[funkboy]

Looking again at the 2000 United States Presidential Election, can it be safe to assume that the democratic process essentially failed this time around? I talk of this whether you supported Bush or Gore.

The entire election and aftermath seemed to have many things wrong with it, including:
* a Supreme Court decision that was linked to party lines, and split 5-4
* questionable ballots in Florida... should any ballot in the entire country be questionable?
* no significant election reform after this entire mess that took months to resolve

Do you agree that, this time around, the system failed? Should the Supreme Court really be allowed to interfere in a matter such as this, especially when they're verdict was so fuzzy?

[Nimisys]

i say yes as the system worked exactly as it should, the supreme court o\only affected what ballots that are normally tossed out will count in this case.

the problem was that the democrats were not willign to admit they very well might have loss by a few votes... even if they could when by even fewer votes

[Tigerabbit]

I think Florida is getting new ballots for 2002 as a result of reform measures.

To make people pay more attention to the ballots, the new ones have the word B I N G O stamped across the top.



(Hush, I heard this from a native Floridian.)

[flatcatch]

Well, given that this has been over before and we just get people posting the same tired arguments over and over and over, I hope we can just agree that the antiquated voting system hardware needs to be replaced so we don't have to deal with this kind of situation again. Would ANYONE with at least half a brain be against a nation-wide voting system upgrade to ensure the most accurate democratic results?

Of course, with voter turn out so pathetic we certainly need to work on incentives or requirements for voting in this country.

[Tigerabbit]

Would ANYONE with at least half a brain be against a nation-wide voting system upgrade to ensure the most accurate democratic results?[/B]

Well, those who get elected via trickery, like in Czechago, where the dead vote Democrat.

[Mr. Blur]

the system worked better than it did in 1960....

[flatcatch]

Originally posted by Mr. Blur:
the system worked better than it did in 1960....

Hmm... and less african americans are lynched now than in the 1960's - does that mean the racism problem is "just fine" these days? We'd never make progress or improvements on anything with that logic.

[Lerkfish]

all political considerations aside, just the fact the it was possible to question the validity of ballots for whatever reason points to inherent difficulties with the present system.
Its a little disturbing that this came to the fore only because the election was close. How many other elections, that we are unaware of, have previously had greater margins for error than we realized, but since no recount was requested....

In my opinion, for national elections, there should be consistent balloting procedures that work to minimize or eliminate this sort of occurence.
In the best case scenario, if a recount is called, the votes should be essentially the same, with less than 0.05% variance.

my 0.2�.

I also think, that before it ever got to the supreme court, in retrospect, simply holding the election again would have been cheaper and faster.

and ballots should be configured in such a way so that there is almost no possibility for voter confusion.
What's sad, is that because of this last fiasco, election process reform will likely never be implemented, because support for it or not will be camped on party lines. That would be a great disservice for democrats and republicans to get in the way of improving things, because a better system goes beyond just those two parties.

[MadMacs]

[Mr. Blur]

Originally posted by flatcatch:


Hmm... and less african americans are lynched now than in the 1960's - does that mean the racism problem is "just fine" these days? We'd never make progress or improvements on anything with that logic.

its got nothing to do with african-american or racism, but with how the kennedy "team" bought the election in 1960 through massive vote fraud and got away with it.

[BRussell]

More people left the ballots in Florida having voted for Gore, but Bush was declared the winner.

Whether you're a Republican or Democrat, I'd think we'd all realize there's a problem with that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
More people left the ballots in Florida having voted for Gore, but Bush was declared the winner.

Whether you're a Republican or Democrat, I'd think we'd all realize there's a problem with that.

The basic problem is a lack of voter education. This is my first year as a DC voter, so i'm not sure if this is normal, but last week I got in the mail a pamphlet explaining exactly how to use the DC ballot machine. It even includes how to do a write-in ballot - like for the mayor. I don't know if other states send out similar instructions. I know Virginia did not when I was registered there. But it seems like a good idea.

Of course, since we have a universal franchise, there will always be a certain percentage of morons who will screw it up. That's inevitable. I guess the trick is not to be the party which attracts a disproportionate percentage of morons.

[wingdo]

Originally posted by funkboy:
Do you agree that, this time around, the system failed? Should the Supreme Court really be allowed to interfere in a matter such as this, especially when they're verdict was so fuzzy?

