BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 07:42 PM

No, it shouldn't, Bruce, and stop torquing my words.

MAke up your own darned sentences if you have something you wish to say.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 07:41 PM

You, fair, BB? Naw. . . don't waste your time with the pretense.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 07:07 PM

Amos,

Shouldn't that be

"ANd by the way, which of these various methods were being ordered by " GORE'S FRIENDS ON "the Florida Supreme Court before Bush's friends on the SUpreme court stepped in?"


Just to be fair....

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 04:49 PM

Okay, I've read the first bit of this thread pretty closely and skimmed through many of the middle posts, and have stuff to add but no time to finish reading now. My material may have been touched on in the most recent posts, but with beardedbruce hovering over this thread like a hen with one chick, I doubt it. This responds to remarks early in the thread.

The electoral problem doesn't need to be the problem that people perceive. Old Guy claimed earlier that someone offshore is trying to convince Coloradans to split their electoral vote. Wherever the money to support the referrendum is coming from, it is in answer to a passionate concern of many Americans. This is a big deal, but it isn't precedent-setting. Nebraska and Maine have been doing it for years. They're just not big enough so any of you or the rest of hte U.S. would notice, apparently.

This is an exerpt from an essay called Tinkering With The Electoral College Vote:


To many of us there is enduring wisdom in the Founding Fathers' concept of federalism and national union. For the moment we'll leave the subject of the Electoral College and its role to lawyers, political scientists and others who write about it -- e.g., in the past several years alone, the Cumberland, Harvard, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Nova, Oregon, Vanderbilt and William & Mary Law Reviews have published on the subject.

Maine and Nebraska laws, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, Title 21-A, § 9-805.2; Nebraska Statutes, Art 7, § 32-714, provide that their electoral vote does not go winner-take-all but rather is apportioned. Thus, Maine with four votes, Nebraska with five, as a matter of law could divide their electoral votes. Two from each would be cast for the candidate receiving a plurality of popular vote statewide. The other two (Maine) or three (Nebraska) would be cast for the candidate receiving a plurality within a congressional district. So the Maine electoral vote could be 4-0 or 3-1, the Nebraska 5-0, 4-1 or 3-2.

What's brewing in the Rockies? Colorado, apparently with considerably more than the required 67,000 or so signatures, likely will have a referendum proposal on the November 2, 2004 ballot, to apportion electoral votes a la Maine and Nebraska -- and to do it retroactively! Any such Colorado change in law almost surely would divide the Colorado electoral vote because, unlike Maine (two Democrats) and Nebraska (three Republicans), Colorado's Representatives in Congress are not of one party (two Democrats, five Republicans), so the congressional-district majorities almost surely would differ.

Interesting approach to something that would affect the fairness of the electoral college without involving ammending the U.S. Constitution. The wheels are beginning to turn, as people realize that not only does the Constitutiion allow states the right to distribute their electoral college votes as they wish, it can be done state by state much more easily than ammending the constitution.

The topic has come up about those few renegade electoral college folks who vote their conscience, even if it means not voting with the block come time of the electoral convention.

Visit this site for more information:

"Faithless Electors" are members of the Electoral College who, for whatever reason, do not vote for their party's designated candidate.

Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST,drowning by the liberal whinners
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 02:24 PM

I think Maine will split its electoral votes, which is not much, but, in a tight race every vote counts. There are some sane people in the great north-east.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 02:04 PM

Larry:

Why is it significant to you who files a lawsuit to remedy a perceived violation of a fair and representative voting process?

ANd by the way, which of these various methods were being ordered by the Florida Supreme Court before Bush's friends on the SUpreme court stepped in?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:22 PM

Whoever gets more electoral votes is president.   Period.

The insanity has already begun in Florida with lawsuits already being filed by DEMOCRATS.   Part of the preemptive strategy as published on the Druge Report to file lawsuits and claim equal protection EVEN WHEN THERE IS NONE.   It is my opinion that most of you feel the ends justify the means and support this kind of action.   It doesn't matter.   Dick Morris reported yesterday that Kerry has already given up on Florida and pulled all his commercials.    If you don't believe this, check the Kerry schedule and notice no trips to Florida this week.

A few facts on Florida.    For those of you who don't like to face the truth please skip the next paragraph.   (This was your public service warning)

Most major media including the NY Times recounted and recounted the votes and chads.   The finding from the combined media was as follows.
1. If the court had let Gore follow ANY of the legal actions he persued, he would have lost the election in any way of counting votes. That means the Supreme Court had NO EFFECT on the ultimate outcome of the election.   If they had voted in Gore's favor, they would have counted the votes and came to the same conclusion of a Bush victory.   Sorry for all of you "selected not elected" assholes out there.    The facts do not back up your contention, but feel free to live in your fantasy.

2. The media concluded that there were 6 ways to count chads.   If they used any of the 4 most common methods, Bush would have won.   If they used the two least common methods, Gore would have won.   Those are the facts.   Spin them as you will.    If you are brain dead partisan you can continue to claim that Gore should have won using the two least common methods.   That is your perogative.

3. The claim of 1 million african americans not being able to vote was investigated and totally debunked as fantasy.   (kind of like reading most of the other postings)   The suit claimed that there was an empty police car three blocks from the voting site and that intimidated African American voters from voting.   I guess a Duncan Donut shop accross the street would have the same effect.   Compare that to Gore trying to prevent Florida military people from having their votes counted, or the Govenor of Pennsylvania preventing his military votes from counting in this election.    You should be ashamed of this hypocrysy, except you believe that any way of defeating Bush is justified.    And you wonder why the country is so divided.

With Florida, I have the count at 261 for Bush and 228 for Kerry.   States that are toss ups are Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and New Mexico.    (Hawaii might even be in play)   If Bush wins either Ohio, or Minnesota, or Wisconsin, or New Hampshire + New Mexico he will be president.   Of course, we still have 6 days to go and anything can happen.

Wouldn't it be a blash if the vote hinged on Hawaii. (it could) which is 5 hours behind EST.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 12:11 PM

I think the conjecturing and crystal ball gazing about the election is just that, and the ruminating is largely hype. I too bemusedly read the Washington Post article this morning with my coffee, and wryly smiled as I read:

"None of these scenarios is likely to occur next week, but neither is any of them far-fetched."

I think people have a naturally human apprehension about the upcoming election because of the way the last one went, and because we have all been led to believe by pollsters and pundits that this will be a very close presidential race.

Not being a fearful sort of person though, I've never believed we would see anything even remotely as bizarre as the 2000 election repeated in my life time, much less see it repeated in 2004. In fact, one of the most entertaining aspects about 2000 was watching the level of anxiety and hysteria among so many of the much too grimly serious political junkies. They have, of course, resurfaced and are currently screaming invectives in our faces, spewing their venom on all who don't take this election to be The Most Important Thing In the World, that sort of thing.

Difference for me from post-Election Day entertainment value of Indecision 2000 to The Most Important Election of All Time 2004, is that the hysteria mongering, the self-important breast beaters, and especially the candidates themselves, are enough to turn anyone but the most dedicated political junkies away from electoral politics forever.

All I can think of these days is how lucky the younger generation is to be able to see through all this hype and crap, and have cell phones where they can't be polled, pegged, and dropped into a voter demographic group.

I've been politically active all my life, but I can tell you, I'm seriously thinking of getting out of it all together this year for the first time ever. Why? Because of the way the people I know have become utter flaming assholes over this election. It makes me want to move to another city and change my identity, just to get away from their hysteria mongering.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Pauline L
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 11:48 AM

The possibility that one or the other candidate will win the popular vote but lose the Electoral vote is quite real, according to the Washington Post

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Pauline L
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 03:15 PM

Guest, I agree with you completely. History repeats itself, even if we don't learn its lessons (Iraq and Vietnam).

