Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Karnak on November 10, 2000, 10:02:00 AM
-
We are either going to seat a President who didn't win the vote or there is going to be a revote. I don't like either.
If Gore is seated it will be because of a hand count, a revote or the absentee ballots from Israel. I'm only comfortable with the absentee ballots from Israel doing it, and I think those have probably already been counted. A hand count or a revote in Palm Beach sets a record precedent that I really don't want to see.
Seating Gore in this manner would lower us to the level of Dictatorships who hold elections and then order revotes when they don't like the results. They would be able to say "If America can do it then so can I."
If Bush is seated he will be seated despite losing the popular election and only winning the Electoral College because of a bad ballot. There are 22,000 votes in Palm Beach that were meant for Gore. The only people who don't believe that are so partisan that their views can be safly dismissed. Keep in mind that while I say this, if it had been Gore on top with many straight Republican tickets being voted, except for President which went to Nader I would be absolutely certain that Bush was the rightful winner.
Seating Bush in these circumstances would lower us to the level of a Banana Republic. We would be the inspiration to all phony elections. They would be able to say "America allows tainted ballots to decide their highest office, we can rig ours to favor my side." They would say that even though ours has not been intentionally rigged.
I don't like Bush's casual disregard for our most important right either. His dismissal of the rights of the voters in Florida to vote for their choice. He said "They had their chance". If he disagrees with doing a recount, he should explain the legal reasons behind that opinion (and there are valid legal reasons to feel that way) not casually disenfranchise thousands of voters.
BTW, the reason this matters now and not in '96 is because it didn't matter in '96. Whichever way the miscast ballots went, Clinton would still be re-elected.
I don't like Gore's backing of the legal proceedings. The courts should not decide this, but they probably will. It won't be the first time, but its bad for them to do so.
Basically we have Bush who is afraid to let the people have their choice and Gore who will try anything to get elected.
Blech. I feel queasy.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
I am sure all those ballots were really Bush voters!!! And I have clear and concise proof!!!
Please show me your proof that all these votes were really meant for Gore!!
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
I don't like Bush's casual disregard for our most important right either. His dismissal of the rights of the voters in Florida to vote for their choice. He said "They had their chance".
Basically we have Bush who is afraid to let the people have their choice and Gore who will try anything to get elected.
Blech. I feel queasy.
Sisu
-Karnak
Why should we give a second chance? Could not the media then have manipulated the 2nd vote already? Keep in mind, it was a Democrat that created the ballot, and a Democratic commitee that gave APPROVAL to the ballot BEFORE election day, why is it NOW that they cry FOUL? Hmmm????
FYI stuff below:
According to some Florida Democrats, the particular
layout of ballots in Palm Beach was confusing to
voters, and resulted in mistaken votes for Buchanan
which were actually intended for Gore. The Florida
judiciary has already addressed the issue of
post-election claims about ballot confusion, and the
precedent is unfavorable to those who want the
election overturned.
In the September 10, 1974, Republican primary in
Pinellas County, several losing candidates brought a
post-election suit against county election officials.
(Pinellas sits on the Gulf Coast, and includes St.
Petersburg.)
At issue was the longest ballot in Pinellas County
history. To save space so that every candidate and
issue could fit on the voting machine, the election
officials had created a ballot on which the list of
candidates for some offices appeared on two lines. In a
particular race, for example, the first three candidates,
listed alphabetically, appeared on one line, and the last
two candidates, alphabetically, appeared on the next
line.
A lawsuit demanding a new election was filed by
candidates who appeared on the lower line and lost.
The Florida trial court agreed. But on October 15,
1974, the Second District Court of Appeal unanimously
overturned the trial judge, and let the original election
stand. (Nelson v. Robinson, 301 So.2d 508, Fla. Ct.
App. 2d Dist., 1974.)
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).)
In Palm Beach this year, the ballot form was approved
beforehand by Democratic Supervisor of Elections
Theresa LePore. This fact relates directly to the
Florida Court of Appeal's point that "it has often been
held that one who does not avail himself of the
opportunity to object to irregularities in the ballot prior
to the election may not object to them after."
-
"His dismissal of the rights of the voters in Florida to vote for their choice. He said "They had their chance". If he disagrees with doing a recount, he should explain the legal reasons behind that opinion (and there are valid legal reasons to feel that way) not casually disenfranchise thousands of voters."
He doesn't fear a recount, that's the constitution. A re-vote is absurd. Error are made on both sides every election. You can't keep trying until one or the other get's the results they want. By next Friday, after the absentee palls are counted, it's over. Who ever wins, at that point it's over. This "legal" crap is doing nothing but dividing the nation. Something the democrats excel at....