I think the system worked just as it is supposed to (I did *not* vote for Bush). I am however, tired as all get out of the Gore people saying the election was stolen.

You know how Gore could have won??? He could have won his home state. Those electorial votes would have put him over the top. But the people of Tennessee did not vote for him. If you are too inept to win your home state, you don't deserve to be President. Even Walter Mondale won his home state for gawd's sake.

[jcadam]

I do think this election showed just how divided Americans are on basic ideaology.

We are moving toward a time (or perhaps we are already there) where the differences between the left and the right will be irreconcilable.

I envision only increased strife as the two competing ideaologies (commonly known as liberalism and conservatism) become increasingly divergent. Violence will probably determine which of these two philosophies will dominate.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by BRussell:
More people left the ballots in Florida having voted for Gore, but Bush was declared the winner.

Whether you're a Republican or Democrat, I'd think we'd all realize there's a problem with that.

I believe in the electoral college. It is one of the last relics of republican government that still exists in the US.

FYI, the United States began as a republic and has steadily been moving toward a european-style social democracy ever since the end of the Civil War.
Our 'states' are no more than federal provinces that are allowed a token amount of self-administration. While a centralized form of government may suit a small nation (such as your standard-sized western european nation), it does not suit a nation as large as the United States, where values, economics, affluence, and ethnicity can vary enormously from one region to another.

The electoral college was intended to prevent one region of the country from completely monopolizing national elections.



Edit: I do realize now you were speaking of the polls in Florida as opposed to the nation as a whole. Oh well, just take my post as a commentary on the electoral system in the US

[zigzag]

In terms of actual voting integrity/accuracy, the system failed (not that it was very efficient in the first place). But in terms of allowing a peaceful transition of power, it succeeded, if barely and clumsily.

I think that both the Florida Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court decisions were flawed. But, although it was muddled, I accept the result - I don't see any other viable way out under the circumstances. I would not have supported a re-vote - IMO it would have exacerbated the mess. I think both sides were entitled to protect their interests, but I'm honestly glad that it ended when it did (and no, I didn't vote for Bush). The country will endure for 4 years and if the people don't like Dubbya they can send him packing like they did his old man.

IMO the electoral college is a hopeless anachronism - it doesn't even serve its original purpose - and should be trashed (and no, I'm not just a bitter Gore voter - I said so before the election). There should be broad election reform. But, of course, neither will happen.

If only James Traficant had run for President, this wouldn't have happened. Truly a man of the people.

P.S. Kennedy probably stole more votes than Nixon in 1960 but one reason Nixon didn't challenge is that, even if you threw them out, Kennedy still would've won. And Nixon would've faced challenges himself. Honor among thieves.

[Zimphire]

[TNproud2b]

Originally posted by wingdo:


I think the system worked just as it is supposed to (I did *not* vote for Bush). I am however, tired as all get out of the Gore people saying the election was stolen.

You know how Gore could have won??? He could have won his home state. Those electorial votes would have put him over the top. But the people of Tennessee did not vote for him. If you are too inept to win your home state, you don't deserve to be President. Even Walter Mondale won his home state for gawd's sake.

word up, homie, word up.

< Tennessean - there are plenty of reasons Gore didn't win his home state.

PS,

James Traficant, "man of the people", could run for president after he's paroled in a few years. I suppose. A likely running-mate would be Marion Barry, the crack addict.

[Montezuma58]

To paraphrase matmatician John Allen Paulos, they were measuring bacteria with a yard stick.

I don't beleive the system worked as it should have. The election should have went to the Florida legislator. All of the court battles and arguments over what to recount were ridiculous. For all practical purpose the results of the vote were indeterminate. You are talking about around 1000 votes out of six million. The count in Florida's statewide elections have probably alway been inacurate by this amount or more. Nromally the errors are in the noise, but the 2000 presidential election was extrodinarily close for an election of this size. The system was simply incapable of coping with this fine of a margin. Even disregarding political biases, no recount could produce a more accurate results. Let's say you have a jar containing about 6 million pennies. You count the pennies twice with two different results. How do you prove which count is correct?

The results of any recount were essitialy arbitrarily picking one canditate or the other. I do not think it would have been proper to leave the election up to what was basically a game of chance. It would have been more fair to of had the election decided by the legislature which much more directly reflects the current political whishes of the people than any court.

[OreoCookie]

This was the most miserable failure of the US governmental system in the history. By denying a recount of the votes, it decided the presidency.