There is a good article on the Electoral College on today's CNN web page. Some interesting points:
1) In 26 states and Washington D.C., laws require electors to follow the popular vote. Some states threaten penalties for "faithless electors" (those who don't follow the popular vote). No one has ever been prosecuted. The occurrence is unlikely because both parties take great care in selecting Electors.
2) Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, explained the rationale for having the Electoral College, rather than tnan a plebiscite, determine the outcome of the Presidential election, as follows.   "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." The investigations are no less complicated today. Another interesting aspect of our democracy, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, was that only white, male landowners could vote. This was not even closely remedied until about 80 years ago, when women got the right to vote, and that was a hard fought battle. Since then, voter registration laws have had the effect of disenfranchising many (African American) citizens.

Pauline

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:00 PM

Nothing can make this situation any worse than it already is.

Au contraire, many of the possible choices will result in worsening.

There is something to be said for the notion of promoting the principle of individual rights and freedoms, defending them and trying to promote them as the basis for future transactions internationally.

THere are a LOT of tough ethical quandaries involved, and Iraq is the Gordion Knot of such quandaries right now. Bush's intervention has made it worse. But it at least started change in a bad situation, and with change all things are possible. You conceive, then, that the notion of forwarding democratic processes in Iraq is futile, short-sighted and Pollyana-esque, I guess.

I don't feel that way about that goal. I am just heartsore about the means.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:54 PM

I don't believe it can be won, Amos, and that is where we differ I guess. I also don't foresee the current or future Kerry administrations pulling out.

What happened when we unilaterally pulled out of Vietnam, Amos? Answer: the Viet Cong won, and the communists took over the country.

So what? They haven't been any more brutal and oppresive than their colonial predecessors were, and I don't believe that will be any different in Iraq. If we pull out, someone we didn't hand pick and prop up in a puppet government will take over, and they likely won't be any worse than our government, or Saddam Hussein. Maybe they will be a little worse in terms of repressing women Taliban style, but that is already happening, even with us there.

Nothing can make this situation any worse than it already is. If we pull the troops out tomorrown, some faction will rise to the top and take power of the Iraqi oil fields. The military wing of the oil oligarchy will then start the whole destabilization process all over again.

Or haven't you noticed what has been happening in Nigeria and Venezuela since the late 1990s, when it was Clinton at the helm, not Bush? Bush/Cheney will just finish the job of raping, pillaging, and looting faster than the Democrats, but it is the job both will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:25 PM

Well, Guest, thanks for the slap in the face with a cold mackerel, I am sure.

I believe that 9-11 really did change the balance of things. It brought the terror home to the "homeland" (not the Rodnia, the good ole US of A). I believe that it made it clear that we (the US or perhaps even the Wesern Civilization it is associated with) were under attack. I mean you don't just slaughter 3,000 people if you don't mean to attack them.

Bush's response to that attack was immature, misguided and ineffective. But it too changed the situation.

Now, the ground in Iraq has become a sparking platform for a confluence of (a) patriotic Iraqis wanting to throw occupiers out of their country and (b) Iraqi, Syrian, and every-where-elsian fighters who just want to dramatize attacking the Evil West.

The war that was not necessary has evolved into a major firefight that, I think, needs to be won one way or another.

How do you think it should be won? What do you foresee would happen if we just pulled out and came home? For one thing, the Baathists would probably reassert their control over Iraq. God knows what would happen to anyone who had tried to befriend the US in the interim. Other terror factions would probably continue to use Iraq as a staging ground. Those are my guesses and speculations.

What optimum scenario can you envision for the current mess in Iraq?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:15 PM

No it doesn't, because it doesn't change what the anti-war movement has been saying about Kerry all along, and continues to say today. Kerry is just as much a hawk as Bush, and stridently maintains he will stay the course AND increase the troop the levels (thereby escalating the war in the region, not just Iraq), to "win."

Kerry saying he was given bum information hasn't resulted in him saying he would begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq within six months of Inauguration Day.   His position is the same as it was, he is just trying to wiggle out of having to give an inch to the anti-war movement by saying he was duped by the Bush administration.

Hell, the whole fucking world knew the Bush administration was lying about their justifications for pre-emptively invading another country. The whole fucking world, Amos. So how come your smarty pants senator couldn't figure that out?

Reason? He is just as much a part of the US oligarchy as Bush, and is defending the reach of the US empire into the oil rich nations.

Just because you have deluded yourself into believing he isn't, doesn't mean he isn't. It just means you are experiencing tremendous cognitive dissonance in justifying your vote for Kerry. Just like that all white jury did in California about the Rodney King police brutality case. Despite the truth and facts of the evidence, which the entire world saw with their very own eyes thanks to the videotape, they found the cops not guilty. Why? Because of their deeply held beliefs that a black man must be asking for it, and the police aren't in any way wrong for beating a black man. It was their racism that made them find those cops not guilty, even though they were guilty as hell.

You are doing the same thing Amos. You are lying to yourself about Kerry and his actual stated positions. Kerry is going to escalate the war in Iraq, not end it. The reason he is going to do that is because he is of the oligarchy, not fighting against it, which is what he wants voters to believe, so he'll win, and his side get the spoils of war.

Too bad. I used to think you were not only smarter, but also a much more balanced person than we've seen you be here of late. You and some other Kerry supporters are just foaming at the mouth. That is our first clue that you are disturbed.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:50 AM

YEs it does. It adds the reasonable qualification that he now says he felt the decision was based on false data from Bush.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:26 AM

Yes it does, which doesn't change the exact wording I quoted above one iota.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:49 PM

Guest:

Your citation of the Buddhist site offers the following --


Kerry
Supported decision to go to war but now says he did so based on faulty U.S. intelligence. • Opposed $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan. • Believes greater international involvement is necessary in Iraq. • Supported legislation providing American expertise and funding to the nations of the former Soviet Union to help secure nuclear stockpiles, a program that he now supports extending to other countries. • Fought against withdrawal from the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. • Voted to enlarge NATO to include Eastern Europe. • Brought issue of investigations of U.S. involvement in Latin America, especially with the Nicaraguan Contras, to the forefront. • On Middle East: Sees the Bush Administration's road map as an acceptable approach for reinvigorating the peace process, but says there must be verifiable security benchmarks that the Palestinian Authority can reasonably achieve.


Bush
• Following Sept. 11 attacks on U.S., instituted policy of pre-emptive strikes against suspected threats to the nation's security, where U.S. would act alone or with others to protect the nation. • Prosecuted successful war against Taliban forces in Afghanistan and is currently working to create a stable, democratic government there. • Invaded Iraq, calling it a threat to nation's security. • Swift military victory in Iraq was followed by violent aftermath, halting efforts at stabilizing new government. • Won congressional approval of $87 billion for continued military operations and aid in Iraq and Afghanistan. • Calls for a Palestinian state as part of yetto-be-adopted "road map for peace" plan. • Administration has had a deep rift with some traditional allies in Europe over war in Iraq.   


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:00 PM

Guest:

I have seen what I have seen, and you have not.

I think I see the nature of the man more clearly than you do. Your statement that "all the evidence is that he will do the opposite" is over-inflated and inaccurate.

Don't waste your breath trying to frighten me, bull;y me, or overwhelm me with generalities.

