I can’t fathom why people seem to be giving credence to this argument. If you were a judge, and felt that there was no legal reason to bar any county that wanted from recounting the votes as much as they want, would you rule that they could not do so merely because you were likely to rule that these votes would not be counted when that issue subsequently came up? I would like to think that the courts do not operate this way, but who knows?
Because courts seldom interfere with the exercise of discretion of an elected official (as witnessed by the trial judge’s ruling). Generally, as long as the elected official has some articulated reason for their decision, the courts will uphold it. I was hoping that the lower court would rule Ms. Harris’s actions to be an abuse of discretion, but in hindsight, it is not surprising that he did not.
I still hope the Florida Supreme Court will overturn the decision, and its certainly still a possibility, but I wouldn’t count on it. One thing I could see them doing is to say that her decision was premature, and that she should wait until the votes are actually submitted before she decides whether to accept them. That ruling would at least allow the votes to be hand counted, but still wouldn’t mean she would have to accept the hand-counetd totals.
Freedom2 wrote:
Freedom2, they would still be secret ballots. They would still be anonymous. The voters’ names do not appear on the ballots themselves.
What woman in her right mind when faced with appearing on national television and the front page of every newpaper in the country chooses BLUE EYESHADOW!!!
But I am neither a Bush nor a Gore supporter. In fact, I didn’t even vote in this election because I do not feel my vote matters. This election bears that out: I live in a predominantly democratic state and there is no way my vote could do anything against that.
I digress.
Election of a president is no small matter as a large portion of the future depends on the policies set, cabinet members appointed, supreme court judges nominated, and so on. In light of this, I feel that it is competely fair that invalidated ballots be dismissed. * If you cannot punch a simple card what makes you think you have the ability to grasp the consequences behind an elected official?* Better yet, if it was a mistake then there are no problems, because it was your mistake and only your vote was invalidated. Gore’s camp is expecting the rest of the country to be held responsible for his supporters’ mistakes. Only a liberal would do something like that. There have been three counts. Enough is enough. I didn’t want either of them to win, but I never expected to hear a two-year-old tantrum the likes of “But I WANNA BE PRESIDENT” {insert smell of baby dookie here}
What does one have to do with the other? Punching holes is a physical skill, thinking is not. I doubt that Steven Hawking, one of the most brilliant minds of our generation, could successfully punch a hole in a ballot. I gurantee that he is capable of making an informed decision about this election. (Of course, that he’s British and not eligible to vote in it).
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the right to vote doesn’t depend on ANY physical ability. That, my friend, is the rule of law as determined by the highest court in the land.
Also, shame on you for not voting. You might not have swung your state, but you would have affected the final vote totals and thus the perceived mandate of the victor.
tj
But he would have been smart enough to ask for assistance, and/or to not be too “embarrassed” to ask for a replacement ballot, had he messed the first one up.
True, but the example still decimates your argument. Go back and look again at what you said. I’ve quoted it again to make it easy for you.
tj
Actually, I didn’t quote it. sorry. Just scroll up a bit if you would please.
tj
My, my, you can get rather snippy, pretty fast.
OK, I’ll add something to my statement, to hopefully clarify it a bit:
But he would have been smart enough to ask for assistance, and/or to not be too “embarrassed” to ask for a replacement ballot, had he messed the first one up, at the time he was voting.
(In other words, he wouldn’t wait a day and then decide that he “may have”, “must have” or “could have” voted for the wrong person.)
I guess I should have said correctly punching a hole. Monkeys can be taught to correctly punch holes, but no one considers them in elections. It is not a matter of physical ability but of being able to line a dot up with an arrow that corresponds to the president you choose. If you cannot do that then I feel that, perhaps, you should reconsider taking part in the political process because association like that is a relatively simple concept.
I assume you have seen the ballot?
Stephen Hawking comments notwithstanding, I agree he could easily vote correctly even if he was not the person who actually punched the card.
I thought we were talking about people who had failed to punch a whole competely though the card. That was the implication of the post I was responding to.
