Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?

Subject: Well, They Have Spoken... Where is it?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Nov 00 - 10:28 PM

I'm looking for the website where the "42-page" ruling is nestling, and haven't found it. I checked under Florida Supreme Court 2000 and got lots of material but nothing about today's activities. The clerk said it would be on there as soon as he finished speaking.

Can someone direct me to it?

Actually, I was hoping the Supreme Court would find in favor of Bush's position, only because I think that if at this stage Gore is found to be the president elect, the Republicans are going to be scary. (Only my opinion, folks.) The Democrats, on the other hand, come across as somewhat resigned and accepting.

I'm not a registered partisan but obviously I tilt toward the Democrats.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Nov 00 - 10:35 PM

I have to add this: Wouldn't it be marvelous if Gore/Lieberman were to withdraw from the race tonight? It seems like an optimum moment in the wake of a favorable ruling. Might go a long way toward neutralizing the bitterness and paving the way to 2004.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Nov 00 - 10:54 PM

What if they won? It might irritate all the people who voted for them. I just want to see all the votes counted. I really would like to see the problem with a confusing ballot, and possibly misprinted ballots, addressed. It's not fair that people's vote doesn't count because of a goof-up somewhere. It won't happen though - fairness in this case is not convenient.

If the shoe were on the other foot, I'd bet Bush's side would be doing the same thing Gore's is now. I don't think the situation will cause the politicians to dislike the other side any more than they normally do. Republican politicians can't get much scarier.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: GUEST,Fairplay
Date: 21 Nov 00 - 10:55 PM

Yes they have. And if you believe that everyone's vote should count you will be very happy.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Nov 00 - 11:10 PM

Ebbie....Here it is and you need Adobe Acrobat to read it. Its entertaining.

CLICK HERE

Spaw

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Sandy Paton
Date: 21 Nov 00 - 11:41 PM

Kind of took the Secretary of State over the coals, didn't they? I went to the site mentioned in the announcement: namely "flcourts.org", and had no trouble finding and printing the decision. They suggest that anyone having trouble at that site try an alternate site and give that address, too. But, what the heck, we Mudcatters don't need to go through all that -- Catspaw has done it for us! Way to go, Spaw!

Sandy

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Nov 00 - 11:50 PM

This thing is one helluva' read too!!! What will tomorrow bring?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 12:15 AM

Well, we certainly are living through interesting times, aren't we?

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 12:22 AM

Let the history books show:

Albert Gore, 2001-2005*

* First president in USA history to be placed in office by the judiciary of a state, which justices we're all members of his party.

But, of course we'll never read that!---John

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: GUEST,John Hindsill
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 12:26 AM

The message at 12:22am is mine.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 12:30 AM

I heard something interesting today on the radio. Turns out it's not legal for the electoral college to vote for a president and a vice president who are both from the same state. Turns out Cheney was from Texas until just this July, when he conveniently "moved" to Wyoming. I wonder if the framers meant for a person to "move" in the middle of a campaign when they drafted this provision of the constitution? Hmmm. Not that this will stop the Republican-controlled House of Representatives from accepting the votes of the Electoral College, even if they're unconstitutional, I don't suppose. Once it is confirmed, that is, that Jeb has indeed "won" Florida for his big brother. And it is increasingly clear that the Republican party will stop at nothing to ensure they win the Whitehouse in 2000.

(or is White House 2 words? I disremember)

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 12:58 AM

Thanks, Spaw. You're right, that document is very interesting. I learned a couple of things I had missed earlier. I hadn't understood the law governing the right to challenge for a recount at least 3 counties of one's choice. Wonder why Bush didn't immediately choose 3 counties of his own. First president in USA history to be placed in office by the judiciary of a state, which justices we're all members of his party.
But, John, they would add "...having won the popular vote, narrowly winning a plurality of electoral votes, with the pivotal state governed by the opposing candidate's brother whose promise to deliver his state to his brother fell short."

Republican politicians can't get much scarier. Jeri, LOL! But why is it that most of the Republicans come across as so humorless and mean?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Sandy Paton
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 01:37 AM

Seems to me, John, that when all of the votes are counted and a winner is finally declared (whether Bush or Gore) it will have been the people who actually determined the outcome.

Is that bad?

Sandy

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 07:47 AM

If either candidate has any integrity they'll resign after the decision and call a new election. Can you do that in the USA? A new election should bring in more voters and then you'll see who really has a mandate to govern.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 08:12 AM

Manitas,

The constitution governs succession. If whoever wins resigns, the Speaker of the House is president until 2004.

