.
Nitpick: That wasn’t theft; it was collusion.
No scenario? I can think of a few. Remember that these aren’t even the remotest bit likely – I’m just accepting the challenge to think of scenarios in which Gore becomes President.
-
If this was MY Hollywood movie, I’d have a hard-drinking investigative journalist overhear some guy in a bar bragging about a car trunk full of Gore ballots purloined under the express orders of Jeb Bush. This being a Hollywood movie, he would of course have left smoking guns all over the place in the form of taped messages, signed notes, and all the other unlikely incriminating paraphernalia that occur in cinematic detective fiction. The Feds show up and arrest everyone for fraud, leaving Dubya no choice but to be Presidential and concede the election.
-
Before the Electoral college votes, yet another hard-drinking investigative journalist uncovers a DUI conviction for Bush subsequent to the one we all know about that was covered up by his political connections. Outraged representatives to the Electoral College change their votes.
-
And if you are talking legal scenarios, it’s laughably unlikely, but as long as the Florida legislature is taking the formation of the electoral delegates into their own hands, they could just as easily choose Gore over Bush. This is a little bit less likely than the Caribbean freezing over, but it is a possibility.
I didn’t watch TV for 24 hours. Over a 24-hour period, the time when I saw Democrats on TV speaking on this subject, that was their consistent, unwavering argument.
Could you not clearly discern the intent of my statements? Intent’s a subjective thing, innit?
Let us assume, just for argument, that the Invisible Pink Unicorn came down from the skies and declared Gore the winner. That’s exactly as plausible as every voter’s intention being fairly and clearly ascertained through looking at an anonymous ballot whose caster isn’t there to explain his or her actions.
There’s always a margin of error. That’s why we need to keep things legal and objective, and follow processes as carefully as we can. Although avoiding subjectivity has proven impossible on both sides in this whole thing.
Which gets me back to my OP. If everything continues to fall on partisan lines, the Republicans have the power in all of the key places, and will win. You may scream about how unfair that is, but the Republicans can make just as strong an argument that what’s being attempted by Gore at this moment is nothing short of subversion of a fair and legal election.
Every single bit of this can be argued convincingly either way. Indeed, the only part that I see as completely disingenuous is Gore’s assertion that he wants a fair and accurate count of all the votes. He and everyone else knows he’s cherry-picked in areas that stand the most chance of benefiting him.
I would say, “Nothing wrong with that; that’s his right under the law.” Except there might be something wrong with that when it comes to a statewide, winner-take-all election for presidential electors. It might be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, in that it gives more weight and scrutiny to some voters’ votes than it does others.
**
It’s my contention that, evaluating the results of this election using methods that have always and typically been used, Bush has never trailed in Florida.
On what information do you contend that Gore would have more votes than Bush? Sound-bites? Inside info from the people who will be doing the hand-count? The Gore team’s entire premise has been speculative, and Judge Sauls rightly ruled that the law doesn’t allow you to contest on speculation, only on evidence of machine malfuction or fraud. No clear, definitive evidence of either was presented.
I contend that 99 percent of the population of Michigan are members of the Elks Club. I reach this conclusion because, when I counted 100 people at the local Elks Lodge, 99 of them were Elks.
Any logical flaw there?
What if you don’t buy that an identation on a ballot shows voter intent? What if you can cite laws and policies in place before an election that back you up?
I’d say you have a problem, a difference of opinion. Looks like that’s what we’ve got. Which gets us back to the premise of my OP.
Please cite to me, wring, your evidence that disputes the following:
A) Every county Gore chose for hand-counts has a canvassing board that is comprised of a majority of Democrats.
B) In hand-counts that have already occurred, virtually all of the votes that went to Gore did so on that partisan majority.
C) The majority rules on these canvassing board decisions on what constitutes a vote.
If you can’t disprove all of the above (which, I’ll save you the trouble; you can’t), the votes Gore needs to overturn this will be ultimately decided upon by Democrats.
Are you just mincing words, playing Pollyanna, or what?
Here’s a weird Gore-wins scenario:
A sympathetic judge disallows the Seminole absentee ballots and Gore wins by a few hundred votes.
The Fla. legislature meets tomorrow and names the Bush slate of electors to represent the state in the electoral college.
Outraged, the legislature of Tennessee, controlled by Democrats, convenes over the weekend and names Gore’s electors to represent Tennessee in the electoral college, rather than Bush’s electors. (Bush won the state.)
But I suppose that even under that scenario, the house could reject Tennessee’s Gore electoral votes and accept its Bush electors. But does it take a simple majority or a supermajority for the House to reject a state’s electoral votes? And when electoral votes are successfully challenged, are they just thrown out? The day for casting them will have come and gone. If Tennessee’s votes aren’t counted at all, that would leave it at 267-260 in Gore’s favor, even giving Bush Florida. Or would both sets of electors meet on the appointed day, and both sets of votes would go to Washington, and one set would then be rejected?
I think one of the arguments that the Dems might make about the Florida Legislature is this: As Milossarian pointed out, the Constitution says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct … Electors.” The Democrats might argue that the Legislature has already directed this to be done (i.e., by passing a law that allows citizens to cast ballots for the slates of electors,) and the electors have already been appointed by the people, we just don’t yet know which ones.
I get the feeling that Gore’s people see there’s almost no way he can win, but they want to make Bush’s victory look as crooked as possible. I think having the state legislature step in will leave an unpleasant mark on his election.
