To sight 3 or 4 cases out of the ENTIRE country and to use that as a claim that Republicans, as a whole, all over the country are “subverting Democracy” is ridiculous. Especially when, based on the length of debate of just one of these situations, from basically two or three people, even those 3 or 4 cases are highly controversial. You are completely naive if you truly believe that the Republican party as a whole is simply inherently more devious and sneaky than Democrats when it comes to the politics of elections.
And judging by the silence of the NJ senate race on the last election that I brought up, I will use evil captors logic and assume no one is disputing my claim that the Democrats completely subverted the Democratic prcoess in that case.
I think the presidential election was a colossal screw up. Lawyers from both sides tried to get things to go their way. Bush’s lawyers did a better job, and had a bit of help from people who I think shouldn’t have helped. But that’s just MHO.
But I cringe when anybody says that the California recall election is an attempt to subvert democracy. And my party, the democrats, say it A LOT. The recall is legal, appropriate and the very definition of democracy. A lot of folks think Davis has scewed the state. Enough to get it on to a ballot. Now the people will decide if those folks are right. (hint…they are)
The OP was about whether or not the GOP is subverting democracy, the bulk of what’s on page 3 is Florida recount stuff, a small element in the whole GOP subversion effort. It’s clearly a hijack, and last I checked, it’s OK to try to end a hijack and bring the debate back to the OP.
Hmm, 'a poster of my prominence."
:::Stares into mirror, raising chin to look more noble.:::
Actually, this gets to the essence of the Repub/Democrat debate re: democracy. The Dems would have the rule be “One man, one vote.” The Repubs would have the rule be “One dollar, one vote.”
You are right that the California recall is completely legal and that having the right to recall an official and elect another when the people are sufficiently angry at his actions, or lack of them, is an essentially democratic process.
But this is not really what has happened in California. It’s no secret that a wealthy Repub heavyweight spent millions to engineer the electoral recall – there was no ‘grass roots’ drive to get Davis out, at least no grass roots that weren’t heavily fertilized by tons of republican money.
I think the people of California are rightfully disgusted by the sad “choice” they were given in the last gubernatorial election – corrupt Democratic hack vs. even more corrupt Republican hack – and I think a recall would be reasonable if it came from the people. But everybody knows it didn’t.
Make no mistake. From the POV of the national Republican Party, California election isn’t about California’s governance at all. It’s there so they can install their own agents in the California elections board and try to pull the same sort of shenanigans in California that they got away with in Florida.
It’s part of the pattern of Repubs using their financial strength to undermine the democratic process.
I fail to see where the NJ Senate election has been discussed much at all, let alone thoroughly, within this thread. All I say is a single one line statement about it.
Regardless of that, though, my point is that 3 or 4 cases out of an entire country of over 250 million people is insufficient to prove a point about anything involving a political party for the entire country, especially when even in those three or four cases there is hardly agreement about which side has the law or even the interests of the people on their side. And simply because you say you have the facts on your side doesn't make it so. The problems with Democrats is that they really and truly believe they have a monopoly on being "unbiased" somehow. The liberal point of view is somehow, automatically, the unbiased point of view in the minds of many Democrats. This debate is turning into another such case.
Can’t believe no one mentioned the “popular demonstration” of mysterious, menacing Floridians that temporarily stopped the recount. Turned out to be Repub. aids, flown in with soft money. Described as “brownshirt tactics” in some sources- but we can discount these views because they appeared in the flagship of the liberal media, the NYTimes.
IUHomer has a point; objectivity is a myth engendered by the platonic idea of ultimate forms. Best news in America, post-Sept. 11, comes from satirical sources like The Onion and Lt. Johnny Stewart on “The Daily Show.” too bad. Wouldn’t it be more fun if the media ditched their mask of objectivity? I think Fox is a leader in this area.
Ain’t the big question here about cash-money and democracy? CA recall: funded by right-wing millionaire. Clinton 'peachment: funded by right-wing millionaires (Mellon-Scaife (sp?) and the rest of the famous VRWC). It seems to me that politics has become a battle of the mega-rich. Lefties complain 'cause the only gazillionaires in their corner are George Soros and the dreaded Hollywood Bunch (minus Stallone, Willis, and that bulky dude whose name escapes me). TV Cash = Orwellian mind control. That’s why Americans are lining up behind Bush to destroy popular programs (e.g. Social Security) with G.W.'s Mother of All Tax Cuts.
Well, the founding fathers (well, Hamilton, anyway, and he was indeed The Man) mistrusted the masses anyway, so our current $1million=1vote system is prolly closer to what they had in mind.
IUHomer, it was mentioned (briefly) that NJ voters did know who the candidates were. Perhaps you could do us all a favor and explain your position, instead of simply complaining at length about its being ignored by those who only claim objectivity (despite “having the facts on our side not making it so” - your words - and yes, the facts do make it so; that’s the nature of facts).
