Since you must have missed that part: Gore already OFFERED that, and Bush turned him down. How can Bush ask for a statewide recount now, much less use “amazing amounts of pressure” ?
Cite please.
Fenris said:
Hey, I think Stoidela is a wonderful poster. I wish there were a few more like her. 
pantom said:
Ah, but did you notice the nice panel of Democrats who comprise the Florida Supreme Court set a deadline of 9:00 AM Monday morning? According to this ruling, it is now impossible for any but the heavily-Democratic counties already being re-recounted to get it in. Isn’t thata surprise? But it seems to me that they didn’t think it through.
Gore is now screwed–on the off-chance he actually gets declared the winner, the Republicans will hammer him to pieces on this–I envision bumperstickers saying things like “President by a vote of 7 Democrats” (it’s actually six Democrats and an independent originally nominated by a Democratic governor, but never mind that) and “Gore/Lieberman–Pretender and Vice Pretender.” If Bush wins, as is still more likely, the Democrats have managed to give him more credibility.
The dumbest thing the Republicans could do is appeal this ruling–they need to tell the Bush people to cool it for the good of the party. It’s win-win for them now–all they can do is screw it up. Not that they aren’t liable to screw it up anyway–I don’t know if Bush would be willing to be a martyr rather than President, any more than Gore is.
Sam, the “Democrat position” is that all valid votes be counted. That’s also the small-d democratic position; that the people’s choice be determined as carefully as possible and followed, however it turns out. How does that baffle you?
I guess we’ve had too much history of rioting in the streets, and a terrible civil war, to think that a simple display of bad manners would be “civil unrest”. There’s the Canadian/US differences in political sensibilities again. And “active hostility” toward the President from a Republican House has been the norm for the last 6 years, in case you didn’t hear about that impeachment thing up there.
There’s an old saying that “hard cases make bad law.”
I think we just saw some atrocious law. <g>
Basically, we just saw a breathtaking example of legislating from the bench; there is NOTHING, not a single statute on the books which recognizes a deadline next sunday at 5 pm. The court invented it out of whole cloth.
What the court DID do, however, was come up with the only solution they could where NOBODY knows who’s gonna win.
So while the court didn’t do the legal thing, they did do the fair thing. And judicial activism, while constitutionally questionable, is hardly unprecedented. And I think anyone can see the unique nature of this case, and how under the circumstances some exceptional measures can be applied.
As a conservative, I don’t like it, but I can live with it.
And I reject any action by conservative congressmen to “boycott” the Presidential inauguration should Gore recieve the electoral votes. Once that happens, I think as a country, it’s time to “rally 'round the flag,” and set an example to the rest of the world how the American Republic works. No temper tantrums.
It’s not up to the “Gore Camp” - it’s up to the dozens (hundreds? of counters and observers, evenly split between parties, who are doing the recount.
“Doody heads”?? That’s a good one, Spoofe.
stoid
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by MysterEcks *
**
Hey, I think Stoidela is a wonderful poster. I wish there were a few more like her. *
?!?!?!?!? <stunned look>
I think it’s too late. Baker just made lots of noises hinting at a big fight, not least the threat of the FL legislature acting. Which would mean appointing their own slate of electors, and if GOre wins the vote, the state sending two sets…then Congress has to choose, it’slooking like the Senate will be 50/50…Gore would have to cast the deciding vote, but can he? AAAAAAEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
stoid
“Another liberal in the White House”? What, is Ralph Nader still in this race? And who was the first liberal? Members of the Democratic Leadership Council do not liberals make!
(Even I wouldn’t go so far as to call people like Chafee, Jeffords, or Specter conservatives even if they do happen to be Republicans.)
Conveniently and consistently ignoring the fact that he offered to recount all of Fla and Bush turned him down. Painting Gore as the bad guy for Bush’s willful and arrogant stupidity is the part the keeps baffling me.
**
All baseless accusations. The court overturned no laws. Courts across the country and in Florida have consistently ruled that dimpled ballots are evidence of votor intent.
The Dem’s have said that military ballots that are missing a postmark should be counted. Butterworth issued an opinion with detailed criteria and the canvassing boards looked at it and said. (Quote from Orange county) “Yeah, that’s the standard we used, why should we go back and do it again exactly the same way?”.
In otherwords, the Republican accusations that servicemen were systematically attacked is fiction. Based on the principal of the ‘big lie’. If you tell a lie often enough, then some people will believe you regardless of the facts.