Why didn't they let the people decide -- simply count the votes. No matter if Republican or Democrat, let the people decide. If the majority decides against your �favorite', that's how democracy works.

There was substantial evidence suggesting that the questionable votes would decide the presidency, but they were not counted.

And I am sure the Republicans would have bitched big time if the result would have been the other way around. Although the ruling of the Supreme Court would have been a different one (they have voted along party lines).

BTW, if you count the votes as a whole, Gore would be the winner by (if I remember correctly) something like 100.000 votes.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
This was the most miserable failure of the US governmental system in the history. By denying a recount of the votes, it decided the presidency.

Why didn't they let the people decide -- simply count the votes. No matter if Republican or Democrat, let the people decide. If the majority decides against your �favorite', that's how democracy works.

There was substantial evidence suggesting that the questionable votes would decide the presidency, but they were not counted.

And I am sure the Republicans would have bitched big time if the result would have been the other way around. Although the ruling of the Supreme Court would have been a different one (they have voted along party lines).

BTW, if you count the votes as a whole, Gore would be the winner by (if I remember correctly) something like 100.000 votes.

The Democrats REALLY pissed me off when they attempted to get mail-in ballots submitted by U.S. military personnel thrown out, while simultaneously trying to get questionalble (hanging-chad, votes for more than one candidate, etc.) ballots that would normally be thrown out recounted.

Our electoral system works fine when everybody follows the rules. The popular vote doesn't determine the election in the U.S., by the way. The electoral college is a GOOD thing.

Of course, changing the system would require a constitutional amendment, and that doesn't happen very often.

[MadMacs]

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by jcadam:


The Democrats REALLY pissed me off when they attempted to get mail-in ballots submitted by U.S. military personnel thrown out, while simultaneously trying to get questionalble (hanging-chad, votes for more than one candidate, etc.) ballots that would normally be thrown out recounted.

Our electoral system works fine when everybody follows the rules. The popular vote doesn't determine the election in the U.S., by the way. The electoral college is a GOOD thing.

Of course, changing the system would require a constitutional amendment, and that doesn't happen very often.

I have included criticism for the Ds in my post, too.
I am not for a party, I believe in the right to vote. Let the vote count and the person win that is elected by the people.

No matter what, this election will always have a bitter aftertaste due to the �uncertainty' in the result which was decided by court.

The electoral college is outdated -- there is no advantage nowadays. It was useful when it was introduced, but nowadays the main reason (the distances the votes would have to travel back then, etc.) is obsolete. It's making things more complicated than they should be. The electors serve no real purpose anymore.

Indeed, it's about time to change it.

[MadMacs]

[Montezuma58]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
This was the most miserable failure of the US governmental system in the history. By denying a recount of the votes, it decided the presidency.

Recounts would have proved nothing. Coming up with different results on a recount only proves that there are inaccuracies in the sytem. There is no way to tell if the first, second, or either count is correct. If you count the votes enough times you might get a rough idea of the level of inaccuaracy. It could just as easily be argued that allowing a recount would be deciding the presidency.



This article is the best that I have seen on the subject. Any other conclusions about the election can be simply dismissed as party bias. To me, the biggest failure was that neither side nor the media recognized the simple fact that system had flaws that caused errors which were greater than margin of victory. The cheif justice of the Florida supreme court is the only figure closely involve in the mess that I remember acknowleging this.

[Nimisys]

i am all for the electorial college, as it protects the minority and also prevents rule by one area over the rest

[BRussell]

Originally posted by jcadam:
The Democrats REALLY pissed me off when they attempted to get mail-in ballots submitted by U.S. military personnel thrown out, while simultaneously trying to get questionalble (hanging-chad, votes for more than one candidate, etc.) ballots that would normally be thrown out recounted.

The exact opposite happened. Republicans got virtually every military ballot in, even without signatures, dates, etc., all the while fighting any vote not technically perfect in undesirable locations like Miami. Democrats did nothing to stop them, because they didn't want to be seen as standing in the way of military votes.

And about recounting illegal votes: you know that many of the votes that were never counted had a punched vote for Gore, and then, to make sure their intent was clear, the voter wrote Gore's name in too. Counting those "overvotes" would have gained Gore the victory. And what did Florida law say? The "intent of the voter" should be determined. Oh well.

[UNTeMac]

Is it just me, or have more staunch conservatives joined this board in recent weeks?