Rudeness gets you nowhere Milo “playing Pollyanna”? My point to you, sir, is that in your eyes, when the action is undertaken by a Republican, they are “merely carrying out their duties as proscribed by law” (Katherine Harris, the Canvasser Board folks in those counties who allowed only republicans to correct ballot applications, the republican legislators etc.). And here, where the board of canvassers are comprised of at least 3 people (two of whom, yes, will be of one party, but not necessarily party officials), it suddenly becomes tainted. It is your contention that they are would do something wrong, instead of ‘merely fufilling the duties of their job’. I don’t need to prove that they aren’t. You need to prove that they are.
Each piece of ‘evidence’ you allude to can have more than one interpretation.
For example - you see 3 people, 2 of whom clearly see a vote for Gore, one doesn’t and you assume that only the one who didn’t see the vote is being unpartisan and fair. I see it as 3 people, two of who see a vote, the one who desperately doesn’t see a vote, doesn’t.
you think that since one recount found lots more Gore votes than Bush, that proves that Gore’s cheating. Other interpretations include 'that’s why you do recounts, ‘cause mistakes happen’, or ‘that proves colusion on the part of the republicans to hide votes’.
Gore chose the counties based on the punch card ballots, the high number of ‘non votes’ and yes, the fact the counties in question were highly democratic. So? your guy opted not to ask for recounts. Maybe that would have been the best way/high road for everyone - BOTh candidates saying yes, it’s too close, let’s handcount them all, to be sure. But since Bush was ahead at the time, he opted to go for a ‘sure thing’ instead.
Thanks for the admonition and all that, wring. Now then, will you answer the three questions I asked you in my last post?
I seem to recall saying frequently in this and other discussions that this entire issue seems to be falling along partisan lines at every turn. For the most part, that’s because many of the issues are really open to relatively reasonable, but partisan, interpretation.
So, what was the point of “you see this as this, but others can see it as that?” No shit! Where did I say differently?
let’s try this again. Milo makes the statement that it will be “democrats” making the decision regarding the ballots, and therefore any republican should be concerned, implying that the democrats would not make fair decisions. Then Milo challenges me to demonstrate that the folks making the decisions are not democrats. And I refuse, so now, he comes with “see you didn’t answer my questions!”. Right.
Because, you see, the answer is, as I stated, that unless you can demonstrate that your ** assertion** that the democrats involved are incapable of rendering a fair decision (and that the decision is pased on not one person, but by three people, at least one of whom is not a democrat), then the actual make up of the panels involved is irrelevant. And so far, you haven’t. All you can do is repeat ‘but they’re democrats’. Not enough. try again.
**
Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Democrat Suzanne Gunzberger of the Broward canvassing board gave EVERY disputed ballot to Gore. In fact, I provided a link to that in direct response to you in another thread.
According to FoxNews, the current (or upcoming)issue of Newsweek makes the same assertion about Gunzberger.
So, was Gunzberger checking her politics at the door, doing her best to discern the intent of voters and just happens to believe that every single ballot in question was, indeed, a Gore vote? What is the statistical probability that that is, indeed, the case?
“She’s only one of three,” right? How can you say with a straight face that such a scenario doesn’t put Bush at an unfair disadvantage?
The effect of Gunzberger’s apparent locked-in Gore vote is evident when one considers that virtually all votes moved to the Gore pile in Broward were done so on a 2-1 vote, with the breakdown being the 2 Democrats voting yes and the 1 Republican dissenting.
So, there ya go, wring. Your turn. Prove it wrong.
You keep putting lipstick on a pig, but it still looks like a pig to me.
Let us just face it- EVERY person having any power in this, has made their vote & decision along strict, partisan, party lines. Everyone is biased. Both sides are trying anything they can to win. I have not complained about the tactics either party used. Even tho i am a Gore suppoter, i did not bitch about Bush running to SCOTUS- because the veep would have done the same thing.
I have only one MAJOR problem with one action- and that is the GOP Fla Leg, ignoring what the voters said, and sending their own flunkies in. This will sent some EXTREMELY bad precedents, if allowed to stand. Yes, it could lead to Tenn ignoring THEIR voters & sending in a slate of Gore flunkies.
**
Wrong. “Dimpled chads” don’t have holes punched through them. Dimpled chads range from chads that have a slight indentation that did not penetrate the paper to scratches, smears, or even a slight shadow cast funny on it. I’d tend to believe the rest of your information in this post is just as wrong or biased as well.
Sounds really damning, huh? I’m not sure why. Do you think that when Gunzberger judged that a ballot was for Bush, that the GOP representative disputed it? If she judged it a no vote would he dispute it? If it was the GOP rep that was showing bias, then the only ballots which would be disputed would be ones for Gore. So the cited fact (if indeed a fact) does not tell us which side was acting in a biased manner. We could just as well phrase it that the only time the GOP disputed was when Gunzberger gave a vote to Gore.
So, again, I ask, how did it get there?? Voodoo?
Are you seriously contending that random incidents are marking these ballots in exactly the spot where a voter might mark a ballot? Keep in mind that is a very small target. So who put it there? Elves? Elvis?
If there is as much randomness as you seem determined to believe, those ballots should have indentations all over the place!! In that case, hundreds of thousands of ballots would have been kicked out by the machines for double voting.
You are apparently convinced that hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of voters did not vote for president at all, and then, by some miracle, random dimples, indentations, and shadows arrived precisely on that little bitty square wherein a voter would mark a Gore vote.
And all of it utterly innocent of a voters intent!!
You GOTTA be kidding!