An unsigned opinion, 7-2 to say FLSC erred, 5-4 on stopping the count? What is this, the Peruvian military court? All kidding aside, I think that the SCOTUS was put in a hard spot. Gore ran a very bad campaign and a bad post-election campaign, losing to a guy whom he could have pimp-slapped and be cheered for that. He should have stuck to what he said and demanded all votes in florida be recounted. His pick-and-choose method was properly declared unconstitutional.
WHOOOOOSH!
Um, jshore?
Bush won on EVERY count of “votes … counted by some fair standard!!!”
Bush won on a “fair and accurate count!!!”
What your side was attempting was to count votes without a fair standard, and to not have a fair and accurate count.
You just lost for exactly that reason in the highest court in the land, the arbiter that the majority of Americans polled said they felt comfortable with making the final decision in this matter.
Man. I guess I’ll leave it to The Night Shift now to continue the fight against Willful Denial of Facts.
And don’t you dare say that Nader was the cause of Al Gore’s defeat. Gore’s attempt to appeal to the moderate lurched him all the way to the right of Bush and McCain. He was a yes man to a lot of what Bush was saying in the debates. He acted like Trelane, the Squire of Gothos, rather than an established statesman during the first debate, then was much stiffer than normal during the second. Now as a result we will witness Gore fading away while crying “But I won! I won! I won! I won!”
Is it really fair to say that ‘fair and accurate’ counts were denied, when the Supreme Court’s decision rests on the fact that the recount was unfair and inaccurate?
This was the crux of the argument all along, and Gore bears some blame. He could have demanded a state-wide recount right from the start. He could have said that dimpled chads were extreme, and suggested that only hanging chads be counted. Even later, after the first Supreme Court decision suggested that dimpled chads were going to present a constitutional problem Gore could have suggested a state-wide standard of ‘hanging’ chad, which is the standard used in 48 other states.
If Gore’s camp had suggested that standard in oral arguments in front of the Florida Supreme Court (when they were asked for that very guidance by the justices), then they might have had the state-wide standard that would have allowed the recount to pass constitutional muster. But they held out for an extreme standard that anyone but the most heavily partisan could see was unfair, and as it turns out, illegal.
Had Gore moderated his approach from the start, he might have gotten his recount.
The court bent over backwards to ensure Bush got his rights; they stopped the count for him. Then they claimed that under some circumstances the Florida supreme court could set up an do a “fair” count; thus affirming the rights of the voters and Gore’s rights as a candidate. But then they said “We ran the clock out on you, so your rights are meaningless”. Result, Bush’s rights are protected, the rights of Gore and the voters of florida are completely quashed with no possible remedy. Where is the justice in this ?
No justice here.
Bush lost the popular national vote and only won by the Florida votes which were counted. His own legal team’s prime witness said that there needs to be a hand count in close elections when using a punch ballot technology; too high of a percentage get kicked out even when they are clear votes without hanging chads.
Another bummer for democracy…
I don’t know about you folks, but I will start my campaign for the direction election of our next president in about nine hours time - League of Women Voters has been carrying the torch for many years… I will also see what can be done to improve the technical problems associated with this election [I live in Duval County were four times the regular rate of votes were tossed out because they were either undervotes or, more likely double votes most found in four African American precincts…] - NAACP is leading the charge.
I will also see what I can do to get the current Duval County Election board members dumped as well as the FL state representatives who supposedly represent me and the FL gov’nor.
Right now I am thankful for:
> Alan Greenspan remaining on the Fed
> The slim Republic control over the House and the 50-50 Senate.
> The historical fact that men elected by the collage, but who did not receive the popular vote only served one term.
Clinton has only a month left to quack as a lame duck, but
Bush might have four long years of inactivity if he doesn’t make a strong case for revamping the electoral system and building bridges to work with Democrats.
