 sj |
||
|
||
BS: So Who is Our New President?
|
|
|
Subject: So Who is Our New President? From: harpgirl Date: 27 Nov 00 - 06:58 PM Dear Abby, ...I've just returned from S Florida and I can't figure out who our next president is. Katherine Harris said she gave the election to Bush and told the Electoral College to give him the votes. Can she do that? Signed, harpgirl |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Nov 00 - 07:08 PM A president elected by one woman. Wow...
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: harpgirl Date: 27 Nov 00 - 07:15 PM ...geez McGrath...I was hoping you would have an interesting ten paragraph answer for all the winter depressives to get revved up about! You are uncharacteristically terse! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: harpgirl Date: 27 Nov 00 - 07:28 PM ...I can't wait to read what Katha Pollit has to say about Katherine Harris!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Banjer Date: 27 Nov 00 - 07:44 PM Who would you expect to get the vote regardless of how many votes there were for the opposition. His brother is the Governor of the state, and this Harris was one of his (G.W's) campaign workers. All of a sudden we heard that Dade had shut down their manual recount before finishing. That tells me they had enough votes to put Gore over the top and were pressured to drop it. All this proves to me is that the biggest of the two crooks prevailed. Does any of this make anyone but myself wonder how, in years and elections past, the winner was declared the next day. If there are seven days for absentee ballots yet to come in how can a winner be declared so fast? Does that show that all those absentee ballots were just ignored and thrown out? I would love to be able to go back into some records and see who REALLY won some of our earlier elections. Just one more GOOD reason to not trust our government or any of its shennanigans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Barry Finn Date: 27 Nov 00 - 07:55 PM We can never again say that oure vote counts. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Amos Date: 27 Nov 00 - 08:05 PM Every message from the Bush campaign that I heard was about forcing a win on the strength of situational vagaries which reeked of influence. Every message I heard from the Gore campaign was about cleaving to a principle of allowing individual votes to make a difference. I wish the issue before the Supreme Court was framed differently, so they could exercise some intelligence about the fundamentals (if they wouyld). As it is, while it makes terrific drama, the real upshot is possibly beyond their sphere of influence. I thought Lieberman was downright statesmanlike. While I have always had misgivings about Al, they are as nought compared to the whirlwind of loathing Bush's cronies elicit in my litte heart. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Nov 00 - 08:06 PM Can't you just see it. A nice non-controversial electiion, and the result comes out on time, and the loser concedes and the winner gets down to it. And then ten days kater or so they rush out and say "Sorry folks, we've just added in the absentee votes and it's the other guy that won after all."
Is there any other democratic country where they announce the result of an election before the votes have even arrived, let alone been counted?
And where it would be possible for a candidate to successfully sabotage a recount because he thinks he might actually have fewer votes than his opponent if they are all counted? Can't you get impeached for pulling something like that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Giac Date: 27 Nov 00 - 09:31 PM Who is our president? Alfred E. Bushman. What, Me Worry? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Bill D Date: 27 Nov 00 - 11:17 PM Bush is acting like he expects a crown....he is being so arrogant about it all that a few Republicans are embarassed....I suppose he WILL be inaugrated...but it will be fun to watch him make a blooming fool of himself...(I'll bet $1.00 he doesn't make it thru the first year without a major bumble!)...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: kendall Date: 27 Nov 00 - 11:35 PM A year? it wont take him nearly that long. They have football pools, why not a stumble pool? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: The Shambles Date: 28 Nov 00 - 05:38 AM Thank you Giac. I wondered where I had seen that face before. I think I will worry, though............ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Bat Goddess Date: 28 Nov 00 - 11:47 AM This particular presidency is so tainted it's amazing either of them would want it. Whoever gets it will be a one termer. Might as well give it to George. That'll guarantee a Democratic majority in the House after the elections in two years. Funny, I thought he just wanted to be baseball commissioner. Bat Goddess |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Wesley S Date: 28 Nov 00 - 12:27 PM I can't remember - it was either Tweedledee or Tweedledumb that won. I have a hard time telling them apart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Gary T Date: 28 Nov 00 - 12:29 PM Who is our new president? Okay, I give up--who? Can Harris do that? Well sure, why not? She could be reversed by the courts or (theoretically) the legislature, and no one can force the electors to vote their pledge, but as far as I know her actions have been within the law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Margo Date: 28 Nov 00 - 12:49 PM No no. She certified the votes,and Bush having more than Gore, the 25 Electoral votes go to Bush. The Electoral college meets in December. They actually can vote for Gore, but such a