Cite, please? It has already been stated in this thread: the independent newspaper consortium’s analysis indicated that had the recount proceeded exactly as designed by Gore’s camp and permitted by the Florida SC, Bush would have won anyway. I’ll gladly be enlightened by a cite, but your contention sounds like a UL.
Unfortunately, by law, elections and how they are held is determined at the state level. The federal government cannot mandate a single voting system for the entire country. As a result we are left with the hodge-podge we have today.
Usually elections aren’t all that close so any problems caused by inefficient or inaccurate voting systems are washed away in the statistics. Who cares if the voting system would have given candidate B 500,000 extra votes if candidate A won by 10,000,000 votes? Obviously Flordida showed the problem with that attitude and it bit us in the ass.
While it is all well and good to say we need new and better voting machines you are asking states that almost across the board are looking at huge budget shortfalls (e.g. California with a $38 billion budget gap). When they are looking to cut programs and raise taxes they can’t really find a way to tell voters they need to shell out a few hundred million on a new voting system. It’s sad really because the voting system forms the basis of our democracy and is hugely important but people don’t care about that if it means losing their welfare check or getting their property taxes increased.
I still think Gregg Easterbrook summed it up best:
http://sports.espn.go.com/page2/s/tmq/020924.html
A week ago many readers objected to TMQ’s statement that the Bush vs. Gore legal contest was “over in the first quarter because the Florida Supreme Court fumbled the United States Constitution.” Craig Heckman of Simsbury, Conn., countered that the United States Supreme Court “should have been called for illegal procedure and unsportsmanlike conduct” since the Court’s conservative majority says it advocates states’ right, yet the Bush v. Gore lawsuit ended when the Supremes refused to let Florida complete its third recount.
TMQ carries no brief for the Supremes’ final decision on the 2000 election. The United States Supreme Court should have let Florida proceed to the bitter end on grounds of the very federalism that, Heckman rightly points out, the Supremes advocate on other matters. Technically, the Court’s game-ending whistle was an injunction, and injunctions are justified to prevent “irreparable” harm. Nothing would have been “irreparable” about letting the final zany, wacky, “midnight recount” imposed by the Florida Supreme Court proceed.
We now know from the media-run Recount of the Recount of the Recount that George W. Bush almost certainly would have won the final recount anyway, and then the United States Supreme Court would have needed take no action. If Gore had won the third recount, the Supremes could have debated whether to reverse the outcome. In either case, letting the zany, wacky third recount proceed would have been wiser, and there’s no doubt the United States Supreme Court’s action to stop the third recount was politically motivated.
But also there’s no doubt the Florida Supreme Court was politically motivated. Bush wins the original tally, then wins the mechanized recount. The Florida Supreme Court, as brazenly pro-Gore as the Washington court was brazenly pro-Bush, steps in and imposes a hand recount whose terms openly defy the Electoral Count Act of 1877, which Congress passed after the Hayes-Tilden election specifically with this situation – disputed slate in one state that can determine the national outcome – in mind. Bush then wins the hand recount, making him 3-for-3. Meanwhile, United States Supreme Court issues its first ruling, saying the Florida judges don’t seem to understand the Electoral Count Act and ordering the Sunshine State court to explain its reasoning. The Florida judges refuse! Given a direct order by the United States Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court repudiates the United States Supreme Court, since the Florida judges know they can’t give any coherent explanation of their first set of orders.
TMQ has always thought the Florida court’s snub of the Supreme Court (Florida judges issued an explanation only many weeks later, when the dispute was over and no one cared) was the overlooked momentum-changer in the whole recount mess. How could anyone with a One L understanding of the Constitution think a state court could simply refuse to answer a direct instruction from the United States Supreme Court? Rebuffing a direct instruction from the United States Supreme Court made several Supremes think the Florida Supreme Court was a bunch of buffoons. Sandra O’Connor, prominently, swung to the end-the-recounts position when she concluded that the Florida Supreme Court was under the control of buffoons.
Then the Florida Supreme Court imposed its wacky, zany “midnight recount” plan, whose distinguishing feature was that it compelled different vote-validating standards for different counties, based on guesses about what would favor Gore. In so doing, the Florida court violated the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment. One tenet of due process is that any particular level of government must treat everyone the same. Thus, different counties in Florida could enact different vote-counting standards, so long as within any given county – within the level of government – all standards were the same for everyone. Thus, Illinois might have one standard for chads and Texas a different standard, as was the case in 2000, so long as everyone within each state was treated the same. But the state of Florida could not mandate that some counties use one counting standard and other counties use another – that would constitute one level of government (in this case the state of Florida through its Supreme Court) not treating all citizens the same. When the Florida Supreme Court imposed different recount standards for different counties, it generated a due-process violation. A relatively small one, to be sure, but this Constitutional violation practically begged the United States Supreme Court to step in.