Eagler
-
Ripsnort,
I agree. Thats why I said there is no good way out of this.
BTW, there were complaints about the ballot before the election took place. This is from today's New York Times.
Eagler,
Oops. I mis-typed. I meant to say "If he disagrees with doing a hand count, he should explain the legal reasons behind that opinion (and there are valid legal reasons to feel that way) not casually disenfranchise thousands of voters.
I am trying to be neutral here.
The only person who has raised my opinion of himself, is Buchanan. My opinion of Bush and Gore is going down.
Sisu
-Karnak
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 11-10-2000).]
-
Karnak, we do agree on this, both parties, regardless who gets in, is going to have a tough time at it...
Do you think that those who haven't voted in the past now feel like their votes WILL count in future elections? MY GOD, this may have been the best thing to ever happen to this country, getting people off their butts and get out there, review the issues AND VOTE!
-
This is how revolutions and civil wars get started (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) I've had felt many emotions over the last 2 days including anger, fear, sadness and enragement. Enragement is starting to take hold and I don't like it. 19,000 people fluffied up bad and that's not my fault. I asked the lady that gave me my ballot where is the whole for Bush. I wanted to make sure I voted right because I knew I only got 1 chance. They blew there chance, it suck, I'm sorry but that's the LAW PERIOD.
If they get another vote then damnit I better get one too. Gore should get his minions back to washington and let the people of florida settle this. People could end up dead over something like this. Bill Daily says "everybody needs to stay calm" FREAKING HIPOCRATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's the one that started stirring this pot. Notice he hasn't mentioned the "confusing ballot" after it was noticed that his county used the same kind of ballot.
This is the darkest moment in our nation's history, in my lifetime anyway. I don't see much good that can come out of this now. Except maybe people will start paying more attention when and who they vote for.
Anyway it's time for one of these 2 men to do something "presidential" ..........
Udie
-
Ripsnort,
You said it.
For the rest of our lives, if anybody claims that their vote doesn't matter we get to slap them. Verbally if not phsically.
Udie,
I've heard reports that in Florida the volunteers are not allow to point out which hole to punch for your candidate. Others are saying that they didn't feel that they could take the time because it was so busy. I don't know if either is true, but I don't think any of us have all of the facts about what happened down there. Its a bad situation no matter how you turn it. Or "Spin" it (this is politics after all). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
His dismissal of the rights of the voters in Florida to vote for their choice. He said "They had their chance". If he disagrees with doing a recount, he should explain the legal reasons behind that opinion (and there are valid legal reasons to feel that way) not casually disenfranchise thousands of voters.
Karnak,
With all due respect, your post is a blatant lie. You state that he just said "They had their chance" and then neither he not his spokespersons uttered a word in the last few days.
That is not true.
He and his designated spokespersons and his legal advisors have been trying to justify this statement.
If you only caught this statement from him on TV, it does not mean that he goes mute once you turn it off.
In any case, why would you want to hear Bush's to explanation? We have experts in constitutional law that are much better prepared for that then any presidential candidate.
miko
-
Originally posted by Udie:
This is how revolutions and civil wars get started (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) I've had felt many emotions over the last 2 days including anger, fear, sadness and enragement. Enragement is starting to take hold and I don't like it. 19,000 people fluffied up bad and that's not my fault.
I just heard the 19,000 ballot story is bogus. It was originally reported that these ballots did not count, story I just heard was that these 19k ballots were the ballots redone by voters who made a mistake on their 1st ballot, went and got another from the polling officials and submitted the corrected one before they left the polling centers. The news story stated that there isn't 19k gore votes in the trash somewhere. Has anyone else heard this?
Can anyone confirm this story?
Eagler
-
Karnak, I agree with almost all of what you have said.
I take issue with this part:
"If Bush is seated he will be seated despite losing the popular election and only winning the Electoral College because of a bad ballot. There are 22,000 votes in Palm Beach that were meant for Gore. The only people who don't believe that are so partisan that their views can be safly dismissed."
I absolutely do not view myself as a Republican. I voted Bush in this election strictly based on my opinion of which candidate would be more likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices that I might support.
As far as the entire rest of the campaign, I veiwed them as Tweedledum and Tweedledee. They are both professional politicians, both professional liars, neither a bit better than the other.
That being said, there is ABSOLUTELY no way to confirm your statement. Ballots are NOT identified by voter, so we will never know exactly who mismarked their ballot even if we could ask every voter. We wouldn't be able to tell if someone was lying. We wouldn't be able to tell who had "changed their mind".