What do all the recriminations, accusations and hundreds of new urban legends that are flying around imply?

Former Senator's Sam Nunn and Harold Baker on "Meet the Press" Sunday felt that: 1. Both Democrats and Republicans share the blame for the confusion and both sides are adding fuel to the fire. 2. That we are fast reaching the point where the election will do "great damage" to the country.

Both felt Bush and Gore should get together and resolve the problem. That neither of them have done anything substantial doesn't speak well of either of their leadership or consensus building skills.

A couple of Sunday's past, on one of the morning shows, the commentator said he's just seen a cartoon that captured the spirit of the past year in Congress. Seems appropriate to the current fiasco.

Two dogs are talking. One says to the other "It's not enough for the dogs to win, the cats have to lose too".

I've reached the point where, Bush or Gore, I think the Country has already lost.

Regards John

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 09:49 AM

John, that was Howard Baker -- a Republican who is generally well regarded by members of both parties (as Sam Nunn is).

I agree that there has been a real lack of leadership in evidence from these two gentlemen who had been trying to impress us with what great leaders they are. Gore at least tried to elevate the discussion a few days ago, and offer a couple of options for resolving this. That was too little, too late -- but Bush has done nothing.

Alex, the bit about Cheney being from Texas is old news -- it was mentioned and discussed on the news just after he was selected as GWB's running mate. While I'm a Gore supporter, I wouldn't be inclined to make an issue of this. The fact is that, wherever he principally resides now, when Cheney was a Congressman he represented Wyoming. Besides, the country has changed a lot since the late 1700s when that rule was written -- people are much more mobile now, and the states are not really considered to be separate but allied countries in quite the same way as the framers viewed them.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: GUEST,John Hindsill
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 09:55 AM

Sandy Paton--

I agree that having all the votes counted,(and recounted in a timely, if necessary} is a good thing. But we do not have only a recount here...no talk of fraud, no election malfunction, no disputed voters...what we have is an "interpretation" of what a ballot means, a very subjective interpretation, as the criteria changed two or four times.

I realize that elections are extremely important! They are not a game, but there are rules and regulations. Elections must be conducted fairly and uniformly within a jurisdiction. This certainly is not the case in Florida where the rules are being made-up as they go along.

I grew up in another time; a time when folks mostly took responsiblity for they own actions and mistakes; a time when we didn't run to the courts for redress to everything we perceived as inimicable to our indidual well-being. People thought more of community than themselves. I am too old to pat people on the head and tell them that they are not responsible, that their ills are a result of the system. This Florida election smacks to me of just that victim mentality attitude. I do not accept it. I will not accept it! And neither should you or any of us.

Please for give the harangue, but this is the synthesis of discussions with my more liberal brother (almost a generation younger than I). I am not so much for Bush as I am for fairness, which I find sorely lacking.

That said, may Mr. Gore be the best president we have had in my lifefime.---John

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: kendall
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 10:09 AM

One of them should resign? Are you kidding? These people dont give a rats ass about the good of the country. They are both on the biggest ego trip of their lives, and, nothing is going to keep them from getting the most powerful office in the world. It's not the money, it's not that they think they can do the better job..oh no.. friends it is POWER..the most potent aphrodisiac there is. The hell with them. As Utah phillips said (and probably Will Rogers) If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Kim C
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 10:09 AM

If just the President resigns, doesn't that make the VP the President?

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 10:12 AM

John (Hindsill), I appreciate the sentiments you expressed. I don't personally believe that the time you describe ever existed in quite the way you characterize it -- we all are tempted to put on rose-colored glasses when we recall the past, conveniently forgetting all the evils that existed alongside the good. But I certainly would like to see such a time in the future.

I also think there is a lot less "interpretation" going on than is being alleged. The recounts are being closely scrutinized, and for the most part the only objections to the process have been bogus claims about runaway chads and the counters trying to "divine" the will of the voters (all the Republican spin doctors use this word; evidently they think it's a good sound bite, inaccurate though it may be). The people doing the counting are normal, decent folks, and generally seem to be serious about doing this in an impartial way. And with all the scrutiny, even if they were inclined to be dishonest about it they wouldn't really be able to do anything. The whole bogus allegation of "divination" really just highlights the bankruptcy of the Republicans' position, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 10:34 AM

THe minimum I would expect from any ethical person, regardless of their politics is an agreement that in an election the best possible way should be found of determining who got the most votes, and that this should determine who gets elected.

