BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts

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?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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