And though the Supremes should have let the zany, wacky final recount proceed, was any real harm done by their stepping in? We know from the Recount of the Recount of the Recount that Bush was the true winner in about three-quarters of the vote-validating scenarios. Bush would have been the winner in all political scenarios. Had Gore prevailed in the final midnight recount, there would have been two slates of electors from Florida (one for Gore chosen by the Florida court, one for Bush chosen by the Florida legislature) and either the United States Supreme Court would have had to sort it out anyway or the issue would have gone to Congress where the House (pro Bush) and Senate (pro Gore) would have split. That under the Electoral Count Act would have left the final decision to the governor of the state where the dispute arose – namely, Jeb Bush.
Once he failed to win any of the first three tallies, Al Gore was fated to spend 2001 in Europe growing a beard; there just wasn’t a scenario where he prevailed. Is it so bad that nine unaccountable old people in robes took the heat for ending this mess sooner rather than later? One shudders to think how bad vote-buying by both sides would have been, had the election been thrown into Congress.
By the way, the worst thing about the Florida recount follies was that they diverted attention from the fact that Gore won the popular vote. Bush was the true winner in electoral terms, but Gore was the choice of the people, which is what ought to matter. Had the election ended without the ridiculousness of the recounts, the focus would have been on revising the Electoral College to prevent the second-place finisher from ever coming out on top again.
Guys, all you need is a piece of paper with the names down one side and a pencil. Please mark your choice. Drop in box. Done.
Electoral Process (Canada)
To continue the hijack, would it be within the federal mandate to convene conferences between the states to come to agreement on voting methods? Acting as a first among equals the feds could facilitate common practices or voting standards. Possible or not?
I’m quite disappointed that you didn’t even bother to read the OP, which asked quite specifically “what basis Bush’s opponents . . . have for saying he wasn’t elected.”
Ask a partisan question, get a partisan answer.
tdn, if you will kindly read my entire post, you will note I specifically referred to “posters who explained the event at length.” You did not. Your post, actually, was short and sweet.
John, your post wasn’t quite as partisan as the others, but you did present a rather narrow interpretation of events. Your dismissal of some of the serious complaints that didn’t make it into the lawsuit is telling; the more serious complaints are to some extent very valid criticisms of the Republican Party and Bush’s victory, such as the excise of eligible voters from the rolls. Pointing out that the SCOTUS voted a straight party line is important, too; when you get right down to it the evidence strongly suggests that the composition of the Court in December 2000 is the factor that determined the election, and that goes straight to the OP’s question. While all that wasn’t part of Gore v. Bush, it certainly does go directly to the general issue. the OP wasn’t just about Gore v. Bush. (Or was it Bush v. Gore?)
However, you did make an effort, at least, to just present the facts, so I humbly retract my criticism of you.
Are things becoming clear yet, Priceguy?
I’ll take a shot at it.
Yeah, the newspaper consortium reported that Bush won Florida – but they don’t bother to mention that only happens in half the scenarios, the ones that have little bearing on reality…
Yet more Electoral College weirdness (I don’t think this continues a hijack as the thread starter specifically asked about the electoral college’s purpose):
The electors from 24 states are not required to vote for the candidate that won the state. They can vote for anyone they choose. The rest of the states to one degree or another mandate by law that their electors vote for the winning candidate in that state (although it appears, if I read it right, that they might vote for someone else if they don’t mind being subject to a fine or some other penalty…a few states nullify the vote if the elector strays and replace him/her with someone else).
CITE: National Archives and Records Administration
It gets stranger…
The President must be elected by a majority of the electoral votes. If no one receives 50%+1 electoral votes the matter is turned over to the House of Representatives to vote on and they are presented with the top three electoral vote winning candidates to choose from.
It is here that the matter gets truly uncertain. Although the House of Representatives is the deciding body each state in this case only gets one vote (and not a vote based on the state population which is how the House otherwise works). Since this has only happened twice (1800 and 1824) there seem to be remaining questions as to how it should work. Some (not necessarily all) of the issues are:
-
How do the individual states choose who to cast their vote for? Do they need a majority or a plurality (e.g. a state splits its internal vote among its members as [say] 8,6,6)?