Give it a shot, friend: Why do you think the Lautenberg candidacy was an example of a subversion of democracy? Why do you think it’s comparable to the OP examples?
possum, there isn’t enough room in this thread for all the details of examples supporting the OP proposition re Florida. Full books can be written on it, and a number of good ones have been.
Re the power of money in democracy, that’s always been an unavoidable issue. The responsibility of us citizens has always been to recognize it and act accordingly. That includes thinking for ourselves instead of swallowing what’s fed to us, and acting on the behalf of our entire system instead of ourselves.
One might point out that this flagrant abuse of power is now in fact being sponsored by the government, according to Yahoo, that bastion of the liberal media.
However, this, um, reign of terror was imposed through completely legal means.
What happens if Bush decides he doesn’t like the results of the NEXT election?
Just because you put your fingers in your ears and hum everytime someone says something you diagree with, that doesn’t mean that your points are unrefuted. You are one of the most childish posters I have come across.
But that’s not what he was objecting to; he was objecting to your implication that the fact that the thread has strayed from the OP means that there is no challenge to the OP.
Saying something over and over again does not make it so.
Again, saying it doesn’t make it so.
That pretty much sums up your contributions to the thread. Bush won the election. That is indisputable. I don’t like the idea of election results being accepted or rejected on the basis of political considerations. That, to me, is subversion of democracy. Voiding an election smacks of dictatorship, and should only be done in egregious circumstances. “The ballot was confusing” does not, in my mind, constitute egregious circumstances.
You’re mystified? You ask “And what of the interests, not of Bush or Gore, but of We the People in knowing the legitimate winner?” and then are mystified as to how anyone could think that the count was improper because we don’t know the legitimate winner?
They provided voters with ballots. They looked at the ballots to see who the voters voted for. It’s not like they flipped a coin and said “Oh, heads. We’ll mark this ballot down as voting for Bush”. They followed a procedure which had a reasonable expectation of representing the will of the voter. Hence, good faith.
Yes. It’s not like the Supreme Court grabbed some guy off the street and declared him president, which is what so many liberals imply. They made a decision that resulted in someone with a legitimate claim to the presidency becoming president. Electoral support for Bush was indispensible to his becoming president; the Supreme Court was merely a “tie-breaker”. I assure you that if, next November, polls show Bush to be trailing his opponent, he’s not going to say “Eh, doesn’t really matter. No matter how many people vote Democrat, I’ll just go to the Supreme Court and have them declare me president anyway”. I assure you, the decision has not made Bush think that public opinion is irrelevant.
In case you’ve forgotten the chain of events:
Me: A recount may seem like a good thing, but it actually hurts democracy
You: Not when it actually happens
Me: Huh? What does that mean?
You: The interests of the people are important, not that of the president.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but this looks like a non sequitor to me. By saying that it hurts democracy, I was saying that it’s against all of our interests, not just the president’s.
What law?
Fewer than what? And just who do you think my “preferred candidate” is? Apparently you’re so wedded to taking whatever position is in the interests of your side, you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is doing so for no better reason than it is in the interests of his side. Believe it or not, not everyone is as intellectually dishonest as you.
:rolleyes:
Did the police find Gore’s body floating face down in the Potomac? Bush followed the rules. He won. Deal.
What do you mean? Do you think that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to decide this case?
No, the rules are whatever is agreed on ahead of time. If you can point to a law that says “The votes shall be counted over and over again until there is a widespread consensus of what the proper outcome is”, then I will concede the point.
Actually, this is not always true. It’s possible for repetition to add error rather than subtract.
And you want everyone else to accept your definition of “reasonably can” and “good faith”. When people say that we did do all we reasonably could, and we did do so in good faith, you say “No, there are unacceptable errors. But if we did this instead, the errors would be acceptable”. Oddly enough, the “unacceptable” errors occur in a scenario in which Bush wins, and the “acceptable” ones when Gore does. What a coincidence. It’s almost as if “acceptable” is defined as “Gore wins” and “unacceptable” as “Bush wins”.
ElvisL1ves: I have the final nail in the coffin of your, “The election results can be known exactly by careful counting” notion.
I was just watching Hardball, and they were discussing the Vot-A-Matic machines (used in Florida), which are now the center of controversy in California. It was mentioned that the manufacturer claims the error rate of the Votamatic is about 2%, and that this is lower than the national average error rate for elections, which is 2.5-3%.
Let’s take the lower figure of 2%. There were six million ballots cast in Florida. That means the margin of error from machine error alone is 120,000 votes!
And we’re arguing over hand counts that *might swing a Bush margin of 350 votes to a Gore margin of 200 votes. Do you think EITHER of those results represents anything real? Do you still dispute my characterization of the result of that election as being statistically unknowable?
SamI dispute your characterization that an election is inherently a statistical event. I am very sure I made that clear.
Now, just to humor you, why would you believe a manufacturer’s own claims without checking independently? Readthe Caltech/MIT stucy for real numbers, if you still want to play in that sandbox.
Refusing to pay attention does not refute it, either.