thing is not likely, as it would mean political suicide for those electors who did. But there is a possibility that the electoral college can't decided who to vote for and then the decision making is handed over to Congress. Congress would need a simple majority to decide, so it is likely that they would decide republican, because of the majority. So I think it's almost safe to say it will be Bush. (But you never know...) Margo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Kim C Date: 28 Nov 00 - 12:56 PM I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but in EVERY election there are mucked-up ballots that are disqualified for whatever reason. I guess it's just because this one is so close that people are paying more attention. But not EVERY vote counts EVERY time. Sometimes they are thrown out. That's just the way that is. Sorry. No matter who gets the office, the other party is going to be finger-pointing for the next 4 years and frankly I hate that sort of behavior from adults who ought to know better. In true Napoleonic tradition, I hereby crown myself Princess Svetlana of Antioch, Keeper of the Holy Giant Spoon of Discipline. A keg in every cellar, a chicken in every pot (or a tofu chicken for you vegetarians), and a song on every ear. Misbehave and you get a whack with the Spoon. Hell, it sounds about as good as the alternatives... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: MMario Date: 28 Nov 00 - 12:59 PM actually kim, sounds better then most of the alternatives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: mousethief Date: 28 Nov 00 - 01:45 PM We don't have a new president until January 20. Until then we have a president-elect. Or two president-elects. Or two president-not-elects. Whatever. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: The Walrus at work Date: 28 Nov 00 - 01:51 PM Seriously, can somebody explain to me (a somewhat confused Brit) how there is effectively a tied ballot throughout the state and yet one candidate gets ALL 25 seats for the state<1>. I'd have thought the logical method would have been one seat per 4% of the total vote (or 1 per 5% and the rest allocated with the majority to the "winner" - if there is one). Am I missing something? Regards Walrus <1> A sinngle seat, no problem, but 25 seats on a "winner takes all" basis? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Kim C Date: 28 Nov 00 - 01:57 PM Maybe they could do a job-share. One gets to be President in the odd months, the other in the even. As neither one is hurting for money, it should be no problem to split the salary. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Jim Krause Date: 28 Nov 00 - 02:14 PM Job share? A Democrat and a Republican? What with both parties fightin' for the political center, and the Senate evenly split 50/50 with that Maria Whatsername from Washington State the brand new Senator, what's the point? You ain't seen no gridlock like this here gridlock. I don't even think the next Prez. will have his cabinet in place before the next midterm elections in 2002. Dubyah or Al, makes no difference, really. Jim Krause |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Gary T Date: 28 Nov 00 - 02:17 PM Walrus, the president is elected by the states through their electors. The individual states administer the elections, though on a day specified by federal law. While a few states apportion their electors on a pro-rata basis as you have mentioned, the overwhelming majority use a "winner take all" system. I would presume that the logic behind this is to maximize the state's voting power for a given candidate. For example, if a state had 6 electors, the popular vote in that state were a 50-50 split, and it apportioned its electoral votes 3-3, that state would cancel its own votes and have no actual influence on who won. By giving all 6 of its votes to whomever had the most popular votes, if even by the smallest margin, that state has the potential to make a difference in who gets elected. If every state apportioned its electors on a pro-rata basis, presidential elections would for all intents and purposes be decided by nationwide popular vote, making the Electoral College unnecessary. While there is certainly debate (and has been for years) over the pros and cons of the Electoral College system, the most effective way for any individual state to participate in it is by the "winner take all" method. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: GUEST Date: 28 Nov 00 - 02:20 PM Wlarus - The winner of a state (by even just one vote) gets all of the votes of that state. That is the way our Electoral College works. The vote is not actually tied in FL. here is a small majority for Bush among those votes deemed as valid and counted. The argument is whether or not additional votes can be deemed valid and therefore counted, if the definition of valid votes is modified. So far that process still has Bush clinging to a small majority - so the courts over ruled the time frames set for polling by the state of Florida - and now that ytime has run out. Florida has completed its election and certified the results. Gore has challenged that election in Florida courts. Bush has challenged in Federal court the Florida Supreme Court's decision to extend the election dates and expand the vote counting criteria. There are a few lesser court issues pending, and it is likely that the US federal court (our Supreme Court) will make a watershed decision for all of the other cases. If it finds for Bush, that the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by extending the election process, itis unlikely that Gore has any further reasonable chances. If it finds for Gore, that the Florida Supreme Court made a decision within its legal bounds then there will follow a series of legal machinations; the Florida legislature has the over-riding authority over the elction process and will likely appoint the Electors (and therefore the electoral votes) and that will almost cetrainly be a Bush win. If that happens, Gore will challenge that decision, probably in Florida court first - then in US Supreme court. At any rate - these court decisions, frustrating as it is to wait for them, will likely be the best way to solve an election that is so close the winner is selected within the margin of error! The good news is that (the glass is half full) BOTH candidates got more vote then the winner of the last two presidential elections. While you and I may not like one, we can pretty darn sure that our neighbor does! