VOTE! [Archive] - Chronicle Forums

Whistlejacket

Nov. 8, 2000, 09:13 AM

Well its the morning after Election Day and apparently its all come down to a veritable handful of votes.

Regardless of how this turns out, what I see as a real positive is how the American people, despite the pundits, pollsters, and politicians, voted their mind. In this day and age of email, FAX's, 24hr CNN, and experts telling us (The People) how we are going to vote, this presidential election still has come down each individual's vote being critical and each individual having a say.

I hope that this might inspire people to believe that they, as an individual, can make a difference - if not as a member of a particular political party, then as a proponent of a specific issue.

For those of us who are not particulary enamored by either major political party, and tend to "swing vote", pick an issue that you believe in and work towards it. For example, I am a big proponent of land preservation (no surprise there!). I find myself working side-by-side in this cause with NRA members (typically Republican voters), PETA members (?Democratic, Green Party?, Liberterians?) and everyone in between.

So even if you don't strongly believe in one of the political parties, pick an issue that you believe in an work towards that!

And if you don't believe that a small group of individuals can make a difference, just check in with the election board in Florida!

Off soapbox now - Thanks!

(And SL Warrior - that's great about the voter sticker on your mare's bridle!)

[This message has been edited by Whistlejacket (edited 11-08-2000).]

Inverness

Nov. 8, 2000, 09:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Kryswyn:
I heard a rumor that the missing votes were from all the horseshow folks taking a break before the Florida circuits started. Seems they put their absentee ballots in a tack trunk, and the grooms, thinking they were the current Coggins tests but them in the glove box of the van which was sent in to the shop for the post Indoor tuneup....

(just to keep this horse related /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TEE HEE, LOL Kryswyn!

Duffy

Nov. 8, 2000, 09:37 AM

Does anyone else feel a bit nervous at the thought of these people doing the re-counting after a "quick nap, cup of coffee, and a bath", as announced by my local radio station this morning??? eeeeeks!

woodbern

Nov. 8, 2000, 10:36 AM

Great to be able to vote freely!

So, heelsdown, any ideas on where you will move?

Nov. 8, 2000, 11:11 AM

It's 10:00 here in Austin -- home of the George W. Bush "celebration" party that started yesturday afternoon. I wonder if anybody is still hanging out at the Capital... I wonder if I could use that as an excuse that I didn't go to class -- ha ha...

And no, I wouldn't be going to support. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nov. 8, 2000, 11:18 AM

Watching CNN -- they say the recount will end Thursday. Oh the humanity. http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

heelsdown

Nov. 8, 2000, 02:22 PM

I have to put my moving plans on hold for a while. Yes the recount of votes will be done by 5PM Thursday but they will not confirm a winner for ten days, for the absentee ballots!

I'm here in Florida and this is just the craziest election ever.

Becca

Nov. 8, 2000, 03:10 PM

You Floridians...! Ten days. How is it that now we have to wait for the absentee ballots for 10 days, but only for Florida, and only for THIS election, never before?? Am I missing a key point, or is it just due to the extreme closeness of the results?

Heather

Nov. 8, 2000, 03:20 PM

I can't decide if the fact that its this close indicates that we all are so close ideologically that its impossible to choose, or that there are two fully distinct sets of people in this country, and our next and only viable option will be to split up. (West America and East America)? North and SOuth America are already taken. What about Ame and Rica?

Mostly kidding, BTW.

Janet

Nov. 8, 2000, 03:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Heather:
I can't decide if the fact that its this close indicates that we all are so close ideologically that its impossible to choose, or that there are two fully distinct sets of people in this country...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it is that WE are sp close ideologically, but that the two major candidates are so close ideologically. Both major parties have "moved to the center" so much that only a few issues separate them.

Snowbird

Nov. 8, 2000, 03:30 PM

Well we have learned two things, we have learned that every vote does count.

We have also learned that the media are not infallible and that we should not skip voting because they are so sure who will win.

I think that perhaps they have a drastic effect on the outcome of elections with all their efforts to jump the gun and be the first to validate the elections.

I think we should also have learned that polls to do not replace the vote.

Nov. 8, 2000, 04:21 PM

Someone on another BB posed the question: why the recount for Florida and not every other state?

I am guessing that it's because there was a wide enough margin for every other state that the count would be considered valid enough. Is this true? I think just about every state I saw on CNN last night was like 48% to 49%. Am I totally missing something here?

Also, why are there so many absentee ballots in Florida, but not for other states? Again, was the margin so wide that no amount of absentee ballots would make a difference in any other state?

I'm so confused. Can somebody help me?

heelsdown

Nov. 8, 2000, 04:47 PM

From the way I understand it in Florida the law says that when the margin is so slim that a recount is mandatory, they have to do a recount for our Senatorial race too. They expect the margin to be extremely slim after the recount so from what I heard at lunch Florida will not confirm a winner till all the absentee ballots are accounted for.

BlueGooPonyShampoo

Nov. 8, 2000, 05:14 PM

Heelsdown,
Don't despair. There is really very little mandate that "W" can claim with the vote so close and the Congress split nearly down the middle. I have to say that some of us thought that when George Sr. lost in '92 to that Governor from Arkansas, it seemed like the world as we knew it (and preferred it) would come to a screeching end. In '96 when the Clinton/Gore ticket won again .... well we we're pretty sure that civilization as we knew it was surely over (WHAT???!!! 4 more years of this mess????). However, the world didn't end ... just as it won't now for you if Bush reconfirms the initial electoral count in the next few days.

Whistlejacket is correct ... pick your issues and work towards a goal. One candidate can't be the panacea for everyone. Give it a chance - if it doesn't work for you then get yourself out to that polling booth in four years and make your voice heard (as I did yesterday).

DMK

Nov. 8, 2000, 05:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by BlueGooPonyShampoo:
I have to say that some of us thought that when George Sr. lost in '92 to that Governor from Arkansas, it seemed like the world as we knew it (and preferred it) would come to a screeching end. In '96 when the Clinton/Gore ticket won again .... well we we're pretty sure that civilization as we knew it was surely over (WHAT???!!! 4 more years of this mess????). However, the world didn't end ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BGPS - TOO funny!! I remember thinking EXACTLY that same thought in '80, 84 and 88... amazingly enough, civilization still exists in spite of my dire predictions... Besides, when your candidate doesn't win, you can complain with impunity for 4 years ("I didn't vote for him!")

Heelsdown - FL law requires recount on any vote with 1% or less margin. Meanwhile things are getting interesting in Palm Beach. Sadly what is happening down there will only contribute to the inevitable Beltway Gridlock, regardless who ultimately takes the election.

DMK's prediction? Decision locked up in court battles for 4 years, a grateful nation appoints Alan Greenspan to run the country...

horsenut

Nov. 8, 2000, 05:33 PM

The way I understand absentee ballots, at least here in Mass., is that they're supposed to be in by Election Day. So can anyone tell me why these things weren't the first things they started counting in the morning? I don't get it.

BlueGooPonyShampoo

Nov. 8, 2000, 05:39 PM

DMK,

I agree ... is it too late to start a "Greenspan 4 President" movement??? I think it would be a more palatable solution to everyone's woes!!!!

Smiles

Nov. 8, 2000, 05:46 PM

Well what a mess this has become. Bush or Gore already!!! By the way Who the heck is Nader? Didn't even know he was running until they showed him with 2% of the vote??? http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/confused.gif Isn't there a better way to do this voting thing?

[This message has been edited by Smiles (edited 11-08-2000).]

Janet

Nov. 8, 2000, 05:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by horsenut:
The way I understand absentee ballots, at least here in Mass., is that they're supposed to be in by Election Day. So can anyone tell me why these things weren't the first things they started counting in the morning? I don't get it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on the state. For instance, in Oregon, they have to be Postmarked before midnight Nov 7, so some of them haven't even been delivered yet. Don't know about Florida.

BlueGooPonyShampoo

Nov. 8, 2000, 05:57 PM

It is a mess!!!! Shame on the media for playing the "first to announce a winner game"!!!! They got it wrong twice! I think their irresponsible and cavalier attitude hurts the election process!!! Shame on you CNN, MSNBC, FOX and the rest for putting your ratings ahead of the democratic process that separates the United States from the masses of countries in this world who can not offer their citizenry a fair and unbiased election process!!!!

heelsdown

Nov. 8, 2000, 06:28 PM

Here in Florida absentee ballots must be postmarked by election day. It is a big mess, not the least of it is all the people in Palm Beach County who inadvertently voted for Buchanan of all people.

Erin

Nov. 8, 2000, 07:54 PM

After listening to CNN on the web all day, I think I have this straight. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The absentee ballots they're waiting 10 days for are OVERSEAS absentee ballots. They have to be postmarked by election day. In 1996, there were about 2300 of them, and they were about 53 percent for Dole, who was the Republican candidate. I think the regular absentee ballots were due on election day, but I'm not sure about that. I think those have already been counted.

I was watching the Today show this morning, and Tom Brokaw commented on how the networks had awarded Florida to Gore, taken it back, etc. Apparently studies have analyzed voter turnout in western states, trying to figure out whether or not television affects it. According to the studies, it doesn't have an effect.

The networks are in a tough spot... I know I was sitting there all night dying for results. We're so used to instant news these days, that the concept of not knowing immediately is really frustrating!

Hattie

Nov. 8, 2000, 07:59 PM

Florida has a huge absentee ballot due to the large amount of military stationed here. That is, the Navy. At any one time when a aircraft carrier is out we are talking about at least 5000 at sea. What I find amazing is that there is a 1763 difference between Gore and Bush in Florida. Those 1763 votes (unless recount changes these figures) will determine our next president of the United States. So you see, EVERY vote counts! These are fascinating odds!

Becca

Nov. 8, 2000, 08:43 PM

Erin- my alarm went off, and i got up and went to cnn.com and have been there all day!! The ONLY news on the web to rely on!!!

AHC

Nov. 9, 2000, 10:10 AM

Hattie, I also heard this morning that some of the overseas absentee ballots are American Jews who live is Israel. If that is true, then the estimates that these votes will go to Bush may not be accurate.

heelsdown

Nov. 9, 2000, 10:11 AM

Reporting from the front lines of Florida:
With the recount half done Gore has picked up an additional 700 votes. A re-vote in Palm Beach County is sounding more and more plausible with the revelation that 17,000 ballotts had to be thrown out, yes thrown out because the voters had voted, apparently by accident for Gore and Buchanan.

My what a mess.

VTrider

Nov. 9, 2000, 11:56 AM

Here's the latest....
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/09/election.president/index.html

Pretty amazing...

EarthTo?

