BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush

Subject: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: SeanM
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 06:01 PM

OK, I admit. I'm a liberal Democrat tree-hugging pinko etc. etc. etc...

But I've come to look forward to Our Eventual American President, GWB.

Why? Well, I've got reasons...

1) Late night comics will have TONS of new material (just think back to GB's "subliminable (sic) advertising" speech...), possibly even more amusing than the last 5 years of cigar jokes.

2) America NEEDS a recession, and Republican administrations seem to breed them. What is the track record so far? Every administration since 1916 or somesuch? In any case... a recession will help trim back the .com excesses and get the market forces back into reality.

3) 4 years of GWB, Republican will very likely equal 8 years of unnamed democrat following, as well as a Democrat House and Senate. This may not be a GOOD idea, but it could be interesting, at least.

And finally...

4) A new musical youth movement! Think about it... Nixon and kin spawned the folk revival and the attendant movements. Reagan presided over the explosion of American political punk rock. Bush presided over the raw discontent of rap. What did we get from Democrats? Disco (Carter), electronica, faux swing and Limp Bizkit (Clinton)? Bring on the conservatives! We need a real enemy to inspire a new music! Personally, I'm really hoping for a rebirth of traditional folk. With groups like the Young Dubliners, Great Big Sea and a host of other bands... it's a hope...

Anyway, no real point to this I guess. Just raving...

SeanM

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Troll
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 06:10 PM

The folk revival started in the late '40's and early '50's and the boom came in '57 & '58 . A little early for Nixon, I'm afraid. Unless you are counting the period when he was Vice-President under Eisenhower.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Troll
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 06:13 PM

BTW The Florida Supreme Court granted Gores suit for a recount so he'll probably be able to "find" enough votes to win.
It would sure as hell be funny if he couldn't.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: SeanM
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 06:14 PM

True... but it really came to be a cultural fad during the later years. 'sides, folk's never really completely died off or gone away - it's had the tendency to absorb some of what's going on around it and keep plugging along...

M

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 06:31 PM

As I heard it they're going to have another look at all the votes that the machines didn't read as having holes, in all the countiesd, not just the ones that were Gorish.

Which they shoudl have done weeks ago. That means it's down to what the voters actually wanted. What a revolutionary idea. There's no reason at all why this should particuloarly favour Gore rather than Bush - ubnless of course more people across the whole state did in fact vote for him.

Seems fair to me. It'll probably be better for the Denmocrats of course if Bush gets in, because they can expect to make a killing next time there's an election.

But whoever gets in, this way they'll get in because they actually won those elctoral college votes fair and square, which is good for democracy.

Unless of course Jeb Bush and the Florida state assembly decide to throw the election out the window if it goes the wrong way, and appoint the electors directly, which is supposed to be on the cards according to the news I was watching...

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 06:58 PM

Last night we were practicing for today's gig. At the end of a medley, the fiddler swung into Yellow Rose of Texas and we stayed with him until he shouted, "In honor of George Bush!" And we all crashed to a halt, amid cries of "We'll play 'Farewell to Nixon' but we won't do anything in Bush's honor."

It was funny because I don't think any of us had known each other's political positions. I was quite pleased with us, frankly.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 07:02 PM

I just had a thought: why doesn't somebody build a machine that is sensitive enough to "read" dimpled ballots? I'll bet if some sharp engineering students had started on this right after the election, they could have had it ready by now. It would put an end to the "subjectivity" that the Republicans are complaining about.

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: SeanM
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 07:09 PM

Actually, they DO have more accurate machines - OCR that require pencils rather than punches being a primary example. The 'chad' machines are just substantially cheaper to use, though I'd imagine that we'll be seeing a shift away from them after this debacle.