Anyway, that aside...the finger-pointing begins in earnest as usual. Gore this, dems that...GOP this, Bush that.

That's not the point here. The point is, that whole mess could've been prevented if we'd kept our voting system up to date. It was an accident waiting to happen. I don't think we'll ever really know with absolute certainty who would've won the election and that is a little frightening considering the implications, but the fact is, Bush is president, get over it and get the vote out this year.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Montezuma58:


Recounts would have proved nothing. Coming up with different results on a recount only proves that there are inaccuracies in the sytem. There is no way to tell if the first, second, or either count is correct. If you count the votes enough times you might get a rough idea of the level of inaccuaracy. It could just as easily be argued that allowing a recount would be deciding the presidency.



This article is the best that I have seen on the subject. Any other conclusions about the election can be simply dismissed as party bias. To me, the biggest failure was that neither side nor the media recognized the simple fact that system had flaws that caused errors which were greater than margin of victory. The cheif justice of the Florida supreme court is the only figure closely involve in the mess that I remember acknowleging this.

You missed the point. I am not going to argue whether or not those votes would have been for Bush anyway, because the actual outcome of the recount is secondary.

My point is that recounts were necessary to clarify the situation. Bush's victory could've been reverified.
The people would've had an irrefutable result. It's not a party thing, it's principle.

[Montezuma58]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:



My point is that recounts were necessary to clarify the situation. Bush's victory could've been reverified.
The people would've had an irrefutable result. It's not a party thing, it's principle.

My point is that recounts would have clarified nothing and provided nothing irrefutable, no matter which side the recounts favored. All recounts could do was reinforce the false belief of one side or the other that they conclusivly won the election. Add in the changing rules for interpreting what constitutes a vote and the arguments over absentee ballots, the recounts only served to muddy the situation. People would like to believe that the votes were discrete entities for which an exact number could be dertemined. That was simply not the case in Florida.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:



You missed the point. I am not going to argue whether or not those votes would have been for Bush anyway, because the actual outcome of the recount is secondary.

My point is that recounts were necessary to clarify the situation. Bush's victory could've been reverified.
The people would've had an irrefutable result. It's not a party thing, it's principle.

No, it would have just gone on and on and on. I've always thought that the wonder of democracy isn't that one side or the other wins; the wonder of democracy is when the other side accepts its loss and steps aside from power gracefully. From the moment Gore let his advisors talk him into retracting his concession, he showed he just didn't get it.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I've always thought that the wonder of democracy isn't that one side or the other wins; the wonder of democracy is when the other side accepts its loss and steps aside from power gracefully. From the moment Gore let his advisors talk him into retracting his concession, he showed he just didn't get it.

But the election was still undetermined at that point. Bush could have conceded, too. Why didn't he?

The media initially declared the election for Gore, then Bush, and then later that night said it was undetermined. It wasn't for several days that they had actually counted the votes and determined that Bush had more legal votes - long after Gore cancelled his concession speech.

The fact is, Gore doesn't make Bush president, the voters do. Gore could have conceded, and it could have turned out that he won. Then what would have happened?

[Zimphire]

Dead Horse Beat,

Many many times they counted, all times Gore lost.

No matter what they recounted, Gore still would have lost.

Go read up on articles about it. And no not the un-professional pro-democratic tripe pages that the web is full of. They love to spread FUD.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
But the election was still undetermined at that point. Bush could have conceded, too. Why didn't he?

The media initially declared the election for Gore, then Bush, and then later that night said it was undetermined. It wasn't for several days that they had actually counted the votes and determined that Bush had more legal votes - long after Gore cancelled his concession speech.

The fact is, Gore doesn't make Bush president, the voters do. Gore could have conceded, and it could have turned out that he won. Then what would have happened?

As I recall (and it's a couple of years ago now) he could indeed have conceded. In fact, of course, he did concede. He then could have halted the recounts. The first recount was triggered automatically under Florida law, but AFAIK, they can be stopped by the agreement of the candidates. Even if it wasn't stopped, he did not have to keep asking for more and more recounts that dragged the whole process on unnecessarily.

Recounts almost never overturn elections, and as it turned out, it did not overturn this one. What it did was sour the atmosphere for the new President-Elect. That's a much bigger issue that Gore's wounded ambition. Previous presidential candidates in close elections understood that, Gore apparently did not. Instead, he went for a scorched-earth tactic that damaged the country. I hope that future presidential candidates behave in a more statesmanlike manner.