I would also expect that every ethical person would also agree that where difficuties arise, than those doing the count should take as long as they need to take in order to achieve the maximum acxcuracy.

That having been agreed I'd expect that, if it so happens that the ballot forms have been designed in such a way that it is difficult to countb them, there might be disagreement about what is the best way of ensuring that all votes were correctly counted. I'd expect in this particular case that you might get some people saying "pregnant chads" should be allowed, and others saying they should not. (Good grief!"

But what I find astonishing and rather distasteful is the way in which seemingly decent people are taking sides on those issue according to who is likely to benefit politically. Because that should be completely irrelevant.

How can your poltical orientation have anything to do with what you believe about the right way to decide whether a vote is valid or not?

The election is about taking sides and trying to help your own candidate. The count is about something completely different, and far more important.

In another thread I used an analogy, and here itbis again. What has been happening as if members of a jury were voting on whether someone was guilty or not, not on the basis of what the evidence looked like, but because they liked or disliked the politics of the person being tried. Or their skin colour. (Which of course is what happens a lot of the time, so why should I be surprised? But I really find that I am.)

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 10:35 AM

THe minimum I would expect from any ethical person, regardless of their politics is an agreement that in an election the best possible way should be found of determining who got the most votes, and that this should determine who gets elected.

I would also expect that every ethical person would also agree that where difficuties arise, than those doing the count should take as long as they need to take in order to achieve the maximum acxcuracy.

That having been agreed I'd expect that, if it so happens that the ballot forms have been designed in such a way that it is difficult to countb them, there might be disagreement about what is the best way of ensuring that all votes were correctly counted. I'd expect in this particular case that you might get some people saying "pregnant chads" should be allowed, and others saying they should not. (Good grief!"

But what I find astonishing and rather distasteful is the way in which seemingly decent people are taking sides on those issue according to who is likely to benefit politically. Because that should be completely irrelevant.

How can your poltical orientation have anything to do with what you believe about the right way to decide whether a vote is valid or not?

The election is about taking sides and trying to help your own candidate. The count is about something completely different, and far more important.

In another thread I used an analogy, and here it is again. What has been happening as if members of a jury were voting on whether someone was guilty or not, not on the basis of what the evidence looked like, but because they liked or disliked the politics of the person being tried. Or their skin colour. (Which of course is what happens a lot of the time, so why should I be surprised? But I really find that I am.)

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: GUEST,John Hindsill
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 10:40 AM

Whistle Stop---My quarrel is not with the the good people who are expending much time and energy in this endeavor. My quarrel is with the Gore campaign, the local Pols and the Florida Supreme Court: the Gores because they sanction and abet this nonsense; the Pols because they keep changing the rules; and the Court because it not only interprets the law, but legislates the outcome.

I have found all of Gore's statements to be unctious and disengenuous. The crybaby attitude of allegedly confused voters is also balony. And to have William Daley fronting the Gore assault...give me a break. I reiterate that this is not an objective recount. It is a subjective interpretation, lead in every instance by a partisan who is looking for a way to get Gore additional votes, even those perhaps not 'meant' for him.

I hope that Republicans do not try to carry out any palace coups after the vote is certified. But if they do, it would be hard to blame them.---John

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 11:16 AM

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, John. I'm not saying Gore is a saint, but I think your objections are overstated. As for the court, their job is to interpret the law (that's what courts do), so I can't fault them for that, nor should you. And I haven't seen any evidence that they are "legislating the outcome" -- the courts don't have any legislative powers, even if they were so inclined. As far as I can tell the courts have handled this unusual situation pretty well.

I don't know much about William Daley, but I think some folks feel that he should be judged for his father's sins. I don't feel that way myself.

Anyway, you quarrel with Gore, I'll quarrel with Bush, and sooner or later this thing will be settled. There have certainly been tactical mis-steps on both sides, and perhaps less than virtuous motives. But when all is said and done, I think this will turn out okay, whoever ends up in the Oval Office. Have a nice holiday. -- WS

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: GUEST,Bob S.
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 11:21 AM

And Gore's boys are fighting like hell not to allow the overseas ballots that are not postmarked.

Happens the overseas are about 2/3 for Bush. Also, postmarks are not used all the time.

Bob S.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 11:32 AM

I'll grant you that, Bob -- the Gore partisans blew it on that issue. In reality, it hasn't resulted in many ballots being excluded, but it sure was a bad PR move.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 11:38 AM

If Gore had listened to me, he would have backed way off the whole thing long ago. The postmark thing was a horrible idea. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I'm beginning to believe the people that think Gore and Bush aren't all that different. Maybe Gore isn't that smart after all.