The one fear I have for a Bush administration at this point is no longer any worries about "conservative agendas" or Supreme Court appointees - the deadlock in the Senate should temper any moves in that way. What I worry about is that the administration will be SO boring that it completely removes ANYONE from wanting to be involved in the process... Pablum Presidency, as it were... As above, it'd be interesting to see a re-mobilization of the musical culture against status quo, and if it ain't giving anything to protest against, it ain't gonna create much of a movement.

Sean

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: kendall
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 07:12 PM

Why not just sharpen the points of the probes?

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 07:16 PM

SeanM: No, you misunderstood. What I meant was, why don't they build a machine that can read the ballots that were already "punched" (sort of) in the November election in Florida? The very same ballots that they are now trying to hand-count? So they wouldn't HAVE to hand count them.

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: SeanM
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 07:23 PM

Ah... OK. Actually, a rather annoying point that occasionally gets brought up is that despite all predictions one way or the other, and no matter how accurate the machinery, the margin that one or the other has lead by has always been within the 'acceptable' margin of error for even the best of machines...

*sigh*... What can you do? I rather like the idea of splitting the Florida electoral votes and awarding Bush the one extra (to reflect his possible "win"), but that'd give Gore the presidency, so it's out...

Oh well.

M

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 07:45 PM

I'm afraid he'll excute me when he runs out of minorities. barry

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 08:33 PM

"and no matter how accurate the machinery, the margin that one or the other has led by has always been within the 'acceptable' margin of error for even the best of machines... "

There is no reason why a manual count done fairly and carefully should have any margin of error at all. There is only one objectively correct answer, and it is lying there in the piles of ballot papers, waiting to be identified.

If the paper is flat at the relevant point, it's not a vote; if it's pushed in so that the people counting - representing both parties - can agree that the voter pushed that button, it's a vote. For Gore or for Bush. Or for Nader or whoever. It's not that difficult.P>

But paper and pencil and a mark against the candidate's name is so much easier to count. Human being are still best when it come down to it.

Still I gather it's anticipated that the Florida state assembly is in fact going to ignore the actual voting, and appoint its own electors to vote for Bush. Unless of course it turns out that, when the counting of the popular vote is finished (assuming they haven't found a way of stopping it being done), it shows that Bush did actually win. But clearly they think it's more likely that in reality he lost.

Which means it'll all be down to Congress one way or anther. Or of course some of the electors might decide to break ranks...

In another thread I was wishing that Mark Twain was around to comment on all this. It's occurred to me that he was around back in 1876, the last time something like this happened - so does anyone know what he had to say about it then? I suspect he was fairly rude about it all.

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Sorcha
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 08:42 PM

Unfortuantely, one needs to be at least semi literate to vote, no matter how the voting process works. Of course, we all should be at least semi literate, but many of us are ovbiously not........I am really fed up with political "jokes" and stupid people. Just get the operation over, will you please Dr. and stop telling me how bad it's going to be. I'll decide how bad it is after it is over. If I'm still alive..........

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Peter T.
Date: 09 Dec 00 - 01:57 PM

As someone who spent a lot of time in American high schools as a kid, it is a bit unnerving to see this struggle between the class president (whom everyone despised) and the class clown (whom everyone liked but never respected). I suppose that is why there hasn't been rioting in the streets -- can you imagine what would have happened if there was a charismatic candidate for the poor who was in the situation Al Gore is in? Or a seriously fascist demagogue in the place of George W.? I have been in countries where both of these have happened (including demagogues for the poor) and it is way less pretty than this.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 09 Dec 00 - 09:49 PM

About being literate or semi-literate to vote: Isn't that why the symbols, elephant for republican, and donkey for democrat, were invented?

I remember when I was a little kid and accompanied my dad into the voting booth -- everybody used plain paper ballots back then, and marked an X in a box -- I saw that the ballot was divided into columns, one column per party. If you wanted to vote a "straight ticket", i.e. vote the same party for every office, there was a box at the top of the column where you could indicate that, and you didn't have to put an X next to every candidate's name. Also, at the top of each column was an animal symbol. (I remember one symbol was an eagle, but I don't remember what party that was.) I asked my dad why they printed the symbol and he said, "It's for people who can't read." This would have been in Missouri in the 1950's.