I don't work that way.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 08:24 PM

Amos, are you actually going to deny that Kerry is pro-Iraq war? Pro war on terror? Where are you getting your information from Amos? Pinocchio? You sure are one duplicitous, talk out of two sides of yer yap trap hypocrite. You are against Bush because he is a war mongerer, but for Kerry even though he is every bit the hawk that Bush is?

Here is Reuters summation of Kerry's position

Or maybe we should have a look at the way the major peace and anti-war organizations are summing up Kerry's positions on war and militarism, shall we?

Here is what the Buddhist Peace Fellowship has to say about your man Kerry:

"Supported decision to go to war...On Middle East: Sees the Bush Administration's road map as an acceptable approach for reinvigorating the peace process"

How about the War Resisters League? They're throwing a little anti-war rally on November 3rd, and here is what they have to say about your war boy toy Amos:

"All the promises, rhetoric and window dressing aside, the real story of the Bush/Kerry race is that neither candidate has listened to the millions of Americans who say:

Bring the Troops Home Now

End the War in Iraq and Afghanistan

The terror of missiles, bombs and occupation
will only create more terrorists. "

Or how about the anti-war organizations? Here is a little excerpt from anti-war.com (a group involved in organizing against the Iraq war):

"John Kerry will make his adoring anti-war groupies look like fools

Of course many people support John Kerry for the next president of the United States for a variety of reasons - he is credible when he promises to cut the Federal deficit, for example. But to support him in the hope that he would make American military policy more doveish is absurd. All the evidence is that he will do the exact opposite.

He has declared that he wants to increase the US Army by two divisions, more than the total of Continental Europe's intervention troops. That too is a credible promise, in part because Iraq has exposed an acute shortage of ground forces and an excess of navy and air force personnel. But beyond any specific policy positions, there is Kerry, the very combative man."

Sorry Amos, but your 60s warrior turned peacenik has reverted to warrior mode, BIG TIME.

But then, you were only being disingenuous when you said you couldn't vote for a hawk, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Nerd
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 06:26 PM

I think it is a very farfetched proposition that so-called "faithless electors" could have any effect on the final outcome. It has never happened before, and these days it is even less likely to happen. Electors nowadays are screened very rigorously so that only people extremely committed to their candidate are sent. Because of this, to become a faithless elector a person would have to essentially infiltrate a group of hardcore supporters months ahead of time on the guess that the election will be close enough that his or her defection will mean anything.

The idea that, on ideological grounds, electors who originally supported their candidate will switch to supporting the popular candidate is just not credible, especially in numbers great enough to affect the election.

However, if it DID happen, in those states whose electors are not legally obligated to stick to their candidate, it would briefly appear to be a done deal. By then every media outlet, every political office, etc., will have operated on the assumption that the other person won. It will be interesting to see if the meeting of the electoral college actually can change the built-up inertia of the assumption about who won.

I also believe in such a case there will be a legal challenge, which will go to the Supreme Court, which will find in favor of the Republicans no matter which side of the issue they are on. In other words, the SC will invalidate the faithless electors if that will help Bush, and it will uphold them, if THAT will help Bush. And I further predict that there will be four dissenting opinions.

You heard it here first!

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 04:13 PM

Guest:

I've chewed this over. I saw what he did to stop war under Nixon. I don't think I buy your summation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 06:23 AM

And that would apply if the electoral college win was only possible because a number of electors had voted "the wrong way"?

I suspect that in such a case it would actually become quite complicated, and that it would end up getting determined by the Supreme Court. It would make a lot of sense for those kind of questions to be determined outside an election context, in a situation where there could be no suggestion that a decision one way or another had a partisan motive.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:26 PM

Kevin: I would see Kerry's victory as just that. He wins the electorial college, he wins the election. Nothing complicated about it, that's the way our system works.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:23 PM

Hmmm....I'm a-gonna chew on this for a bit, Guest.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:15 PM

No, I'm not joking, and I'm talking about Kerry's position on the war on terrorism, the Iraq war, and his foreign policy positions on Latin America, the Caribbean, the Palestinian territories, and a whole lot more. The guy is as hawkish a militarist as they come.

So how can you support him, when you make the claim I quoted?

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:46 PM

Guest:

What on your sweet little tush are you talking about?

Are you comparing Kerry's action as a soldier in a declared, albeit unnecessary war, as a 19-year old, to Mister Bush's action in starting an unnecessary war?

You must be joking.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:05 PM

But it is quite possible to be totally committed to a political ideology, and to the party that represents it, to a level that could well be called "bigoted" - and still be ready to subordinate that to a commitment to the democratic process.

And anyone who is not willing to so subordinate their political views is fundamentally hostile to the democratic process, regardless of their politics.

It seemed pretty evident in November 2000, by the way that people lined up, on what should have been the purely technical matter of vote counting, according to political preference and the result they wished to see, that many Americans are, in that sense, hostile to the democratic process.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:03 PM

"Knowingly committing murder of innocents is anathema to civilized hearts and minds and no man who will commit such an atrocity deserves to lead anyone, let alone a nation."

So then how can you justify voting for Kerry, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:49 PM

bigot: A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
   religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
   opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
   or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
   intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
   politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
   his own church, party, belief, or opinion

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:32 PM

Bigot isn't the right term really. - "obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view".

What's involved is not bigotry as such - it is a choice to see winning as more important than protecting the rule of law.

There can be circumstances when that is justifiable, but in essence it means consenting to overthrowing the existing constitutional settlement. It is analogous to a coup d'etat. Which is essentially what happened when the Suoprme Court stopped the count last time. (And that applies just as much if in fact it could be demonstrated that completing the count would have resulted in a Bush victory.)

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:15 PM

Jack,

A person who judges facts differently, depending on whose side the facts support, IS a bigot. I was stating that those who refused to consider facts that conflict with their preconcieved views would probably jump in and be assholes. Sorry if the label offends you-

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:09 PM

BeardedBruce

Exactly what is civil about calling for a civil conversation athen calling people bigots?

Its a simple concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:06 PM

I wasn't asked about the legality of it.

I was asking people, if that were to happen, and it meant that Kerry was President, how would you reat? And if it happened and it meant that Bush was President, how would you react?

And would you react differently in one case than the other? Would you argue that it should be accepted in the one case and opposed in the other?
...............................

I gather, through a US Goerment website, that there is a legal obligation on electors to vote for the candidate who gets most votes in their state, in about half the states. Whether that means their votes would be invalidated if they went the "wrong" way, or just that they could be charged with some kind of offence is an interesting point. In the remainder of the state there is no formal legal obligation about which way to vote.

Perhaps unduly cynically, I suspect, in the light of how things went last time, that the decison of the Supreme Court on such matters might be coloured by the impact of their decision on the outcome of the election.

I think there would be a lot to be said for sorting out these matters outside of the context of real elections elections, to avoid the suspicion of distortion. For example why couldn't decisions about when to carry on counting votes and so forth have been considered and determined in a situation where noone could know which side would be helped by a particular ruling?

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: pdq
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:41 PM

beardedbruce -

Nebraska and Maine split their electoral college votes now. This seems to be an option for all states but not in this election cycle. Whatever Democrats say about the 2000 election and how outdated the electoral college is, they wiil not move to change it. All they need to do is picture California's 55 electors, now guaranteed to be Democrat, being divided 28-27 with Republicans!

