US Election

Subject: US Election
From: little john cameron
Date: 11 Nov 00 - 08:16 PM

For them as are no too weel up on the Electoral College,here's a wee help.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm
ljc

Subject: RE: US Election
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Nov 00 - 08:22 PM

Thanks, ljc.

Also, I couldn't get it to let me start a new thread, so if you don't mind I will add this. It came to me from voter.com. Anyone who wants register an opinion on whether there should be new votng in Palm Beach should read this:

Dear Vote.com voter,

Nineteen thousand ballots in Palm Beach County were disqualified because of "double voting," and some are blaming ballots that may have been confusing. Meanwhile, Pat Buchanan says he thinks that thousands of Gore supporters in the county accidentally voted for him due to the ballots. Some Democrats are calling for a new election, while Republicans say that the Election Day results should be final.

Should there be a new election in Palm Beach County?

Log on to http://www.vote.com and vote on that question, and we'll e-mail your opinion to the candidates to let them know how you feel. Please make your vote count, and ask your friends and family to vote too!

Sincerely,

Your friends at Vote.com http://www.vote.com

Subject: RE: US Election
From: Oversoul
Date: 11 Nov 00 - 09:18 PM

Since when is Pat Buchanan an authority on anything of political significance? I am laughing, are you serious?

Subject: RE: US Election
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 00 - 09:20 PM

You mean you had an election over there?

Subject: RE: US Election
From: Oversoul
Date: 11 Nov 00 - 09:32 PM

No, just an ejaculation in your hair. Looks neat!

Subject: RE: US Election
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Nov 00 - 09:44 PM

We're basically screwed this time, but a lot of what has happened is because in arguably the most technically advanced country on the planet, we're using 50's or earlier technology on a majority of voting machines!!!

Let's cancel the order for half a dozen friggin' new tanks and invest in the PROCESS......by equipping every precinct in the country with new, standardized, reliable, and easy to use voting machines!!!!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: US Election
From: MK
Date: 11 Nov 00 - 10:10 PM

Something I've not been able to get any info on and was wondering......What was the percentage of actual voter turn-out across the nation for this election, compared to say...the last two elections? Higher? Lower?

And separately, given all the name calling and accusations flowing back and forth from each camp.....do people really think the Congress and the House will work in a bi-partisan way and "come together"? I mean even when there is a clear mandate to the winner, it's like pulling teeth to get any legislation passed, because the President is of one party and control of the house and senate is of the other - but, especially in light of the recent events in Florida, seems like the US government will be even more deadlocked once this is all resolved and bygones will most definitely not be. Being a Canuck observer, please tell me if I am I missing something?

Subject: RE: US Election
From: GUEST,Barry Finn
Date: 11 Nov 00 - 10:30 PM

Wouldn't ya know it, Big Business loves a deadlock. They can carry on in whatever fashion they'd like & everyone's to busy to rock any boats, it's also a great time for mice to play. With such a neck & neck horse('s ass)race I can't see how in the world there'll be any forward motion in the next 4 yrs. Infant mortality is way up, illiteracy is on the rise, the voting crisis is in need of an overview by a third world investigating committee & violations of human rights are growing. Welcome to the United Republic of Banana States. Sorry, living in limbo for the past week has got me going ape. Barry

Subject: RE: US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 00 - 11:06 PM

Michael K.,

My understanding is that this year's voter turnout was greater than in recent elections.

As far as what's going to happen during the next four years is concerned, I think it's impossible to try to predict.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this or not, but the world seems to have changed in such a way that what used to work for us (or at least what we thought worked), no longer does. And we haven't yet figured out how to operate effectively within the new paradigm. I think we're figuring it out as we go along.

Carol

Subject: RE: US Election
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Nov 00 - 03:12 AM

I think this will turn out to be a good thing in the end. The system of Presidential elections has been flawed for many years but usually did eventually give you one person (man).

The fact that this time it has not, has highlighted all the divisions that would tend to die down for four years or so.