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: MarkS
Date: 09 Dec 00 - 10:00 PM

Can't help but wonder if the chads became dimpled, pregnant, hanging, swinging, whatever, as a consequence of the ballots having been run through the vote reading machine twice already.

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: SeanM
Date: 09 Dec 00 - 10:53 PM

Well, MarkS, in theory there's really no way for that to happen. The way they were read previously was for the ballot to be placed over a light source, and the votes to be tallied off of where the light showed through. Nothing to further fold, spindle or mutilate the ballots.

What DOES happen is the reason for the contention - the 'chads' that were not completely disloged come loose and foul up other ballots by covering spots on other ballots, getting in the drive wheels and jamming things, etc.

I'm going with McGrath on this one... There's really no reason why a full manual recount shouldn't bring things to an even closer count of what was really voted for than the current machine votes. With the current (hopeful) recount of the 'uncountable' votes, which were dismissed for mostly technical reasons with the machinery, then things will probably be as close to 'voter will' as it's possible to get.

But... still... "What if they held an inauguration and nobody came?" Hmmm...

M

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: GUEST,Betty
Date: 10 Dec 00 - 12:13 AM

Until Bush became governor, what governor presided over more executions than any other? Texas Gov. Ann Richards, Liberal Democrat...

To show how tough he was on crime, Bill Clinton flew back to Arkansas in the midst of his 1992 presidential campaign to approve the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a man so brain-damaged that he put aside the dessert of his last meal for later…Rector had no idea what being executed meant...

Strange, I don't hear much of a fuss made when we Democrats execute people...

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Troll
Date: 10 Dec 00 - 02:01 AM

Don't put too much faith in Optical Character Readers as the cure. I spent the last 3 1/2 years prior to retiring working with OCRs. They are great machines but they are not foolproof. I have seen them mis-read clearly marked bar codes, sending them to the wrong bins repeatedly.
As far as manual counts, people are not as accurate as machines on extremely long counts nor are they as fast. There have been studies done on this subject. I don't know what they are but Skeptic does and I'm sure he will happily expound at great length on the subject when he returns from his camping trip with the Cub Scouts.
If he's still sane.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: DougR
Date: 10 Dec 00 - 12:23 PM

McGrath: recommended reading: the Constitution of the United States.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 10 Dec 00 - 01:38 PM

Just to harp on the folk revival point, I think Troll has it: It became a cultural fad long before the Nixon presidency. The Weavers late 40's (or 50,51'?) recording of Irene, Goodnight/Tzena, Tzena crossed over to appear in the pop charts, and all of a sudden folk groups became a lot more "in." In the early 60's revival network TV saw fit to cash in on the phenomenon with the show, "Hootenanny." It seemed like every college campus had its own versions of The Kingston Trio/Limelighters type groups, and a guy with an acoustic guitar could have the same chances of getting laid as a rock guitarist.

-chanteyranger

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 00 - 02:00 PM

"people are not as accurate as machines on extremely long counts" (troll) - so you have more people doing the counting, and the counts aren't extremely long.....

"McGrath: recommended reading: the Constitution of the United States."(DougR) I have read that as it happens. Interesting stuff. (Though I never understood how the bit about everyone being equal could be interpreted as meaning slavery was ok, for nearly 100 years. Still, that's judges for you.) But I can't remember there being anything about how machines are better than human beings when it comes to counting votes.

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Charlie Baum
Date: 10 Dec 00 - 09:37 PM

Given that Mudcat is ostensibly a folk-music community, may I suggest that the many versions of "John Henry" have a lot to say about the preference of manual labor over machines.

