I've read a couple of places recently where constitutional scholars have suggested that there is precedent for simply removing Florida from the electoral process because of voter irregularities and problems there. A number of noted historians have said (some of them even going so far as to say they are Bush supporters) that the problems in Florida coupled with the fact that Gore has won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote outside of Florida is enough to warrant consideration of dropping Florida's electoral votes altoghether. Apparently, this has been done before as the result of voter irregularities. Anybody know anything about this or have ideas on the issue? ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
I am not ready to yet say Gore has won the Popular vote. I will admit, he is ahead. But last I heard there was still over a million votes left in California. That said, if Florida gets removed I actually think it will add more problems. If it gets removed Gore has the most Electoral votes so he would win. But if Florida is removed you can bet Bush will challenge enough states to get him the lead. All in all, I think the electoral college is a great idea and should stay. However, I think the voting process needs to change ALOT. There are too many dead voters, people voting twice, people without ID voting, etc.. It is a corrupt system, and I honestly think it needs to be changed before the election of 2004, which I bet will be Bush and Gore again. No matter who loses, I think it is in the best interest of the losing party to allow their man to run again. I know there are primaries, etc... but the voting will place the two against each other in four years. And one more thought. Al Gore is saying that ALL VOTERS should count. How would the voters in Florida feel if they were simply disgarded just to give him the win? ------------------ "Her Box Started Buzzing Ever Since She Heard The CRÜE"
I think Floridians would be pissed. I don't necessarily think it is a good idea, just that it is possible and there is some precedent there. I think, personally, that the electoral college served the purpose of having candidates be forced to campaign in smaller states. However, that doesn't really apply anymore and here's why... 1. The endless amounts of canvassing and polling done reduces the amount of campaigning to a bear minimum anyway. Look at Texas. Gore had ZERO presence here as did Bush and it is Bush's home state. Everyone assumed he would win the state so they simply stayed away and Texas is the second most populated state in America. 2. Mass communications have completely changed the way campaigns work. Prior to the 1970's, candidates still had to go to the people face to face. Now, with global satellite communications, cable and satellite networks, the internet and nationwide daily news, there is almost no place in America where you are completely cutoff from the news and the presidential campaigns. 3. The rurual vs. urban vote didn't change with the electoral college anyway. The idea with the electoral college was to get the candidates to have to go out to the country and stump for votes. However, they still remain in the urban centers to do the bulk of their campaigning. They go where the people are, especially now with all the advertising available. 4. Campaigns are far more organized. They understand demographics and have learned to run campaigns on the state level and even local level as a way to avoid having their candidates make stops in every precinct in the country. They are much more efficient and better able to get out the vote to everyone. 5. People are more informed. Despite the problems and shortcomings of some Americans, we have never been more informed about the politicians and political process than we are now. If you aren't, you simply are not paying attention. Anyone who wants to know or learn can with very little difficulty. Nothing can change that. The electoral college may have had good intentions. It may have been designed to help get out the vote and keep things even but that is no longer necessary. This election is a good example of how it can create real problems that the founders never could possibly consider. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
The electoral college is set up to make sure ALL were equal. If you just go with a Popular vote there are too many people that would be ignored by both parties. Just look throughout the midwest. If a candidate can carry New York City, LA, Houston, etc... why would we care about the farmers in Wyoming? So saying that, I am against getting rid of the electoral college. That said, I dont think we will get rid of it. As far as I know I think that 2/3 of the states would have to agree with getting rid of it. If you look at the electoral map you have been seeing on all news shows, almost every state in RED would be against it, I would imagine. ------------------ "Her Box Started Buzzing Ever Since She Heard The CRÜE"
My point is that the candidates don't really care now. They still do their heaviest campaigning in LA, NYC, Miami, Dallas, Houston, San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, etc. They still hit all the media centers. The farmers get ignored every year with or without the electoral votes. The east and west coasts along with the south dominate the candidates time. They do because they are the population centers. That is the way it has always been and the way it will continue to be. Those in the midwest will always be ignored because the bigger states and "key" states (like Florida, Texas, NY, CA, Michigan and Pennsylvania) will get their time. Do you think they choose Michigan because it is in the midwest or because it is populated? States like Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Oklahoma and others will NEVER get the attention of the aforementioned states because they just don't carry weight from the standpoint of population AND electoral votes. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
I am sure it doesnt surprise you that I disagree Jeff. You said "States like Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Oklahoma and others will NEVER get the attention of the aforementioned states because they just don't carry weight from the standpoint of population AND electoral votes." Not true. This election shows everyone how important it is to travel and campaign EVERYWHERE in the US. Wyomings votes would make a huge difference in the electoral count. Each Electoral vote is worth MUCH more than one single citizens vote. You only need 270 electoral votes, yet you can get 50,000,000 citizens votes and that might not be enough. Funny thing is that if Gore had carried his home state, Tenn, then he would have won already. ------------------ "Her Box Started Buzzing Ever Since She Heard The CRÜE"
Many Constitutional Scholars say that the Electoral Majority required in the Constitution would include the 25 from Florida, too, so without breaking the 270 threshold, the House would decide the matter. (According to the Arizona Republic, most analysts think this is actually what the Constitution says, the claims of the New York Times not withstanding. Considering that it isn't entirely clear which number constitutes a majority of electors without Florida, you couldn't simply leave Florida out and expect that everything would be hunky dory. It's just as likely that the 270 requirement would be upheld and GWB would be elected President by the House of Representatives. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
DUDE: I guess my point is that candidates have NEVER campaigned in any of those states unless they were from there so why would you think they would suddenly change their minds now? It makes almost no sense. The only reason for them to go to any state is if it is a contested state with a large population (or group of electoral votes which is essentially the same as a large population). Otherwise, they spend no time or money there. When was the last time you saw a candidate working hard to win over voters in Utah or North Dakota. With all due respect to those nice states, the national candidates just don't care about them because they just don't make that much difference in the grand scheme. This is a unique race. The chances of this happening again are slim and none. No one is going to see this election and say, "Damn, if I run for president, I'm going to make sure New Mexico is at the top of my list." ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
More and more scrutiny on Florida shows their election officials to be totally incompetent. Their state should be thrown out... let the constitution clean up after that.