Nov. 9, 2000, 12:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by HATTIE:
Florida has a huge absentee ballot due to the large amount of military stationed here. That is, the Navy. At any one time when a aircraft carrier is out we are talking about at least 5000 at sea. What I find amazing is that there is a 1763 difference between Gore and Bush in Florida. Those 1763 votes (unless recount changes these figures) will determine our next president of the United States. So you see, EVERY vote counts! These are fascinating odds!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hattie, from what I have heard, everything you say is true, but apparently just by coincidence, this election no carriers based in FLA happened to be at sea, so there should be many fewer military absentee ballots that usual -- but as with everything else in this election, who really knows? Incidentally, at noon EST, the news reports say that at the halfway point in the recount, Bush's lead is down to about 900 votes. Ain't it all amazing! I think we have zoomed right past "weird" and are now tanking up at "surrealistic" on our way to "Kafkaesque" *smile*

Louise

Nov. 9, 2000, 12:21 PM

Someone on this forum who's opinion I really respect remarked to me that the military votes may not be as pro-Bush as everyone thinks, because of Cheney, who (my memory fails me here, was he Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of Defense or something else related to the military?) was responsible for some pretty serious military cuts, which may have angered the military absentee voters.

Erin

Nov. 9, 2000, 12:34 PM

Boy, I am just finding this whole saga totally gripping. How amazing that some 100 million votes were cast, and that the race could be decided by a couple hundred votes in Florida!

As one of those people who's always bugged people to vote because "every vote counts," I'm totally amazed to see it actually happen. Of course, I didn't get to vote in this election, because I haven't yet registered in Maryland and my absentee ballot from Arizona never showed up! Wah!!

Anyway, I hope this will spark more interest in elections in the future. It's such an amazing thing to watch a democracy at work, no matter which way it turns out.

Off my sappy political soapbox for the day. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jumpcrew

Nov. 9, 2000, 01:00 PM

i think the liberal press called fla for gore early tp discourage Bush voter turnout in the midwest and western states.

Erin

Nov. 9, 2000, 01:24 PM

Ugh, I hate "liberal press" conspiracy theories. People give the media way too much credit sometimes.

The networks called Florida for Gore at about 8 p.m. Eastern time. I don't know for sure what time polls closed in the midwest, but at MOST, there was probably an hour of voting left in the Central time zone. (Not counting the whole poll-closing-time-changing fiasco in Missouri.) And, as I mentioned in a previous post, studies have apparently shown that TV coverage during an election does little to influence voter turnout.

And didn't Bush win just about every western state, except for California, which was strongly for Gore from the get-go? I don't think the liberal media helped Gore much in the West. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There's an article in the Washington Post about the networks' flubbing of Florida -- basically, they got erroneous data. Did they jump the gun? Yes, undoubtedly. But did they do it to change the outcome of the election? Phooey. They did it to be able to claim that they were first. They did it for ratings. That's what pays their bills.

There are some very self-deprecating comments by Brokaw and Rather in the Post article. They know they goofed. The article's quite good:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49600-2000Nov8.html

[This message has been edited by Erin (edited 11-09-2000).]

horsenut

Nov. 9, 2000, 01:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jumpcrew:
i think the liberal press called fla for gore early tp discourage Bush voter turnout in the midwest and western states.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I disagree ... as Erin already pointed out above, studies show that the Eastern votes historically don't affect Western voter turnout. On top of that, I would hardly call ABC, NBC, CBC, CNN, etc. "liberal press".

Personally I think FL was called early because we are all so eager for news and all the outlets are so eager to be the first to report it. There's no mistaking the fact that Peter Jennings, for example, was extremely red-faced over the rush to judgment.

horsenut

Nov. 9, 2000, 01:28 PM

Wow, Erin, you and I think alike! I guess you and I were posting at the same time, or I would have just pointed to your post and said, "Ditto". /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Erin

Nov. 9, 2000, 01:33 PM

Horsenut, I'm glad someone agrees with me... otherwise I'm just another conspirator from the liberal media. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hattie

Nov. 9, 2000, 01:37 PM

Earthto? - you are right, I learned there were no carriers out after I posted, however, my secretary's husband serves on some type of ship and they are over in the Middle East. Frankly as a Florida resident, I am embarrassed by this whole fiasco! I think the whole country needs an overall on the election process - all states need to be uniform in this process! I still can't figure out how they handle it in Oregon!

Inverness

Nov. 9, 2000, 01:40 PM

Thank you Erin.

Yes, LOUISE, Cheney was Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush, and was (at least in part) responsible for sizeable cuts in military spending.

This morning, one of the commentators on NPR was floating the idea of a co-presidency.

In international negotiations that require a folksy, downhome approach, Mr.
Bush will preside. When the negotiations get tricky and require that the
president be able to remember and pronounce the name of the leader with whom
he is negotiating, Mr. Gore will step in and take over.

When Mr. Bush crashes the White House computer playing games, Mr. Gore will
come in and fix it.

The White House BBQ's will be the best ever!

Hattie

Nov. 9, 2000, 01:42 PM

Hey I have an idea! Let's start all over! Another national election - maybe we'll get it right this time! LOL

DMK

Nov. 9, 2000, 01:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jumpcrew:
i think the liberal press called fla for gore early tp discourage Bush voter turnout in the midwest and western states.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That idea is good for a giggle...

First, I have always thought that the idea of competing entities getting together for an old fashion conspiracy to be a bit of a hoot.

Second, I sincerely doubt that the 8 pm call on FL would have significantly affected states who are only one hour behind, what with most polls closing at 7:00...

Third, if anything, that early call would have encouraged the West coast Nader supporters who where fence-sitting to cast their vote for Nader rather than Gore, so Nader would receive his 5%, which would have ceded the electoral votes to Bush...

It is pretty obvious none of that happened...

AHC

Nov. 9, 2000, 02:22 PM

One of the many things about this that is amazing to me is the idea that in this day of high technology, anyone is punching holes in a paper ballot to vote! IMHO, it is more than high time to have a standardized, modern way to vote -- at least in national elections.

As far as the liberal media, FOX news is run by Roger Ailes, who no one would ever accuse of being liberal. I agree with those who said the early reporting is more about ratings and being first than anything else.

Glimmerglass

Nov. 9, 2000, 02:31 PM

I am amazed that some people in this country have the audacity to actually suggest a re-vote for some counties where ballots where improperly cast - be it that multiple selections where made for president or no choice was made.

Gee, it's that group of "brilliant" people that I want deciding the race for rest of us. Not.

DMK

Nov. 9, 2000, 02:34 PM

True enough about the ratings...

Try to visualize a bunch of lemmings at the edge of a cliff muttering "should we 'call' Florida?"

And then one did... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

heelsdown

Nov. 9, 2000, 02:59 PM

Now with over 20,000 votes thrown out (people voted for Buchanan and Gore, ballot discarded) and 3,000 or so votes counted for Buchanan (that even Buchanan admits were likely meant for Gore) I think legal action and inevitably a re-vote is possible.

The fact that this happened only in Palm Beach County certainly points to a problem with the ballot itself. There are some very upset people here. It is not a case of just a few people, but a lot of people who misunderstood the ballot, and no such claims are being made by citizens in other counties. There are some other counties where claims are being made that voters were itimidated, I see no reason why police checkpoints should be set up at the entrance to poll stations, and some citizens are claiming intimidation.

At this point I think anything is possible, there is no precedent.

Regardless of who is or is not ahead the issues, in particular the confusing ballot in Palm Beach must be addressed, otherwise the validity of this election will forever cloud the outcome. Just because we have never had to have a "re-vote" in a county for a preseidential election doesn't mean we shouldn't. If the Bush people are so sure of their victory they should be unafraid of this.

heelsdown

Nov. 9, 2000, 03:02 PM

Horsenut:

AS I have been so recently educated... election laws actually differ from state to state (shouldn't they be the same everywhere in the country?!) Here in Florida the overseas votes have to be postmarked by election day.

halfhalt

Nov. 9, 2000, 03:06 PM

As an outsider, i'm wondering why the heck there isn't the same ballot for the presidential race not only across the entire state, but for the entire country??

I realize that there are many other items that are voted on in each state, but at least the presidential ballot could be the same...

Cactuskate

Nov. 9, 2000, 03:10 PM

I apologize for not having read every one of these posts, so if this has been covered...oops.

But does anyone else think the MEDIA i.e. TV coverage should be banned from covering "results" until all ballots have been collected and tallied? Or at least until the last polling place in the Hawiian Islands has closed?

I want to know who decided that Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw and any of the other "NEWS STAFF" had the inside track to the results?

Having spent the majority of my years on the West Coast, I am sick and tired of hearing how the East voted by 5:00PST. I can't help feel this disillusions some of the voters that had not gotten out yet. Either they have to feel their vote won't matter, since "their guy" was soooo far behind, so why bother. Or the flip of "their guy " is soooo far ahead, he doesn't NEED my vote.

I think the media does an incredible DISSERVICE during these times.

And now I climb carefully down off my soapbox. Dang near got a nosebleed up there. Thanks.

Nov. 9, 2000, 03:18 PM

I just got home from my American Dilemmas class, where the class was appropriately centered on this fiasco.

The professor got on HER soapbox and allowed the class to discuss the situation in Florida. Some membres of the class were upset about the fact that there is talk of a revote and legal action from the loser. Some classmates felt that this would result in the public viewing the loser as a sore loser -- but then the professor started talking about how the popular vote and electoral college vote may not result in the same winner, and if this was the case, wouldn't you want to fight for what you believed in and blah blah blah blah...

I'm not saying this as well as I could be, but the discussion was very interesting...

I'm honestly excited that I am old enough to appreciate what is going on; this is the first national election taking place while I'm in college, where you actual hear about different aspects of the election process. It's one of those, "wow, chalk this up in the column with the passing of a new century" in the stories to tell the grandkids about... I haven't watch this much CNN since the Gulf War. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DMK

Nov. 9, 2000, 03:20 PM

Poor Offcourse... there you go applying logic to the US electoral system... how precious and Canadian of you /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Actually, it sounds good in theory, but sadly the same candidates did not appear on all ballots! OK, get yourself off the floor now... I promise that Bush and Gore appeared on all the ballots, but other candidates' appearances on ballots depend on state laws (we are sort of picky about that "state's rights" thing, especially in the South).

For instance, as I understand it, six candidates appeared on FL's ballot (republican, democrat, green, libertarian, and the two reform party candidates - the reform party had a "divorce" during their convention). Here in the enlightened state of "Jawjuh" we frown on people being able to vote for Green Party candidates (we are pretty durn proud of the many ways we can violate EPA rules), and by golly, we weren't gonna let ANY reform candidate EXCEPT Buchanan on that ballot...