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:17 PM

McGrath,

I beleive, but stand willing to be corrected, that the vote of the electorial college Electors is actually determined by the states- several split the vote proportionatly, most are winner take all. I do not think that this can be changed before THIS election: However, I am not sure what happens if the electors choose not to vote for the candidate that they represent... Perhaps they can ALL vote for someone else, regardless of the vote. Perhaps someone with legal knowledge can address this issue.


btw, thank you for trying to continue this discussion in a reasonable fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:02 PM

Once again, as a break from the name-calling which threatens to overwhelm discussions such as this:

One interesting scenario would be if, faced with a situation where it was neck and neck in the electoral college, but where the candidate trailing had won more popular votes, enough electors were to refuse to stick with the candidate who had won in their state, and vote for the one who won the popular voted across the country.

Would people see this as justifiable? And would this judgement be affected by which candidate won as a result?

Anyone care to answer, before maybe it happens?

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 06:48 PM

BTW Amos, I would suggest your personal vehemence towards Bush is blinding you to an awful lot of things that are happening, and going uncommented upon.


My protest against Bush my be occupying my attention, but it is based on a very clear set of facts. Knowingly committing murder of innocents is anathema to civilized hearts and minds and no man who will commit such an atrocity deserves to lead anyone, let alone a nation. There is no room for "reasonable liberalism" about issues as fundamental as this: the man sent soldiers into battle to kill other human beings by persuading them they were defending their country. In doing so he committed them under false premises, argyuabl;y doing so in full cognizance that his data was bad, and committed murder through the use of these proxy, using taxpayers' weapons and vehicles of war.

In addition to being a knowing killer, he has falsified information in every possible way, and pretended not to.

He has the moral fiber of a sewer rat, no matter how much he looks like an old boy. He's not an old boy -- he is a carpet bagger and a money-grubber.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 06:36 PM

Jack,

I am using liberal and conservative to differentiate between two groups of bigots. I have never stated that ALL liberals, or ALL conservatives, ARE bigots: Just that I expected the ones who WERE to jump in and insist on being assholes.


"Is it possible to have a reasonable conversation about this, or do the Liberal Bigots ( because the Conservative Bigots have not yet shown up) insist on being assholes? "

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:07 PM

"Try using my full quote, or is that simple fairness beyound you?

"or do the Liberal Bigots ( because the Conservative Bigots have not yet shown up) insist on being assholes? ""


How do you think calling conservatives names excuses calling Liberals names?

You obviously have no idea what being civil is.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:10 PM

sorry, the last line of previous post refers to McGrath's statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 03:59 PM

McGrath:

"I do get the impression that, for a lot of people posting in these threads, the notion of being even-handed about these things is a pretty alien concept. "

CarolC,

If someone is a hypocrite, I do not need to have a thread to call them that. I was wondering if ANY of the people on here would be able to have a civil conversations about a possible situation that might occur. I have been happily surprised that there are people on who at least try to think about what they are syaing, and how it relates to the future.


IMO, there is a real possibility that in the Electorial College there will be electors who do not vote as they were sent to- in law, there is no way to stop them. If there is an agreed-upon way to deal with it, BEFORE it happens, that both sides agree to, perhaps we can avoid some of the rancor that the Bigots ON BOTH SIDES insist on putting into all discussions here. Faint hope, I know, but ...

Thank you for that statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:23 PM

I think the best scenario is if Bush looses Florida but wins enough other states to be re elected.

Maybe that will avoid this pre-conceived battle that the Democrats are setting up.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:16 PM

I find myself wondering if beardedbruce just started this thread to set people up so he can call them hypocrites after the election. Any chance I'm right about that beardedbruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:15 PM

Amos, there was an uproar in 2000 when Bush was annointed. Are you suggesting that there wasn't, when you say there will be an uproar this time if it were to happen again (which I find incredibly implausible)? Of course there would be an uproar, that goes without saying. But uproars often don't change the course of events. 2000 showed us that quite clearly too. BTW Amos, I would suggest your personal vehemence towards Bush is blinding you to an awful lot of things that are happening, and going uncommented upon.

If you don't see/hear any hysteria eminating from spin alley and the media echo chamber from the Democrats, that is only because your personal vehemence towards Bush has made you both blind and deaf towards the histrionics on YOUR side.

As to the "what if" scenario of Bush winning the popular vote, and Kerry winning the electoral college vote, I find that scenario even more remote than the scenario of a repeat of 2000, where Kerry wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college.

What people don't seem to be able to get their head around is the fact that the US electoral system ALLOWS one candidate to win the popular vote, but to lose the electoral college vote and the election. That scenario was not only anticipated by the founders, they thought they had actually set up the presidential and vice presidential electoral system so that ties would occur often, and the House of Representatives would choose the winner, not the electoral college.

Ignorance of those historic facts doesn't justify all this Democratic fear mongering and anxiety, IMO. What happened in Florida in 2000 isn't repeatable, anymore than a repeat of the 1888 election is possible, because the circumstances between 2000 and 2004 are already so different. We didn't even experience a constitutional crisis in 2000. There was no crisis in the transition of power from one president and party to another. So why all this Democrat hand-wringing, anxiety over the elections, and hysterical fear mongering on spin alley and in the media echo chamber?

Simple: the Democrats are using it as A TACTIC AS PART OF THEIR ELECTION STRATEGY so their guy will win this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Pauline L
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:04 PM

This discussion leads me to suggest the following: The electoral college should be abolished and the elected President should be whoever wins the majority of the popular vote. This is not what democracy meant to our founding fathers, but a lot of people would agree that this is what we should do now. I'm surprised that I haven't heard this discussed much, inside or outside of this thread.

Slightly off topic, but it has me very upset: The Republicans are gearing up, with lots of lawyers and money, for a precinct-by-precinct campaign in the swing states to go to the polls and take action to ensure that voter registration laws are enforced. They aim to challenge (read "disenfranchise") voters in swing states. Of course, people of color and other marginalized people will be the hardest hit. Some will simply be intimidated into not voting. I wish there was something I could about this as a volunteer and a non-lawyer. I naively thought that we had taken care of all this back in the 60s. Did Medgar Evers and many others die in vain? The cost of liberty is constant vigilance.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 01:37 PM

But if that happened, and at the same time Bush got a sizeable number more popular votes, the way Gore did, would your reaction, Doug be "this means something is wrong and the electoral system needs changing", or "win some ,lose some, it worked our way last time, it's their turn now"?

I rather assume that your response would be the latter, since you didn't see Bush's victory as a reason to change the electoral college system.

One interesting scenario would be if, faced with a situation where it was neck and neck in the electoral college, but where the candidate trailing had won more popular votes, enough electors were to refuse to stick with the candidate who had won in their state, and vote for the one who won the popular voted across the country.

Would people see this as justifiable? And would this judgement be affected by which candidate won as a result?

I do get the impression that, for a lot of people posting in these threads, the notion of being even-handed about these things is a pretty alien concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 01:23 PM

If Kerry wins more electorial votes than Bush, he is president.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 01:13 PM

Why should people vote for one candidate rather than another just because they come from their state? And why should it be seen as surprising when they don't?

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 12:54 PM

Guest:

Your point about Gore is well taken -- he should surely have swept his home state.

I don't know who the hysterics are you are referring, but I made an observation that if the Bush machine makes any moves like it did in Florida, this time, there will be a major uproar.

This is just an extrapolation from the amount of vehemence I have seen about Bush's two-facedness in general.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 11:27 AM

I think the Florida election was stolen, but I'm not a Kerry supporter. I believe that the Florida Supreme Court was right to order a recount. I believe there were many illegalities in addition to the irregularities, that resulted in Bush being declared the winner. I don't believe that Bush actually even won the popular vote in Florida, before, during, or after the recounts. The Florida debacle was like a third world country election, pure and simple. THAT is the lesson that we should have learned. That we were in an era of Banana Republic elections.