Is it not time to seriously examime those divisions and devise a system that takes count of them? One that may have the possibility of producing a good man/woman/ethnic minority, leader. Not the best 'horse trader'.

Subject: RE: US Election
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 00 - 07:02 PM

Shambles, I agree with you. I think this process is wonderful. Voters have had to wake up.

I think the American public seems to like gridlock. They always manage to vote in favor of it. One theory advanced is that it keeps one party or president from becoming too powerful.

One mandate for this election is that the people may that want partisanship and bickering. Well at least it keeps the public informed and not snoozing in front of TV re-runs.

Frank

Subject: RE: US Election
From: paddymac
Date: 12 Nov 00 - 07:48 PM

I think the voter turnout, nationwide, was in the vicinity of 68 million. I don't know what the total registration is, nor the number of technically elegible persons who failed to register. Florida, with a population a bit over 15 million, had a turnout of 6 million (+/-).

I don't wish to speak for anyone in Palm Beach County, or elsewhere for that matter, but I think I would be a bit reluctant to go on national TV (inter-national may be more accurate for purposes of this story) and say that I was one of that minority of voters too stupid to read the ballot correctly. But, then, lots of otherwise seemingly normal people do some really stupid things when you point a camera at them. A moment in the limelight, however brief, can be amazingly stupefying.

While watching a brief segment of the Alabama/Auburn football game yesterday, I nearly died laughing when the network flashed a ballot on the screen enabling properly equipped viewers to vote for the "player of the game". The thing that struck me as so funny, is that the "ballot" presented was a "butterfly ballot", the same form at the center of the fuss in Palm Beach County. I wonder - is the average Alabama or Auburn football fan significantly more gifted than those Palm Beach Countians who could not comprehend the same ballot form?

Jeez, the universe seems filled with the most profound questions these days. Maybe society hangs in the balance. Ah, well, maybe a pint of Arthur's finest will facilitate cogitation.

Subject: RE: US Election
From: DougR
Date: 13 Nov 00 - 12:34 PM

Paddymack: I dont' think it is because those voters are stupid (though I referred to them as Dumbos in another thread ...a term I later apologized for using). I think it is just that their candidate did not win the majority of the votes the first time around. So they cry, FOUL! Even without their encouragement, state law required that a recount be made. It was completed, and their candidate STILL did not win! Those voters (IMHO) were willing to go on national television and allow themselves to be viewed as being (what some of us think they must be)in order to force additional counting.

Letters to the Editor in our local newspaper today were overwhelmingly of the opinion that those voters should bear the responsibility for their mistake. One writer pointed out that his ten and twelve year old daughters had no difficulty looking at the ballot that was printed in the newspaper, and following the arrow to the name of the candidate of choice. Yet, when it is pointed out that the ballots were mailed to people in advance, and no objections were voiced against them, the Democrats say the "people" were denied their opportunity to vote, because the ballot was too difficult to understand.

Neither does it matter that the vast majority of the voters in that area had no difficulty understanding how to use the ballot.

And yet the Democrats declare that all they are interested in is fairness. It is not atypical that an administration populated with people who do not know the true meaning of what the word, "is" is, would have similar difficulty defining the word, "fair".

DougR

Subject: RE: US Election
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 00 - 12:51 PM

all I know is, if the first results had shown Bush a few hundred votes behind, with lots of Bush supporters claiming that THEY had not been able to vote properly due to faulty ballot arrangement, the rhetoric would have been just as loud...(and yes, Dems would have been saying "lets stop this silliness and accept the rusults)...

as the old saw goes....

"It all depends on whose ox is being Gored"

(my capital 'G' on 'Gored' *grin*)

Lets have ONE careful recount, and then all shut up...even if it is a one vote margin!

Subject: RE: US Election
From: Kim C
Date: 13 Nov 00 - 12:59 PM

I think someone, and at this point I really don't care who because I didn't vote for either, needs to show some gentlemanliness and sportsmanship and concede the race. I am somewhat distrustful of anyone who wants this prize so badly they are willing to perpetuate this gridlock.