Erin

Nov. 9, 2000, 03:26 PM

Cactuskate, check my posts above about studies that have apparently shown voter turnout is NOT affected by media coverage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Cactuskate:
I want to know who decided that Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw and any of the other "NEWS STAFF" had the inside track to the results?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not really an "inside track"... it's exit polling. There's one independent organization that does this for all the news media, and there are all these forumulas and models they use. Way above my head, but some of it is explained in the Post article I linked to above.

I think it's up to the media to use restraint, but to "ban" them from doing anything? Doesn't sound like freedom of the press to me.

In many cases, the election IS decided before Hawaii finishes voting. In the last election, I think they were able to declare Clinton the winner at some ridiculously early hour, because it was such a landslide.

BTW, the time difference from East Coast to Hawaii is 6 hours. Assuming polls there close at 7, that means a presidency could have been certain for several hours before the media would be allowed to mention it. I don't think you could ever convince journalists to sit on news like that, especially when it has never been proven to have affected the outcome of an election.

Cactuskate

Nov. 9, 2000, 03:35 PM

Thanks Erin for the tips.

But I do have a bone of contention on the freedom of the press, and freedom of speech issues. I have never felt that anyone should be suppressed in their right to report the news. I just question the need for the immediacy of "the news". Like if I didn't know for that 7 hour window, how would it have negatively affected my life?

I think it is all hype and who can get the big scoop. Mind you this is a country that was mesmerized by the God awful OJ ordeal. We are a pretty news mongering bunch.

Glimmerglass

Nov. 9, 2000, 03:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by heelsdown:
Now with over 20,000 votes thrown out (people voted for Buchanan and Gore, ballot discarded) and 3,000 or so votes counted for Buchanan (that even Buchanan admits were likely meant for Gore) I think legal action and inevitably a re-vote is possible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point of fact - In the 1996 Presidential ellection, 16,000 ballots were thrown out in the Palm Beach area due to duplicate selections. No reason for a lawsuit in 2000 if the same "confusion" occurs.

dublin

Nov. 9, 2000, 03:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
I am amazed that some people in this country have the audacity to actually suggest a re-vote for some counties where ballots where improperly cast - be it that multiple selections where made for president or no choice was made.

Gee, it's that group of "brilliant" people that I want deciding the race for rest of us. Not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could not agree with you more!! A truly scary thought.....

lillian

Nov. 9, 2000, 03:48 PM

I read an article this morning that says Florida democrats are claiming the outlay of the Palm Beach ballots were not in accordance with Florida State Law. All ballots must be marked with an "X" to the right of the candidates name. Evidently, the ballots in question had candidates' names down both side of the ballot with the space to mark an "X" down the middle. It is becoming more likely that the fat lady has not sung in Florida. A lawsuit was filed concerning the nature of the ballot by three Florida voters this morning.

BlueGooPonyShampoo

Nov. 9, 2000, 03:56 PM

Glimmerglass, I agree! The idea that there may be a re-vote in Palm Beach seems to me to be an outlandish suggestion. The ballot was created by a democrat, approved in advance of the election by both parties, prominently displayed in advance of the election in newspapers for the public to view, AND displayed at every polling site for the public to view. Not to mention that every polling site had officials available to answer voter's questions concerning the voting process. Those who informed polling officials that they had made a mistake on their ballot were given new ones to make corrections.

I'm sorry that some people chose not to double-check their ballot for accuracy at the time of voting and subsequently left the polling area without raising any concerns. I'm also sorry if some people felt that it was better to knowingly vote for the "wrong" person than appear "stupid" at the time (they apparently have no problem putting themselves on display now that they realize that their folly might have cost their candidate the election)!

What do we have to do to ensure a fair election? Do we station an election official outside every voting booth to ask EVERY voter,

"Are you sure you understand the ballot? Are you REALLY REALLY sure? Are you certain you voted for the correct candidate? Are you absolutely and unequivocally positive? Is there any chance in you may have mistakenly voted for the wrong person? Is there a chance that you are not admitting to voting for the wrong candidate because you don't want to appear stupid?"

This is ludicrous!!!! Everyone of these voters is of legal age and has the responsibility as a citizen to vote their conscience CORRECTLY THE FIRST TIME. We shouldn't be handing out second chances just because the race has become tighter than we thought it would and all of a sudden it now appears that our candidate has found him/herself on the losing side of the battle. For Gosh Sakes Palm Beach, WHY WAS IT SO HARD TO GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME????

As a side note, I'd like to know if the majority of Palm Beach voters DID manage to figure out how to vote for the candidate of their choice (the ballot didn't seem confusing to me ... arrows point directly to the buttons). I'll bet the majority did.

As to the issue of black voters being turned away at the polls, I believe that IS an issue that needs to be investigated!!!!

And here is another possibility: what about the other battleground states? Michigan? Wisconsin? I know, lets make California recount every single vote by hand ... that ought to take us well into the next year! Oh heck! Lets just recount every state in the union - at that point we'll be well into the next election cycle and it won't matter anyhow!!! Election anomalies are a given in every election held in these United States. Lets do the recount to make certain we have it right in FLA (we owe that to ourselves) then get on with our lives!!!!

Erin

Nov. 9, 2000, 03:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by dublin:
I could not agree with you more!! A truly scary thought.....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come on... this is Florida we're talking about here. Most likely a ton of these people are elderly with poor eyesight. From what I understand, the votes that are being thrown out are because people thought they had to punch holes for both president and VP. Being confused shouldn't preclude someone's right to vote.

Hey Glimmerglass, where did the info on the 16,000 ballots thrown out in 1996 come from? I've been looking for that info all day.

Glimmerglass

Nov. 9, 2000, 04:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Erin:
Hey Glimmerglass, where did the info on the 16,000 ballots thrown out in 1996 come from? I've been looking for that info all day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erin, a friend who has been newhounding at home all day said it was on Fox News this afternoon. I'll pitch the same question to my old college roommates - one is a news anchor in a large market and the other a news correspondent for a national network.

heelsdown

Nov. 9, 2000, 04:20 PM

We have elderly residents throughout Florida, only with the Palm Beach County ballot do we have a problem. And it wasn't just the elderly who had a problem. I've heard from well educated lawyers who were very confused by the ballot. If there were a few dozen, or even a couple hundred, it would be a different story, but there are thousands. In a strategic race. Even Buchanan admits that those votes surely are not his.

The 20,000 plus ballots that were thrown in the trash because there were two votes... another story all together. This again is in Palm Beach County.

I personally think there should be a re-vote.

Astraled

Nov. 9, 2000, 04:20 PM

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ItemId=9237

A Florida "do-over" is the only answer. There are too many questions about it to let the vote stand, especially if the ballot design was illegal. This is not the country's finest moment /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Cactuskate

Nov. 9, 2000, 04:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by astraled:
This is not the country's finest moment /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't seem like many recent elections have been. It is a sad state of affairs when you wish there was a box that said (c) none of the above.

[This message has been edited by Cactuskate (edited 11-09-2000).]

Kryswyn

Nov. 9, 2000, 05:03 PM

@ 5:00 pm Dubya leads Gore by only 359 votes. Can you STAND IT?

I love the fact that the Bush camp and supporters are already screaming foul and unfair! But betchyer*ss that if Gore ends up ahead by 1, 20 or 2000 votes, Bush's shrubs will change their tune!

Smiles

Nov. 9, 2000, 05:06 PM

How could you let just that one state revote. People could then rechange there vote, and then things could get really screwed up? You'd think that if these people in palmbeach county had that much trouble with there ballots that someone would have come forward and fix the problem? http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif Hey ERIN can we get a big duh smiley face. I think it would fit in with these posted!

Glimmerglass

Nov. 9, 2000, 05:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by astraled:
a "do-over" is the only answer. There are too many questions about it to let the vote stand, especially if the ballot design was illegal. This is not the country's finest moment /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Illegal? Perhaps a *confusing* design but certainly not illegal. It was constructed by a public official (who is a democrat) and it was agreeable to both parties without objection.

People I do hope everyone understands that in Palm Beach Co. if a voter did make a mistake (ie, choosing two candidates) they merely had to alert a voting aide and a new ballot would've been provided. If you are too timid or clueless to speak up then honnestly I can't offer pitty.

Would the same person, if they chose the wrong numbers for the Lottery, complain that the form was invalid and ask for the winning game to be redone? Hmmm ...

Erin

Nov. 9, 2000, 05:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Smiles:
You'd think that if these people in palmbeach county had that much trouble with there ballots that someone would have come forward and fix the problem? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You would think so... and if the problem happened before, I can't imagine WHY it wouldn't have been fixed.

Y'know, I don't care which candidate wins (well, I do, but... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), but I would hate to see either candidate elected by a mistake or a technicality. I think we need to figure out what the people of the country want, and that's who should be in office. That's all that matters.

If the count of votes in Florida does not reflect what those voters really intended, then something needs to be done about it.

In the long run, this will probably be a good thing. I would hope that the election process gets some good, hard scrutiny in the next four years, and will hopefully improve! Wait til we start voting via the Internet... then things will REALLY get confusing! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Astraled

Nov. 9, 2000, 05:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
Illegal? Perhaps a *confusing* design but certainly not illegal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Illegal. There's some statute on the Florida books that requires the little boxes to be *only* on the right side of the candidates' names. Also, there are allegations that some polling place workers refused to provide new ballots to people who asked for one but this is far far away from being an actual fact.

Smiles, most people are requesting a re-vote only in Palm Beach county, not all of Florida.

I can't figure out *how* Gore is gaining all these votes in the recount http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/confused.gif . What does this say about the way the country counts the ballots? Just how accurate is this system? Should the country at large be subjected to a recount? I dunno /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

geez, my grammar sucks todays http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/tongue.gif

[This message has been edited by astraled (edited 11-09-2000).]

Erin

Nov. 9, 2000, 05:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
People I do hope everyone understands that in Palm Beach Co. if a voter did make a mistake (ie, choosing two candidates) they merely had to alert a voting aide and a new ballot would've been provided. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would guess that most people didn't realize what they had done, unfortunately.

BTW, yes, I have heard someone on CNN (can't remember who, for the life of me) say that the format of the PB ballot was not legal. It's supposed to be in a format where all the candidates are listed on one page or something. It was, however, approved... which means some of these election officials didn't know what they were doing. http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/tongue.gif

Astraled, Bush is gaining votes too! There are more total votes in the count today than there were on Tuesday! Maybe this really is "fuzzy math"! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Erin (edited 11-09-2000).]

heelsdown

Nov. 9, 2000, 05:51 PM

The staffing at the polling places in Palm Beach was, apparently, sorely wanting. There have been a few souls on the radio who realized their mistake and asked for a second ballot only to have the mistakenly marked ballot taken from their hands and placed in the box.