But what I don't accept, and can't wrap my head around, is the Democrats' obsession with Florida, as if it really made the difference in 2000. Gore lost the election because he didn't win in enough states, not just Florida. Now, we know that if he had been declared the winner instead of Bush in Florida, he would be president. That goes without saying. But if Gore had been a decent vice president, or even a decent presidential candidate, he wouldn't have had to worry about Florida at all.

THAT is the problem I have with the hysteria mongering Kerry supporters at this point. They are delusional. Gore didn't just lose Florida because the election was stolen there. Gore lost WAY too many states he should have won handily. Like his and Bill Clinton's home states. It is just too big a disconnect from reality to claim that Bush is president because the Florida election was stolen. The Florida election was definitely stolen by the Republicans. But Gore lost the election by not being a decent vice president and presidential candidate.

That is the piece the Kerry supporters conveniently keep forgetting. They also seem to be fighting Nader harder than they are fighting Bush. Where they think that will get them, I honestly don't know. When the candidates need to fear a loss because of 1-2% of the vote, the political system is in very bad shape. I'm much more concerned with how fucked up the system is, than who will lead the fucked up system for the next four years.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: pdq
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 11:12 AM

Old Guy sez -

"There are some hotheads that ignore the request for a "civil conversation".
As usual Nerd is hurling his firebombs in attempt to reinforce his flawed logic or lack thereof."

Thanks, I could not say it any better than that.

As far as the Florida 2000 >facts< are concerned, they should not be in dispute after four years. Some people need to get their heads out of Soros-sponsored hate sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:47 AM

An interesting excerpt from the John Dean piece linked above:

The 2000 presidential race in Florida is an excellent example. Reportedly, Bush's Florida victory came courtesy of 537 votes out of some six million. It's plain from this slim margin that the GOP's voter and vote disqualifying tactics cost Vice President Al Gore the presidency. (In the October 2004 issue of Vanity Fair, an excellent article entitled "The Path To Florida" explains how the Republicans nullified and disqualified literally hundreds of thousands of Florida votes.)

    This lesson has not been lost on the Democrats - who are likely to refrain from conceding if they are losing in 2004 until all of the dubious disqualifications in closely-won swing states are sorted out.

    Rove's Refusal to Accept Defeat: The Knee-jerk Response of Suing

    And it won't only be the Democrats heading to court. Indeed, in Florida in 2000, it was Bush who sued first - while later falsely accusing Gore of starting the litigation.

    Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't merely the closeness of the tallying in what appeared to be unique circumstances in Florida that spawned litigation. To the contrary, suing is a standard operating procedure for Karl Rove when he is losing (or has lost) a race.

    A recent profile of Karl Rove in the November 2004 Atlantic Monthly, entitled "Karl Rove In A Corner," examines how Rove operates in a close race. While Rove has had only a few, his tactics are never pretty.

    The article describes "Rove's power, when challenged, to draw on an animal ferocity that far exceeds the chest-thumping bravado common to professional political operatives" - and notes that "Rove's fiercest tendencies have been elided in national media coverage."

    Consider Rove's role in a 1994 judicial campaign for the Alabama Supreme Court. Election returns showed his candidate had lost by 304 votes. But Rove went to court - not only suing to overturn the election, but at the same time, further campaigning to garner support for these efforts.

    These maneuvers went on and on and on. Rove's candidate and his opponent both appeared for Inauguration Day ceremonies, although neither was seated. Rove moved the matter from state to federal courts. And he appealed whenever he could - all the way up to the U. S. Supreme Court, which stayed the case almost a year after the election. In the end, Rove's man won - purportedly by 262 votes.

    Doubtless, Rove was similarly prepared to take Bush's 2000 lawsuits as far as necessary. Had the U.S. Supreme Court bumped the case back to the Florida Supreme Court, and allowed the recount to conclude, doubtless Rove would have again challenged the recount - all the way back up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

    Make no mistake: If Bush loses, and it is very close, Rove will want to litigate as long as possible, going to the U.S. Supreme Court (again) if possible.

---

We're in for a roller coaster ride. Hang on to your loved ones and prepare to lift your tee-shirts as you pass the camera...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:44 AM

I see some good points here especially the posts of Geusts.

There are some hotheads that ignore the request for a "civil conversation".
As usual Nerd is hurling his firebombs in attempt to reinforce his flawed logic or lack thereof.

Is everybody here aware of the fact that a Brazillian billionaire named Klor De Alva is spending millions trying to get Colorado to split their electoral votes?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Klor+De+Alva+colorado&btnG=Google+Search

I am as worried about this election as I am about the next one if Kerry looses.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:01 AM

Couple of facts to throw in this hysterical thread:

Bush brought his cases to the US Supreme Court. But Gore v Harris was filed first, which was to get a recount going. You can access the case filings at FindLaw.

Second, the "thousands of lawyers" thing seems to be confusing things here. I don't think either party is anticipating a repeat of 2000. The lawyers both sides are mobilizing are to be present at polling places, especially the polling places in Florida and without a paper ballot, as election observers. Just like we send election observers to El Salvador or Afghanistan.

Voter fraud and voting irregularities are nothing new under the sun, and have been part and parcel of American elections since their inception. I think it safe to presume voter fraud and voting irregularities are de rigeur in Florida. Discriminatory/irregular voting practices on the ground are common in the South, not just Florida. Discriminatory/irregular voting practices on the ground are common in California and Texas too. And in certain urban areas like Chicago and New York and Newark and all kinds of other places we never hear about nationally, but where elections get contested.

Anyone who thinks US elections are a pure process is delusional at best. Clean elections are, in many parts of the US, an oxymoron. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone here could name an area in their state where the elections/election results are always a bit dodgy, and Democrats are every bit as guilty of that as Republicans.

But that doesn't mean we will see a repeat of 2000. I think that is extremely unlikely. But it does help the TV and talk show ratings, the hysteria mongering, and possibly even will result in getting more people to the polls. But I'm not expecting that it will take any longer than 24 hours to verify the election results this time around. I think either Bush or Kerry will end up with a comfortable enough margin (at least 1-2%) to easily be declared the winner, regardless of provisional ballots, absentee ballots, etc.

It could end up that Florida is in play in terms of a recount being needed, but I even doubt that scenario. I don't think the polls are accurate at this point, and by next weekend, the polls will become meaningless. Those last minute undecideds will make up their minds then, and that is always too late to tally accurately. Then, there is the actual turnout on the day. Historically, increased voter registrations haven't turned out many new voters on election day. So the predictions using new voter registrations tend to be wildly inaccurate too.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Nerd
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:14 AM

pdq: no one knows what the f*ck you are talking about, least of all you.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 01:31 AM

Jack,


Try using my full quote, or is that simple fairness beyound you?

"or do the Liberal Bigots ( because the Conservative Bigots have not yet shown up) insist on being assholes? "



And thank you for finally adressing the topic in your last paragraph.

Now, I think you ought to fuck off to where ever it is that the people who can't bother being civil go off to.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 01:15 AM

Yes Bruce I see evidence of your civility LOL

"do the Liberal Bigots insist on being assholes?"

I think dumb for you to start of with the straw man argument that the popular vote was the reason that people thought Bush didn't win and expect us not to question that silly, silly notion.

I think you ought to fuck off to where ever it is that the people are who think that and berate them instead of bothering us the "Liberal Bigots" who have the temerity to point out the falicies in your Bill O'Reilly-like argument. Maybe, if they are stupid enough to think that they may also be gulible enough to think that you are civil simply because you say that they are.