-
Does the lame duck congress vote for president or the new incoming House vote? In practice, the way things are setup today, I believe the incoming House gets to vote but this is not established by law. You can make an argument both ways on why one would be superior to the other.
-
Does the House cast its votes in secret or publically? IIRC in the past when this was done (1801 & 1825) it was done in secret but a strong argument can be made that it should be open. Again the law is vague on this point.
-
The Constitution specifies that the house ‘immediately’ choose a new president but ‘immediately’ is not defined. In 1801 it took a week and 36 ballots to elect Thomas Jefferson.
Interestingly the framers of our Constitution thought that a majority of elections would be decided by the House (George Mason predict that 19 of 20 elections would be decided by the House)! Strange that it should be as vague as it seems to be.
Not so. Congress has always had the power to regulate federal elections. Titles 2, 3, and 42 of the U.S. Code contain all kinds of election laws. Congress has not chosen to mandate any particular voting system or standards nationwide, but it certainly could.
That one made me fall of my chair.
BTW, someone mentioned that in some states the electors are not req’d to vote for the candidate who got the most votes in their district. While this is true in a strict literal sense, you can bet your bottom dollar that any state in which this actually happened would change the law so fast it would make your head spin.
I’m sorry, but if I understand correctly, you’re just voting for one represenative.
On my ballot in 2000, I was voting for president, governor, one of my federal senators, my federal congressperson, my state legislators (senate and house), some other state, city, and countywide offices, and a whole bunch of initiatives (state and local).
By nature, that’s going to be more complex than just voting for one office.
I look at rjung post and I am just stunned - again - at how close this election was.
Interesting point. I don’t actually know what happens should a municiple/provincial election be called at the same time as the general election. Very interesting, as general election could be called at any time.
Interesting point, though we tend to have more than 2-3 canidates per riding.
I don’t actually know what happens should a municiple/provincial election be called at the same time as the general election. Very interesting, as general election could be called at any time.
I don’t think Congress has the right to regulate how elections are conducted except to preclude discrimination. That’s mostly why you get the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The fifteenth amendment to the constitution specifically forbade discrimination in voting practices but individuals had to bring accusations of discrimination on a case-by-case basis all the way through the court system. As such SCOTUS found the Act constitutional as they preceived a systematic attempt by some states to skirt the fifteenth amendment.
I haven’t found anything yet in doing searches that speaks directly to this but by the above it seems to me that states on the whole retain the right to regulate how elections are conducted as long as they abide by federal guidelines to avoid discrimination.
Finally, even if the Fed can regulate elections as they see fit I think they’d have a hard time getting through an unfunded mandate. If the Feds are going to stipulate how elections are carried out then the states will tell the Fed to pay for it and I don’t see that happening.
Good grief…I’m popping all over the US code to find relevant pieces on this point and skipped the most obvious starting point.
IANAL or legal scholar by any stretch but I’ll give my take on it below anyway and hope someone with a better understanding will clarify and/or correct me:
To me that reads that states have the constitutional authority to conduct elections. The state legislature directs the manner in which electors are appointed which seems to me to include the whole election process. Congress can only mandate when the election occurs.
There’s a small problem with using computerized systems - namely, the chance for corruption. With a paper ballot, there’s a definite hard-copy of each vote that you can always go back to. “Hey, these numbers look fishy! I want to see the votes!” “Okay, no problem.” With a computer, how do you do that? How do you ensure that the votes that originally were cast are the same votes you’re looking at now? Hell, how hard would it be to write a simple algorithm that digitally converted X% of the votes for candidate A into votes for candidate B? And if you’re talking about sending all the votes electronically as they’re cast, well, now you have to worry about hackers, too.
Paper ballots may be archaic, but they’re also much harder to tamper with.
Jeff
Um, this is evidence that the SC halted the recount an hour before Gore would have taken the lead? Perhaps you want to take another shot.
And I don’t believe the Sentinel reported (unless it was later) that Lewis “would probably have considered overvotes as well as undervotes.” I believe they reported:
**I believe it’s still accurate to say that the recount Gore requested, which focused on undercounts, if it had proceeded, would have resulted in a Bush victory, if the newspaper consortium is to be believed. To speculate what Lewis might have done is, well, speculation. We know what the Gore camp requested and what the Florida SC permitted. And that would have resulted in a Bush victory.
Whack-a-Mole, I assure you that you are entirely mistaken in your belief that Congress cannot regulate how elections are conducted. More importantly, Article I, § 4 of the U.S. Constitution disagrees with you: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
You may also wish to review the Findlaw annotations to that provision.