Buchanan, the most right winger of em'all has gone on record saying those votes are not not his.

Re Vote!

pwynnnorman

Nov. 9, 2000, 05:53 PM

Where does the "will of the people" come into this?

IF that will is important, then getting an accurate indication of it is important and a revote makes sense.

IF the process is more important than the accuracy, then the result should stand, IMO.

So WHAT if people changed their vote in a revote? Maybe more Republicans would jump in, maybe more people would say, "then again, maybe it should be Bush, Gore hasn't handled this recount stuff very amiably"?

If you opponents fear that Gore would WIN if there were a re-vote, well, what does that mean? Doesn't that mean you know your candidate lost? If Bush thinks the people in Florida really want him as president, wouldn't he be unafraid of a re-vote?

Bertie

Nov. 9, 2000, 07:00 PM

One thing this proves is that our voting system is in dire need of revision. How can we accept the fact that mistakes will happen? Mistakes that resulted in 19,160 discarded votes in one county...mistakes evidenced by the recount in Florida thus far. Did mistakes like that happen all over the country? This is appalling!!! I can't think of any other important issue where mistakes like this would be tolerated.

It should be EASY to vote. There should be no chance of confusion. And the count should be error free.

[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 11-09-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 11-09-2000).]

elghund

Nov. 9, 2000, 07:52 PM

elghund

Nov. 9, 2000, 07:53 PM

The best line I heard about the issues in Florida.

"How come these people can simultaneously handle fifteen bingo cards but they can't handle one ballot?"

You do the recount and then you move on. To do anything else is to worsen the situation.

-----

Sorry, got confused and posted twice.

[This message has been edited by elghund (edited 11-09-2000).]

Kryswyn

Nov. 9, 2000, 07:59 PM

Well, having seen the ballot for myself, I admit it's not the most straight forward piece of balloting I've ever seen. It reminds me of ballot questions where the language is written so that if you are in favor of something, you have to vote NO.

Glimmerglass, the fact that the same type of ballot caused results to be discarded in 1996 for the same reason doesn't mean this year's election troubles are invalid, as you suggested. It means there is a problem w/ who and how these ballots are created! You'd think they'd've revamped the ballot form after the last time. After all, we are in the 21st century. Why are people still using paper and punching holes?

The thing that gets me is: According to the "official results" tonight, the number of votes that Bush leads Gore by is EXACTLY the same as Tuesday's count. But ONLY 53 COUNTIES OUT OF 67 HAVE FILED their recounts. How then can the numbers of a partial result be the same as the complete count done Tuesday? And why are the "unofficial" numbers down to 245?

[This message has been edited by Kryswyn (edited 11-09-2000).]

Magnolia

Nov. 9, 2000, 08:00 PM

Not a Bush fan, but all this foul play stuff disappoints me. Now the NAACP is complaining that people weren't allowed to vote in Black areas- polls were "closed" they were out of ballots. Why not complain THEN, instead of now?
Gore won the popular vote. Perhaps, this year, if we can not resolve Florida, he should win? or, let Bush win, because there are always going to be some errors. That is life. Maybe a few voters mistakenly voted for Gore.
Flip a coin? Arm Wrestle?
It seems a little silly that Bush, who won Florida by 2000 votes, should beat Gore who won the Nation by @ 200,000 votes, but that is our constitution.
Oh, it's all so confusing. Why couldn't it be Nader and Browne?
/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bertie

Nov. 9, 2000, 08:15 PM

Kryswyn, I think the State of Fla isn't considering the recount votes official until they have the signed, certified results in hand from the district voting officials. So it looks like they're sticking with the original vote counts until they actually receive the certifications. Supposedly the wire reports are based on communications with the local voting officials (I heard that on the radio).

woodbern

Nov. 9, 2000, 09:35 PM

Re-vote? Never happen....

wtywmn4

Nov. 9, 2000, 09:44 PM

Well the backlash from this has already started. Other states are now taking up the cry. Maybe out of all of this, we will finally redo the voting process, electoral.

Now people are saying lets just vote again. This is like unbelievable. We can run computers, hack into our "Secure" national system, but we can't even vote for our president without major problems. It sure makes you wonder!

heelsdown

Nov. 9, 2000, 09:45 PM

Woodbern: I never thought we would be facing a President elect who did not win a majority vote either, or an election that has failed to produce a clear winner two days after the election was supposed to have ended. Never say never.

There are some very upset people here in Florida and many of them will not let this go, I have to say that I can't blame them. If I was a nice little Jewish lady who had the opportunity to vote for a team that included Joseph Lieberman and then realized after the fact that I'd voted for Buchanan I'd start slinging matzo balls!

woodbern

Nov. 9, 2000, 10:01 PM

Uh huh.

I'm in FL right now, doing some "fixing up" things on my house before WEF.

I flew in mid-day with a mind-blowing planeload of reporters, all talking at once, etc., etc., blah, blah, yada yada. Enough to give you a migraine!

While I was leaving the airport at noon, all hell was breaking loose over at the government center.... the alleged disinfranchised, the Rev. Jackson, et al. all milling about. I get the picture.

Let them sling matzohs.... this is the same group that can go from Century Village out to eat the early-bird special and get the waitress to split the check 44 ways and know if she's off a nickel ..... and you actually think they can't get a ballot straight?

Please.....

Nov. 9, 2000, 11:16 PM

As much as I don't want Bush to win, I honestly don't think a revote would do anything except more chaos and drag the process out even longer.

We talked about this in my AD class (as posted above) and the thing that boggles my mind is how so many MORE people would go vote... since they know their vote really does count. I don't think there should be a "redo" for people who didn't do it the first time... Tough luck.

Now fix the system so this bulls*** doesn't happen again.

Yes, I am getting annoyed, can you tell?

pwynnnorman

Nov. 10, 2000, 05:41 AM

WHAT ABOUT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, PEOPLE? WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT: THE PROCESS OR THE THE PEOPLE?

What are Republicans AFRAID of? If, as so many conservatives profess, you believe in God's will, then why fear a recount?

I'm STUNNED that you guys won't address this.

Erin

Nov. 10, 2000, 09:16 AM

I was talking about this with my mom last night... she worked for the Nixon campaign in 1960 (?), when he lost to JFK by a "razor-thin" margin. Well, the esteemed Richard M. Daley was mayor in Chicago (where I'm from) at that time, and he just conveniently lost a bunch of votes from Republican precincts so that JFK would carry Illinois, and therefore, the election.

That was out-and-out fraud, but Nixon decided not to pursue it "for the good of the country". (Not sure Nixon should exactly be a role model, but...)

Frankly, I'm torn. I think it would be terrible for Bush to be elected by mistake. But I hate to see this drag on and divide people even more than they already are.

*Sigh* Who knew things could get this complicated?

wtywmn4

Nov. 10, 2000, 09:29 AM

Yipes Erin, and we never fixed our system even from that. Being that we are all opinionated /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, there are some VERY valid points people are posting.

Makes you wonder if we truly voted in anyone. Or, are we being manipulated once again?

baymare

Nov. 10, 2000, 09:29 AM

Erin, I'm originally from the Chicago area, too. Motto: "Vote early and vote often."
I believe that was Richard J. Daley; Son Richard M. is current mayor. And how ironic is it that there is a Daley brother in the thick of things now, and that Cook county (IL) ballots have been compared to the Palm Beach ones? Add Jesse Jackson to the soup, and I begin to wax nostalgic for the old Chicago politics. They may have been crooked, but at least they were clear-cut! Jeb Bush should have learned from the pros!

(Disclaimer: this is humor with a grain of opinion, NOT meant to inflame. Too much.) http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/tongue.gif

Hattie

Nov. 10, 2000, 09:49 AM

Hmmmm.....don't Floridians read their sample ballots before they head to the polls? I would certainly hate to read those amendments the FIRST time at the polling station! Those sample ballots give instructions on HOW to vote and are available to ALL voters. Novel concept -understand what you are doing before you vote!

Erin

Nov. 10, 2000, 10:13 AM

Oops, sorry baymare, wrong Richie Daley! And yes, Jesse's speeches and Bill Daley's flat Chicago accent have me missing Chi-town politics too!

There's a good article in the Washington Post today about how uncertain elections really are:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57004-2000Nov9.html

The article brings up the point that out of 100 million votes cast nationwide, Gore won the popular vote by 200,000. That's a margin of .2 percent. (If my math is right... someone correct me if I'm wrong!) Under Florida law, that would be an automatic recount!

I'm still amazed by this entire thing...

EarthTo?

Nov. 10, 2000, 10:25 AM

Re Florida Ballot Law --
1. If you want to read the actual text of the statute, go to the CNN web site.
2. To summarize (ALWAYS a dangerous thing when parsing a statute), what is required is that a ballot "substantially" be in the specified form. The meaning of the word "substantially" would be one of the points of contention in any litigation over the Palm Beach ballot.
3. The Palm Beach ballot appears to be inconsistent (whether or not "substantially" I express no opinion about here) with the statutory requirements in two respects: (a) the statute specifies that the box to indicate a vote is to be to the RIGHT of the candidate's name (on the Palm Beach ballot, some were to the right and some were to the left) and (b) the statute shows candidates for a particular office listed in a single column (the Palm Beach ballot listed the candidates for President in two columns, allegedly so that the typeface could be made bigger).
4. Florida election law would allow a court to overturn the Palm Beach vote if the court found that there was a substantial likelihood (again, I'm paraphrasing, and again, I emphasize that paraphrasing is very dangerous when construing these things) that a voting irregularity caused the will of the voters to be thwarted. In this case, it seems at least possible from the great number of people claiming they were confused that a court might reach such a conclusion. However, Florida legal precedent is fuzzy about the possible REMEDY if such is found to be the case. In my state, for example (Virginia), in certain circumstances the remedy if there are certain kinds of irregularities in a particular precinct has been to throw out all the votes from that precinct. Obviously this would not be what the persons in Palm Beach claiming to have been disenfranchised have in mind -- they want a re-vote -- but what kind of remedy a Florida court would impose in these circumstances I have no clue.

Re Nixon and Kennedy and Illinois in 1960 --
Erin, I do not doubt your mother's perspective. However, the situation with respect to Illinois in the 1960 election is quite well known and has been studied extensively by historians and political scientists, not to mention partisans of the two major political parties. Like most things about which people care passionately, there are many different opinions about what happened and why. Few people seem to contest Erin's mother's assertion that voting irregularities occurred in Cook County in 1960 (althought there is quite a lot of disagreement about what those irregularities were and how extensive they were). As you may know, Nixon did not contest the Illinios results. Some people believe that was because he declined to do so for the good of the country. Others believe that he was about to do so when he was read the riot act by then-President Eisenhower, who insisted he not do so for the good of the country (some people believe that Eisenhower made various threats to Nixon to force him to acquiesce, some do not, and even those who think that Eisenhower threatened Nixon do not agree on the nature of any such threats). Still other people believe that Nixon did not challenge the Illinois vote because he knew that there had been substantial voting irregularities in southern Illinios, too, a Republican stronghold, and if he pushed an investigation into alleged unsavory Democratic practices in northern Illinois he risked exposing unsavory Republican practices in southern Illinois, and in any case the effects pretty much got cancelled out. Other people vehemently deny one or more or all of these scenarios. Where does truth lie? Who knows.