In any event, I feel that a vote is just one of those things in life you have to do right the first time.
You walk into that booth with the full knowledge that you can't vote, deposit your ballot and then leave and come back 30 minutes or a day or a week later and say "hey, wait a minute...I made a goof!"
You can make an error on a ballot and request another ballot while you are still there. The officials will come give you another one and DESTROY your old one. One man, one vote.
All of these things are things a responsible voter finds out or knows before he votes.
To allow Florida or even a particular county to re-vote will set a precedent that, IMHO, will basically destroy our system.
To me it's like saying in 2004, 49 states will vote on the 1st Tuesday of November. California will observe the results and vote on the 3rd Tuesday of November.
It just isn't right.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-10-2000).]
-
Toad,
I don't think that there should be a revote.
The way you ID the way they intended to go (not that I think this should be used to determine the outcome, as a matter of fact I very strongly oppose it) is to look at the votes on those ballots.
Most of them are straight Democratic tickets with a swerve hard right to vote for Buchanan.
Eagler,
If what you say is true, then a hand count shoulf just reveal Bush to be the winner. If that is the case, why is he afraid of it?
I think that we are looking at an illegitimate President regardless of who wins.
Sisu
-Karnak
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 11-10-2000).]
-
New Mexico to close to call !!
Seems voting corruption is surfacing everywhere today.
Eagler
-
Eagler,
I don't think there is any corruption in the problem in Florida and from what I've read there isn't any in New Mexico either. Just possible mistakes.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Eagler,
I don't think there is any corruption in the problem in Florida and from what I've read there isn't any in New Mexico either. Just possible mistakes.
Sisu
-Karnak
It's open for interpretation. I'd like to believe as you Karnak but my basic distrust of gores group prevents me. <S>
Eagler
-
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.
-
Eagler, That's what I understand about the 19,000. The only one to "fix" this is Gore, if he cares about the nation he will shut them up and call it a good try.
PC
Thank god for the 2nd: this is what is was for.
-
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).
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
If Gore is seated it will be because of a hand count, a revote or the absentee ballots from Israel. I'm only comfortable with the absentee ballots from Israel doing it, and I think those have probably already been counted.
Sorry to single you out here, but you've provided an example of blind acceptence of something said by the media/an assumption based on something said by the media.
In the coverage tonight, and I'm not sure what channel it was on (was at a friend's house) I saw only one couple mentioned as being part time residents of Isreal. That's 2 votes, hardly enough to swing anything. And kudos to them for taking the time to vote from around the world.
The vast majority of the absentee ballots are going to be from military members and thier spouses/children of voting age. The votes will be coming from every where; Germany, England (a college student who's first time voting is by absentee ballot), Japan, etc etc etc, where ever there's a US military presence. The rest will be people like that couple who live in Isreal part of the year, or are over there for business and had enough forethought to know they'd not be home on 11/7 to go vote at the polls.
-
Caveman, you are wrong, sir.
That's the 5th or 6th time I've seen that "precedent" thrown about as "proof" of Fla. law on the case.
As I've stated before, there is a fundamental disanalogy between that finding and the case at hand. The problem isn't finding the candidate, as was the case there (couldn't find the candidate, so voted for someone else), but rather finding the appropriate punch hole.
In other words, the case of the West Palm Beach morons has yet to be decided.
-
We should make ballots very difficult to understand, darwinian selection of our electors (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I am being facetious!
-
http://foxnews.com/election_night/111000/ballotquiz.sml (http://foxnews.com/election_night/111000/ballotquiz.sml)
-
CP, Zig, Cave, whoever...that's a weak argument. It is completely meaningless. Completely without merit and I'm suprised to be finding myself.. ah fahget it.
-
Dinger most judges are loathe to overturn precedent decisions. This clearly fits into the reasoning given by Second Distric Court of Appeal. The ballot was clear, and the arrow clearly pointed to which hole to punch. It would have been even more clear has they [voters] bothered to read the entire ballot and understand it. I looked at it and had no problems understanding it. Showed it to my wife and several friends and none of them had any problems understand it. So either the images of the ballot scattered across the net are not of the actual ballot, or the voters in PBC dinnae take the time, nor give the solemnity, deserved in exercising thier rights to vote.
If the images I've seen on the web are of the actual ballot, then a "responsible study" of the ballot should've made it clear. And when "responsible study" is made, it means looking at the whole ballot to understand it. I betcha if they'd bother to look at the names on the right side of the ballot, then at the arrows, they would have eliminated thier confusion completely.