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: mousethief Date: 28 Nov 00 - 02:23 PM I also heard that Nader, not wanting to be left out of the lawsuit jamboree, filed suit in federal court. Unfortunately due to a glitch in the legal wording on the lawsuit, he ended up suing himself. If he wins, all the votes awarded Buchanan will be given to Ross Perot; if he loses, all the votes awarded Michael Dukakis will be given to Pat Paulsen. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 28 Nov 00 - 02:43 PM He is some politician! CB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Gary T Date: 28 Nov 00 - 03:00 PM Walrus, on re-reading your post, I thought it might be helpful to clear up the mention of "seats". The election under discussion has nothing to do with seats in the legislature. It is strictly for selection of the president. The legislature does not routinely elect the president, although the job can fall to the legislature if the normal Electoral College process fails in certain ways. It's quite rare for that to happen (twice in 200+ years, I believe), but there's some chance it could happen this go-round. The legislature is elected as follows: Senators, who represent the state as a whole, are elected by statewide vote. Each state has 2 senators, serving in the Senate. Congressmen are elected by a portion of the state in a voting area called a Congressional District. The number of congressmen varies with the population of the state (some states have but one, Florida has 23, California has--I dunno, a whole bunch). Congressmen serve in the House of Representatives. The NUMBER of presidential electors from a given state equals the NUMBER of senators and congressmen combined (in Florida, 2+23=25). However, they are not the same people. Presidential electors perform their function only in a presidential election, every four years. Senators and congressmen, of course, do their job throughout their terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: GUEST,Chris Nixon - puzzled in the UK Date: 28 Nov 00 - 03:04 PM Has it occurred to anyone that in the event of your being unable competently to elect a new head of state, you should revert to colonial status and be governed direct from the Court of St James. See how you like OUR band of thieves liars and fools. You could, however, declare a new public holiday for the 23rd November - Indecision Day... All our trials Lord... Chris |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Bill D Date: 28 Nov 00 - 03:08 PM since we have some VERY small states, and some large ones, and the individual states 'mostly' govern themselves, it was decided to use the electoral college system so that the small states votes tended to have 'some' influence (much like giving each state 2 Senators and a variable # of representatives in Congress).In a country where there IS no major governing body below national level, such as Great Britain, a national popular vote makes sense. We 'usually' have the popular vote winner get elected...but...... I don't like some aspects of the electoral system much, but it is not easy to design things so N. Dakota and Nevada don't get totally ignored.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: mousethief Date: 28 Nov 00 - 03:10 PM We're not unable to elect a president. The college of electors doesn't even meet until what? December 18th? And they report to congress when? January 5? Until then all this "incapable of electing a president" nonsense is grossly premature. The system is grinding its way along. I understand this might be confusing to foreigners who don't realize how our nation of the lawyers, for the lawyers, and in spite of the people works. I'm boggled that there are Americans who don't get it, though. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: mousethief Date: 28 Nov 00 - 03:13 PM Is there some reason NOT to totally ignore Nevada and North Dakota?
(ducking and running), |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Jeri Date: 28 Nov 00 - 03:58 PM Now I'm thinking "Captain Indecisive." Please forgive me...
Oh, who will be our president
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: GUEST,Sarah Date: 28 Nov 00 - 04:02 PM Chris, In fact, I received the e-mail below from a friend in the UK not long ago... Sarah ***
To the citizens of the United States of America,
In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister, the rt. hon. Tony Blair, MP (for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed".
2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf.
3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard.
4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys.
5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.
6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005.
7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys.`"Merde" is French for "sh!t".
8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day".