My humble take on Florida --
So far nothing is happening that shouldn't be happening, except of course for the remarkably virulent and arrogant bombast from the two sides. All that is happened SUBSTANTIVELY so far, and all that would be involved if there are further recounts, by hand this time instead of just running the machines again (as has been the case over the past few days), AND (as is required by Florida law) everyone waits until the deadline for receiving absentee ballots (Nov. 17th), is totally consistent with Florida law AND with the simple idea of making as sure as possible how many votes each candidate ACTUALLY received. I see absolutely no problem with being patient for the sake of accuracy. All of that is a totally distinct process from that of challenging election procedures in litigation, in Palm Beach or elsewhere, about which I express no opinion at this time.

Hearsay Anecdote --
I work with an attorney whose elderly parents live in the disputed precinct in Palm Beach County. She reports that they have absolutely no doubt that the ballot was extremely confusing and that many many many people whom they know personally were so confused by it that they voted in error. They also say that the sample ballots distributed before the election did not look like the actual ballot, in that the sample ballot did not show that all the voting boxes for both pages of Presidential candidates would be in a single column down the middle between the two columns of candidates. I am not reporting this as fact, just as what some actual Palm Beach voters are saying to their daughter.

Horses --
I really like them and will limit my further remarks this week on this BB to matters concerning them. *smile*

Jumphigh83

Nov. 10, 2000, 10:35 AM

Revote becasue people are stupid and don't READ something before they sign it? All you contract law attorneys listen up! A whole new way to breech a contract "I didn't know what I was signing" They will weep til they get to count enough times to make it come out the way they want it. (Like the dems NEVER dug up dead people to vote, or bussed in retarded people to "help" them vote) Take the results like a MAN (whatever they are). Palm Beachers like a little whine with their vote. I wonder if it's a robust red or a tart, yet not impertinent white??

Jumphigh83

Nov. 10, 2000, 10:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by heelsdown:
Woodbern: I never thought we would be facing a President elect who did not win a majority vote either, or an election that has failed to produce a clear winner two days after the election was supposed to have ended. Never say never.

There are some very upset people here in Florida and many of them will not let this go, I have to say that I can't blame them. If I was a nice little Jewish lady who had the opportunity to vote for a team that included Joseph Lieberman and then realized after the fact that I'd voted for Buchanan I'd start slinging matzo balls!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you say "Bill Clinton"?

DMK

Nov. 10, 2000, 10:47 AM

On a totally humorous note, there was a very funny bit on NPR this morning where the commentator compared election to school yard behavior. Said before election it was like HS Student prez election - did you vote for the fun loving, beer guzzling, cool party guy, or the nerdy, too smart teacher's pet? She said after the election it has devolved down to a elementary school recess dynamics, with this take on the infamous non-concession conversation:

Gore - I take back my concession (Do over, Do Over)
Bush - Are you saying you are taking back your concession? (No Take Backs!
No Take Backs!)
G - Don't get snippy about it (actually, this needs no translation)
B - My Brother runs the state (My brother said this is MINE, and he's gonna
make you give it back!)
G - Let em tell you somethingabout your brother... (Your brother can't make me!)

Really, if the conversation hadn't stopped there, it would have headed straight for Nuh Uh and Your Mother!!

Hattie - as I understand it, the layout of the actual ballot differed from the sample ballot mailed out in advance, however, judging by the analysis of the law I heard this morning, good old fashioned election incompetence doesn't constitute grounds for a re-vote. Of course, here in Jawjuh, apparently we don't get sample ballots mailed to us. I had to go out and purchase the AJC Sunday paper to see the candidates/propositions that would be on the ballot. This annoyed me - I have a firm policy about giving money to really bad newspapers (tough to meet standards when you were raised on the Miami Herald and the Chicago Trib, but trust me, the AJC is just plain bad...).

Erin - Nixon did choose not to challenge the votes in IL because of concerns about leaving the country in a potentially ungoverned situation during a time of crisis (it was the Cold War, after all), and that was indeed a noble thing to do... but... well, he was also worried that a review of votes in Cook county would also lead to a review of votes in downstate IL, which apparently looked equally hinky (guess some of that "vote early and often" expertise bailed to the other party and applied their talents!)

And now for something completely different (and my major soapbox)... I have spent years working with Medicare coverage programs, and worked with a lot of experts on the elderly. It is shocking how few things in life are "easy" for the elderly or people with compromised ADL capabilities. On a plane trip just a few months ago, I needed to help the gentleman sitting next to me - he couldn't open his bottle of water or his bag of peanuts. Now he had enough ADL capability to get on and off a plane, and make this flight, but he was absolutely defeated by a water bottle. And humiliated by the fact he needed help. Imagine your life when something this routine becomes impossible.

Interestingly enough, as the baby boomers join the ranks of the depression era children, we are making sure OUR needs are taken care of (baby boomers are nothing if not self-centered /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). Have ever seen/do you own any of the highly popular Oxo kitchen utensils? That is a prime example of a change in design to accommodate reduced ADL capability.

So as I depart my soapbox, I think that one of the saddest things about this election is that a group of people who, in general, are a more educated and informed voter, and a more consistent voter, have had to vote with a ballot that could cause them confusion and lead to them voting incorrectly. That, sadly, isn't just an issue in Palm Beach, that is a nationwide issue.

OK, your regularly scheduled humor and sarcasm will return in my next post...

[This message has been edited by DMK (edited 11-10-2000).]

Jumphigh83

Nov. 10, 2000, 10:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
WHAT ABOUT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, PEOPLE? WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT: THE PROCESS OR THE THE PEOPLE?

What are Republicans AFRAID of? If, as so many conservatives profess, you believe in God's will, then why fear a recount?

I'm STUNNED that you guys won't address this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The proces because without a clear and definate process it opens the door to an anything goes mentality. Keep changing the "will of the people" til you get the result you want. In Germany (here we go again) the poll "watchers" would "help" you vote for the right person or your family would pay the price. I know I know you all think I am radical because I support and defend the constitution, well that's fine with me.

DMK

Nov. 10, 2000, 11:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
I know I know you all think I am radical because I support and defend the constitution, well that's fine with me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't think you are radical because you support and defend the Constitution, but I am troubled by what I perceive to be your attitude that I am somehow less intelligent, patriotic or competent, because I may not agree with your interpretation of the Constitution...

Darn... I believe I promised sarcasm and humor in my next post (this one)... I apologize...

[This message has been edited by DMK (edited 11-10-2000).]

lillian

Nov. 10, 2000, 11:15 AM

The local news did a little "test" here in Seattle at a local nursing home. They devised a mock ballot identical to the one used in Palm Beach, Flordia. Even knowing what the problem with the ballot was, nearly half of the seniors asked to mark the ballot ended up voting for Buchanan when they meant to vote for Gore. I would also like to say to Woodbern and others, please don't make disparaging remarks about our older folks -- I don't care that they can split a bill 44 ways and know if the waiter is off a nickle. This is generalizing, and not in a positive light, either.

Janet

Nov. 10, 2000, 11:26 AM

1) I think that the ballot in Palm Beach was confusing, and that as a result, the tabulated results do not reflect "the will of the people" in that precinct. HOWEVER, both sides approved the ballot layout. Nobody made a fuss about it in the last election when a similar number of ballots were discarded for "double voting", so it is not a new or unknown problem. If nobody saw fit to complain about it then, it is (IMHO) too late to complain about it now. I am sure there were other confusing ballots in other locations which may have had other effects.

2) However, I am concerned about reports of
a) Registerd voters being told they weren't on the list
and
b) Voters who realized they had made a mistake, and asked for a new ballot, being denied a new ballot and having their known invalid or incorrect ballot put in the box.

3) On these grounds, I think it would be valid to EITHER throw out all the ballots from that precinct, OR revote in that precinct.

4) The fact that Gore has a majority of the popular vote is irelevant in this case, everyone knew going in that the election was based on the electoral vote, not the popular vote.

5) The electoral college process is flawed, and should be revisited. That would be one good thing to come out of this mess. When I was in college, we had a math class exercise to determine what was the minimum popular vote you could get, and still win the electoral vote, and it was something like 17%.

6) If there were voting irregularities in other states, they should be investigated, not held as a threat.

With the House and Senate so evenly split, and with the presiidential vote so close (whatever the eventual solution), I don't think it is going to make a whole lot of difference who wins. Bush isn't going to be able to put through his "tax cut for the rich", and Gore isn't going to be able to put through his "tax cut for social engineering". Bush isn't going to be able to get any really conservative justices approved, and Gore isn't going to be able to get any really liberal justices approved.

We are going to be facing either 4 years of constant stalemate, or 4 years of cooperation and compromise. I am afraid it is more likely to be the former.

farmgate

Nov. 10, 2000, 11:28 AM

I agree that the process is most important.

And with that in mind, I have changed my thoughts of the electoral college. This election turned civics lesson, caused me to investigate its purpose more throughly. I now "get it".

I am continually amazed by the timeless wisdom of our founding fathers.

Glimmerglass

Nov. 10, 2000, 11:48 AM

I think the whole thing should playout as it is currently - with the recounts being done - and the inclusion of the appropriate absentee ballots for the final tally in Florida.

Bush is the unoffical winner of Florida and while I think Gore has no reason to conceed he should be prepared to do so at midnight of next Friday. I don't care if we are talking one vote difference. You must draw the line and that should be it.

Has anyone seen the multiple charges that votes where bought in Milwaukee (Wisconsin was won by Gore by just a few thousand) using cigaretts given to the homeless? Hmmm .. I don't see Jesse Jackson bitching about those votes.

Louise

Nov. 10, 2000, 12:27 PM

I think that the process is proceeding as it should at this time. No matter what happens, this election is going to be clouded. Well, that's happened before, and, lo and behold, we have survived. Hopefully, we will learn from this, and improve the process.

I want to thank DMK and lillian for their defense of the elderly among us. Their physical and mental capacities may be diminished (maybe altered would be a better word). That, however, does not mean that they are stupid. It simply means that their needs are different than younger people. I thought that the prejudice against the elderly was exaggerated, I may have to adjust my opinion.