--Charlie Baum

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: DougR
Date: 10 Dec 00 - 10:47 PM

Nope, McGrath, don't believe they had machines then. The part I was suggesting that you review was the part about State legislatures responsibilites relating to naming electors.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Michael in Swansea
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 09:49 AM

Do these re-counts really matter?
Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the final say of who becomes President up to the Electoral College and that they don't have to follow the "popular" vote in each state?

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 10:33 AM

We are having our first coup d'état! I'm waiting for other governments to refuse to recognize the illegal presidency of GW, and write straight to Al Gore. Isn't that what we do when someone illegally steals an election in other countries? Oh sorry, then we have to send in the CIA to overthrow them... and they can't operate on American soil... hmmm, quite a dilemna! Maybe we should send Bush on a trip somewhere? I mean, even the Ivoirians (my home country) are doing better!

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: DougR
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 12:28 PM

Michael: What hasn't been decided is which candidate will receive the electorial votes of Florida. Whoever receives those votes will be President of the U. S.

Gore definitely received more popular votes than Bush did, but the popular vote in America does not determine who wins the election.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Kim C
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 12:34 PM

I wish Barbara Bush would run for President...

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 12:49 PM

And it seems pretty certain that Gore got more votes in Florida as well, which was why they had to stop them being counted properly...

But if the state legislatures have the right to appoint the electors, if they don't like what the voters decided, why bother to have an election for president anyway? Go back to the way Hamilton wanted it done, all those years ago, where the voters just elect the legislatures and then let them take care of business.

Now if it had all been the other way round, and Gore had been a couple of hundred votes ahead on the machine count, can anyone imagine the judges in either Supreme Court having come to the same decisions?

Presumably if a couple of electors vote the wrong way, and Gore gets the Electoral College majority, Congress with it's Repubklican majority will overrule them, and appoint Bush anyway. And then the Supreme Court with its Republican majority will rule that it's legal.

At least with judges making decisions along party lines, you do know where you are.

Incidentally, wasn't there a song "Where will the baby's dimple be?"

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Melani
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 12:53 PM

Charlie B--John Henry beat the steam drill because the soft shale they were cutting through produced a lot of dust that kept clogging up the machinery. Sort of like hanging chads...

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 01:05 PM

As I recall, the U.S. Constitution (paraphrased- not possible to look it up at the moment) sez that the State Legislatures are to set up the process & conditions by which the electors are selected. Sez nothing about the Legislature appointing them directly. Thought Repubs. were the advocates of literal reading of the Constitution without "interpreting" it---- unless its to their political advantage to do so, apparently.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: GUEST,Jay Leno
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 01:17 PM

Bush & Cheney are on the Wizard of Oz ticket. Cheney needs a heart and Bush needs a brain.

do you realize if they pick Colin Powell as sec. of state. it will the Dick, Bush and Colon (sic) sic sic.

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 01:19 PM

Sic sic sic is right! ROTFL!

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: GUEST,MTed,sans-cookie
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 01:51 PM

Since no one else here seems to remember, I must remind you that Nixon, before being Eisenhower's VP, was counsel for HUAC, was involved with railroading Alger Hiss, and figured prominently in the Blacklisting of many actors and musicians, and the prosecution of many others--and he was a Liberal Republican!!

Are you Bush supporters taking down names? For the rest of you, have no doubts, the Bush people, if they come to power, will come down heavy on us all, handing copyrights for traditional songs to big music publishers, then railroading us all for violating copyright laws--your computers will be seized as evidence, and all those song lyrics that you have collected will be heavily fined, and in some cases used to lock you away for a couple years.

For the rest, Mudcat will become a fee based service, taken from Max and placed under the watchful eyes of Troll and whoever else has had the forsight to speak out in defense of GW--of course, the fees will be retroactive, removed directly from your bank account--

If you think that this is a joke, think again, all of the above efforts have already been organized, awaiting only a chief executive sympathetic enough to the music industry to carry it out--

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 06:30 PM

Swansea Mike, just in case it's not clear: Who gets the electoral votes in a given state depends on who won the popular vote in that state. So it is all tied together...

