Also 27,000 ballot's were not counted in New Mexcio and there is a recount going on there now.Results on this should be in around 10 tonight. HMMMMMM I wonder why there is no coverage of this on CNN ? ------------------
Huh? Are you saying that Bush voters stayed home in Texas, because they had already won? I guess you don't think that a large number of Gore voters stayed home too, because the state was already locked up, eh? You're right that more voters would have shown up if there was no Electoral College (incidentally, that's a good thing). ------------------
The ballot may have been illegal, whatever. But it is still easy to see the structure of the ballot to me. I find it hard to believe that several thousand people could not. Yes, the line above the word Democratic points to the second hole. But, there is a CLEARLY marked arrow that points to the little hole for each candidates section. ------------------ There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." [This message has been edited by HOOP-T (edited November 09, 2000).]
The people of Palm Beach don't deserve any consideration whatsoever they had their chance and they screwed up. I had a smidgen of compassion for them before I found out 15,000 votes were thrown out in 96.What the hell is wrong with these people ? besides the fact that it's a democratic controlled county. and how in the world could it be the same ballot that was used in 96 if they had so much trouble with that layout before ? ------------------
Maybe because it involves 5 electoral votes that won't matter in the long run? Doesn't take a mathmagician to figure that one out. ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit www.swirve.com
duh rocketman ,that post was meant for all the people who keep bringing up the popular vote.So stick your sarcasm where the sun don't shine ------------------
Daro...maybe because of two predominant factors 1. Every republican that has been asked to produce anything at all that shows those 15,000 votes has balked. To include Bush's spokeperson Karl Rove 2. If it was 15,000 thrown out. That was under the same ILLEGAL BALLOT. Just goes to help the democratic cause in proving it was difficult to understand. On another note now. With less than 5 counties remaining Bush lead has just fallen to about 340 votes. Now assuming that Gore takes over. And Bush claims about 2000 overseas ballots, then it all boils down to a judge deciding on the 19,000 thrown out votes, and the about 2000 too many votes for Buchanan. ------------------ "I have amazing, powers of observation"...Pink [This message has been edited by Dreamshake (edited November 09, 2000).]
Luckily one judge won't decide this election. How many judges are on the Florida Supreme Court? Anybody know. It may come down to that. I know its a democratic court. That's all I know. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
By the way, even if the Florida Supreme Court rules one way, it doesn't necessarly mean it is over. The Florida Supreme Court decision can be appealed to the U.S. Court. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
You know, if this ballot is so bad, you'd think someone would've said something earlier. The fact remains that a Democrat designed the ballot. The chairmen of both parties approved it. A copy of the ballot was published in the local newspapers so people would know what it looked like. A copy of the ballot was mailed to each registered voter so they would know what it looked like. This same ballot is used in other places (such as Bill Daley's home county of Cook County in Illinois, for example). The ballot has been used in previous elections. No one thought this was a problem until it looked like their guy was going to lose. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Why do people keep harping on the fact that the ballot was designed by a democrat? that's not the point "No one thought this was a problem until it looked like their guy was going to lose." Mrpaige, with all due respect, stories comming out of Florida have people coming out of the polling booths in hystrics and not being sure of who they voted for (and, contrary to reports) people were asking questions about the ballot to polling officials, and were not given the right instructions or (at worst) told they could not be helped. Also, according to reports, the ballot that was printed in the papers had a different order of the candidates than the ones used on the day of the election. ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.' [This message has been edited by mc mark (edited November 09, 2000).]
The fact remains that a Democrat designed the ballot. The chairmen of both parties approved it. A copy of the ballot was published in the local newspapers so people would know what it looked like. There is some word that the ballots published in advance are not the same as the ones used in the election. If that's the case, then what? Besides, the Judical Branch of government is designed exactly for this purpose. There are gray areas in the law -- and this is one of those cases, especially if people weren't allowed to vote or weren't assisted in voting when they had questions. The courts are here to help decide these issues. Why are Republicans so opposed to using the courts for this purpose? ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
I'm not opposed to using the Courts. I'm opposed to the idea of a re-vote, but that's not the same thing. (Plus, it's extremely unlikely that a re-vote would occur). If we're going to have a re-vote, we should have it for the whole country. Sometimes even when there has been fraud, it's better for the country to just allow it to move on rather than demogogueing the issue. Richard Nixon had plenty of right to sue over all the irregularities in 1960, but he didn't for the good of the country. Personally, I think that having some people confused by their ballots is not enough to spend potentially months in courts arguing over who is going to be the President. Had these things showed an advantage for Gore, I wouldn't support throwing the nation into chaos then, either. I didn't support the lawsuits in Maryland a few years back when significant voter fraud took place that kept a Republican Governor out of the Statehouse. I wouldn't have supported legal action in 1960 despite the clear fraud there. And that's fraud. What we're talking about here is far from fraudulent. The country should be able to move on and do better next time regardless of who wins this time. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
After all that has been said, I agree with you paige. No matter what happens, if the recount shows that Bush is still the winner, then I think that Gore should concede and drop the lawsuits. I would accept the outcome. I think Gore should also. It's just a shame that Bush's administration will begin under a cloud of suspicion and without the mandate of the popular vote. ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