Monster104,
From Unsafe in Any State in Salon…
"Then, on practical grounds, we hear that a Nader vote builds up popular support for the Greens so they can get to 5 percent and therefore receive federal funds in 2004. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Nader does get 5 percent, and the Greens get federal funds in future elections. Then what? On the off-chance that the Greens can avoid breaking into warring camps, à la the Reform Party, what they can realistically look forward to is someday becoming, say, an 8 percent party. And then? After at least one term of Republican rule, with its unambiguous passion for big oil, against a nuclear test ban, for Star Wars, against labor organizing, for HMO’s, for kindness toward the Pinochets of the world, etc., maybe eight years on we get to – 9 percent? 11 percent? The odds are for shrinkage, not increase, in a third party. This is a doomed enterprise. The Constitution is decisively tilted against it. In parliamentary systems, a single-digit party can win seats, enter governments, make policy – as witness the Greens in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. But in the American winner-take-all presidential system – which is not going away – the payoff for a third-party effort is the chance to be a spoiler again…
"Does voting for a third party contribute to “building a movement”? Claims of this sort are always made by charismatic figures. The results are never – never – delivered. The claim amounts to feel-good rhetoric to rationalize a heady campaign. Tomorrow never comes. It is a parochial fantasy…
"At bottom, Nader’s all-or-nothing gambit is not politics, it is moral fundamentalism – as if by venting one’s anger, one were free to remake the world by willing it so, despite all those recalcitrant people who happen to live here…
"… In Eric Alterman’s trenchant words in the Nation, Nader’s “nascent leftist movement has virtually no support among African-Americans, Latinos or Asian-Americans. It has no support among organized feminist groups, organized gay rights groups or mainstream environmental groups. To top it all off, it has no support in the national union movement. So Nader and company are building a nonblack, non-Latino, non-Asian, nonfeminist, nonenvironmentalist, nongay, non-working people’s left: Now that really would be quite an achievement.”
. . . .
What’s so great about a third party?
Sure, it would be very different – and arguably more just – to have a coalition system of government in the U.S. But, that’s not the case and that’s not the issue.
The question is whether or not a third party can achieve anything of value in the U.S. system as it is currently outlined in the Constitution. Unless it wins the majority of votes, a third party is like a third leg: more likely to impede progress than advance it!
The only alternative in our system is to encourage one of the major parties to protect or reflect one’s own ideals. That’s the only way to see those ideals represented in government and public policy. It’s regrettable, but there it is.
Consider what Nader’s campaign accomplished: he demonstrated that there is very, very little public support for his views. To my mind, Nader and his constituents did the rest of the country a disservice by unintentionally suggesting that there is very little support for consumer rights and environmental concerns!
In truth, of course, the abysmally low numbers of Nader votes show no such thing. They show only that there is very little support for Nader’s poorly-conceived strategy and tactics. But the public at large may well come away convinced that the critical issues which the truly noble Ralph Nader has selflessly and tirelessly championed for so many years are solely the domain of kooks and extremists!
This has hurt the country more than it could have ever helped. To add insult to injury, Nader’s candidacy threw the election to Bush.
No matter how much Nader supporters refuse to acknowledge this very, very obvious fact.
I feel really sad for Mr. Gore right now. Try to forget for a moment how you feel about his actions after the election and try to imagine the heartbreak he must be feeling, knowing that the majority of Americans who went to the polls across the country voted for him, yet he’s not going to become our next President. No, I’m not flaunting the “he won the popular vote” card because we all know that’s moot. But in his heart, knowing that he was “popularly elected” yet will not serve because of Constitutional law (which I happen to agree with, btw, but again, that’s not the point), must be devastating.
Knowing also that were it not for circumstances beyond his control, such as people who couldn’t punch a chad out all the way for one reason or another (lack of strength, chad buildup in the machines) and ill-designed ballots (in spite of their best intentions), he would be taking the oath of office on January 20th. It must be the most frustrating feeling in the world.
Of course he could have run a stronger campaign and taken even one other state and Florida would have been moot. Of course he could have demanded recounting the entire state from the start instead of simply “offering.” He does share some of the responsibility for the fact that less than 200 votes separated him from another four years in the White House.
But in the end it was all about ‘we the people’ who couldn’t get it right in the voting booths. Shame on us for not being more careful. I hope we’re moreso in the future. We have no one to blame but ourselves. That Vice President Gore has to shoulder the outcome of our inability to make our votes clear is very sad indeed.
Mr. Gore, thank you for serving us well in your capacity as Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate these past 8 years. Even if you don’t come back for another run at The White House, I hope you will continue to serve ‘we the people’ in some capacity, either in the Senate or the House of Representatives. I wish you well. And I apologize that we couldn’t get it right.