However, would someone (Doug R?) explain to me how the legislature can name a slate of different electors, which are to be presented in the event that Gore is adjudged to have won?

I'm aware that in most states, the electors are not required by law to vote for the candidate that their state gave the most votes to. But how is it possible to bypass entirely the popular vote/electoral votes process?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Skeptic
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 10:08 PM

Mike an Ebbie,

Two states split their electorial ballots based on the popular vote. 25 or so of the rest give all the votes to whoever won the popular vote in the state. The rest don't specify but generally vote forwhoever won the State.

After the Fla. Supreme Court decison, NPR had an interesting analysis of what might happen if the recount was delayed for too long and the Florida legislature certifed electors favorable to Bush. Then the recount gives the State to Gore and the Court certifies a slate of Democratic electors. It all goes to congress to sort out. If they can't decide on which slate to accept, the ultimate authority is the State executive charged with certification of the vote: In Florida's case Sec of State Kathleen Harris. Just to confuse things even more.

More fun facts: Florida law requires that a ballot be counted if the intent of the voter can be determined, and provides no guidelines or standards. Texas law is very specific and includes dimpled or pregnant ballots.

There's an arguement that the Electoral College can meet, vote and elect a President without any electoral representation from Florida.

I haven't found any hard statistics on hand counts. I know that there were a number of studies based on data entry and bar codes. Manual data entry yielded one error per thousand keystrokes, bar codes yielded one error per million. Not sure how that translates into manual counts, plus it dealt with single entry point, not redundant counts.

Neither manual nor automated counts resolves the core issue: that in Florida (and a lot of other States) there are no uniform standards for determining the "intent of the voter". The Canvassing Board in my County (that uses an optical system) is now debating standards for future elections. How much of the circle has to be colored in before the "intent" is clear. What if a voter uses an "X"? Or a check mark. Neither will be picked up by the scanner.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 10:31 PM

In Alaska, the ballot instructions tell you to color in the oval and to press firmly. I have no doubt that even then some people make a check mark or an X. Habits die hard.

Usually that would not be a problem. They just simply wouldn't be counted because the optical scanner doesn't pick it up. However, if there were a very close election where every vote counted, I have no doubt that the state boards would manually go through the uncounted ballots and the checks/Exxes would then count, because the voter's intent would be clear.

If I ever messed up my ballot, I hope I would be secure enough to ask for another but I'm afraid that in my timid past I would've accepted that it's just one vote and I'd blown mine. On the other hand, I hope I would check on the ballot to see what it said to do- I suppose it says?

Skeptic, of course, if Florida's electoral votes were not counted at all, Gore would have the presidency, since he got 267 EV versus 250 something Bush got. So obviously the Republican-heavy legislature won't let that happen.

Quote: Two states split their electorial ballots based on the popular vote. 25 or so of the rest give all the votes to whoever won the popular vote in the state. I didn't know that. Which two states split their electoral votes? I don't believe that Florida is one of them.

One thing I've wanted to comment on: if a hanging chad drops off, that is not a disturbing development: if the square was partially pushed through so that the chad is loose, that is a vote. If it were not pushed against, it would not be loose and would therefore not fall off. If a person would try to make the case that handling them makes a number of chads detach, that wouldn't bode well for the hazards of machine counting as ballots go flipping through. Some very silly things have been bruited about, the last few weeks.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 00 - 10:36 PM

I think we should shift to inexpensive computers, networked, firewalled, and give voters PIN #s when they register. The PIN number gives you the access to a clear, simple, large-font, touch-screen electroballot; ther system never records who voted fro whom, only who voted, period. The ballots are transmitted the minute you click on "OK?" after reviewing your choices, tallied instantly, down tot he last individual. You can vote from anywhere with a TCPIP connection. With a few other safeguards in place such a system would consistently provide >99% accuracy.

