 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Harry Seldon
|
 |
Birmingham, AL
Oct 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
quote: Harry, ever hear of the electoral process? |
Yes. Do you mean the electoral college?
quote: No, the first recount was required by Florida law and he was still ahead after that recount. Gore then asked for manual recounts in ~4 counties which just happened to constitute his base to observe the "intent" of voters by looking for "evidence" - hanging chads, dimples, etc. That's when the Bush crowd stepped in and they should have. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in Gore's favor and that's when the matter went to the SCOTUS and they correctly ruled that Gore and the Florida court was effectively violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution by treating voters differently - voters who left hanging chads, etc., in other parts of the state would not have their votes counted while the voters in those 4 counties would have their votes counted. |
But the recounts benefitted W as well, gaining both more votes in a bipartisan counting process. Only four counties were contested but all could have been. Gore chose those counties because they were traditional democratic strongholds. Why didn't Bush challenge with a complete recount? Instead, he chooses to demand the count stand regardless of any "lost" votes.
quote: Actually, it was Bush and not Gore that was protecting the election process even though they obviously shared the desire to win... |
Yep. Every vote counts; that's the democratic way, right? Unless it means you can lose the election.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999 time: 23:30
|
|
Sava - quote: the whole tyranny by majority thing is tiresome... |
Tiresome or not, you and I know how you'd react if the majority did something like that to you and your family.
quote: it's funny how people cite tyranny by majority when things don't go there way, but then never hesitate to cite public support for something they agree with. |
Not me, I could care less what the majority wants or thinks except when it involves public property and elections via the Constitution. The only other times I'll mention majority rule is when I'm debating a proponent of democracy just to stick their nose in the inherent flaw with their ideology. 
Harry - quote: Yes. Do you mean the electoral college? |
Same thing, but yes. The "college" part I believe is where the electors gather together to vote, but that doesn't really happen any more since the parties have made sure electors vote the way they're supposed to. I think the last time an elector defied the party was 1980 when a Reagan elector voted for the LP candidate.
quote: But the recounts benefitted W as well, gaining both more votes in a bipartisan counting process. |
To the chagrin of Gore no doubt.
quote: Only four counties were contested but all could have been. Gore chose those counties because they were traditional democratic strongholds. |
Yes, champion of the little people.  
quote: Why didn't Bush challenge with a complete recount? |
Why should he? If you win, you don't ask for recounts.
quote: Instead, he chooses to demand the count stand regardless of any "lost" votes. |
The count stood because that was what the law required. Gore and the Florida court tried to circumvent the law and the SCOTUS put an end to their nonsense. Many Democrats like to tell us it was 5 "conservative" judges that gave Bush the election, but the ruling was actually 7-2. Those 7 judges wanted the Florida court to fix the mess it created but 5 of the judges ruled all the delays caused by Gore and the Florida court endangered Florida's electors being counted in time for the lawful deadline. That's my recollection of what happened anyway...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Joseph
|
 |
Ca. USA
Feb 2000 time: 21:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Berzerker
Harry, ever hear of the electoral process?
No, the first recount was required by Florida law and he was still ahead after that recount. Gore then asked for manual recounts in ~4 counties which just happened to constitute his base to observe the "intent" of voters by looking for "evidence" - hanging chads, dimples, etc. That's when the Bush crowd stepped in and they should have. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in Gore's favor and that's when the matter went to the SCOTUS and they correctly ruled that Gore and the Florida court was effectively violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution by treating voters differently - voters who left hanging chads, etc., in other parts of the state would not have their votes counted while the voters in those 4 counties would have their votes counted.
Actually, it was Bush and not Gore that was protecting the election process even though they obviously shared the desire to win... | Well, here is a person that understand the law as written during the month of Nov. 2000 in the state of Fl.
The Constitution of the United State, state that the State Legislature shall determined how each State conduct election and not the State Courts.
The Florida, SC try to overturn a valid election process to elect Gore.
The same was done in New Jersey, because state law said no candid can enter the race under 60 prior to election, and no candid can drop out under 60 days prior to an election. The NJSC over-rode the current law to elect the Demo. The USSC should have stooped that one to.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Harry Seldon
|
 |
Birmingham, AL
Oct 2002 time: 05:30
|
|
quote: Lots of books, essays, investigations, and news columns about both UFOs and big foot too. |
UFOs are real, heretic nonbeliever.

quote: To the chagrin of Gore no doubt. |
Maybe so but the point remains the same.
quote: Why should he? If you win, you don't ask for recounts. |
Why not? I would have. Why would I want that specter hanging over my term in office? If he truly felt he had won, why not demand a total recount and rub Al Gore's face in the fact that he was a four time loser?
quote: The count stood because that was what the law required. Gore and the Florida court tried to circumvent the law and the SCOTUS put an end to their nonsense. Many Democrats like to tell us it was 5 "conservative" judges that gave Bush the election, but the ruling was actually 7-2. Those 7 judges wanted the Florida court to fix the mess it created but 5 of the judges ruled all the delays caused by Gore and the Florida court endangered Florida's electors being counted in time for the lawful deadline. That's my recollection of what happened anyway... |
The Supreme Court didn't put an end to it, per se, unless you consider abstaining from a decision an end. They chose to leave it up to regional government, as they should have.
As far as the lawful deadline, I thought they had already passed that during the first recount but that's my recollection and unsupported for now.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|