**
Not likely, my neigbors at least, show now signs of revolt.
Yes, a very disturbing turn of events. Do you suppose childishness is a core republican virtue? Some of the leaders seem to believe that since the press erroneously awarded them the presidency, that they are entitled to it regardless of what the voters have to say.
tj
I admire the hell outta you for that post, and that position. Amazingly fair and mature of you. Hoorah!
stoid
Oh gee, how mature. And these are the people you think I should prefer represent me? Please.
If you share this sentiment at all, I’d suggest you take a lesson from panzermanpanzerman
Really, this stuff has been all over the news in the past couple of days.
I guess the Washington Post is as good as any:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47795-2000Nov21.html
Gore wants dimpled ballots counted:
And
Gore wants “double-dimpled” ballots counted (for him, of course):
But Gore wants them anyway. That is the double standand of which I speak. Since a dimple is a “vote,” then any double-dimpled ballot by definition has two votes. How can a ballot with two votes be counted at all? Much less divined as to who should get the vote.
This doesn’t even address all the ballots with two clear presidential votes (for example, the Gore + Buchanan ballots). Do I need a cite to show that the Gore team thinks those should be awarded to him as well? All last week we heard that those votes were “meant” for Gore.
So far, it seems the canvassing boards have set aside these ballots and have not counted them. But given time, I’m sure the Gore team can work its persuasion. Look at Broward County. At first, they weren’t going to count the dimpled ballots. But now, they have changed the procedure and will count them. Big surprise there.
Sam Stone: "I am baffled how anyone can now think that the Democrat position is justified.
This is how conservatives will see it: A Democrat won the election by re-counting all votes that favored HIM, after managing to get current election law overturned, even if the ballot was only dimpled, while managing to get servicemen disenfranchised in order to secure the presidency. "
First, both sides were legally entitled to ask for sample recounts in any county. Bush did not ask for any recounts. So it’s not fair to say that somehow the recounts were done selectively to favor Gore. Also, Florida election law mandates recounts in any county where the margin of victory was less than half a percent. The use of hand recounts when samples suggest machine error is settled law. And dimpled chads are even accepted in Texas, for gosh sake.
Second, for an overseas absentee ballot to be accepted, the law requires it to be postmarked by election day OR signed and dated by election day. This notion that servicemen are being cheated out of their votes because someone at the post office forgot to stamp their envelope is just plain mistaken. In my limited experience with absentee voting, there is a place to sign and date (separate from the ballot), and you either sign it or you don’t - no ambiguity a la dimpled chads.
from Tejota:
What’s so baffling about not wishing to take part in a process you think is flawed and subject to human error or bias? How is taking a principled stand “arrogant” and stupid? This has been their position all along. I think it refreshing to see the Bush team stick to their guns on this, even though it potentially costs them votes.
I will be very disappointed in the Bush team if they call for a statewide recount. Just because the Gore team is desperate enough to go on a vote hunt doesn’t mean I want to see the Republicans stoop to that level.
Just curious here…but what is it about the last 8 years that you find so objectionable? Because Gore will be bringing us more of the same.
stoid
Now this is efficiency … The Florida Supreme Court has just overturned numerous sections of state election law and rewritten it themselves.
While paying lip-service to the importance of the will of the people, they have flipped the middle finger to the elected representatives those voters put in office. They have usurped the authority of the state House, Senate, Governor and Secretary of State.
Hey, it works a lot faster than all those pesky legislative subcommittee hearings with their testimony and research; passing bills through both houses and then reconciling them; then having a governor sign them. Give this Super Crew an hour-and-a-half of hearings and a day-and-a-half of deliberation, and they’ll take care of Florida, thanks.
Republicans AND Democrats in Florida’s legislature should be furious at this. Do those justices not think there are reasons behind the election laws as they are written?
Is a court supposed to interpret law, or write legislation? Do the words “Seperation of Powers” mean anything to anybody?
The Gore camp turned this into a war of attrition. (And I see some Republicans are now doing exactly what they want and expect you to do.)
“Oh c’mon … for the good of the country …”
Were the Democrats interested in the good of the country when Bush won the certified vote count, and the re-count, and the majority of absentee ballots?
I have now come to the conclusion that there is absolutely, positively no outcome to this situation that is acceptable to Gore and Democrats in which Gore is not the winner.
When it became clear, as they unconstitutionally treat votes differently in a few of the heaviest Gore-supporting counties, that they still weren’t getting enough votes to overturn Bush’s lead, the Democratic canvassars in those counties simply changed the rules, allowing a more liberal (heh-heh) acceptance of Gore ballots.