Erin

Nov. 10, 2000, 12:27 PM

DMK and Earthto, thanks for the clarification on Nixon. Wasn't alive then, so the details of the whole thing are a bit fuzzy. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CNN also did a "test" with the PB ballot in New York. Most people got it right, a few were wrong.

I also heard a statement by one of the voters bringing a suit yesterday. Said he had voted in PB for 20 years, and he did not sound elderly. (Was listening to the CNN webcast.) He said voters in Florida are only allowed 5 minutes in the voting booth. He looked at the names on the ballot for president, found Gore as the second name and punched the second hole (which ended up being Buchanan), and then proceeded to the referendums/amendments, because he wanted to spend more time reading them.

I really hope that a major revision of the election process comes out of this. I'm sure there are very good reasons for many of these things (the paper-hole-punching, time limits, etc.), but as someone said before, voting should be EASY.

BlueGooPonyShampoo

Nov. 10, 2000, 12:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Erin:

The article brings up the point that out of 100 million votes cast nationwide, Gore won the popular vote by 200,000. That's a margin of .2 percent. (If my math is right... someone correct me if I'm wrong!) Under Florida law, that would be an automatic recount!

I'm still amazed by this entire thing...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is exactly because of these national numbers that I have a problem with the whole "will of the people" argument. Gore, in his only public address on Weds., stated that he won the popular vote and therefore had the moral authority to challenge the results.
First of all, it was FL law that initiated the recount not Gore's moral authority. AND I believe rightly so ... I want to know what the real count was!

Secondly, how can he so confidently claim to have won the popular vote when there are many, many absentee ballots still to be counted? He can't have it both ways: challenge the popular vote in FL and claim the popular vote in the nation when the final numbers aren't even in yet!

This is all so confusing and I wish they'd just resolve it soon!

[This message has been edited by BlueGooPonyShampoo (edited 11-10-2000).]

BlueGooPonyShampoo

Nov. 10, 2000, 12:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pacificsolo:
I don't care if we have a recount! Why are you lumping all of us conservatives into one assuption of intention? I want whoever deserves to win to win! Yes, I want that person to be Bush, but if Gore is legitimately the winner, the so be it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well put PacificSolo!!

Glimmerglass

Nov. 10, 2000, 12:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Erin:
I'm sure there are very good reasons for many of these things (the paper-hole-punching, time limits, etc.), but as someone said before, voting should be EASY. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen! Easy and electronic - using touch screens or an ATM style key entry. The voting machine could even have a "are you sure" query before you finally submit. Make sure too that geriatric fonts are part of the deal too.

[This message has been edited by Glimmerglass (edited 11-10-2000).]

Snowbird

Nov. 10, 2000, 01:06 PM

Sorry I couldn't resist sharing this with you all. I've been laughing for hour. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
<<
>> A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was
lost. She lowered altitude and spotted a man below.
She descended a bit more and shouted , "Excuse me,
can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him
an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
> >>
>> The man consulted his GPS and replied, "You're
are in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a
ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are
31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100
degrees,49.09 minutes west longitude."
> >>
>> "You must be a republican," said the
balloonist.
> >>
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything
you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea
what to make of your information, and the fact is I am
still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help so
far."
> >>
The man responded, "You must be a democrat."
> >>
"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
> >>
>> "Well," said the man, "you don't know where you
are or where you are going. You have risen to where
you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a
promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you
expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in
exactly the same position you were in before we met,
but now,somehow, it's my fault."
> > >> >><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BlueGooPonyShampoo

Nov. 10, 2000, 01:13 PM

Too funny, Snowbird!!!! Thanks for taking the "edge" off of the thread. Never hurts to laugh at ourselves once in awhile (and yes, I'll be sharing this one)!

Canter

Nov. 10, 2000, 01:31 PM

You guys are taking this way too seriously for a Friday. Time to visit the Panty Line thread for a little thong talk. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nov. 10, 2000, 01:50 PM

And my beast did come with me to vote, bless her little heart. I piled her into the trailer for an EARLY (before work) zip around our local horse park. Voting venue was on the way home, soooo, we both stopped in! I left her outside, natch. Turning the rig around was a bear, but I was glad she could feel part of the process!

Erin

Nov. 10, 2000, 01:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Moose:
As for electronic voting, I don't trust it yet. It can be manipulated just as easy as other methods, if not more so. I liked the lever method the most.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True... I guess a physical record (i.e. a piece of paper) is better than an electronic one.

Although I was very surprised to read in the Post (finally getting my money's worth out of that subscription!) that the hole-punch ballots are often not counted correctly. That's the reason for the hand-count Gore's people are now calling for. Sometimes people may not punch all the way through, or the little piece of punched-out paper may not actually fall off... all these weird little things that can mean votes aren't counted correctly by the counting machine.

Lovely thought, eh? An errant bit of paper means you didn't actually vote. Apparently our balloting system has always been more of an approximation than anything. So much for every vote counts. http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[This message has been edited by Erin (edited 11-10-2000).]

pwynnnorman

Nov. 10, 2000, 02:00 PM

You know, I'm convinced that this is the best thing that could have happened to this country. What a wonderful solution to voter apathy. Maybe God-Fate-Whatever has a plan?

I'll bet voter turnout in the next election will be outstanding, don't you?

Lastly, Farmgate, I'm willing to accept that the process may be more important than the "will of the people." I don't favor it, but I see the logic of it. Law and order and all that rot. In the end, perhaps the new balance in the Senate is more important than who is president anyway. Either gridlock or progress, one or the other: sounds like a good thing to me.

BlueGooPonyShampoo

Nov. 10, 2000, 02:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
You know, I'm convinced that this is the best thing that could have happened to this country. What a wonderful solution to voter apathy. Maybe God-Fate-Whatever has a plan?

I'll bet voter turnout in the next election will be outstanding, don't you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen!

Jumphigh83

Nov. 10, 2000, 02:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DMK:
No, I don't think you are radical because you support and defend the Constitution, but I am troubled by what I perceive to be your attitude that I am somehow less intelligent, patriotic or competent, because I may not agree with your interpretation of the Constitution...

Darn... I believe I promised sarcasm and humor in my next post (this one)... I apologize...

[This message has been edited by DMK (edited 11-10-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't think you are incompetant or stupid. I AM saying that the constitution has served us well for 200 years and is no less than a brilliant document. If it isn't broken, why do you want to fix it? You personally may be very bright and articulate but those that are doing the most squawking are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. Jessie Jackson?? Al Sharpton?? Someone more credible would make a stronger case.

Janet

Nov. 10, 2000, 02:19 PM

They have preferential voting in Ireland too. We were there during the election in (I think) '97.

DMK

Nov. 10, 2000, 03:26 PM

Jumphigh83, The Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I don't doubt that all of us appreciate it's value many times throughout our lives. Personally, I am constantly amazed that a group of people (a committee, for God's sake!) could create such an amazing and enduring document. And while, I personally, do not see evidence at this moment to change the current process, I would like to note that while the Constitution, in all its glory, is perhaps, not a perfect document. That is, occasionally the American people are called upon to "fix" it. I believe we have "fixed" it 27 times. On the 12th time, we fixed the process by which we select a president...

I suspect sometime before all the evil democrats who vote with their uterus (uterii?) and subvert this wonderful democracy into a nazi socialist party (led by Hillarious, of course), we will have cause to "fix" it once again. Perhaps it will be to prohibit ex-First Ladies from seeking the highest office?

As for the various idiots out there running their mouth? Yes, well there is always a lot of that during an election year (it's that darn freedom of speech thing). There are also a lot of people who are quietly going about the business of working within the framework of that constitution. You or I surely do not agree with all of them, but that does not mean they are any less patriotic - or even wrong - than you or I.

Snowbird

Nov. 10, 2000, 03:43 PM

It is obvious that at some point someone will have to concede.

If the Bush team takes the same position we will no doubt discover millions of defective votes all over the country. It is equally possible that with the same scrutiny we will find that Gore does have the lead in the popular vote. We may learn that every state in the country has equally horific situations and that there is no solution.

Suppose that's true and it will take a year to put proper cross checks and modifications in place? Suppose that several states will turn out to have improperly recorded their votes, what would you want the government to do?

Perhaps, we should just leave Bill Clinton in place until every state has two or three recounts and every district has a hand count check.

At some point there has to be a leap of faith.

Kate Brown

Nov. 10, 2000, 03:52 PM

I am new to these boards and I am sorry to say that my first post is not horsey related.
When it was mentioned that someone wanted land conservation over protecting unborn babies I got a little ticked off. If the killing of these unborn babies goes on, land conservation would be pointless because there wont be anyone there to see it or let alone take care of it!!
I am sorry about this but you hit a sensitive spot.
hopefully my next post will be horsey related!! I am really guit nice once you get to know me and I have one thing in common with all you guys...I LOVE horses /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

aubreyuga

Nov. 10, 2000, 04:03 PM

Yeah right, Kate Brown. We are surely in danger of there not being enough people to see the land preservation. Sure, what overpopulation?

Becca

Nov. 10, 2000, 04:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DMK:
...The Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I don't doubt that all of us appreciate it's value many times throughout our lives. Personally, I am constantly amazed that a group of people (a committee, for God's sake!) could create such an amazing and enduring document. And while, I personally, do not see evidence at this moment to change the current process, I would like to note that while the Constitution, in all its glory, is perhaps, not a perfect document.

It is pretty incredible though, isn't it?? I love the constitution. (And still haven't been able to see the real thing!!!!) I think certainly its imperfection can in many ways lie in the fact that it was ratified in 1788 (?, I believe) and it has been upheld and worked so brilliantly and nearly flawlessly within our lives and our governments for this long. Times change, new events happen, people change, and the world (and our country) change dramatically. We need to accept that that change has come, but also allow for the fact that sometimes more change has to happen to allow for the change which has inevitably occured. Namely some adjustments to the constitution, or some interpretations. Its important, and its going to happen.

and then.....
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pacificsolo:
I want whoever deserves to win to win! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the point of voting was that you voted for whomever you thoguht deserved to win?? So even if the person you didn't vote for wins, wouldn't that mean that the person (in your opinion) who won didn't deserve to? I udnerstand that we're talking numerically here, but conceptually...?

Goodyfourshoes!

Nov. 10, 2000, 04:09 PM

Edit

DMK

Nov. 10, 2000, 04:23 PM

Becca, you are so right... an amazing document. Almost every time I go to DC, I visit the National Archives, just to see it and the Declaration of Independence...