Ditto on the standardized voting machines.

Subject: RE: US Election
From: DougR
Date: 13 Nov 00 - 02:19 PM

Kim C: Neither candidate can, or should, concede until all the overseas ballots have been counted. I'm sure you would agree with that. That won't be possible until Friday.

I do agree, though, that whoever is declared the loser when the absentee vote is counted, should concede.

DougR

Subject: RE: US Election
From: Melodeon
Date: 13 Nov 00 - 03:17 PM

Here in the UK we have a very sophisticated voting machine.It is a pencil and a piece of paper containing the names of all the candidates in alphabetical order. All o9ne need do is to put a cross in the box next to your preferred candidate. Later when ALL the polls have closed they are then counted BY HAND. This system has yet to let us down and I can recommend it.

Viv

Subject: RE: US Election
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 13 Nov 00 - 03:19 PM

Doug, a minor point, entirely off the subject. In reference to Clinton's infamous quote, people tend to forget that he was the one who DID know the meaning of "is". He was being questioned about his prior deposition testimony, in which he had been asked "Is there an improper relationship (with Monica Lewinsky)?" He had answered "No," which was entirely correct, since the relationship had ended by that point. When asked later whether his answer had been truthful (i.e., whether he had perjured himself in the deposition), he responded that it "depends on what the definition of 'is' is". This was an awkwardly worded answer, but it was truthful, since the lawyers taking his deposition had been artless enough to phrase their question in the present tense. It was THEY -- the Republican-financed lawyers -- who didn't seem to know what the meaning of "is" is. [Remember, lawyers live and die by the precision of their words; I hope your party asked these guys for a refund.]

This is not an attempt to open THAT can of worms again, but the way people intentionally take this particular quote out of context in order to twist its meaning is a little grating. Regards -- WS

Subject: RE: US Election
From: DougR
Date: 13 Nov 00 - 03:50 PM

WS: I won't argue the point, I agree that that subject has pretty well been hashed over. I don't believe, however, that the lawyers asking the questions were probably privy to information regarding when the impropriety began and stopped. It was a poorly worded question, I agree, but perhaps Clinton could merely have answered "no" to that question, and saved himself a lot of barbs about what the meaning of the word "is" is.

:>)

DougR

Subject: RE: US Election
From: Kim C
Date: 13 Nov 00 - 03:51 PM

DougR--- That is fair enough. But I think they need to quit it with the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. I'm not convinced the overseas ballots are going to make that much difference. But we'll see. :)

Subject: RE: US Election
From: DougR
Date: 13 Nov 00 - 03:59 PM

Yep, Karen C, you may be right, but I'll bet if either party suggested that the overseas ballots not be counted, you would see an uproar from the other party. I think they are important, and they well may be the key to determining who wins the election. The unknown factor, I think, is how much impact the hand counting of ballots in those Democratic dominated counties, where counters are attempting to second guess what the voter intended, will have on the election.

DougR

Subject: RE: US Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 00 - 05:22 PM

"if either party suggested that the overseas ballots not be counted, you would see an uproar from the other party."

So how does it come about that there have been all these suggestions that the "losing" candudate" is a bad sport and undemocratic because he hasn't conceded in advance of these votes being counted?

Is there any rationale for a system under which postal votes in the USA don't have to be in on election day, like everywhere else?

Subject: RE: US Election
From: paddymac
Date: 13 Nov 00 - 11:14 PM

DougR - Well spoken, Sir. I did hear a press report earlier this evening that litigants in one suit (I think in PBC) are asking the judge to recuse himself because he allegedly made some comment as to the abilities of those voters who now claim they could not decipher the ballot properly.

As suggested by several commenters, what we are really seeing is what I refer to as the "problem of parity". The more evenly matched opponents are, the nastier they tend to fight. When one or the other has a substabtial margin, there is generally more genteel conduct. With regard to the contest at hand, I can't help thinking of that allegedly Chineese adage: "be careful what you ask for; you might just get it."