Your comment does bring up another point that is important, and that is the meddling effect of media "predictions." In particular, the practice of calling the election results before the polls close is very harmful to the democratic process. There's not much that can be done to stop that practice legally because of the First Amendment, but I hope that the media will behave more responsibly in future.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Dead Horse Beat,

Many many times they counted, all times Gore lost.

No matter what they recounted, Gore still would have lost.

Go read up on articles about it. And no not the un-professional pro-democratic tripe pages that the web is full of. They love to spread FUD.

You need to read the articles. Gore wouldn't have lost under every situation, only the strictest ones, i.e., those that threw away the most Gore votes. Every recount analysis says that more people voted for Gore in Florida, but more of his votes could be thrown out.

This is the classic naturalistic fallacy - that "what is = what should be." He's our president now, so it should be that way. Well, not necessarily.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

As I recall (and it's a couple of years ago now) he could indeed have conceded. In fact, of course, he did concede. He then could have halted the recounts. The first recount was triggered automatically under Florida law, but AFAIK, they can be stopped by the agreement of the candidates. Even if it wasn't stopped, he did not have to keep asking for more and more recounts that dragged the whole process on unnecessarily.

Recounts almost never overturn elections, and as it turned out, it did not overturn this one. What it did was sour the atmosphere for the new President-Elect. That's a much bigger issue that Gore's wounded ambition. Previous presidential candidates in close elections understood that, Gore apparently did not. Instead, he went for a scorched-earth tactic that damaged the country. I hope that future presidential candidates behave in a more statesmanlike manner.

Again I ask, why didn't Bush concede to Gore? It was just too close to call. It was many days later that the absentee ballots came in, for example. And quite a few counties didn't complete just their basic count for a few days.

Yes, Gore could have not called for any recounts at all. But remember that not a single recount other than the automatic one was completed. Why? Because the Republican political machine prevented it.

All they had to do was try, as best thy could, to determine who got the most votes. Even if it took a while. That's what democracy is about. Not how quickly you can do it.

Bush sued Gore to stop us from finding out who won, and eventually just ran out the clock. Why don't you criticize Bush for his "statesmanship?"

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:

Yes, Gore could have not called for any recounts at all. But remember that not a single recount other than the automatic one was completed.

And not a single count in Florida ever showed Gore ahead. Which is why Gore should have stood by his concession. Had it been the other way around, I would be saying that Bush should have conceded. Whether he would have, we'll never know. But I'd hope that he'd have had a bit more dignity than Al Gore Sr's son did.

I imagine you don't believe me when I say that I would have felt that way if the tables had been turned. But it's true. I didn't begin to really strongly dislike Gore until after the election when his true character (or lack thereof) came through. Remember, I was a McCain supporter. I'm not a natural Bush person. Before the election I expected Gore had a good chance of winning and I was prepared for that. But afterwards it all changed for me. Quite frankly, I think that Gore showed a dangerous lack of judgment.

But anyway, it's over. If the dems renominate him, he can have his rematch. Otherwise, it's time to move on.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Recounts almost never overturn elections, and as it turned out, it did not overturn this one. What it did was sour the atmosphere for the new President-Elect. That's a much bigger issue that Gore's wounded ambition. Previous presidential candidates in close elections understood that, Gore apparently did not. Instead, he went for a scorched-earth tactic that damaged the country. I hope that future presidential candidates behave in a more statesmanlike manner.

I disagree. I think that under the circumstances - an extremely close and ambiguous result - both sides had a right - indeed, perhaps an obligation - to seek (and await) a clarification, and the nation had a right as well. In such a close vote, the only thing worse than what happened would have been a concession and a subsequent discovery of missing or miscounted votes. That is not what ultimately happened, but I don't begrudge either candidate or party for protecting their interests. It can be reasonably argued that it went on for too long, but I don't think it was dishonorable of Gore to say "Hold on - let's make sure there's nothing grossly out of whack here." This was, AFAIK, an unprecedented circumstance.

It's true that an immediate and unambiguous concession by Gore would've seemed noble and honorable, but I don't begrudge him for holding off. One could argue, after all, that the noble thing for Bush to do was to agree to a recount, perhaps even under rules that he had just enacted in his own state but which he fought in Florida. There was plenty of disingenuousness on both sides, IMO.