I'm not opposed to using the Courts. I'm opposed to the idea of a re-vote, but that's not the same thing. (Plus, it's extremely unlikely that a re-vote would occur). What if the courts determine that a re-vote is the proper thing to do? Sometimes even when there has been fraud, it's better for the country to just allow it to move on rather than demogogueing the issue. I disagree. I think if we're to claim we are a fair, true democracy, then the voice of the people has to matter. You can't just say "our election was unfair, but whatever". (if it is determined to be unfair) What kind of precedent does that set for other countries? Democracy is a difficult process at times. Sometimes its tough to preserve right over "easy" -- that's what democracy is all about. Should we just take the easy way out, or should we try to resolve it as fairly as possible? Personally, I think that having some people confused by their ballots is not enough to spend potentially months in courts arguing over who is going to be the President. My guess is that this issue can and should be resolved during the 10 days where we have to wait for the absentee ballots anyway. Had these things showed an advantage for Gore, I wouldn't support throwing the nation into chaos then, either. I'd like to believe I would support this either way. The nation is not in chaos. Have you seen any chaos outside of Palm Springs, the Gore & Bush campaigns, and the news media? We don't need to know the results until December 18th as it is. Why not use the available month? I didn't support the lawsuits in Maryland a few years back when significant voter fraud took place that kept a Republican Governor out of the Statehouse. That sucks. If he truly won, he should have been governor. I would have no problem with John Ashcroft challenging the Missouri vote either. The courts are here to determine these gray areas -- let them decide it. What we're talking about here is far from fraudulent. What we're talking about here might be illegal. Maybe not outright purposeful fraud, but the result is the same. The ballots may be illegal -- violating laws that were specifically designed to keep ballots from being confusing, which they were. Thousands of people might have been denied their right to vote due to election officials not helping confused voters, etc. Other voters said that they were turned away because election information claimed they were dead. (this should be verifiable by looking at election records -- are they listed as dead?) These are all potentially legit issues -- we don't have all the information, so we can't say right now. But if these are true allegations, people were denied their right to vote. This may be constitutionally illegal. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
It's pretty sad that it took a close vote to catch the fraud that apparently goes on. I hope that everyone has paused to think about what's actually going on, pundit or not. It's an election, a tight election, in our democracy. We should get it right... we're not some fledgling democracy or some third world country (pardon the hmmmm... firstworldcentrism ). Sorry for the cheeziness, but we're Americans. We should know who the f@#$ won the election. People don't seize power here. <font face="Verdana" size="2" color="668888"> U - S - A U - S - A U - S - A</font> (j/k) By the way, if my guy wins or loses, this has definitely been an interesting civics lesson... something actually in practice...
That's exactly what I'm saying. I've witnessed this many times. That's what happens in the electoral college system. Absolutely they did. All the more reason why the popular vote shouldn't be used to determine the outcome of this election. Whatever. I'm not "Republican", didn't vote for Bush, and wouldn't if there were a re-vote. Keep on stereotyping me though if you'd like. ------------------ Scared into the voting booth, terrified of the ballot. [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited November 09, 2000).]
Wow another tid bit...well same tid bit, more exact. If a Federal Judge see's that a county is skewed and or their are irregularities. Then he is actually bound by law to aportion the votes according to percentages. Now lets talk skewed. Pat Buchanan recieved something like 3,400 votes in W Palm Beach. And in close by Broward county which has more than 5 times the population. Less than 1000 votes for Buchanan. Now, my numbers arent exact. Trying to type as I hear news coming in. ------------------ "I have amazing, powers of observation"...Pink
I think Clutch is right here. If you had a revote in a very small area, there would be too much potential for corruption. How much money will a vote be worth when you know the race for the presidency is so close -- and completed unprotected at this point by the electoral college? I myself really couldn't give a damn who was president but I did go vote. If I was in Florida, I'd be wondering how much someone would pay for my vote. As for voters switching from Gore to Bush or vice-versa, it may happen to some extent. But would Nader or Buchanan get any votes at all in a revote? If you thought a third-party candidate was throwing your vote away before, what about in a revote? They say that every does count. Bush took Texas easily enough that my vote didn't count for much. It's a whole different dynamic if you want to run a revote in one state where every vote counts and counts directly. Then compare the value of a Floridian's vote to the value of mine, and you'll see why I'll be damned before I see a revote. Someone had started a thread earlier about how wonderful America was because there was no combat resulting from the election. No there's no combat, but how are you liking this? This is the American format. If you do a revote, you have to do a revote for the entire country. That is the only way to keep corruption to a minimum and keep the elctoral process fair. Will everyone vote the same way they did the first time? No, but at least you're not entrusting the presidency to a couple thousand voters. ------------------ RealGM Rockets Draft Obligations Summary http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/
If 19,000+ double punched for Presidency, why were there only 3000+ double punch for Senators? If they realized they should have only punched once, would they ask for another ballot? I agree with those that say, "If you can't figure it out...". Like voting, this country gives you a right to drive after a certain age, but if you can't pass the simple test, you can't drive. I understand the Dem's point, but allowing a do-over that could change the initial results in a major election is not good for this country. ------------------