Subject: RE: US Election
From: DougR
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 03:17 AM

True, Paddymac, and I fear we are gonna get it. I heard a talking head on MSNBC say tonight that the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the Democrats know how to manupilate a situation like this, and the Republicans do not (paraphrasing).

I think what he was implying was, the Democrats, when it comes to dirty tricks, are miles ahead of the Republicans. The Democrats will do anything they think necessary to win, and they are willing to doing it!

They espouse "fair play," and fully expect "fair play," from the Republicans, but don't feel "fair play" applies to them.

Winning is the thing, and they really don't care what is required of them to win!

I suppose, if one believes strongly enough in one's cause, it can be rationilized.

For example, in Nazi Germany prior to WW2, those that believed in the cause of the Facist regime, probably rationalized that what they were doing was in the best interest of their country, even the world.

It is impossible for me to imagine why they felt that way, but I guess they did.

It is also impossible for me to understand why the Democrat's thirst for power is so strong, they will pull the shenagigans they have pulled in Florida.

I guess they believe their own rheteric: Bush will appoint Judges to the Supreme Court who will cause the destruction of our country; Roe vs Wade will be overturned; old folks will be deprived of their Social Security; no one will be provided assistance to purchase prescription drugs, etc. What rubbish! Regardless of who is president, these programs will be implemented, because the voters have indicated that they want this type of assurance and relief. I think the current election will further sour our young people's attitude toward politics. It will make them them more cynical, and less trusting of the political process, and I can't say I blame them.

DougR

Subject: RE: US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 03:23 AM

I'm pretty sure that what I'm about to say is going to sound bad in any number of ways. I apologise in advance.

This discussion, which has now consumed half a dozen or more threads in the Mudcat forum, seems about as productive to me as trying to push string, and a hell of a lot less attractive.

Rant off.

Carol

Subject: RE: US Election
From: robroy
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 05:04 AM

It would be ironic if Bush were to lose by 137 votes as I understand that is the number of executions he has authorised since being governer of Texas. Keep your voters live but you don't need to worry too much about the candidates

Robroy

Subject: RE: US Election
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 08:44 AM

Wow, Doug -- drawing parallels between the Democrats in Florida and the Nazis in 1930s Germany is a little strong. Yes, we all are tempted to rationalize our viewpoints and prejudices; for the sake of the discussion, I won't even dispute which party is more likely to do this (although you can imagine that my views on that are somewhat different than yours). But whatever side of that question you're on, you might consider choosing a less inflammatory example in the future. I really don't think we're as far down the road to perdition as you are implying.

[And by the way, he DID simply answer "no" to the poorly worded question -- that's what the perjury thing was about.]

Subject: RE: US Election
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 02:52 PM

Nazis, Rodney? The Democrats are friggin' NAZIS?? Jesus wept. Guess you missed the "Folk Nazi" discussion, yes? I'm chuffed that we're getting more confirmation of the real nasty little partisan piece of work you are.
Do you plan an apology for this one to retain your Mudcat 'gentleman' title?
Funny thing, but a gentleman to me would be one who conducted himself so that a continual stream of apologies wasn't required.
What a wanker.
Cheers

Subject: RE: US Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 00 - 03:49 PM

HOw do people justify to themselves taking sides on this on the basis of the result they would like to see?

People decide to back a political party because they agree with its policies or like the company better and so forth. But this barney over the election results isn't about that. It's about what is the fairest way of ensuring that the person is elected has been properly elected. In particular in Florida it's about ensuring that the electoral votes go to the candidate who got the most votes, and on ensuring that any distorting factors are identified and sorted out fairly.

Alright, there might be disagreements over what is the best way of doing that. But those are technical disagreements which have nothing to do with the reasons why someone has decided to back one party or one candidate in preference to the other.

It is grotesque and disgraceful to have a situation where people line up on that kind of thing on the basis of what they want the numbers to say.

And when a decent conservative starts talking about people with whom he has have a minor political disagreement - people who would probably be in the same right of centre party as himself in many countries - as if they were Nazis...