And it might be Republ;ican proof to boot!

A

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: DougR
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 12:36 AM

McGrath and Ebbie: Cool down. You're man may still win. If the Supreme Court rules that the count must continue, and no standardized rule for counting the votes is mandated, Gore will probably win. Why? Because at the electorate level (those counting the votes) the Democrats outnumber the Republicans in the majority of the counties by two to one.

So just be calm and see how this all plays out.

If, on the other hand, a FAIR method of counting the votes is required, it's anybody's ballgame.

What do I mean by fair? If the ballot has no discernable penetration by the voter for President, the ballot will be voided. Neither Gore or Bush gets the vote.

Lots of people (including many Mudcatters, ostinsibly, didn't like either candidate and may not have voted for either candidate.)

So is it fair to count a vote for EITHER candidate candidate solely on the basis that the the voter may have voted Republican or Democratic for the other offices listed on the ballot, but might not have voted for either candidate for President? I think not.

Regardless, the American people will rally behind the one who wins the electoral votes in Florida. Our friends in Europe should take comfort in that, because it is true.

If Gore wins, I will not be happy, but I will accept it, and he will be my President. That's just the way it is in this country. We may fight, and disagree, and scream and yell, but at the final counting, we are Americans, and the country will be united. DougR

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 08:42 AM

Who wins is not the main issue.The main issue is that the process by which they win should be fair, and should have not have been manipulated.

Insofar as Bush has actively tried to obstruct any manual recount throughout the state, which seems like a very reasonable and just way of sorting things out in a close election, he has in my view demonstrated that he is unworthy of any kind of office. And I don't like the idea of someone with those kind of ethics in a position to affect all our lives.

I accept that it is quite possible that Gore would have done the same things, and I would feel exactly the same about him if he had.

But what I have really found disconcerting, is the way that people at all levels seem have lined up on all this, not on the basis of what is the fairest way of counting the votes, but on the basis of what is the way of counting the votes which is most likely to favour their preferred candidate.

Imagine that, in advance of an election, there a bunch of people, judges, politicians, ordinary people, had been discussing voting systems, and manual recounts, and how to deal with undervotes abnd pregnant chads and all that stuff.

Is it conceivable that they would have divided in their opinions on such matters along party political lines? When there was no advantage or disadvantage to their party in choosing one way of doing it or another?

And I think that the way that it has been distorted by people who see party advantage as more important than the democratic process, is very depressing and ominous, and far more important than whether it's Fraud W Bush or the Walking Wardrobe in the White House in January.

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Michael in Swansea
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 09:10 AM

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: DougR
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 11:45 AM

Ok, McGrath, YOU suggest a fair way of evaluating each vote! Our whole Supreme Court is currently trying to figure out a way to do it, so if you have a suggestion by all means email them.

It is not a question of whether the votes SHOULD be counted! The question is how can they be FAIRLY counted?

Geeze!

:>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 12:58 PM

Doug, it's pretty clear. Use the very explicit standards enacted in Texas. If they were good enough for Bush to sign into law, they should be good enough to count the ballots that may or may not make him President, I'm thinking.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 01:37 PM

Carrying out a fair count is not difficult. It happens all over the place. It just happened in your northern neighbour.It probably happened in most parts of the USA last month. Bush's advisers know it's not difficult. That's not why they've been jibbing at the idea.

Does anyone doubt that the reason they objected to a manual count was because they wanted to hold on to the wafer-thin majority that they had on the non-manual count.

Doug, you said you don't have double standards, and I believe you. If Gore had been ahead, by however narrow a margin, you would have been against him making any efforts to have a manual recount. I doubt if all that many people in the Bush camp would be with you on that, but fair enough, it's an arguable position, though I'd disagree with it. I'd always be in favour of a manual county in a close vote, regardless of who was ahead or behind, and I'd be very very suspicious of any candidate anywhere who tried to obstruct a recount. The electoral system in my part of the world is far from perfect, but I have never heard of anyone trying to do that.