Alex

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 12:42 PM

I retired from the Division of Elections in my state. As I'm sure you are aware, there are criteria in every state for whether a ballot is to be accepted. Some of them, among others, are a signature and a printed name, a date, and a postmark on the envelope that is no later than election day.

This is so no one has a valid vote on November 8 or later.

Military mail is gathered and forwarded by the various APO and FPO offices. I don't understand why the military, knowing the operative criteria, are not able to date-stamp everything in each mail bag. Just who is not sufficiently sensitive to the rights of the voter!

Earlier last week someone on CNN said that the Secretary of State (which is the office that is in charge of elections in the states)in her instructions reiterated that an envelope must have a valid, ie, by Election Day, postmark. It is also so given in the Statutes book.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 01:02 PM

Ture enough, Ebbie. Still, it was a blunder. Makes the Gore team look almost as opportunistic as the Bush folks have claimed. My sense is that this decision was not made at the highest levels, otherwise it would have been more carefully thought through.

Another interesting tidbit reported on NPR last night is that the Bush operatives were working on the Florida election boards BEFORE election day to try to make them more receptive to counting un-postmarked ballots -- because they knew the race would be tight in Florida, and thought the military votes might make a difference. [Can't confirm this, but it seemed reputable.] One of the county elections supervisors interviewed on NPR said that this issue has never really mattered before, because absentee ballots have never made the difference in a Presidential election before. As an ex-military guy who used to vote absentee this was a little sobering to me, but it's undoubtedly true. The official went on to say that in the past ALL un-postmarked ballots were routinely excluded -- the fact that they're even being considered this time around is unique. So even though the Bush team is acting aggrieved over this, in fact things are going more their way than they really had a right to expect.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 02:50 PM

So changing the strict rules is fair when it's to allow in overseas votes that aren't poperly validated, but when it's to allow in domestic votes that were in on time but haven't yet been properly counted, that's unfair?

Or the other way round. Depending on what result you want to get in the election.

Maybe the Gore camp were saying "if you insist on the strict and inflexible letter of the law, that should apply to both sorts of votes" - which seems fair enough.

If they were in fact trying at the same time to exclude the overseas votes and yet include the domestic ones, they are just about as dirty as the Bushy crowd. Pretty dirty by any normal standards of political decency.

But in any case all this is totally irrelevant. The only thing that should be on the table, is ensuring that all the votes of everyone are properly and fairly counted, without the political preferences of those involved playing even the slightest part.

From what I've seen on TV the people actually doing the count are trying to achieve this - with teams of both Republicans and Democrats looking at every vote, and agreeing together on how to allocate it. Which is not difficult. It just needs people who have a sense of personal honour and fairness.

Maybe the delay in carrying out these counts, and the inability of those in charge to recruit enough people to carry them out on a wide enough scale and far far more quickly, is an indication that "people who have a sense of personal honour and fairness" are not that easy to find in America.

Which I think is the most surprsing thing of all, because, on the whole, I have always thought that that would be quite an accurate way of describing typical Americans, even if it doesn't describe some of thye people, they elect to office. And it's certainly an image of America that a lot of Americans seem to carry about with them.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 04:20 PM

Whistle Stop, Thanks for picking it up and apologies to Howard Baker, who was on "Meet the Press" and to my co worker Harold Baker, who wasn't.

On the succession, I was assuming both the President elect and VP would resign. If its only the President, then the VP is next.

How long is it before the majority (who aren't passionately sure that one side or the other is cheating in some way) decide that the whole election is a joke and that whoever wins "stole" it from the other. Do we end up with a figurehead? (Are either of them much more than that anyway)

Still, for us democrats, there is a silver lining. If Bush does win (as seems likely) and if, due to natural economic cycles (exacerbated by the questions about the legitimacy of the win) we have a recession, we can blame the republicans. That ought to be good for 15 or 20 years of democratic control.

Regards John

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 05:24 PM

McGrath, relevant or not, I want to go back to the in-on-time ballot question. Domestic absentee ballots have to meet the same criteria as the overseas ones, except the overseas ones are given 10 days, rather than 5 days, to reach the office.

It should not be a problem to get one's absentee ballot in on time, #1: You can vote absentee at least 3 weeks before Election Day and therefore, #2: If you're afraid the mail services won't get your voted ballot to the Elections Office in time, you have the option of doing it earlier.