Why am I not surprised you feel Florida should be thrown out Achebe, giving Gore a victory. You're incredibly naive if you think what's happening in Florida doesn't happen everywhere else in the country. You yourself posted that in some places in Utah, you don't even need ID to vote. How many people do you think voted more than once for Bush in Utah? In St. Louis, one county had the polls open 3 hours after the fact. There's nothing you can do about this stuff. If you closely examine every state, you'd find the same things you're finding in Florida (which sucks for my signature, but I'll keep it for a while cuz I still think it's funny). If Bush ends up behind after all these manual recounts, he should be the better man and concede the election. ------------------ People like to slam Bush's education record, but at least Texans know how to punch holes.
I agree. Let's just throw out Florida and let the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution means when it says "majority" and either let the House decide (if the 270 is still required) or let Gore be President (if a majority of the remaining electoral votes is what the Court decides). Of course, Florida is probably not alone in its voting problems. Maybe it's just me, but I think someone needs to put in a call to Jimmy Carter and tell him to come and make sure we have free and fair elections in this country instead of letting him jet off to Honduras or wherever to oversee their elections. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
How do you know that it would give Gore a victory? Are you in touch with the nine members of the Supreme Court to know which way they will interpret the 12th Amendment? It's just as likely that the 270 requirement will hold and the House will determine the President. George W. Bush would be favored in that scenario. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Another thing. If Bush is behind after the manual recounts, he should concede? Or should he wait for the absentee votes to come in. Even if he ends up slightly behind after the recounts, he could very well be ahead when the overseas ballots come in. (Also, the question does remain whether those recounts will be done in time anyway. If the counties miss the deadline, but sue in an effort to overturn Florida state law, should Bush also concede if he's behind in a recount that may never be allowed to be official?) ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
TheFreak, I thought mrpaige and others had made it abundantly clear that Gore wouldn't be guaranteed a victory, that congress would appoint an official per state to nominate the president (unless I misunderstood his 20 posts on this subject). At last count Bush led that tally 29 to 20. Thanks for reading my other post however. As far as the corruption in other states... I suppose again that we should expect a perfect election. That is, no vote should be in question. Unfortunately, that isn't practical at this point, w/ this constitution, on this date. The pragmatism of the republican party suggests that there is some sort of 'acceptable' margin of error. That though there were problems in South Florida, that those problems exist elsewhere as well. My suggestion was merely to throw out a state, that (did you read the link?) seems to be absurdly incompetent... in a very close race. Incompetence in Utah, for example, seems irrelevant b/c most Mormons are under the notion that they are supposed to vote republican... that there is some link between God and one party or the other (i.e. Gore would never have won here). I also can't personally verify what would happen if someone did try to vote again, but I digress. This is all too annoying, I'm going to go study for the LSAT. ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
I demand a recount on the number of my posts on the subject. I think I have more. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Just to keep stoking the fires, here's an article on the matter of excluding Florida: Forget Florida? Highly unlikely But, technically, Gore could win with rest of electors BY JOHN DORSCHNER jdorschner@herald.com If the battle for Florida's 25 electoral votes remains unsettled for long, some experts believe it would be technically possible -- although extremely unlikely -- for the Electoral College to cast its ballots and award the presidency to Al Gore with fewer than 270 votes. According to the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the winner must receive a ``majority of the whole number of electors appointed.'' If court challenges prevent the naming of electors from Florida by the time the Electoral College meets, then only 513 electors would cast votes, and Gore would win with his current 262 electoral votes. NO LEGAL BARRIER Four of five constitutional experts interviewed said a careful reading of the Constitution showed that to be a sound legal conclusion, but all agreed that it would be virtually impossible politically for such a scenario to come about. ``I don't think there's any likelihood of a count not including Florida's votes,'' said Walter Dellinger, a Duke University law professor who nonetheless agreed that there's no legal barrier to such an outcome. Dellinger and others point to the presidential election of 1864, when the rebellious Southern states didn't send any electoral votes to Washington. ``So they just took a majority of the votes cast [re-electing Abraham Lincoln], and there was no problem,'' said Keith Whittington, assistant professor of political science at Princeton