9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are rubbish and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. 10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy
Thank you for your cooperation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: harpgirl Date: 28 Nov 00 - 06:07 PM The latest lawsuit twist is the allegation that 5,000 absentee ballots were tampered with. Nikki Clark will hear this in her courtroom in Leon county Dec6th. She was the judge who ruled on the murder of the British tourist in Monticello, Florida. I've been in her courtoom a number of times for various reasons and she is fearless and a very seasoned and reasonable judge. I have tremendous respect for her and I am eager to hear what she has to say! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Nov 00 - 06:48 PM 1) When there is a very close result in any election, the normal practice is to have a full recount. 2)This has to be a manual recount, because there are inherent flaws in machines which mean that there are inevitably going to be some errors which can be eliminated by individual scrutiny of ballot bapers.
3)A manual recount has to be carried out in a way that ensures that there is no bias in favour of any particular candidate. There are tried and tested methods of ensuring this.
4)There is no reason why it should take any longer to carry out a full recount in all parts of the state than it does to carry out a recount in a single precinct or a single county. 5)Anybody who tries to prevent such a recount, by any means, in order to favour a particular candidate is attempting to disrupt the process of a democratic election. 6)Carrying out a democratic election is a far more important matter than who actually wins it. It seems remarkably simple to me. Can anybody honestly say they disagree with any of these points? And, if so, that they are not influenced by whom they would like to see win this particular election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: InOBU Date: 28 Nov 00 - 07:16 PM "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
Joseph Stalin
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Troll Date: 28 Nov 00 - 08:35 PM I found the height of hipocrasy in Liebermans statement about only wanting everyones vote counted fairly after he and his fellow Gorons oversaw the throwing out of the absentee ballots from the military on the flimsiest of excuses. Gore lost. Demanded a recount. OK. Lost again. Demanded another recount with a change in the rules. OK. Lost again. Demanded anoyher recount with still another change...are you starting to see a pattern here? Like maybe "recount until we win."? Lets look at the dimples on the ballot and see if we can figure out who they REALLY intended to vote for. I mean these are elderly people and they get confused easily. RIGHT! These are the same old people who can run 24 bingo cards at a time and never miss a number. I don't really care for Bush but Gore? yuk troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: raredance Date: 28 Nov 00 - 09:11 PM This is clearly an election without precedent rich r |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Bill D Date: 28 Nov 00 - 09:15 PM why, Troll....you wouldn't have a strong opinion, would you?...are these the **SAME** old folks who play bingo?...and the whole question they are trying to work out is ...DID Gore lose? Running the cards thru the same machines again is not exactly a real recount, and the laws are designed to move to hand recounts when the vote is very close and the machines can't judge the close ones....Bush simply would rather they NOT look at them with human eyes! So far, almost all recounts have shown Gore gaining. Can't you imagine this whole thing being reversed with BUSH losing by a few hundred? I'll bet Republican lawyers by the bus load would see the wisdom in careful recounts...just in case! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: MarkS Date: 28 Nov 00 - 10:42 PM Walrus - You used the word "logic" in the same sentence with "American Politics." Those two terms are mutually exclusive. Bur stay tuned, we are only about one-half way home so far. Anybody else but me betting on our next president being Dennis Hastert? MarkS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Margo Date: 28 Nov 00 - 11:28 PM McG of H: You said:1) When there is a very close result in any election, the normal practice is to have a full recount. Yes, and there are rules in each state that speak to that issue: Here in Washington state the recount is required when the vote is within a specified amount, for example 1500 votes. In that case the recount is automatically done by machine. If the race is closer, say for example within 500 votes, the recount is done by hand. I don't know if there is a standard method layed out for a hand recount, but in the Florida situation there doesn't seem to be any standard being used. I object to that. So you see, a recount doesn't automatically have to be done by hand. Also, you said A manual recount has to be carried out in a way that ensures that there is no bias in favour of any particular candidate. There are tried and tested methods of ensuring this. Apparently they don't know that in Florida. The business of holding a ballot up to the light to try to interpret the intention of the voter turns my stomache. I would want to stop a recount done under such conditions... Margo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Lucius Date: 28 Nov 00 - 11:29 PM Yeah, our poor millitary, what a flimsy excuse that they didn't request the ballots, fill them out properly, mail them in time or needed them completed by republican canvassers. Talk about stupid Miami voters....