In any case the simple answer to your question is we Liberal Bigots will accept a fair and accurate count of the vote even if it results in an electoral college win for Bush, without him gaining a majority of the popular vote. And none of that has anything to do with the fiasco that was the 2000 election. Any more stupid questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 01:08 AM

beardedbruce, perhaps the main point of John Dean's linked column is that the election will probably NOT be over on election day.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 12:43 AM

Bobert,

Let me break into song, here...

"The sun'll come out, tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow..."



Take a deep breath. Look out at a sunrise, fog rising from the fields...



I do not know who will win, nor do I think that the Republicans will be the only, or even the larger, vote manipulators. The number of contested votes in the country was greater than the margin of popular votes in the last election- why do you think this one will be different? Someone will win, and life will continue, regardless. Some people will be happy, some upset.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 12:04 AM

What you don't get, BB, is that yer team now posesses the power to stael the hell out of this election... I mean, look around you. Diebold alone can swing 2% without flinchin'... Hey, do you really think the Dems don't know this? Do you really think that the Dems haven't yet figgured out what happened in Florida in 2000 when upwards of 57,000 predominantly Democratic voters were disenfranchised by Catherine Harris, Jeb Bush and the Rebub fraternity?

So what John Dean (see Ebbie's post) predicts is going to happen. You may think not and you amy also think that the son will not come up tomorrow but, hey....

Yer thievin' fraternity has taken it way too far and now yer theivin' fraternity is going to have to let the other theivin' fraternity into the game in in doing so third parties may just sneak into the process as well so, like I said...

...bring on the corrupt so called victory for Bush...

I personally can't wait....

If this doesn't shake things up enuff to end the corrupt system we have in this country then God help us because it's terminal...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 11:44 PM

Jack


"As it that were not enough, it is easy to show that your hypothetical situation is pretty much impossible in this current electoral contest.

I just looked at an Electoral Map
based on the most recent polls."

You miss the point I brought up, tat there is no certainty that the electors WILL vote as the popular votes would indicate. For EITHER candidate.

I asked a question, which your first reply did not directly address. Excuse me for trying to have a civil discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 11:06 PM

Bobert, if John Dean is right, I must agree with you that it is high time for this country to change its methodology. Here is what he has to say:


The Coming Post-Election Chaos
    By John W. Dean
    FindLaw

    Friday 22 October 2004

The Nightmare Scenario: An Election up in the Air for Months

"...It does not seem to trouble either Rove or Bush that they are moving us toward a Twenty-first Century civil war - and that, once again, Southern conservatism is at its core. Only a miracle, it strikes me, can prevent this election from descending into post-election chaos. But given the alternatives, a miracle is what I am hoping for."

More

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 08:46 PM

Well, I'm hoping that the election is so screwed up that it will piss off people to the fact that the American system of governemnt is seriously broken. What America needs is a good kick in the pants. Winner take all is a formule for disaster and disaster may be on our doorstep on Novemeber 3rd. Good!!!!

I mean it. Good!!!!

First of all, democracy sucks. It is nothin more than sugar coated fascism. The minority will always be left completely powerless. Powerlessness is not good for an political system. With winner tahe all there will never be room for a second opinion... Think Viet Nam or Iraq here...

Now what we have in America is a revolutionaries dream. One party (as if the other one was that much different) controlling evrything! The executive, judical and legislative branches of government. No pussy footing arounf here. With the current and corrupt bush toward cenralized power we have a similar situation to just about every country in history where a revolution, or war of seperation, took place and was successful...

I say, bring it on...

Heck, in a peace settlement between the repub and dems that could rsult from a roatlllu screwed up election, other parties may get a fairer shot at having a voice in the next America...

We need more voices to solve today's problems, not less so, like I said...

...bring it the heck on!!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 07:20 PM

However, if Kerry wins the popular vote, which I consider likely and the electoral vote, but is then assaulted by vitriolic legal shenanigans, such as the Bush team has demons trated they are capable of, there will be an uproar in this nation louder than has been heard since Dewey beat Truman.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 05:23 PM

BB said

"Jack

all your points are debatable, but do not directly address the topic:

Getting back to my question, what if Bush DOES win the popular vote, clearly, but NOT the Electorial College? "

It seems to me the crux of your question is this.

"hat are those who feel presently that Bush is NOT the elected president, because he did not win the populr vote"

I'm telling you that the people who do not feel Bush won, feel that way because of the mistakes made and because of the fraud committed by Catherine Harris.

So Bearded Bruce, you are arguing a logical falicy. You are setting up a straw man. Apparently it wasn't enough to counter your argument in the first thread. So now I am accusing you of intellectual dishonesty and "CNN Crossfire" tactics.

As it that were not enough, it is easy to show that your hypothetical situation is pretty much impossible in this current electoral contest.

I just looked at an Electoral Map
based on the most recent polls.

Compare the Dark Blue states to the Dark red ones, put your mouse over them and look at the numbers. The fact is that Bush's lead in the so called red non-battle ground states is on average ten to twenty percent higherm and in some cases almost twice as high than Kerry's lead in the blue states. If the Vote splits 50-50, unless some large, blue states completely breaks against the polls, or a lot more people in Texas and some of the western states vote for Kerry, Kerry will win. Kerry has a good chance of winning without winning the popular vote. Bush has almost no cahnce of winning even with a tie of the popular votes because of his big leads in many states.

Given your arrogant, unfounded, prattle about "Left wing bigots", I hope this news disheartens you as much as it gives me confidence that Kerry is in a very favorable position.

Thanks for reading BeardedBruce, now go back to trying bully people so that you can manipulate the discussion of your "topic".

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 05:22 PM

I was saying, going by the electoral vote predictor, which on the basis of various polls predcts Ohio for the demvrats, but has Florida as a dead heat. Click on the various states on the map for the poll details. Fascinating stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 04:07 PM

"I am a UNITER, not a divider".

Some asshole.


I do not think the United States has been this polarized, politically, since the Civil War.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: pdq
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 03:53 PM

McGrath -

Many political experts are conceding Florida to president Bush.

The new "bone of contention" will be Ohio. Although it is in the Midwest and traditionally Republican, Ohio also has several large urban centers that are going increasingly Democrat.

Yes, Nov. 2 will be an exciting night, but everyone should hope for a clear victory and an attempt at reconciliation by all. Acrimony is killing our country.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 03:05 PM

It could all be very entertaining.

The current poll break-down in the electoral vote predictor looks as though it is likely to be all down to what happens in Florida once again.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: pdq
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 01:02 PM

Nerd -

Here is one thing you will learn when you grow up:

"When proven facts contradict your opinion, your opinion if faulty not the facts".

And thanks again for your kind words.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:57 PM

Excuse me, but the case was brought to the Supremes by the Republicans -- Bush claimed the Florida Supreme Court's decision in the electoral process was harmful to him (because the recount would have cost him the election, presumably). The fact that he did equal and opposite harm in his claim was conveniently overloked by the 5 Supremes who knew his daddy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:47 PM

No, pdq, not Game Set Match Finis. All you have proven is that you're a jerk.

There were 4 dissenting opinions who wanted the recount continued by the same or other means.

That makes 5 concurring, 4 dissenting, otherwise known as 5-4

GAME-SET-MATCH. Finis...

Thanks for your support.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:41 PM

More about discrepancies between popular and electoral votes. (I guess I was wrong about Kennedy/Nixon)..xx..e


In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.

In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.