Milossarian,
Now that the US SC has made the legal question largely moot, the question before us is whether or not it is ethical to refuse to count legally cast votes.
I contend that to have rejected these ballots simply because the card readers failed to recognize a vote is utterly contemptuous of the principles of democracy!
Having “cut my teeth” in the computer field using now-obsolete punch cards, I can assert with certainty that punched-card readers have failed and will continue to fail to read perfectly valid cards. I recognized those old Data 100 card readers so often televised from the Florida counties in question, and I know how unreliable they are!
You seem to want to gloss over the fact that there is state law covering such manual inspections and vote counting: the canvassing board is legally granted the authority to make decisions as to voter intent. No matter how much Republicans try to create the deliberately false impression of “divining” the will of the voter, as a practical matter I’m quite sure any two reasonable people would agree on the vast majority of the ballots in dispute. Those that are ambiguous must be ignored, but those that are not must ethically be counted!
But the Republicans have persistently refused to follow the dictates of reason and the callings of their conscience and have instead turned their backs on the most fundamental right of Americans: the right to have all our votes counted.
You’re right, Shayna… Gore worked his ass off for this. While I don’t agree with the man politically, I’m not so callous and shallow that I’ll take joy in his misery.
Some of the hardcore anti-Gore types laugh at his situation. They tout how he’s washed up, done with politics, can’t go anywhere but down, etc. Which may be true (although I have no doubt that he can go on the lecture circuit or write more).
Anyway, just because I voted for Bush, that doesn’t mean I have a personal vendetta against anyone. I am capable of keeping politics and personal matters separate (a trait which seems extremely rare on this board).
Now, on to Mr. Ambushed…
If Buchanan or Brown had gotten enough votes to keep Bush from getting elected, you’d be praising third parties like they were a gift from the heavens. Stop whining just because “your guy” just wasn’t up to snuff.
I believe that’s the point. With dozens of millions of members in each party, there is no possible way in hell that either of the major parties can embody the majority’s political views. Some people are against gun control and excessive environmental controls, but are in favor of gay marriage and abortions. Which of the two major parties, pray tell, could that person be a part of while still maintaining his or her own personal integrity?
Whine whine whine. “It was Nader’s fault… no, wait, it was the voting machines!.. no, wait, the black voters were prohibited from voting!.. no, wait, aliens from the plant Zyzzyx changed the ballots!.. no, wait, it’s Nader’s fault again!”
Here’s a notion… maybe, just maybe, it’s nobody’s fault?!? Maybe, just maybe, Gore’s campaign wasn’t good enough? Maybe, just maybe, Bush’s campaign was a little bit better?
I do not understand this idea that blame must be attributed to a single source in order for everything to be explained. I realize that it lets you feel better about yourself, but Jeezum Crow, this is ridiculous.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jshore *
**
I don’t believe they were under any pressure or influence. I think they were reacting to their own feelings about the situation. And I think it is a travesty.
Of course it’s not ethical. However, it’s perfectly ethical to refuse to count invalid votes… that is, votes without clear marking, more than one marking, or no marking at all. These are the standards that have been used for years. You should have brought it up before then.
The question before us is whether or not it is ethical to alter the laws and processes AFTER the election has been held. (Of course, I know someone’s going to ask “What laws were changed?”, showing that they didn’t read the whole thread before responding).
I wonder if you’ve ever take a course on ethics. I doubt it. Ethics =/= liberalism. Ethics demands that you obey the law. Ethics demand that you “play fairly”. Ethics demand that you be fair, accurate, and objective.
By trying to count votes only in highly-democratic counties, and conversely trying to exclude as many (suspectedly) mostly-republican votes as possible, Gore showed that he wasn’t trying to be ethical. He was trying to be political.
If you think ethics has any place in modern-day politics, you’re either naive, or you’re selling something.
I’m not into losing, sweetie, but maybe you can sucker Milo.
Elucidator:
Ooops. Apparantly I spoke too slowly. I should know better than to respond before I’ve read the whole thread.