And just so you don't feel totally left out, here is a picture. Of course it isn't nearly as awe-inspiring as when they roll out all these documents encased in glass and tell you about the security involved in keeping them in public view (hint, don't casually mention the word "plastique")...
http://www.usconstitution.net/gifs/cpage1.jpg

Becca

Nov. 10, 2000, 04:37 PM

Worthy- I certainly hope no one flames you /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Rape must be a terrible ordeal, and especially when the result is you alone, and pregnant.

I am very, very pro-life, and I think abortion is wrong. Sadly, I'm left without an answer to situations like yours. Carrying a child for nine months causes you to become very, very emotionally attached to it. I wouldn't want that attachement to a rapists child. Its so, so hard tp see whats right and whats wrong in a situation like these.
Unfortunately, there are too many foolish, immoral, and ignorant women in our country that giving the option of abortion becomes a form of birth control. Its like saying to many- here, use this. No need to worry about the consequences of your actions. But then we leave the poor women who suffer through the trauma of rape hanging out to dry.

So many issues are just like that where there is something you just KNOW is wrong (or right, depending on your views and the issue) and yet someone gets so badly hurt on either side of the battle. Welcome to politics with morals!

Anyway, I do have to say thgat abortions are not going to cause our population to diminish any time soon. Every 5th (or so! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) woman would have to have one for our population to decrease enough that we would NOT need more land. I just can't see abortions endangering the intent or purpose for land conservation. I'm pro-life, as I said...but we're grasping at straws here, wouldnchya say?

aubreyuga

Nov. 10, 2000, 05:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Worthy:
Welcome to the board, Kate. Unfortunately, you have (and others before you) hit a sensitive spot with Me.

I don't believe anyone advocated land conservation under "the killing of unborn babies". Your comment is not well thought out and is a generalization.

I am not afraid to say that in my first year of college, I was raped. I discovered that I was pregnant in February of 1992. I was nineteen. I had no money, lived in a one room apartment with one other girl, no education, and after long and painful deliberation, I chose an abortion.

I do not regret it. I have not required psychological counselling. I would have jeopardized my education, my future AND the child's future by having it. While it was a terrible thing I would not have wished on anybody, I made a choice. MY choice. And you can call me murderer all you want, but I'd like you to know, none of you came forward with help for me. Nobody did, except for my very understanding family doctor.

Whew. There. That's been brewing in me since page 2. Flame away....

P.S. I was born in Michigan. I'm watching the vote with interest!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's horrible that you had to go through a rape. These kinds of situations are exactly the reason that abortions should stay legal. Who in their right mind would carry the baby of a rapist? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that with a Republican congress and probably Republican president, who will be appointing new S.C. justices, that they will be doing everything in their power to illegalize abortion.

Just glad there is another pro-choicer out there. The bottom line is, no man who has no idea what I go through as a woman is going to tell ME what to do with MY body.

Kate Brown

Nov. 10, 2000, 05:05 PM

I also dont have an answer to your situation.
I was by no means saying that land conservation has anything to do with abortion but it just makes me angry when people get more upset about losing trees or baby animals then the killing of babies. It just doesnt make sense to me.
I know that when it comes to rape, the situation is a little different, but when it comes tp just foolin around and getting pregnant...thats when abortion is definitely not legal. People should face the consequences of their actions.
Well, thats the end of my political chat /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
back to horses..its alot more fun to talk about

Erin

Nov. 10, 2000, 05:08 PM

Guys, the pro-choice/pro-life issue was debated at LENGTH on the 15-page-long Gore vs. Bush thread, and I'm going to again repeat my request that that topic stay off the board. It's just too contentious, no one is going to change their mind, and it has nothing to do with horses.

Neither, of course, does the election. But it only happens once every four years, so what's the harm? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Besides, this has been a very interesting and thoughtful discussion so far. Let's keep it that way.

Becca

Nov. 10, 2000, 05:25 PM

OOh!! I'm sorry Erin- I stopped reading Bush/Gore after page 986, so I missed the abortion part!!

I truly am sorry and litterally seconds before was wondering how "legal' this was as far as topics go. Sorry!! Consider it case closed.

baymare

Nov. 10, 2000, 06:33 PM

On a lighter note: did anyone else catch the story about the voters in Michigan held hostage by a 300 lb. disoriented black bear at the polling place????? Apparently there was at least one legitimate excuse for a late ballot box! http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/eek.gif http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/eek.gif

pwynnnorman

Nov. 10, 2000, 07:12 PM

Speaking of that 15-page thread...

Didn't I TELL you folks that local government is a crock? All that reduce the fed's talk. Hmmph! See what you get when you let local yokels take over?

I say that the federal government, bloated as it may be, is still the lesser of the two evils. All these states' voting fiascos (now that we find out it isn't just Florida) is proof, IMO.

Do those republicans arguing so forcefully for shifting to state/local governing really want the major programs which secure the health and safety of themselves and their property to be left in the hands of the rank and file? I don't know what (if any) quality controls exist at the federal level, but I do believe, thanks to pooling the funding, at least the TECHNOLOGY is better!

Bertie

Nov. 10, 2000, 07:34 PM

At least if the Feds took over the voting system, it would be the same all over the country.

I must be naive, but I'm just shocked that there were so many errors in the vote count. Already we've seen a difference of 3,500+ votes in Florida alone, between the original count and the recount. Recounting in other states is probably going to turn up more errors. How can this happen with the technology that's available? I know that if I make a mistake on my tax return, they'll catch that the first time!

I think the lever machines are the best. I didn't like the ballot my town used this year, where you had to use a magic marker to connect the lines. Too easy to make a mistake.

Snowbird

Nov. 10, 2000, 07:40 PM

YES! YES!
The people should have the right in every state to make their own determination without some Washington Bureaucrat telling what we MUST do! It's our money afterall and not theirs to with what they wish.

No the system isn't perfect, but it's still better than anything else yet invented. The more power you put in fewer hands the more likely you will have more corruption of the purposes with the money stuck in the drainpipes of administration.

Personally I used to think the Electorial system was unnecessary. This election proved it's not true. It was a brilliant idea that has sustained our freedom. Look at the map after it is colored in Gore/Bush.

What do you see even in Florida two thirds of the country voted for Bush. The cities and over-populated areas went for Gore. Do you seriously believe that the best government would come from the opinions of the city versus those who raise our food in the breadbasket. The Electorial college guarantees an equalizing of all the segments and doesn't give ultimate authority to those who only deal with city problems and jobs.

What would happen if you discovered after recounting in California that there were 30,000 illegal voters and that's how Gore won his small majority? And, if we are forced to recount all the states we may all learn that Gore doesn't have a majority. That's just as much a statistical error as all of them in Florida.

It is a fact the system is not perfect, it is a fact I am sure that thousands of ballots were not counted for errors. Why would anyone assume that only the people who voted for Gore would make mistakes?

I am impartial and believe that there were probably just as many mistakes made by the Republicans who wanted to vote for Bush. So, do you really want to spend billions, and lose the effectiveness of our government to
prove what?

We can learn from the mistakes, try to fix them for the next go around and let life go on. Haven't we all said there not much difference between Bush and Gore anyway.

Maybe in a re-election Nader would WIN. Maybe the Electorial will elect Nader if it gets nasty enough as a compromise!

Whatever, let's get it done and get on to 2004 and Hillary with Billy Boy as "Mr. Mom". I wonder if he knows how to pour tea?

Bertie

Nov. 10, 2000, 07:52 PM

Well Snowbird, I totally disagree with you...If Florida is any indication, the states should NOT be in charge of the ballots. And the Electoral College is a non-democratic farce. It was devised when the country's leaders did not trust the people to make the correct choice! I think we're capable of voting for ourselves, thank you very much http://www.chronofhorse.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 11-10-2000).]

Jumphigh83

Nov. 10, 2000, 09:16 PM

well obviosly NOT because the Palm Beachers who voted AND walked away from the voting booth didn't notice they had made a mistake until someone TOLD them!!!!!! They didn't READ it?? An arrow pointing directly at the name of the person not a quarter of an inch away??? They couldn't "handle" the voting themselves and now they want the country to stand still while they figure it all out.

Duffy

Nov. 10, 2000, 09:18 PM

I received this email from a relative today. . .

WASHINGTON D.C. -
Following an emergency meeting Wednesday morning, Congress unanimously voted
to excise Florida from the United States of America. The move was a reaction
to the confusion and irregularities in the state's voting numbers that have
totally disrupted the 2000 Presidential election.
"This is the last straw," said Utah senator Orin Hatch. "First Elian
Gonzales, now this."
Several congressmen told reporters the decision has been a long time in
coming.
"We're all pretty much sick of Florida," said representative Barney Frank.
"They've been a constant embarrassment for too long now." Added Frank, "They
had Dan Marino for a while, but what have they done lately? Oh that's right,
screw up our entire democracy. I forgot"
In a speech on the Senate floor, Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy commented
that the loss of Florida's sizable elderly population will free up billions
of dollars in social security funds. "These are valuable funds which can now
be redirected toward national defense. We can finally rebuild our
demoralized, weakened military," said the Senator to roaring applause.
>From her New York campaign headquarters, freshly elected senator Hilary
Clinton echoes the sentiments of her future colleagues on Capitol Hill,
calling Florida "a hurricane-addled hellhole full of scheming Cuban
immigrants." "Learn English already, you banana boat bums," Clinton added.
As a result of the Florida screw-up, the House and Senate decreed a new
election will take place in early December. This time, ballots in each state
will be tabulated by robots.
"It is clear that our human vote-counting system is too inherently flawed,"
said Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. "The presence of these new,
superior robot mast- err, I mean - tabulators will ensure 100% accuracy."
"Remember," said Hastert, "every vote counts, especially if it's counted by
robots."
Dynamiting will begin in Florida next Wednesday, after which the state will
be completely geographically separated from the United States.
"After that, they're on their own," said Hastert. "I hope they sink."

Medievalist

Nov. 10, 2000, 09:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Duffy:
I received this email from a relative today. . .
<snip>
Dynamiting will begin in Florida next Wednesday, after which the state will
be completely geographically separated from the United States.
"After that, they're on their own," said Hastert. "I hope they sink."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would really make horse people unhappy if they had to cross H2O to get to the WEF...I think the gulfcoast series would become a lot more popular.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bertie

Nov. 10, 2000, 10:35 PM

It's hard to believe that anyone in the modern world would rather have a few people they've never heard of (the electoral college) elect their president, rather than the majority of the people.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
well obviosly NOT because the Palm Beachers who voted AND walked away from the voting booth didn't notice they had made a mistake until someone TOLD them!!!!!! They didn't READ it?? An arrow pointing directly at the name of the person not a quarter of an inch away??? They couldn't "handle" the voting themselves and now they want the country to stand still while they figure it all out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What they couldn't "handle" were the intricacies of the ballots they were given. The act of voting should not be a test of motor skills.

