Oh, now I get it!!! We’ve been had by a master of irony!
Ol’ Milo is doing an impression of a guy who is absolutely determined to cling to an opinion like a lamprey sucking a hand grenade!
He’s putting us on!!!
Brilliant satire, Milo! Positively Olympian in its irony! I admit it, you had me going! Hell, I thought you were serious!
Genius, Milo! Sheer genius! My hat is off to you!
Ok, Milo, out of the 3 or 4 counties of votes that are being counted/have been hand counted, out of the how many panels of people working (I saw rooms full), you’ve found exactly ** one** woman who out of one panel of 3 votes who has, in two people’s eyes displayed partisanship.
And from that, you extrapolate that every team in ** every** county does?
So, even in your scenario, one vote of a panel of three does not carry the decision. Are you claiming that in that panel of three votes, her decision won every time? No? gee, then I guess the other dem there wasn’t being partisan?
If that kind of logic worked, since we have documentation and admission from at least two republican ‘party operatives’ that they altered absentee ballot requests, we should now assume that every republican absentee ballot request was altered? (gee, and these facts have been taken as sworn testimony, too)
Well John, I’ll give you an out again. Last night on one of those CNN or MSNBC shows, Orin Hatch said that the FSL would step in if “the courts made the wrong decision”.
Now, I’ll grant you that Orin is not a member of the FSL but…
by the way, the head of the House of Reps by the way was asked if he was in ‘close contact with the Bush campaign’, denied it, saying the last time he’d talked to anyone there was “yesterday”
Still think that they’d endorse a Gore platform?
I don’t think there is any doubt that the legislature is trying to ensure a Bush victory. Two things must be borne in mind, however.
One is that the Republican members of the legislature genuinely believe that Bush has actually won the majority of the votes in Florida (in the same manner as the Democrats who believe the opposite). Therefore, in this view, any Gore win is the result of the courts skewing things unfairly in favor of Gore. So in their minds, they would be returning the victory to the one who actually got the most votes.
Two is that one possible Gore strategy is to tie up the Florida electors in the courts, and have Gore win with a majority of the remaining votes. This has provoked alot of constitutional discussion, but also alot of concern on the part of the Florida legislative leaders, who believe that this is an element of the Gore strategy.
The idea that they will endorse a Gore slate is ludicrous. But they might get cold feet about going ahead, if public opinion backs a Gore court victory.
Look, the only way that the FSL would order the sending of Bush electors is if nothing has been settled by the time of the electors meeting, Dec 12th. If the court cases are still going, if no recounts are completed, if nothing has changed by Dec 12 and there is still no clear winner, then they will step in and declare Bush the winner.
But this seems more and more likely, since I can’t see this resolved before then. So, the only options are:
Florida sends no electors. Then we have to decide whether “a majority of the electors” means a majority of those that meet, or a majority of all of them. First choice, Gore wins. Second choice, it goes to the house and Bush wins.
Two sets of electors are sent. The house and senate vote on which to seat, which means the house votes for Bush, the senate for Gore (with Gore breaking the tie). So it is sent back to the Governor of Florida. Jeb votes for Bush, Bush wins.
Florida goes by the currently certified vote count, sends a slate of Bush electors, Bush wins.
The Florida legislature steps in to avoid #1, and decides to send a Bush slate. Bush wins.
The only option for Gore I can see is if Florida sends no electors and it is decided that “a majority of electors” means “a majority of electors sent”. But that won’t happen, because the FSL will vote to send a Bush slate if it looks like no slate can be chosen by the election.
Oh, but if you flip back, some here were in fact contending that the FSL was ‘merely’ making sure Florida was represented, not insuring a Bush victory.
And re :
please note this: Rep. Bill Andrews
In particular note his stance, that although his district went heavily for Gore, he’s planning to vote for the Bush slate, because he feels that having the brother of their governor as President would be good for the State.
Well, I disagree with all those people.
I have previously noted that one aggravating factor in this mix is that there was already alot of hostility between the courts and the legislature, even before this election. This due to the court’s desire to perform both roles. Because of this, the legislature is more determined not to let the courts decide this election for Gore than they otherwise would be.
Opinions may differ, but I don’t think I would be swayed by the votes of my constituents if I had to decide in the capacity of legislator.
There is no way the Florida Legislature will allow the voters of the state to be disenfranchised in whole piece by not having their electoral votes counted in the college.
The Supreme Court also expressed a great deal of concern about such a thing. It just won’t happen.
wring - If you don’t get it as explained above, you’re just not going to get it. Like the deer-hunting thread before, I officially give up.
elucidator - Go start a love tryst with Stoidela. Your destiny awaits you.