Wouldn’t it be fascinating if whomever undertakes the recounts made it a point to specifcally divide the punch ballots thusly:
X completely punched, 500 with 3 chads detached- 300 with 2 chads - 100 with 1 chad, 12 with dimples, 45 write ins.
THAT would be interesting.
But I’m pretty sure we’ll never see it done in any way at all. If they don’t actually fight it (which wouldn’t surprise me, look at what they’ve been willing to do so far. They are pretty blatant.) I’m sure Jeb can arrange for some ballots to be “lost” or “spoiled” - it certainly wouldn’t take very many.
stoid
Bridges? Bridges? We don’t need no stinkin’ bridges.
Fuck him. Fuck them. I think all this talk of “getting behind” our new president is garbage and lies. Since WHEN? Never before and definitely not now…but that’s a thread I’m gonna do soon, not today. (don’t take my tone as coming down on you, Kiffa, it’s not about anything you said, you were just my jumping off point).
stoid
Damn, Shayna… You nailed it. And you’re going to make me cry about all this AGAIN…the injustice of it just * wrecks * me.
<sniff>
stoid
Now who’s “divining” things! Your mind-reading skills are hardly up to snuff. I made the egotistic error of voting for a third-party candidate many years ago, and I swore afterwards that I would never again give solace to those arrogant enough to think they could buck the system. So kindly keep your alleged psychic utterances to yourself.
By your “logic”, we should all start our own third parties, for I doubt that anyone agrees on every issue!
I hope at least you enjoyed your venture into verbal onanism, for I doubt anyone else did.
You continue to embarrass yourself. You, yourself, pointed out that I have discussed at least two contributing factors. In fact, I believe there were several causes, not a few or the least of which can be laid entirely at Gore’s own feet. I am generally not a Gore supporter, I am a Bush opponent.
But your suggestion that perhaps Bush’s campaign was better is ludicrous, unless you refer to his advisor’s post-election campaign to stop the vote counting while he was ahead (Bush is far too stupid to have planned and executed this on his own).
While it’s all very amusing to watch the Gore supporters piss and moan and threaten retribution, somebody should point out that it isn’tover just yet. Not even if Gore conceeds tomorrow–and I personally will believe he has the character to do this when I see it–is it over.
There is the slight matter of the Electors–Bush has 271 electoral votes *in theory,*but it remains to be seen whether all 271 of the Electors actually cast their ballots for him. It’s already been reported that the Democrats have been trying to get Republican Electors to vote for Gore; they only need to pick up three (assuming that all the Democratic electors vote for Gore, which isn’t a lock either) for Gore to win the election. Even failing that, it only takes two Bush Electors deciding to cast protest votes for John McCain or somebody and, *voila,*Bush fails to get a majority and it’s thrown into the House of Representatives. And if the same thing happened with the votes for vice president, it would be decided by the Senate…which is evenly divided, and at that point Al Gore would have the tie-breaking vote.
President Bush and Vice President Lieberman? Or how 'bout President Bush and Vice President *Gore,*which would give the Democrats control of the Senate? The possibilities for shenanigans continue for awhile–not big possibilities, perhaps, but definitely possibilities.
Derleth- 2 things. One, the Gore team NEVER was in favor of not counting any of the military ballots. At least officially, and unofficially- “no-one can prove nuthin”. 2- It still is not over- it will not be over until the electors vote, and those votes are counted. If a couple of electors bolt camp- UH-OH!
There still remains a few, last ditch scattered challenges, however they likely will come to naught. The one that could is the challenge on the Cheney “inhabitant” status- which, if the Demos time it right, could make Gore VP. Now, that would be wierd- but i like it. 
SPOOFE Bo Diddly subjected us to the following:
Such standards, although perhaps regrettably non-specific, were in place before the election! And the reason they were non-specific is obvious: different precincts used different systems! A standard for one type of system could hardly be applicable to another system.
You betray your ignorance of the law. Even assuming your flawed perspective, a ruling which does not persist past the case in question is NOT a new law, by definition.
It is your knowledge of ethics that remains extremely doubtful, not mine. Only someone manifestly ignorant of the subject would suggest that Ethics = Law!
And who argued for the premise that ethics “has any place in modern politics”? You deliberately misconstrue my remarks. Nonetheless, only a Republican would so glibly deny that ethics should play a role in modern politics.