Originally posted by Dinger:
Quit yer partisan whining. This is a matter of law period. And the law in this case has not been determined, in spite of the best spamming efforts of the GOP fans.
And, yes, the result is ugly either way. Do we disqualify the will of morons to elect a moron, or do we allow them to not elect a moron? Do we put Bush in office knowing full well he does not really represent the will of the people, or do we put Gore in office along with serious doubts about whether he really was elected legitimately?
Guys, this is what we get when we put two losers on the ballot.
You are wrong sir. There is law set about this particular situation, from the very same state that is at the heart of this contraversy right now. Read Ripsnort's post. The trial court was going to allow a re-vote, but the appeals court overturned that decision. Read the REASON why the decision was overturned.
The Court of Appeal explained:
Keeping in mind that we are talking about a claim
made after an election, and not one which may have
been enforceable before, if a candidate appears on the
ballot in such a position that he can be found by the
voters upon a responsible study of the ballot, then such
voters have been afforded a full, free and open
opportunity to make their choice for or against that
particular candidate; and the candidate himself has no
constitutional right to a particular spot on the ballot
which might make the voters' choice easier. His
constitutional rights in the matter end when his name is
placed on the ballot. Thereafter, the right is in the
voters to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to find
it; and as to this, it has been observed that the
constitution intended that a voter search for the name of
the candidate of his choice and to express his of the
candidate of his choice without regard to others on the
ballot. Furthermore, it assumes his ability to read and
his intelligence to indicate his choice with the degree
of care commensurate with the solemnity of the
occasion.
The Court of Appeal also cited a U.S. Supreme Court
case in which the high Court explicitly and
unanimously affirmed a Pennsylvania federal court
which had ruled that an unfavorable location on the
ballot was not a form of unconstitutional discrimination
against a candidate. (Gilhool v. Chairman & Com'rs.,
Philadelphia Co. Bd. of Elec., 306 F.Supp. 1202
(E.D.Pa.1969), affluffied 397 U.S. 147 (1970).)
Here we have the precedent for this very situation (not to mention in the 96 election PBC had ~4% of thier ballots tossed for one reason or another). I'm no lawyer, but wouldna this fall into the case law catagory?
Karnak, lad, I dinnae think you're doing a very good job at being neutral, though you're doing an outstanding job at being cordial and polite with such a heated issue. There is absolutely no proof that those 22k votes were meant for Gore, or that Gore did not recieve those votes. I'll wager the stories about those ballots being thrown out because the voter requested a new one are right on. Matter of fact I'd almost wager that 3/4 of those ballots were thrown out when the voter requested a new ballot. Upon rechecking thier ballot I'm sure a good number of people noticed thier mistakes, and asked for a new ballot to correct thier mistakes. Of course I may be overly optimistic in thinking that the majority of people in this country possess at least average intelligence.
And please dinnae forget that Gore conceeded the race. When Gore called Bush and conceeded the race that should've been the end of it, period. Gore quit. IMO that should tell the Dems something about thier golden boy right there. He's not a "go to guy". He bailed w/o having faith that he could catch up, even though all the ballots hadna been tallied yet. That's Gore's fault, but it's ok because he called a re-do and reneged on his word (which is nothing new).