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: BlueJay Date: 28 Nov 00 - 11:49 PM I heard a good one, similar to Kim C's above. Let Bush be Prez on Mon-Wed-Fri, and Gore can do it on Tue-Thur-Sat. Sunday off. Maybe they could trade shifts to get the whole weekend off, (like folks in the Real World do). "Don't you cry, don't shed no tears, You know it only comes around every four years". Steve Goodman, "Election Year Rag" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Troll Date: 29 Nov 00 - 08:18 AM Gore has not won on ANY recounts that I have heard about here in Florida. Every recount of the LEGAL, VALID, VOTES cast have put Bush ahead. Votes where the chad is not completely removed or where NO CHOICE was made are not valid and no amount of spin is going to make them valid. They started with hanging chads and when Gore couldn't win that way, they demanded another recount counting "dimpled" or "pregnant" chads as "intended" votes. What next? Count Aunt Sally 'cause she would have voted for Gore if she hadn't died last week? Yeah. I have strong opinions. A pox on both their houses. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Kim C Date: 29 Nov 00 - 10:18 AM Like I said earlier, every election has disqualified ballots for a variety of reasons. Why should this be any different? I'm all in favor of getting a proper count BUT I am not in favor of the idea of "let's see if we can glean by psychic intuition who this person REALLY meant to vote for." I'm sorry but I think that's just a little bit Out There. Why is it so difficult to just accept those ballots that have an actual, discernible vote on them? Isn't that how it's usually done anyway? Also, a friend brought up this interesting question - why is it that the Florida voters were only confused by the Presidential ballot arrows, and not the LOCAL ballot arrows? Or are they having these problems with their LOCAL elections too and it just isn't making the national news? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Amos Date: 29 Nov 00 - 10:32 AM Florida is reverting to type; we fought this kind of crap back in the 60's. Nobody is arguing for dimples here. The whole thing would be irrelevant in a normal election, because the anomalies would not be meaningful if the state had been carried by a preference, say, of 10 per cent. But in a population of 6,000,000 to "win" under problematic circumstances by a margin of 300 is so thin a margin that all the votes become meaningful. Under those circumstances to do anything that looks like partisan manipulation is very unwise policy because well-intended or not it smells like corruption. Personally, given the significance of the very small margins involved, I would have preferred a state-wide revote or recount in the first 7 days. Instead, Bush's campaign is in a position where they can win by dragging their feet, and being the slightly stupid people they are, this will appear to them as an acceptable option. The fact that it creates an international impression of underhandedness and lack of principle is secondary to the realpolitik benefits they believe they will gain from it. As far as I am concerned this is a very dark day for the Great Experiment; it has been subverted by small-minded manipulations. Fortunately margins as narrow as these don't come around very often. The really dumb thing is that there is so much technology out there to make this sort of thing absolutely unnecessary -- for example, large-scale displays, touch screens, unique biological ID sensors (fingerprinting the vote entry as a way of ensuring uniqueness and confirmation of intent, with no link to registration ID, would be a clear solution)...it is a pathetic organizational swamp, as well as a moral embarassment to us all, IMNSHO. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Nov 00 - 10:57 AM So troll, am I right to understand that your view is that, no matter how close the vote may be, it is impossible for a fair recount to be held, so that whatever figure the initial vote comes up with should be regarded as final?
And that any evidence that suggests that these antique machines inevitably exclude a number of votes greater than the difference between the two candidate in this case is not relevant?
And that this should apply whichever candidate happens to be ahead on that initial vote?
And is this just for votes in Florida because of particular characteristics of people in Florida, or is it something that should apply in elections generally?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: Ella who is Sooze Date: 29 Nov 00 - 11:01 AM sheesh... Bored now! I don't know... But I wish they would hurry up and sort it out... It's wearing a little thin now... Ella |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: mg Date: 29 Nov 00 - 11:32 AM for who posted the nasty thing about military ballots: there was an error in printing some of the military ballots and the votor number was hand written in some of them. This was no fault of the servicemen and women. Sometimes they don't "mail" their mail. It is carried by other means. There is room for honest discussion here but no room in my opinion for slamming those who are defending us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President? From: mousethief Date: 29 Nov 00 - 12:19 PM Troll, the first recount was called for by Florida law, not Gore. None of the recounts Gore has called for (exept Browder county) have been completed. So your statement "Gore called for a recount. Lost again. Gore called for another recount" is pure bunkum. Alex |