It's not my impression that Bush was badly hurt, although it might seem different inside the Beltway. I have yet to encounter anyone in real life (as opposed to message boards) who has even mentioned the controversy since it happened, much less suggested that Bush is illegitimate (although I don't hang out with strong partisans). Also, I suspect that anyone who is unable to accept the result now would've been equally perturbed even if there had been no challenge. In other words, it would've been controversial either way. It might have caused even more doubt had there been no court resolution, muddled though it was.

All speculation, of course. But I think the country came away a little bit wiser for it. If nothing else, there will be some, if not enough, election reform before the next one.

Traficante in 2008 (assuming good behavior)!

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


No, it would have just gone on and on and on. I've always thought that the wonder of democracy isn't that one side or the other wins; the wonder of democracy is when the other side accepts its loss and steps aside from power gracefully. From the moment Gore let his advisors talk him into retracting his concession, he showed he just didn't get it.

Nope, democracy is about voting, so it is essential that all votes are counted. If it is not entirely clear (something that happens a lot more often when there are machines reading the voters' ballots), then simply count it by hand.
That's not an extra picky thingi that the loser insists upon, in Germany there is a committee that decides vote for vote, if the intention is clear or not. The committee consists of members of all parties and a second, independent recount is done by another committee. Usually, the discrepancies are below a few votes.

[TNproud2b]

I'd rather trust a machine to have the final say. People are notorious for making errors.

The rules are the rules. You don't change them until the game is over...regardless of how bad they suck. To do otherwise is to cheat. Besides, the entire point of 'rules' is to prevent having to make decisions.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Dead Horse Beat,

Many many times they counted, all times Gore lost.

No matter what they recounted, Gore still would have lost.

Go read up on articles about it. And no not the un-professional pro-democratic tripe pages that the web is full of. They love to spread FUD.

Of course, there is NO righty tripe, right, Zim? The path to moral rectitude is in the RIGHT hand, canyagimmehalleluja...
Oh, and if we recall correctly-
If the votes were recounted the way the R partry wanted it done, Gore would have gotten in.
If they were recounted the way the Dems wanted it done, Bush wins.

Whatever. I only got another two + years of this crap anyway... and then we move into 4 years of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

[maxelson]

I just need to comment on the weirdness of my feelings right now.
I find myself in the very odd position of agreeing with TN in this thread.
Not that this means I'll be voting Romney in MA this fall...

[mr. natural]

Off-topic.

Originally posted by TNproud2B:
I'd rather trust a machine to have the final say. People are notorious for making errors.

And just who makes the machines?

/off-topic.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Off-topic.

And just who makes the machines?

/off-topic.

The lowest bidder, silly.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
I'd rather trust a machine to have the final say. People are notorious for making errors.

The rules are the rules. You don't change them until the game is over...regardless of how bad they suck. To do otherwise is to cheat. Besides, the entire point of 'rules' is to prevent having to make decisions.

It has shown that the machines err a lot more often than counting by hand (twice per group, two groups consisting of representatives of different parties).

Before the 2000 election I thought so, too.

[Lerkfish]

my point is that the present system has many flaws:

1. voting methods are inconsistent, both with how ballots are designed, and with the physical format of the ballots and ballot-counting devices.
---solutions? Maybe have one system throughout. Then, even if it is imperfect and has a margin of error, that margin will the same margin no matter if you vote in Florida or Alaska.
2. A call for a recount in a close election is politically hijackable by either or any party, depending on which party has control over which political entity, be it Katherine Harris or the Florida legislature/supreme court, the US supreme court, whatever. Its apparent that both sides "called in favors" to influence the decisions made.
--solutions? Not sure if its possible to find truly impartial officials, but we should try, or failing that have enough fail safes that allow adequate scrutiny by all interested parties. Failing that, see number 1, making all the processes consistent.
3. The "calling" of elections by the news media while voting is still occuring.
-- there should be a law against this. Yes, I'm in the media, but I've always disagreed with this practice. Exit polling can and should be done, but the problem is when (mainly television) media feels the need to "call" an election instead of just reporting that the numbers at present show a majority.
4. The electoral college can counterveto the popular vote.
-- The silly thing about this is almost everyone agrees the original reasons for the electoral college are no longer in play, but for various reasons the resulting side effect benefits are not something the system appears to want to do without. I say there needs to be a fundamental evaluation of two things: A. whether the present system addresses the original need, and if not or if the original need is not a prevalant, developing a system that better addresses or ignores the original purpose. and B: if the side effect benefits are beneficial for reasons OTHER than the original reason (for example, making sure small states like Rhode Island have a large enough voice), then we should structure a more rational system that addresses the new situation. As it stands, we are using a buggy whip to drive a car. It might work, after a fashion, but is it necessary?

ok, them's my thoughts.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You need to read the articles. Gore wouldn't have lost under every situation, only the strictest ones, i.e., those that threw away the most Gore votes. Every recount analysis says that more people voted for Gore in Florida, but more of his votes could be thrown out.