If you had a coherent argument, you could try making it instead of repeating that.
He holds the office. His winning is certainly disputable.
I’ll agree with that. But, tell me, would you have been willing to accept a Gore win if the party affiliations had been reversed? Would you be as vociferously defending his legitimacy? Somehow, I doubt it.
Who ever mentioned voiding an election? Other than in Sam’s proposed tiebreaker, that is. I’d ask for an example of sufficiently egregious circumstances, but that would be only for amusement value, I admit.
You must not have truly read the thread if you think that’s the reason the count is considered improper. That has been answered, and is not worth responding to again.
Only in those counties where the vote actually was completed. You’re ignoring the heart of the argument.
Who’s claiming they picked a guy off the street? Nobody. Quit making shit up - you’re hurting yourself.
Tie my ass. Read the thread.
On what basis are you assured? Has he told you so himself?
Read the Constitution, then. The first three words will do.
Then you’re saying it’s against our interests to know the facts. That shit does not fly here, pal.
Where the hell have you been? The Florida law on counting ballots defined the standard as “the clear intent of the voter”. You called that “ridiculous”. It’s the law.
The second part is obvious. You denigrated Gore as a candidate, without noting that Bush got half a million votes fewer than that.
Where the hell did you get that from?
Since you ask, no, the choice of electors is a state matter controlled by state law. But I was referring to the SCOTUS disavowal that the decision was based on law or precedent. Do the words “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances” ring a bell?
Why are you repeating that when anyone who had read the thread would know that is not the claim? I’m getting pretty sick of being lied about, ya know, but have come to expect it of you by now. I have very clearly, and repeatedly, stated that you do not count over and over. You do complete the count, and yes, you do it according to the rules agreed on ahead of time. Bush succeeded in preventing either from being the case, and in getting a number of people who wanted to believe otherwise to believe otherwise.
It’s possible at any time, but gets much less likely with every iteration.
No. The general acceptance of reasonability, good faith, and fairness is what matters. I’m just one guy. But those considerations weren’t taken at all.
Etc. Are you imagining what I’ve said, or simply lying about it? I’m not repeating this thread. Read it.
Thanks, Elvis. That report validates everything I’ve been saying. 4 to six MILLION lost votes.
As for whether a vote COUNT is a statistical process, of course it is. If you’re running an assembly line, and 100 million widgets go by your sensors, and your sensors are accurate to within 99.995%, would you not say that you can apply statistical methods to that process? That’s no different than running punch cards through an automatic machine. I can’t believe you’re arguing otherwise.
And the one line was, “How does giving the people a chance to vote for a candidate constitute subverting democracy?” point that was never answered.
Regardless of that, though, my point is that 3 or 4 cases out of an entire country of over 250 million people is insufficient to prove a point about anything involving a political party for the entire country, especially when even in those three or four cases there is hardly agreement about which side has the law or even the interests of the people on their side.
Come now, are you saying that we haven’t found ENOUGH evidence to suit you? Imagine that. Amazing. I am astonished. As for the fact that the cases cited are in dispute, of COURSE they are in dispute, the Republican stalwarts would be defending Bush even if he was videotaped stabbing his underage male lover to death with a heroin needle in a White House bedroom. The notion that Repubs would fail to defend a successful electoral theft of the White House is not credible.
And simply because you say you have the facts on your side doesn’t make it so.
It would simplify the debating process enormously, however.
**The problems with Democrats is that they really and truly believe they have a monopoly on being “unbiased” somehow. The liberal point of view is somehow, automatically, the unbiased point of view in the minds of many Democrats. This debate is turning into another such case. **
I might say that the problem with the Repubs is that they confuse being “on the right” with simply being “right.” This does not constitute an argument, however, it’s just sniping, which on review, is what your post consists almost entirely of.
**But that’s not what he was objecting to; he was objecting to your implication that the fact that the thread has strayed from the OP means that there is no challenge to the OP. **
OK, I didn’t mean to imply any such thing, how’s that? I was just saying that the Fla. recount stuff was just a PART of the dispute over the 2000 election, which was only ONE of the instances of subverting democracy cited. So even if you were able to make a point about the Fla. recount, there would still be other elements of the 2000 election which are widely considered to be fraudulent, and still other cases (Calif. recount, Texas redistricting, etc.) in which the subversion of democracy is at issue. If you only dispute that one tiny area, you are in effect ceding the rest.
You were saying that a punchcard system is the most accurate. The cite, very easily found at that, shows that it’s the least accurate, while hand counting is the most accurate. Next?
You can, but you shouldn’t. You do NOT run the cards over and over until you get a result you can somehow declare a tie. You count the votes once, and fully, and fairly, and in a way that makes good faith apparent, and if the results are close, you recount by hand, as required by law and by the fundamental principle of democracy (a question about its meaning to you remains ducked, btw).
I don’t see any way to make that clearer - any failure to communicate that to you is solely your own responsibility. Now why are you wasting everyone’s time here, including your own, by refusing to actually read posts before responding?