They’re changing the rules for an election in a half-dozen ways, after the election has taken place, and in a way that not only isn’t impartial, it very deliberately leads to a specific outcome.
In one of the counties, all of the disputed ballots will now be ruled upon by a board that consists of three Democrats, zero Republicans.
I can only hope that the Florida legislature or the U.S. Supreme Court corrects this clear misstep and overreach. I doubt the SCOTUS will, though, as they are reluctant to step into a state’s rights issue.
Because they don’t actually believe that. Bush signed a law in Texas making handcounts the preferred method of doing recounts. This, to me, is pretty convincing evidence that he doesn’t really believe that handcounts are flawed.
His claim now that they are is just a cynical tactic.
If it were a principaled stand, then I would agree with you. But it isn’t. Remember, these are the same people who took a “principaled stand” about not taking the election into the courts.
These are the same people who took their “principaled stand” for states rights to the FEDERAL court in Atlanta.
If George Bush ever met a principal, He might shake it’s hand, but he for sure wouldn’t recognise it.
I’ll be amused.
I think the thing that amazes me most about this election is the discovery that votes are systematically undercounted in predominantly democratic precincts in Fla. There is bias toward republicans built in to the vote counting system there.
I’d be willing to bet that this is true in many of the other states as well. I had aways assumed that elections were basically fair, that there was no bias toward one party or other built into the system itself. (Though there is a definite bias to the incumbent and the coat-tail effect). That turns out not to be the case…
I think that the best thing that will come out of this election will be that areas that use punch cards will finally recognise that they are taking away a portion of their citizens voice by using such unreliable technology. They will throw those machines out, and get a new system.
Hopefully, they will choose well.
tj
This is getting to be funny. All you can do is point to ONE sentence in ONE statute and jump up and down shouting.
“This one sentence trumps everything!!!”.
When two laws contract each other, 103.011 and 103.012 clearly do. (Not to mention the contradiction between allowing manual recounts and not providing enough time for them.) It is the court’s job to determine how these laws are to be read ‘together’ so that the whole can be understood. The supreme court has just done that.
This is the most ridiculous of all of the Bush camp claims. If you are ahead in a football game going into the 2nd quaarter, and again going into the 3th quarter. When the 4th quarter starts you are NOT justified in saying “we won the game, in fact, we won it twice!”.
There has only been one election, one casting of votes. The first (inaccurate) count showed Bush ahead, the second (more accurate) count showed him to be ahead also. So what? The only count that matters is the final (even more accurate) one that results from hand counting.
No, for you this is a premise, not a conclusion. And your premises are wrong.
No, they are following the rules. Although I agree that recounting only democratic districts is unfair. But it’s less unfair that you think because only a few republican districts even USE punch cards. Most of them do not, and a recount there would have no effect on the tally because it was accurate the first time.
With the whole world watching. As Jim Kerry said. “If you have evidence of fraud, then go to court!”.
Now that would be changing the rules after the election.
Milo, no mention here about the Court rewriting laws. maybe you want to retract that statement? ;>
The majority of Texas also uses a ballot in which the choice is marked in pen or with a stamp, not punch ballots, and has nothing to do with “chads”. As such, the extreme level of subjectivity is abandoned (what the hell constitutes a “dimpled chad”, anyway? Do they get a ruler and measure how many nanometers deep the dimple is?)
Anyway, despite the objections of types like ::cough::ela, it really isn’t much of a comparision. In addition, the last time I check, this election crisis isn’t taking place in Texas, so in a legal sense, I see no reason why you feel the need to chant “Texas does it, too!” If all the states jumped off a cliff, would Florida jump too?
I’m sure you mean “systematically biased in favor of one party”.
Kind of like Texas, yeah. That’d be the ticket.
Similar things can be said for you and your “Republicans aren’t principled!” thing.
Also, are you suggesting that the Constitution DOES give the Judicial Branch of government permission to enact legislation? I’d like an exact quote, from the Constititution, please.
Err… the election is not a football game. The first count was not the “2nd quarter”, it was the final count. The RE-count is just a means of double-checking if the final count was accurate. Also, a football game doesn’t use subjective terms like “dimpled touchdown.”
Oh, I get it… you see one court changing the rules in your favor to be “legally interpreting the law”, and another court changing the rules against your favor to be “changing the rules”. I see. How objective-minded and impartial of you.