That said, those 19,000 erroneous votes are a miniscule percentage of the total voting population of more than 100 million Americans. If the president was chosen by a majority vote of the people, that small percentage would probably not effect the final outcome of the election. But because of the electoral college, those 19,000 errors will have a significant effect on the election, causing ALL of Florida's 25 electoral votes (4.6% of the total electoral college) to possibly vote against what the majority of Florida voters intended.

[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 11-10-2000).]

Bertie

Nov. 11, 2000, 01:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pacificsolo:
....even as a Bush supporter, I want the person the country has elected to win, get the presidency. In other words, as much as I like Bush, if he is not the legitimate winner, I do not want him running our country for the simple fact that it would rock the country's trust in a valuable and much needed process....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I so agree with you on this, pacificsolo! Even though we disagree on our choice for President, I totally agree with your sentiment. Even if we disagree with the choice of the people, we can try again in four years. The most important thing is that the will of the majority of the people is realized; that the process is honest and truly representative of the people's choice.

pwynnnorman

Nov. 11, 2000, 06:25 AM

Snowbird! Two-thirds of the country did NOT vote for Bush--unless you define "the country" as LAND. The map is all full of Bush red because of he carried the states with small populations, while Gore carried those with larger populations. That's why Gore won the popular vote, albeit by a small margin.

Meanwhile, though, on abolishing the electoral college? That will NEVER HAPPEN. There's no way in cain Republicans will allow the popular vote to elect presidents because then they'd have even less of a chance to get a candidate into office: there are more poor that rich, remember?

Which is really just as well, IMO. There does need to be a balance. Governing by popularity is like government at the local level: a morass of ignorance, incompetence, vested-interest decisionmaking and ego-driven territorialism.

[Well, at least as long as most of the politicians are men. Elect more women and I may change my mind about local/state politics--I swear to y'all again: I've SEEN it and it is scary!]

woodbern

Nov. 11, 2000, 08:50 AM

We've all seen local and state government. It is scary. So is Washington telling us every move to make...

wtywmn4

Nov. 11, 2000, 09:21 AM

Thanks for the levity Snowbird. Soooo since it seems most agree our system is antiquated at best, and we want the popular vote to count? We have no president to put in place, so as a country can we go on strike?

Jumphigh83

Nov. 11, 2000, 10:18 AM

The ballot as a "test" of motor skills?????The practice ballot went out LONG before the elections, it was designed by a DEMOCRAT and these are the SAME people that can work eight bingo cards and never miss a call but can not figure out how to follow an arrow to the correct hole??!! Come on...can you say cop out?? Make the weeping from the algore contingent STOP! Take it like a MAN. Enough sniveling already.

[This message has been edited by Jumphigh83 (edited 11-11-2000).]

Smiles

Nov. 11, 2000, 10:26 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erin:
I was talking about this with my mom last night... she worked for the Nixon campaign in 1960 (?), when he lost to JFK by a "razor-thin" margin. Well, the esteemed Richard M. Daley was mayor in Chicago (where I'm from) at that time, and he just conveniently lost a bunch of votes from Republican precincts so that JFK would carry Illinois, and therefore, the election.

That was out-and-out fraud, but Nixon decided not to pursue it "for the good of the country". (Not sure Nixon should exactly be a role model, but...)

Frankly, I'm torn. I think it would be terrible for Bush to be elected by mistake. But I hate to see this drag on and divide people even more than they already are.

*Sigh* Who knew things could get this complicated?[/QUOTE

Hey ERIN what if Nixon was the third gunmen on the grassey knoll??? Maybe just maybe Nixon new something bad was going to happen to Kennedy thats why he didn't won that election?

Pat Ness

Nov. 11, 2000, 11:46 AM

Well, I don't know anyone directly who worked with the Nixon campaign, but I heard that the Republican's dropped it because they had also done some crooked voting in southern Illinois, so a recount was only going to prove that both parties were crooked.

jjumper

Nov. 11, 2000, 11:57 AM

GOOOOOOOOO BUSH!!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

spfarm

Nov. 11, 2000, 12:21 PM

I haven't read this whole post yet, so forgive me if this has already been covered. One thing this election has shown us is that we have become a nation strongly divided. Almost 100 million people voted in this election and only 200 thousand seperates the popular vote. The map of the United States clearly shows that the heart of this country went the conservative route and heavly populated areas favored the liberal vote.
What do you think will happen to this country if we continue to be so seperate? Will we have another civil war? How can a nation as a whole survive when we have such strong differences?

BlueGooPonyShampoo

Nov. 11, 2000, 12:27 PM

Why aren't more FL democrats expressing their anger & frustration at their own party officials? You know, the ones who were responsible for putting the party faithful vote in such jeopardy? The ones who approved in advance that "undecipherable" ballot. It seems to me that the angst those voters feel is being directed towards those "meanie" republicans rather than where the blame should really rest.

Hattie

Nov. 11, 2000, 12:39 PM

Interesting note - I live in northern Florida and the paper said today that 22,000 Duval county ballots were thrown out because people also voted for 2 presidential candidates. Their ballot is a booklet with 2 pages of candidates. Well evidently 22,000 voters thought they had to vote for a president on EACH page! Duval county was majority Bush, so this just adds more to the mix! I hope EVERYBODY pays attention to the sample ballot next time and READS the instructions. What a mess!

BlueGooPonyShampoo

Nov. 11, 2000, 12:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by HATTIE:
... 22,000 Duval county ballots were thrown out because people also voted for 2 presidential candidates. Their ballot is a booklet with 2 pages of candidates. Well evidently 22,000 voters thought they had to vote for a president on EACH page! Duval county was majority Bush, so this just adds more to the mix!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think any re-vote should take place (yes, even if that means that republicans don't get to contribute to the outcome).

If the outcome of this election is so important to them now, why wasn't it at least worth a double-check in the voting booth on election day? Why didn't these voters view the ballot ahead of time when it was made available? Why didn't they ask questions at their polling place before it was too late? I think they disenfranchised themselves.

Snowbird

Nov. 11, 2000, 07:45 PM

Just like now, it was a can of worms. Now if they recount the other four states it may solve the Florida problem.

Strangely, Daly's Dad dicovered a whole bunch of votes that hadn't been counted when the polls closed. These boxes were then counted after the reports had been sent in...sound familiar.

I think the point is that nothing has been done from now to then to pervent such problems. On the news they say that this same butterfly ballot is used in Illinois.

There is still a possibility that if all the votes are recounted and enough errors are corrected we could wind up with each candidate getting 269 in the Electorial count. Now wouldn't that be special! Then I guess they could elect Nader as the compromise candidate.

Kryswyn

Nov. 11, 2000, 10:22 PM

originally posted by Snowbird: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Personally I used to think the Electoral system was unnecessary. This election proved it's not true. It was a brilliant idea that has sustained our freedom. Look at the map after it is colored in Gore/Bush.

What do you see even in Florida two thirds of the country voted for Bush. The cities and over-populated areas went for Gore. Do you seriously believe that the best government would come from the opinions of the city versus those who raise our food in the breadbasket. The Electoral college guarantees an equalizing of all the segments and doesn't give ultimate authority to those who only deal with city problems and jobs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fail to see how the electoral college equalizes anything. I live in VA, I voted for Gore. Since more Virginians are Republican, Bush will receive my (albeit minute) portion of the VA electoral vote. Well I don't want him to have it! As I see it, my vote was meaningless because VA is so far to the right, Gore never made more than a token effort to campaign here. If every person's vote truly counted, than the candidates would work hard for EVERY vote, in EVERY state. When I lived in Hawaii (heavily Democratic) we NEVER as far as I remember had a GOP Pres Candidate come out to work the state. Did either Bush or Gore go to Alaska or Hawaii this time?? I don't know. Both states are so far removed from DC and have such a small number of electoral votes, they're not worth a candidate's time.

Becca

Nov. 11, 2000, 10:37 PM

By what PERCENT is Gore winning the popular vote??

Jumphigh83

Nov. 12, 2000, 11:37 AM

Kryswyn (NOT A FLAME) then you don't really understand the electoral college. AOL has a good summary of the process and it is really understandable. (even though they are probably ,like all the press, extraordinarily liberal) It is so the smaller (populus) states aren't mowed down by the coasts. I can't do the philosophy justice but read it yourself and see if it is any clearer. Don't go psycho on me, I am not trying to flame.

pwynnnorman

Nov. 12, 2000, 12:50 PM

I thought Kryswyn made an excellent point, regardless of the old function of the electoral college. It's true that today's presidential campaign goes (and cares) only where the electoral votes go. I suspect that changing the system wouldn't bring them to Hawaii more often without some assistance (like a huge convention held down there which brought in even more people, not just the limited number of residents), but it is a shame how they ignore the small states if their not Super Tuesday ones.

Woodbern, some level of government is going to more-or less run your life, one way or another. The question is, who is more likely to do it better? (No, not and never flawlessly, or even terribly well--just BETTER than the alternative)? Who gets elected to local office and what are their qualifications? Maybe where you live that's not an issue. But given where I lived, and have lived, it sure as heck is!

At least the sheer cost of living in DC as well as in one's home state ensures to some extent that educated, more-or-less well rounded and worldly individuals will be making important decisions. Nothing can protect a populace from its bureaucrats, of course, but--and I'm sorry to speak coarsely, but I'm doing so to make a point--there's just no way I'd sit quietly while a bunch of potentially ignorant, local hicks decided MY fate!

At least the potentially ignorant hick they may have elected to represent them in DC had to do a LITTLE bit more than send a few contracts this way or that to get elected.

Snowbird

Nov. 12, 2000, 03:06 PM

Well Kryswynn it evens out! I am a Republican and voted for Bush but New Jersey went for Gore because of our big city votes.

Don't you see that the rural areas where there are farmers are never going to beat a popular vote from the city, so they would never be represented. There just are not enough people living in those areas compared to people who live 10 deep in the city.

I was active in the Nixon campaign, and the Republican Party. The Daly family earned it's priority in the Democratic party because they could deliver their districts and state. The boxes were found after the results from that area had been sent in. I believe they were democratic votes and they were counted which gave JFK the edge he needed.

Perhaps, if Nixon had not conceded we wouldn't have this problem today because they would be no butterfly forms. However, since there is a 6% margin of error anyway in all states and districts, if you are going to recount manually then you have to do the Republican districts too and find their 6% errors. So the entire state must be counted.

Now, it is possible that there are hundreds of thousands of votes in New York and California by illegal aliens who have registered without having to show their birth certificate. We can find those. And, there are 6 or 7 close states they need to be recounted too to be fair.

If we do all that who will ever trust and election again. It will do irreparable harm to both candidates and the system. Surely, no one was so naive as to think the system in place was 100% accurate.