You may hear people say that Richard M. Nixon received more popular votes in the 1960 election than winner John F. Kennedy, but official results showed Kennedy with 34,227,096 popular votes to Nixon's 34,107,646.

Source: National Archives - Electoral College Box Scores

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: pdq
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:09 PM

Nerd sez:

"There WAS a 7-2 vote, which was on whether the Florida recount procedure being followed when the Supreme Court intervened was the right procedure."

This decision was based on the Equal Protection clause of the US constitution. They were "re-counting" illegally therefore any new results would be invalid. GAME-SET-MATCH. Finis...

Thanks for your support.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:04 PM

pdq, you are still full of it. If you don't see the difference between a guy who got more votes than anyone else and a guy who didn't, you're a fool.

By the way, voter turnout is so low that ALL presidents are minority winners. Since that is the case, I guess by your logic anyone off the street is entitled to be president.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:00 PM

pdq is full of shit as to the vote in the Supreme Court. There WAS a 7-2 vote, which was on whether the Florida recount procedure being followed when the Supreme Court intervened was the right procedure. But the decision on whether to stop the recount entirely was 5-4.

Here are excerpts from the 4 dissenting opinions

Breyer: The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume.

Ginsburg: In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States. I dissent.

Souter: The Court should not have reviewed either Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ___ (per curiam), or this case, and should not have stopped Florida's attempt to recount all undervote ballots, see ante at ___, by issuing a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's orders during the period of this review, see Bush v. Gore, post at ____ (slip op., at 1). If this Court had allowed the State to follow the course indicated by the opinions of its own Supreme Court, it is entirely possible that there would ultimately have been no issue requiring our review, and political tension could have worked itself out in the Congress following the procedure provided in 3 U.S.C. § 15. The case being before us, however, its resolution by the majority is another erroneous decision.

Stevens: Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. I respectfully dissent.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: pdq
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:00 PM

Nerd - I put the numbers out as facts. What you make of them depends on your prejudices.

The electoral process as prescribed by the constitution produced a "minority" winner in 1992.

The same constitution produced another minority winner in 2000.

If you like one of these two men but not the other, that is too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 11:57 AM

Neither the Florida or US Supreme Courts declared a winner. They simply ruled that the recount should continue/be stopped.

There is nothing in the US constitution that would allow the US Supreme Court a winner. That is the job of the House of Representatives. Gore didn't want the House of Representatives to do that, because he would have lost. Hence, Gore & the Democrats decision to use the courts instead of allowing a tie to be declared, and the tie breaking vote to be taken by the House of Representatives.

The Constitution is ambiguous on these matters, which defacto allows the unelected, non-appointed power brokers to fight out the electoral battle. We the people don't have any say in it. That much should be obvious after the 2000 debacle.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: pdq
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 11:50 AM

GUEST of 10:57, Thanks for a erudite presentation on presidential history. I agree with you on most things, but not the Florida Supreme Court decision to declare Gore the president. That court was seven people all appointed by ultrapartisan Democrat governor Lawton Chiles. The decision was still just 4-3 with the chief justice saying "I object to this decision in the strongest way...". The US Supreme Court settled it by a 7-2 vote, not 5-4 as often stated by partisam sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 11:45 AM

that's pure sophistry, pdq. Lamebrains on the right just have to compare everything to Clinton.

In 1992 Clinton got more of the popular vote than anyone else.

In 2000, Bush did not.

Many of the people who want reform have suggested instant runoff voting, by the way, which would alleviate the problem you bring up here: with a direct popular vote fortified with IRV rules, the final winner would always have more than 50%. But for people who adhere to the status quo,

(1) Clinton's popular vote majority was clear in 1992
(2) Clinton's electoral majority was clear in 1992
(3) Gore's popular majority was clear in 2000
(4) Bush's electoral majority was unclear in 2000 at the time vote counting stopped

If you don't see the differences there, it's your problem.

I think pdq's accusation really applies only to pdq:

Whom you consider a "legitimate" president depend more on the "R" or the "D" after his name than reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 11:31 AM

"Whom you consider a "legitimate" president depend more on the "R" or the "D" after his name than reality. "

It also depends somewhat on whether there are election "irregularities" in the state governed by the winner's brother. And perhaps some Supreme Court "irregularities."

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:57 AM

Very true pdq. But I would add, it also depends on how much Joe and Jane Citizen know about the history of presidential elections, and the Constitution. Which is, apparently, not much if the popular beliefs surrounding the 2000 and 2004 elections are anything to go by.

That's why the media echo chamber that keeps the public hysteria level very high, is so awful. I mean, the 2000 election result was unusual, but not unprecedented. It was going to have to be decided somehow, and Gore certainly didn't want it decided by the House, because he would have lost for sure. So that is how the courts got dragged into it. I do believe the Florida Supreme Court had it right and the US Supreme Court had it wrong, and I also believe that historians will view it that way. But hey--this is the price we pay for the peaceful transition of power. It isn't always going to run perfectly, and the winner won't necessarily win under this system.

So I wish everyone would quit whining about that, and pay some serious attention to the horrendous problems neither of the 2004 mainstream party candidates are addressing!

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:52 AM

I expect grave trouble if the race is as close as predicted, with both sides looking for state results that can be challenged and possibly thrown out. However, there is little doubt that if the ultimate decision is left to the House of Representatives in Congress, and I believe it is the current House Representatives who vote, that Bush will be declared the victor. And if the decission is made by the U.S. Supreme Court, I would expect a majority to vote in favor of Bush regardless, or even irregardless, of the merit of the arguments.

That's all the more reason for Democrats and their allies to work even harder in the time that remains for a clear cut victory.

Charley Noble, going back to phoning up more volunteers for Election Day

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: pdq
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:51 AM

In 1992, Clinton got 44,909,806 votes or 43% of those cast.

In 2000, George W. Bush got 50,460,110 votes or 48%.

Whom you consider a "legitimate" president depend more on the "R" or the "D" after his name than reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:28 AM

There have been four times in the nation's history when the winner of the popular vote was not the winner of the electoral college vote. The electoral college was established in Article Two of the Constitution, and has only been modified twice, with the ratification of the 12th and 23rd amendments. However, the previous three times that the winner of the electoral college wasn't the same as the winner of the popular vote, were all in the 19th century: in 1824, 1976, and 1888. The 1888 election is the one historians feel the circumstances and issues surrounding the election most resonated with the circumstances and issues surrounding the 2000 election.

There has also been one tie in the nation's history: in 1800 between Jefferson and Burr, who ran a coordinated campaign to oust the incumbent John Adams. Their tactics worked, and the election was decided by the House of Representatives, as the constitution mandates in the event of an electoral college tie.

However, in the contested election of 1876, the House did not decide the election, because of bitter divisions between the House and Senate over the ambiguous "instructions" in the Constitution of how an election should be resolved when one candidate wins the popular vote, and another candidate wins the electoral college vote. So it is the 1876 election, historians say, where the circumstances of the electoral college debate over the results, most resonated with the circumstances of 2000. Hell, Florida was embroiled in voter fraud charges in 1876 too!

beardedbruce is referring to a "faithless elector" I believe (one who pledges to vote for a particular president and vice president, but then casts their vote for someone else). This has been going on for a very long time. Though it isn't common, it has happened numerous times. None have ever played a role in deciding the election though, and I highly doubt that would be the case this year either.