Again I am talking legally won. Gore could have not legally won. Zero zero nada, no chance.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by maxelson:

Of course, there is NO righty tripe, right, Zim?

Oh sure there is! Plenty! I think BOTH sides are evil and bad. But what I am talking about has nothing to do with the right or left. This was the Supreme Court AND Florida saying that indeed Gore would have lost either way.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again I am talking legally won. Gore could have not legally won. Zero zero nada, no chance.

Why do people say this kind of stuff if they don't know what they're talking about? You have no concern for what's true and what's false.


You're wrong. Bush would have won under some standards and Gore other standards. Gore had more actual votes. The more strict the standard for what was a legal vote, the more Gore votes would be thrown out. The more lenient the standard, the more likely it is that Gore would have won. There's a million news stories on these studies. Look back around may of last year.

(hmm, I just realized you remind me of someone - you're not sinewave, are you?)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Why do people say this kind of stuff if they don't know what they're talking about? You have no concern for what's true and what's false.

I know what I am talking about. Gore in no legal way could have won.

You're wrong. Bush would have won under some standards and Gore other standards. Gore had more actual votes.

And Gore's standards, were not legal, That is why they weren't used. NO conspiracy there.

The more strict the standard for what was a legal vote, the more Gore votes would be thrown out.

replace strict with legal.

The more lenient the standard, the more likely it is that Gore would have won. There's a million news stories on these studies. Look back around may of last year.

Replace lenient with illegal. And I HAVE read many articles on the matter. I HAVE seen all the FUD the left tries to push. I HAVE seen the FUD the right is pushing too. It all comes down to, Gore would not have won the election using any legal approach.

(hmm, I just realized you remind me of someone - you're not sinewave, are you?)

No I am Zimphire, The Eurthymic King of nowhere.

[dreilly1]

We're still talking about this?

OK, I'll bite. After all, I'm in no hurry to get back to work today. My meeting just got cancelled, which means that I can goof around for five minutes and still get more done than if I actually had the meeting...

Here are the facts about that election as I see them:
1) The margin of victory was within the margin of error of the particular polling method in those counties in Florida -- a statistical Dead Heat. This drove the results of the entire election in Florida to within the margin of error.
2) There was no mechanism to deal with this in the State Law of Florida. It was a dead heat, but the election can't end in a tie.
3) Since it was an election for a National office (and actually, the President and Vice President are the only "Nationally" elected politians in the U.S., since noone else gets votes cast from different states), the Supreme Court had to intervene. The only real rules they had to follow was that the Federal elections have to all take place on the same day, and the outcome of the election had to be determined according to the rules put in place before the election. Those are federal laws, IIRC.

That's two simple little rules, but it has lots of implications:
- No runoffs or revotes, as all Federal elections have to take place in the same day,
- Recounts are OK, as long as they are using standards set in place before the election. Even if those standards suck, and give too much control to election officials who may be beholden to a particular party. It's Florida's responsibility to fix that, before the election. After the election, you just have to live with it.

Given these facts, although I didn't vote for Bush, I would have had to give the election to him if I were on the Supreme Court. Once you think about it logically, I don't think you can come to any other conclusion. It's fair because that's the way the law is set up. That didn't come out right -- It's totally legal, I guess, which is important for an election. It may not be fair, but nobody said life would be fair. Since the election was a statistical dead heat, the only truly fair way would be to flip a coin, or perhaps play a hand or two of poker, but that's not the way the law was set up in Florida. And isn't it ironic for a polititian to complain about stupid laws, anyway? We have to follow them, even if they're stupid; they should have to, too...

As an aside, I think this whole affair proves how important the Electoral College is: if we didn't have it, we'd be recounting all the votes in the country, with much more potential for abuse and rigging than even the current system. We may not have a final count even today if that was the case, with all the lawsuits that could have been launched!