As to the issue of people who voted twice or for the wrong person on the ‘butterfly’ ballot. I would agree that it is too late to complain.
Or rather, complaints should not affect this election. But should be used to design better ballots in the future.
tj
No. There have been two. A third is in progress in some counties.
Shall I paraphrase an earlier poster? If you cannot count to three what makes you think you have the ability to grasp the intricacies of a complex political and legal situation?
hmmmm, that kind of attitude would seem to unnecessarily ridicule someone for a simple mistake. How about:
Sorry, you made a mistake. But I understand what you meant.
Good thing your so unpartisan Spiritus. Though I think a better comparison would be if the names Bush and Gore were switched. Then it could be changed because of bad information.
The third count here you mention, since being critical in the outcome, is apparently what we refer to when we say “There have been three counts.” If you would like to get even more technical, there has only been one incomplete count, because only a few areas are performing recounts. It is not nationwide. Then “There have been two” is false as well, and we are both wrong.
Much like this election, just apply the same rules everywhere.
I think it is worth mentioning at this point that this is a prime example of why we have freedom of the press. Though the exit polls do not constitute a vote per se, it is through this available information, published or broadcast independent of the government, that we learn when something is amiss.
Whether you believe the discrepancies are due to partisanship, mechanical failure, voter ineptitude, or Black Helicopters Upon The Grassy Knoll, this is democracy in progress. The election is being held in public view, with all manuevers being aired to any interested citizens. We may not like the process, and feel in need of a good, hot, shower after watching the latest machinations of the opposing party, but we can’t argue that the ongoing electoral spectacle is not preferred to some smoky backroom trade–or, in the case of early politics, to duelling pistols.
It may also be worth mentioning that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it require voters to be intelligent, educated, or forewarned enough to figure out how the ballots work. The framers had never anticipated mechanical counting, or that it would become such a significant factor in any election. 
In any case, I feel I have to remind everyone that if the positions were reversed, one could hardly expect the machinations on either side to differ greatly. The vote-leader has every vested interest to pursue legal remedies that may cause him not to lose; the vote-trailer has every obligation to pursue any legal avenues that may influence the election of the outcome. Regardless of who’s ahead, I think we have a duty to see that all votes are counted as accurately as possible, be damned to artificial deadlines.
Our very legal system is based upon partisanship. Is not a lawyer a hired adversary who will cite every law possible that might achieve his end, even if his client is wrong?
aynrandlover
The past perfect tense implies an action completed in the past. It is unclear, at the least, to use it in referring to an action still underway. There have been two completed machine counts in Florida. There is an ongoing third count, which is being performed by hand, in some counties. Furthermore, if your original statement:
was intended to imply that you wanted the ongoing hand count to be completed (thus justifying, belatedly, that past perfect tense) well, it failed. To me, the statement implies that you want th erecount process to stop before the third count is complete. If I am wrong, if your position is that the third count should be completed, then simply say so and I will apologize for misinterpreting your words.
If we were speaking about the national vote count, yes. I, however, was speaking about the Florida vote count. I did not realize this was unclear. In fact, I think it was fairly well established by both the OP and the succeeding replies. However, in the interest of avoiding confusion let me state it explicitely. The recount process I am discussing is specific to the state of Florida.
Asmodean:
???
If you have something you would like to say to me, you might try addressing it in the proper forum, or at least the proper thread. You said:
Pop quiz: which of these words did not appear in my post?
(a) unpartisan
(b) Bush
© Gore
(d) all of the above
(d) In fact, my previous post was a response to an earlier poster (aynrandlover) who argued, i effect, that people who make simple mistakes are too stupid for their ideas and preferences to merit consideration. I argued that perhaps that was too harsh a judgment, since none of us are immune to simple mistakes.
Hmmmmmm. In light of your response, perhaps I should reconsider my position.
The thread update script did not seem to register my last post. Moderators, please excuse this bump. I’m trying to see if the thread is broken or if it was just an anomoly with one post.