The electoral college system is really an antiquated patronage system, pure and simple. According to Wikipedia, until the 19th century, the concept of an authentic democracy ruled by the entire populace was regarded by the ruling elite as mob rule, and political parties viewed with suspicion. If any of you have read the Federalist Papers (which I rather doubt), you would know that the "founding fathers" never intended direct election of the president and vice president by the popular vote, and presumed that most presidents and vice presidents would be elected by the House of Representatives (they are designated to poll each state delegation for one vote each in the event of a tie in the electoral college).

The electoral college need not even poll it's state's popular voters! The electors appointed by each state's legislature can vote any way they wish to, and sometimes do. South Carolina never held popular votes for president and vice president until 1860.

But then, the "founding fathers" never intended that the presidency would usurp the Congress' power, which is the reality we are living with now.

Many people feel the power of the executive needs to be checked and more legislative power restored to the Congress, more than the electoral college needs to be changed. Personally, I feel both needs to happen, along with reform of the campaign finance laws (ie anybody can contribute whatever they want, but that the money gets doled out to candidates by a non-partisan institution and not the political parties. And finally, there needs to be reform of the incumbency system of patronage in Congress as well. That would have to include reform of the census districting system that was so well abused in Texas recently.

However, in this era of rule by lobbyists and executive fiat, I'm not holding out much hope of the power of the executive being checked by Congress. Congress is too busy feeding at the trough of comfortable campaign finance incumbency to enact any sort of reforms. That will have to come from the populace. In the event of another contested presidential and vice presidential election, reform may come. But I doubt it. The US constitutional system of elections is much too static and petrified, the career politicians too entrenched in their positions, and the US electorate too distracted to care, for any meaningful change to ever be enacted. I think the US political system will simply continue rotting from within and being corrupted from without by the corporate elite, until one day it is overthrown, it fractures regionally, or some such. One thing we all can count on, it won't last forever, thank goodness.

I for one wouldn't care if there were another contested election like 2000, even though I really don't think it is likely. While I don't agree that the 2000 election was an anomaly in a historic sense (it has happened before--three times before!), I think the Democrats are trying to get as much mileage as they can fear mongering their base over it, in order to turn out their voters (many of whom sat out the 2000 election) on election day.

This political system is pretty rotten and corrupt, IMO, but it is still very strong. It will likely be at least another hundred years before the US as it is today, falls.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:00 AM

BB--

You may think this is a safe topic, but it ain't.

There is so much suspicion, bordering on paranoia, on BOTH sides, based in large part on despicable tactics by Bushites in 2000, that if the election is even slightly close, it will be a long time til one side will give up.

Also, many Democrats feel that Gore was, bluntly, stupid, to concede early (he then had to "un-concede" later.)

Ain't gonna happen this time.

Meanwhile, the Republicans this time will with their phalanx of lawyers (as you know, both sides have armies of lawyers ready) to challenge, particularly the "provisional votes".

Electoral College majority, when it's finally determined, will determine the president-----anything else will bring even more chaos.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 09:57 AM

Your Conbstitutinis clear about that - whoever gets enough electors is the winner. The central complaint about Bush was that the count in Florida was intentionally fudged and the count was prematurely stopped, to give him electors that should have gone to Gore.

Pretty obviously anybody elected with fewer votes than their opponent should take note of that innthe way they behave in office. They should never pretend to have the endorsement of the American people. For example, last time it would have been more appropriate for Bush to call in Gore to consult on all kind of issues. And I'd have thought that there should be a moral obligation on a candidate who won in this way to ensure that the system was reformed so that it couldn't happen again.

My understanding is that neither of those two things has happened over the last four years. And I don't imagine it'll happen over the next four years if the boot is on the other foot.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 09:18 AM

It worked for JFK, it's good enough for me!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 04:35 AM

Actually, BB there are many people who feel that Bush is not the legitimately elected president, but few argue that this is because of the college system.

Some think Bush was not legitimately elected, but IF the recount had continued, and it had been found that he had legitimately won Florida and thus had a real electoral majority, they would feel that he WAS   legitimately elected.

I have always been willing to abide by the college system. So If Kerry wins the electoral college but not the popular vote, I will argue that he is legitimately elected. Just as, if Bush won the electoral college (which we still don't know for sure) then he is legitimate.

BUT if the Kerry electoral majority occurs because of one or more "faithless electors," you can be sure we will have another major discussion of the merits of the electoral college system, after which most likely nothing will be done about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 04:32 AM

I have a feeling this is going to be debated for days after the election. The lawyers on both sides are set to have a feeding frenzy.

This has never been an easy answer. If I remember, didn't Kennedy get elected via Electoral College, even though Nixon had the popular vote?

In the case of the last election, it really does show how complex a system we've created for ourselves, which is becoming more and more difficult to make work, or believe in.

The electronic voting system in Florida is already creating problems, and believe me, it's the tip of the iceberg.

This is going to be the year that might have us doing recounts until the cows come home.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 02:25 AM

BB:

Your question: "What are those who feel presently that Bush is NOT the elected president, because he did not win the popular vote ( debateable point, but ...) going to say IF Bush does win the POPULAR vote, but loses in the Electorial College? Will it suddenly be that Kerry is not the elected president?"

If Bush wins the popular vote, but loses in the Electoral College, as far as I know he loses the leection, which goes to Kerry. The reverse, as I said above, is also true, except that Kerry has the additional burden of fending off the bias of the Supreme Court and the dedication of the Diebold Voting Machine Company.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 02:07 AM

Amos,

I know you have a problem with reality, but try addressing the question.




Clint-

I agree, in the case Kerry wins the Electorial College, but not the popular vote, I would consider him to be president.

This is NOT such a hypothetical case- there is talk of at least one Republican Elector casting his vote for someone other than Bush, in the case that Bush wins his state. It is easy to envision the Popular vote going to one candidate, and the Electorial College CLEARLY to the other.


Is it possible to have a reasonable conversation about this, or do the Liberal Bigots ( because the Conservative Bigots have not yet shown up) insist on being assholes?

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 02:07 AM

That should be "listen to Republicans as well as Democrats."

…but while we're being nonsensical & hypothetical, if Bush again wins the electoral vote and not the popular vote there's going to be big trouble.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 02:00 AM

I'd say Kerry won, but he doesn't have a mandate; he would do well to listen to the Republicans and bring the counry back together.

But it's unlikely it'll happen that way. You know what hypothetical don't mean.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 01:59 AM

The rules for the process are explicit. If Kerry wins the popular vote, but legitimately does not win the electoral college, presumably the process of election law will award the election to that loony bird who pretends to be from Texas. If Kerry wins the electoral vote and manages to keep the Supreme Court from stealing the election again, he'll become President of the United States.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 01:52 AM

Jack,


all your points are debatable, but do not directly address the topic:

Getting back to my question, what if Bush DOES win the popular vote, clearly, but NOT the Electorial College?

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 01:49 AM

Bush is not the elected president because:
1. They did not count all of the votes in Florida
2. Butterfly ballots mis recorded votes
3. Because Suzan Harris committed electoral fraud
4. Because the Supreme court made a biased and bad decision

Subject: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 01:24 AM

I was wondering about a set of circumstances that may very well happen- and how we ALL will react. After the election will be too late to get an honest answer, so I will ask now.

It seems a high probability that this will be a close election. What are those who feel presently that Bush is NOT the elected president, because he did not win the popular vote ( debateable point, but ...) going to say IF Bush does win the POPULAR vote, but loses in the Electorial College? Will it suddenly be that Kerry is not the elected president?


IMO, the results of the Electorial College are the determining factor- WHOEVER wins there IS the elected president, REGARDLESS of the popular vote.

Perhaps we could have a civil conversation on the possible wiewpoints about this topic?