Or the hostility could be due to the FSC being made up of primarily Democrats, and the Legislature of Republicans. I think that’s a much simpler and more direct concept than “judicial activism”, which only seems to be a problem for rulings one disagrees with. You can take your choice as to which branch is upholding principles of justice and which is being rankly partisan, but be prepared to explain it in ways that begin with fact.
That was an odd comment about not being swayed by your constituents’ votes if you were a legislator. What do you think your responsibility would BE, if not to represent the people who hired you? Surely they never imagined that their votes for state legislator would override their votes for President, did they?
The Florida legislature makes good on its threat to have a special session and name electors. Since Gore won the other disputed states, Iowa and New Mexico, the EC count stands at:
Gore 267
Bush 271
The electors meet on December 18 and cast their ballots. In a stunning act, four Bush electors change and vote for Gore, giving HIM 271 EC votes and the Presidency.
(I understand that in some states, it is NOT illegal for an elector to change.)
Why would any of the electors do this? Maybe they realize that electing a barely literate goofball as President would be a really bad thing to do even if he is a member of their party. Maybe Tennesseans will do it!
Besides, I voted for Nader. No matter what happens, I don’t get the one I wanted.
On #1, if there are less than the total alloted number, it is “a majority of those that meet”, ie Gore wins.
4A: Fla Leg steps in, sends slate, SCOTUS says that slate is unconstitutional- Gore wins.
4B- Tennesee or another Dem state that went Bush, sends a Gore slate instead- Gore wins.
Right now, the 1 or 4A are reasonably possible. I really freaking hope that 4B does not happen.
I just realized that only THREE Bush electors would have to change. A candidate only needs 270 EC votes to win. It might be more likely than I thought!
Wring:
Gotta a cite for this ridiculous accusation? And no, anything Jesse Jackson says does not count. 
If there were such problems in Florida, such as police blockades, then there should have been every one of those so-called Black leaders down there to put an immediate attention and stop to it. I was told that gay people follow an agenda. Damn I wish that my so-called leaders have an agenda to stop the alledged nonsense right now instead of whining about it later and do nothing.
Anyway, if SCOTUS is satisfied with the FLSC ruling, asserting states’ right once and for all, then the undervote count is it. If the FLLeg tries to impose their own delegates, even after Gore wound up ahead, well, the problem is on them.
What i loved was the lawyer for bush (I don’t remember which one off the top of my head) in one of the disputed absentee county cases saying ‘every vote should count.’ Isn’t that what Gore has been saying all along?
Well, I can’t give a cite, just what I heard on the radio… a meeting held by the NAACP, where citizens came in and told what happened to them. And what’s wrong with Jesse Jackson? Would you believe it if Jesse HELMS said it? (like EITHER of them are unbiased:) )
Lawoot, yes, that’s what Gore has been saying. The point of disagreement, however, is what you consider a vote. The Republicans have argued that the rules are not uniform, are subjective, and are tainted by partisan election officials. They argue that a dimpled chad means you can’t determine the voter’s intent. And that makes the process of counting undervotes unfair.
And speaking of “every vote should be counted,” remember that Gore also tried to throw out the votes in Martin and Seminole counties based on tampered absentee ballot applications*, and military votes in various other counties based on a missing postmark.
I do believe there’s enough hypocrisy on both sides to make the whole thing laughable.
*Yes, yes, I know he wasn’t a party to this lawsuit. And if you buy that one, I have some swamp land in Seminole county for sale.
The electors-changing-their-votes scenario could swing it.
But the way these electors would be villified by their party compatriots makes it unlikely. Electors generally are given the job because of the hard-work and loyalty they’ve demonstrated to their party.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the few instances historically where electors have changed their vote, it’s always been to another individual in that party. (The elector who changed his Ford vote to Reagan comes to mind.)
I don’t think any have changed to the other side’s candidate.
And I don’t know why so many think Tennessee might help out Al. I thought the reason he lost there is his connection to the state is tenuous at best, and its populace and political makeup has become increasingly Republican in recent years.
Gore grew up in Washington D.C., and essentially has lived and worked there all his life.
Gore had nothing to do with either of those lawsuits- especially those re the military, which his staff repudiated. However, it was more than a missing postmark- if the postmark was missing all they had to have was a dated signature- and without same HAD to be tossed out. Ferkrissake, there is enuf hypocracy on both sides here without folks like you making up stuff to add to it.
DanielITWD:
That’s not quite as clear-cut as you are making it sound, according to this Dec. 8 New York Post article.
(emphasis mine)