I doubt if you are the only honest perosn around. All that's needed for a fair count is to get a few honest people who don't have double standards to do the counting. Counting in pairs.

"Fair" need not mean absolutely perfect. In almost every case there really is no problem in determining whether an attempt has been made to vote for a candidate, but there would probably be some cases where a voter had made an attempt, but not effectively enough to register a mark, and they'd be rejected in a manual count. But they'd be the exception. Teams of fair and honest counters wouldn't have any difficulty in reaching an agreed judgement on those kinds of things.

In any case, that is all beside the main point I was trying to make, which was about "the way that people at all levels seem have lined up on all this, not on the basis of what is the fairest way of counting the votes, but on the basis of what is the way of counting the votes which is most likely to favour their preferred candidate."

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 01:37 PM

geeze, indeed.

the fact of the matter is that the republicans were never concerned with a "fair" way of recounting the vote they didnt want them recounted period. A recount was required under florida law and when that was done Gore had the legal right to request a manual recount which the Republicans then fought tooth and nail. To suggest that the Recount will go in Gores favour because there are more democrats doing the recount ignores the fact that in each group doing a recount there are both democrat and republican observers.

There is fairly clear evidence that Gore received the popular vote in florida (the disproportionate Jewish vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach), the number of black voters who were denied the right to vote because Katherine Harris hired a private firm to clean up voters lists that incorrectly listed people as 'felons' thus disenfranchising them. (see article below)

It is total hypocrisy of the Republicans to suggest that the Democrats are now trying to change the rules after the game so to speak when they had no problem illegally altering absentee ballots.

(now we'll see whether the supreme court decides whether your vote counts)

petr

Also, here is a link for the story on how Katherine Harris sought to eliminate black voters from Florida's voting rolls: http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 01:54 PM

Quote: Because at the electorate level (those counting the votes) the Democrats outnumber the Republicans in the majority of the counties by two to one.
Doug R, that's a pretty cynical not to say offensive view, imo. Have we really got to the point that we actually believe and accept that this will be decided by open partisanship and outright chicanery?

I'm still willing to believe that the US Supreme Court will do its utmost to try to appear non-partisan. They don't, I am sure, want to go down in history with that taint attached to this era's court. I hope they will make it possible for us, the people, to accept their decision as being a reasoned one.

The part I don't come close to understanding is how the Republicans/sympathizers can spout their rhetoric in opposing the hand count, not concerned with whether in fact Gore got more votes, only passionately urging the acceptance of a flawed count. They don't seem to care at all whether it's legal.

For me, at this point, I hope Bush gets it- But I suspect it will be the end of the Republican party as we know it. And that ain't bad.

Elva Bontrager

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: GUEST,MTed
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 03:18 PM

Sorry for what I intended to be humor above, it reads like a real paranoid rant rather than a transparent parody of one--

I must admit to being surprised at how civil everyone still is--I will give a special citation of merit to DougR, for continuing to attempt to present his case rationally, in what must seem like a sea of opposition. McGrath should get a certificate of some sort as well, for voicing such clear and educated views, and in the process, keeping the discussion focussed, and keeping us from deteriorating into partisan name calling--

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: DougR
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 03:25 PM

Petr: your comments are well taken, but get it right, por favor. The Republicans did nothing to alter the ballots. They supplied information on ballot APPLICATIONS that was required by Florida law, but was not asked of the requesting voter. No one has ever accused either party of altering ballots.

What the Republicans did was not terribly smart, but it hasn't proven to be illegal.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: (sorta) Why I now love George W. Bush
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Dec 00 - 03:27 PM

Actually, Doug, if I recall, the judges said it was in fact illegal (nobody is supposed to write anything on the applications except the voter or a close family member) but did not necessitate throwing out the ballots.

Alex