What is all the fuss about having Palm Beach county simply revote? Isn’t this the only sure way to resolve the whole issue and why would this not be fair to both sides? What are they afraid of?
no, it would not be fair unless the rest of the country also gets to vote again.
But the rest of the country is not at issue and the election does not hang in the balance as to the other states.
This was said in another thread, but I’ll just re-state it here for ya.
If florida does a re-vote, even if only the people who voted the first time are allowed to vote, people who cast their ballot for a candidate OTHER than bush or gore would probably change their vote in order to swing the outcome towards one or other of the candidates. From the talk, it seems like this might give gore an unfair advantage.
-nigel
It is also unconstitutional.
The constitution states that the entire country must vote on the same day. Letting Palm Beach vote next week (month…whenever) would not be having the election on the same day.
If you can slip in ratifying a Constitutional amendment in between now and the vote, I say go for it, otherwise, live with it.
We have only one election. You don’t get to keep revoting until you get an answer you like.
To be fair you would have to let voters in any district where there were disqualified ballots have a revote.
An equal vote is a right. If you allow parts of Florida to revote with the knowledge that their vote determines the election it is no longer an equal voting situation.
My understanding is that it was very close in Iowa too. WOuld it be fair to let a Republican district in Iowa revote with this knowledge? After all, they had disqualified ballots in Iowa too.
The district in question had 19,000 disqualified votes in 1996 they had 16,000 disqualified. The relative increase is porportional to voter turnout.
Contrary to the propaganda, the 19,000 disqualifications is not an unusual circumstance. It is not surprising, and does not merit special consideration.
You have a right to vote. You have a responsibility to understand how to do it right.
Well…I don’t know about this. I think you would have to get a constitutional scholar to tell you how or if this applies to a re-vote called due to election irregularities. (We may get to see how the courts rule!)
But, I agree with you and others that a re-vote is extremely problematic given that they are voting under a very different set of conditions (i.e., they know their county will in fact decide the election). And, this may affect who votes and, as others have pointed out, who they vote for.
If there is a completely fair solution out of the current crisis, I have yet to hear it. I am not really sure one exists.
You may say it’s unconstitutional, but that is your op and is certainly not a settled issue. As to the fact that some might change their vote, look at what we have now: at least 19,000 citizens’ votes are not being accounted for in any fashion. In a revote, everyone would have the right to express his/her opinion and that is what the whole election thing is about. It just is not that complicated to let the area with the problems redo the vote.
What about the issue that the ballots in Palm Beach county are not in compliance with state LAW?
There is another reason not to allow just a Florida or Palm Beach vote.
The reason is that the candidates could start making promises to the voters in that region that wouldn’t fly if they were made in a national election. For example, they could start promising a 1000% increase in Social Security benefits, or better Medicaid coverage, etc. Since the rest of the country would not now have a vote, they couldn’t protest this blatant favoritism to Florida.
If there’s a re-vote (and I don’t think there can be) then it’s got to be the whole country.
Zev Steinhardt
You see…it IS that complicated. Do you have any idea how many parts of America had problems? Do we let them all revote? Or do you think that just this democratic stronghold should get that right?
You are reading the wrong law. There is one law for computer ballots and one for other ballots.
This is a straw man arguement in any case. They had plenty of time to make sure everything was legal.
Porkchop, they ALL had this right the first time. They just screwed it up. I’m sure many Americans screwed up, but I don’t think we should start a campaign to find them all.
BTW…I have read that something close to 95% of registered democrats voted in this county, and only something like 65% of registered Republicans. Would you only allow people who voted to re-vote? Or would everyone in the county be eligible? I’m sure all the Republicans who blew it off would get off their asses and go vote. This would throw tens of thousands of votes Bush’s way.
And what about every one who voted 3rd party? How are you going to account for the fact that they will in all likelyhood receive ZERO votes the second time around. And what about the Republicans who went home in the western part of the state because the media called the state? Can the panhandle vote over also? I think I heard that there was a blizzard somewhere in the country also. Now that we are holding elections again, and the snow is gone, shouldn’t we (out of the fairness of our heart) allow them to re-vote?
Too many problems. One election day, one person, one vote.
As indicated by others above, one of the major problems with a re-vote is that the situation is entirely different after the fact. All the other results are known. Think about how this changes the psychological dynamics. The people of Palm Beach County already know what everyone else did.
Now, if it was only for a Palm Beach County office, and they “started over,” so to speak, at least there would not be the specter of 100,000,000 other votes hanging over their heads. In effect, a new vote in Florida is not at all equivalent to the votes others cast. That’s why we all vote at the same time on the same day. That’s why they don’t release the results of absentee ballots that come in advance of election day. Heck, most even decry the release of exit polling data on the off chance that it might influence somebody in a different time zone.
100,000,000 previously cast votes would be quite the influence. I’m not a lawyer, but there is no way I can envision a court calling for a re-vote on any level.
(Please don’t slap me for plagerizing myself–I’m tired and don’t feel like rewording this from another thread)
Maybe not unconstitutional, but here’s what the law says:
From US Code: Title 3, Section 1:
“The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.”
Then from the next section:
“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”
And from Section 5:
“If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.”
Looks like they are bound to follow whatever laws existed prior to election day.
Here is the part of the Constitution I was talking about:
Your section from the US Code seems to be the way Congress fulfilled this Constitutional part of their responsibilities.
What’s the problem with a revote
Before the election, it was clear that either Gore or Bush would win
There was no clear favuorite
All serious commentators said that it was too close to call
Now
Either Gore or Bush will win
There is no clear favourite
It is too close to call
I’ll bet there’s a high turnout.