Toad,
Great questions, and I of course don't have all the answers. I'm by no means an expert on any of this crap. I do sympathize with your sentiment here - it IS a mess. But I've taken special care with your posts as you've avoided the tendency to couch your points with trite characteriztions like "Gorons" and instead, raise what I think are legitimate issues.
As far as the "Texas recount law" the ABC news just reported that one major difference is that it does not allow for single county or single precinct manual recounts.
Yeah... I don't know. I've tried to find this law specifically, beyond just reports on this law. Is there anywhere to get the exact law for Texas? Like "texas.gov" or anything... anyone know?
Further, like you, they implied that only in certain particular circumstances is a manual recount allowed. No elaboration on that however.
By "particular (or I beleive they used the term 'certain') circumstances" I would assume that would mean irregularities, not unlike that in Florida and elsewhere in the U.S. Using vague language like that is common - and wise - as many situations could arise where interpretations would be allowed in cases that the legislators hadn't foreseen. I don't read much into that phrase.
Now it is my understanding that the Dems DO NOT want a statewide manual recount in FL and in fact oppose that option. This from a recent CNN blurb. (It's getting hard to keep track of all the crap going on.)
I haven't heard anywhere that they "oppose" recounting the votes statewide. At least *officially*.
Seems to make it a different issue if the Dems only want to recount "certain" counties. Just a guess, but I'd think they'd recount in places they believe favorable to them, unfavorable to the other side.
I think you're 100% right about this. The Democrats are availing themselves of the law, just as the Republicans have every right to do *and* are doing. If they think voting was screwed in certain counties, they have the right to ask for a recount there, beneficial to them or not.
Don't think for a second that the Bush team is just sitting on their hands.
We already know about the Bush team's attempt to block the recount process provided for under Florida law.
In Iowa The Bush campaign has sent representatives to assess a possible challenge to Al Gore's 4,949-vote lead. Eric Woolson, Bush's Iowa spokesman, said the campaign would monitor the canvassing and then decide whether to request a recount... and currently, state Republican officials are lining up Bush supporters in each of the 99 counties to represent Bush on county recount boards should they be convened.
In New Mexico where Bush holds a 17 point lead, there is still the matter of the 'in-lieu-of' ballots that need to be counted. Republicans requested that ballots be impounded and police seized them (nothing sinister here - they just want them to be secure)in six counties under orders from two state District Court judges.
It must be noted that Bush campaign officials have had no harsh words for the decision of New Mexico election officials to recount some 379 ballots there by hand after they were rejected by electronic voting machines on Tuesday. Also, they did not criticize Republicans in Seminole County, Florida, who joined with Democrats to count many ballots by hand after they were spit out of voting machines without being tabulated.
In Oregon, Gore holds a 5,756 vote lead. However, only 99% of the votes have been counted. Dan Lavey, Bush's Oregon spokesman, said Sunday that the Bush campaign is waiting to see the final count before deciding whether a recount would be sought. How convenient
And the Bush campaign has not ruled out a recount in Wisconsin, where Gore led Bush by 6,099 votes. All 72 counties must turn in certified tallies before any action can be taken. Additionally, The state Republican Party has asked the Milwaukee County district attorney to look into allegations of some voting irregularities there.
I don't want to belabour the point here. I'll just say that this situation surely is not black and white. It's fine to slam the process in Florida, but you run the risk of being hypocritical if you defend similar Bush manueverings.
With respect to Nixon, he repeatedly explained his stance in that same way to all who asked. Mazo is the first published source, I believe.
I assume you have some proof that the surrogates were acting under Nixon's direct orders/supervision?
No? Then you will forgive those on this board who believe Gore is acting in exactly the same way that you attribute (as yet unsubstantiated) to Nixon?
That Nixon sent out his own personal aides to do field checks in a dozen states; that Nixon could have simply come out publicly and state his opposition to the myriad of investigations and legal motions underway to overturn the election resluts but did not, is indication of *something*, no? Don't think for a second that Nixon wasn't well aware that any election isn't official until the Electoral College comes together in mid-Decemeber and formally pledges their votes to one of the candidates. If these investigations had been favorable to Nixon, a reasonable person would could conclude that Nixon wouldn't just sit on his arse, given his personal effort to challenge the results.
What you submit, that Nixon repeatedly explained his stance, is rather simplistic and doesn't really mean didly, does it? To be flippant, I'll say consider the source.
Look, I don't feel like digging through vast amounts of archives to dig up a record of Nixon's motives or intentions. It is only central to our dicussion with regards to THIS election.
So:
Additionally, your text regarding Nixon seems IMHO to be in a somewhat condemnatory tone. That is, there are undertones of disapproval of Nixon's actions. Since Gore's actions (through surrogates like Christopher) are exactly similar to those you attribute to Nixon, may we assume you also disapprove of Gore's response to the election?
You may not, because your original assumption is incorrect. I did *not* take a condemnatory tone. That is the mistake I see again and again on these boards by anyone reading something that is in opposition to their own views. I fully understand it, and am just as guilty.
To make it clear. I do NOT disaprove of Nixon's actions, and do not disaprove of Gore's. Note: Besides the PR jostling, the only action from the Gore camp has been to block an action initiated by Bush's team. Other than that, he has simply allowed the election run its course). That's not to say he wont take any action in the future, but that hasn't happened yet.
The cornerstone of democracy is the rule of law. To disregard the law is to turn your back on democracy itself. The election of a President is just a bit more serious than litigating the temperature of McDonald's coffee. The candidates have EVERY RIGHT to avail themselves of the law. The election process has EVERY RIGHT to proceed as mandated under law.
Here we are now, six days after the 2000 election. It sure doesn't look like the election is going to be uncontested.
Yeah, but so be it. It's an absolutely surreal thing that is happening here. The only election in the entire history of the States that was closer was the one in 1960. Then, as now, there were allegations, legal action, mistrust, the whole nine yards.
The reason why this is so shocking is that it is so rare and we are unused it. But that doesn't mean that we should start talk of treason and begin stockpiling weapons. I'm sorry, but people's unfamiliarity with a situation does not mean we should disregard the election process.
Like Dooley said "Politics aint bean bag".
I'm gonna skip over a couple of points you made as I'm getting exhausted here (my typing sucks). In essence you stated what you were willing and unwilling to accept. That is your perogative and I wont debate that.
My question to you is how many counts have to be done? When will the "last" recount be "official"?
This idea that votes magically appear or disapear when they are recounted is a fallacy. Also a fallacy is this idea that Gore can request and request again ad nausium a recount. The recount is happening under due process under law, through no action of Gore. So....When will the last count be official? When it is made official under law.
I'll repeat, somewhat out of context, what I said in an earlier post:
"I count the process that the fine people of Florida are granted and have the full right to, under law. I also count the voice that the American people are granted via the absentee vote, which they also have the right to, under law."
I find it interesting that Bush wants to take power away from the Federal Government and give it back to the individual states. Yet, he is trying to circumvent a process not only allowed but mandated under Florida law, and is trying to have a civil suit(that ballot thing)transferred to a Federal court.
Ack! I gotta take a break. Hopefully I've given you enough ammo to play AHA!
Cheers.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 11-13-2000).]