If you goof up and suddenly realize that you didn't get the absentee ballot request off in good time so that there is no longer time to have the physical ballot mailed to you, in most states you have the option of voting absentee ballot by fax. It's true there are date deadlines in doing that, but in most states if you get your absentee-by-fax request into the office by a week before the election you can vote by fax up until 8:00 PM Election Day.

Domestic and overseas ballots that got in beforeElection Day don't have a problem- because they are date-stamped when they are received in the office.

If all else fails, you can comfort yourself with the knowledge is that yours is just one vote out of millions and there is always next election.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 05:52 PM

Well in an election run along sensible lines you have a rule that all ballots have to be in by the end of the election day, no exceptions, and you advise people as to when they have to send off the vote if they are to be sure of getting there on time.

Then you count all the votes at the same time, and if it's a close vote (with the candidates or their nominated representatives deciding what close means) you check them all by hand before you announce any result at all.

But I don't think many people think that the election we'rer talking about was run on sensible lines. So maybe there's more need to adjust the rules to achieve some greater degree of fairness.

I'd assume that tight rules on postal votes would be to intended as a way of reducing the likelihood of fraud, which must be particularly easy in such cases - and of course letting out results in dribs and drabs might have been designed to encourage that kind of thing.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Rollo
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 06:10 PM

As a German I watch this U.S. Election Soap Opera with a mixture of Amusement and Horror. The most powerful person in the world is to be chosen and everyone cries "treachery!" only because the difference is just some hundreds of votes. And voila! up comes a whole bunch of suspect happenings, from forgotten urns to malevolent ballot design... Were it not for the U.S. presidentship but some instabile semi-democratic gouvernment in a crisis area, new elections under control of U.N. watchers would be pressed upon this country by the international community.

But thank god the difference is not too big for international community whoever wins this farce. I just hope you americans learn your lesson and change your election system to something fair and simple.

(Like one person, one vote. If you dont find anybody who wants to be the person, I volunteer to take this burden for you. *GGG*)

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: SINSULL
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 08:57 PM

Maybe we can just convince Bill to stay on another year. Hillary is going to be too busy to pay him any attention. A hobby will be good for him.
Sorry - at this point I honestly do not care which one of them is officially elected. It makes no difference. He will never have the respect of the office. Of course, that's an old fashioned concept too.

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 09:14 PM

It doesn't much matter which one actually becomes president. But it does matter that it should be the one that was actually elected (with the overwhelming support of a good one in four of the American electorate...)

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 10:09 PM

I'm at the point where I'd settle for the winner of a mud wrestling contest......wives too. The Tipster looks to have a size advantage.

Neither will be able to do anything that isn't centrist and if they try I believe they guarantee themselves a one term presidency. The best thing they could do would be to call for campaign finance reform and clear election laws before 2004. Hell, I think the whole country would get behind that!

The news boys are starting to get to me too. I don't like Dick Cheney, but the news folks really have no handle on heart patients and that whole thing was much ado about nothing. Sure, any problem can be potentially serious, but what happened here is very common on a ten year quad operation. Christ, I think Larry King has had about half a dozen.

Spaw

Spaw

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Nov 00 - 10:30 PM

Spaw, someone said that the reason the vote is so close is that the candidates and their platforms are so nearly identical and that the only bias voters have is that they like(d) the personality of one candidate better than that of the other.

I think that's probably a bit simplistic. But if the 'winner' {HA!} develops centrist positions, as you suggest, maybe the country can take some steps that will benefit us all in future. We can hope.

Campaign reform is the first step needed, I think, and it seems like most of us might agree on that.

Is there any way that we, the people, could affect the process or make our will known? Hey, I'm willing to take to the streets!

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: georgeward
Date: 23 Nov 00 - 03:40 AM

For the first time in years, I've recently remembered a favorite saying of my Dad's:

"Don't vote! It only encourages them."

-g ::-.--O

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: Banjer
Date: 23 Nov 00 - 04:09 AM

YES!!! They have spoken! But unfortunately no one yet knows what the voters said....

Subject: RE: Well, They Have Spoken... Or Have They?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 00 - 02:37 PM

And "whoever you vote for the government always gets in."

And "If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it."

The irony is, whoever gets in, it'll be a total disaster for the party he belongs to. Especially if it's Bush, who doesn't even have the most votes, and won't be able to use a Congress belonging to the other party as a figleaf. And who'll be remembered as "The Man who Tried to Stop The Votes Being Counted Once He Was Ahead."