University. But no one disputed the 1864 election, and this year's election is being bitterly disputed. VEHEMENT CHALLENGE Samuel Issacharoff, professor of law at Columbia University and co-author of The Law of Democracy, said that if somehow Florida's electors were barred from casting their votes, there would be a vehement challenge about the definition of ``appointed'' electors. Each party chose its 25 Florida electors before the presidential election, and the parties are simply waiting for a certification of the vote to determine which group of 25 will vote for president. The 12th Amendment says that if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives would decide, and Issacharoff said he couldn't imagine a Republican-dominated Congress sitting idly as Gore is elected with fewer than 270 votes. SETTLING DISPUTES The spirit of the amendment is that Congress settles disputes that occur in the Electoral College, Issacharoff said. ``I would say that's the best reading of the text, and the only historical experience we have says in fact that's the case,'' he said, citing the 1876 election, in which a bitter electoral dispute was settled by Congress setting up a commission to deal with it. Joseph W. Little, a law professor at the University of Florida, thought that legally a president could be elected with only a majority of those electoral votes registered, but if there were a dispute, as indeed seems highly likely, ``I think Congress will make the decision. This is the kind of thing that has been allocated by the Constitution to Congress.'' Keith Rosenn, a law professor at the University of Miami, said that a candidate could probably be selected with a majority of only those votes cast, but ``we really wouldn't know until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. There is so much of the Constitution that seems not to mean what you think it says.'' But Rosenn -- like the others -- doesn't think the country will ever get to such a problem. ``To disenfranchise a whole state, I don't think that's a likely denouement here.'' Certainly the Bush campaign agrees with that. ``This is not a scenario we've contemplated,'' spokesman Bob Hopkins said. ``The voters of Florida have chosen George W. Bush. That's been verified in two election counts, and we're confident he will get all of Florida's electoral votes.'' A secondary problem could be timing. U.S. law requires electors to vote on Dec. 18, and the U.S. Code says they must be chosen six days before the vote, Issacharoff said. But Dellinger, the Duke law professor, said that since the dates are not in the Constitution, ``Congress could simply move back the date until Florida had finished the process.'' The crucial date would be in early January, when the new Congress convenes to ratify the electoral vote. ``I don't think there are likely to be any strange scenarios,'' Dellinger said. ``Florida's votes will be approved in time.'' ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
mrpaige -- I don't think throwing out Florida is right. That is my point. I won't get off at getting a chance to see what the Supreme Court decides in this case. Irregularities exist everywhere, they're just not getting any publicity. I don't think Bush will be only slightly behind after the manual recounts. He had already lost a significant number of votes after only 1% of the counting had been completed. Regardless, the election should be over after all the votes have been counted. That happened days ago. Whether manual recounts are legal by law doesn't really concern me. My opinion doesn't always go in lockstep with the law. Achebe -- Obviously I don't study the constitution as it pertains to this subject. I do believe, however, that you believe throwing out Florida favors Gore. I don't think you would support it otherwise. Sorry if you take that as an insult, but that's just what I gather from reading your posts. I don't think Florida is any different from most other states. Sure, it may be below average, that is always a possibility. But there is no way to prove that. And to wait until now and then try to penalize only Florida just because it's a close election is just wrong. Let the machines count the votes. If Bush is losing after the manual recount, he should concede. Wrong has already been done, we should not repeat it. ------------------ People like to slam Bush's education record, but at least Texans know how to punch holes. [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited November 12, 2000).]
Actually I'm almost over the fact that, IMO, Gore lost. When I suggested that Florida be thrown out it was a gut reaction after having read yet another article suggesting that the Florida election process is absurd on all sides. I'll concede the point that if New Mexico had more than 5 electoral votes, we'd be fully aware of their screw ups as well. I'd like to say that "gee I hope that in the next election that one candidate stomps the other so that this doesn't happen again", but next time when it happens again everyone'll think we're idiots that we didn't fix it in 2000. Perhaps next time the popular vote can decide the outcome. This time, however, something apparently has to happen pretty fast. By the way, in one of rm95's threads I already posted that Gore should concede if the process wasn't at fault (i.e. ballot isn't illegal AND the computers didn't ignore ballots). I'm not always biased for my guy. ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but." [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited November 12, 2000).]
