I put this same comment -- in more detail -- on another thread. But... They only said that two votes were cast -- they didn't say votes for Buchanan and Gore. People could have thought they were voting on two separate lists. There's no way to tell their intent. A revote would be a big mistake -- especially for one county, to decide the fate of the presidency. ------------------ Stay Cool...
Let's look at it this way... None of this would matter if the vote wasn't so close in the first place. We are talking about the presidency. We better get it right. Re-voting is probably a bad idea, but let's all be honest. If you are Republican or, at the very least, pro-Bush, and this one county could mean the difference between him winning and losing, wouldn't you be raising all kinds of hell to get a re-vote or something of that nature? Second, and more importantly, if Bush wins, it is going to be ugly. There are not only lawsuits and accusations of voter fraud, but there is the issue of the popular vote going to Gore - only the 4th time for that to EVER happen and the first in 100 years. If Gore ends up winning, same problems. The Republicans freak out and start suing. Either way, this presidency is screwed. Finally, what if Florida is just disqualified, period? I could see grounds to create that conclusion. Voter intimidation has widely been circulated - state troopers pulling over black voters on their way to the polls - and certainly ballot problems are at the forefront. If that is the case and the House of Representatives votes to elect George Bush even though, without Florida, Gore would win both the popular and the electoral vote total (he'd have more but not the 270 necessary to claim victory), what would that say about the whole process? Republican gets to be president because of a Republican congress despite not really winning the election? No matter what happens in this one, both candidates are screwed and the country will end up deeply divided. If there was ever a time for a strong third party, this is it. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
I'm pretty sure that the President was the only one arranged like this. That and the fact that there weren't seven candidates for sentate explains why there weren't as many double punched. ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit www.swirve.com
Freak, You're right. I may have stepped out of line with that comment out of frustration. But by your own admission, your posts have had a republican slant. Okay, you didn't vote for Bush (I'm assuming you didn't vote for Gore). So, whom did you vote for? ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
Is it just me and my slanted way of thinking or do Dems and Reps think completely different in most area. Take the revote discussion - If the tables were turned, I be upset ... upset that WE the Reps let it slip away after approving a ballot that could be confusing to someone who isn't paying close attention (hey - it's only voting for President of the United States). Would I encourage court battle? No. In fact I'd be pissed if Bush took it to court. It won't do this country ANY good. Eisenhower gave Nixon the riot act when he talked about this same path because he (Dwight) was looking out for the country. It was the right thing to do. America tried to vote correctly. We're there screw-ups? Most likely. But that would exist no matter what. It's BOTH parties' responsibility to make sure that there is a clear ballot, plenty of ballots, encouraging people to vote and that the valid ballots are counted. If there is something wrong, you can't wait until it's over to say, "Hey, Do over." It's not like Dems were thrown a last minute curve. BOTH parties beforehand approved the ballot. It was displayed beforehand to the public. There are plenty of volunteers to answer any questions. Double punching invalidates ANY ballot. You can ask for another ballot if you mess up. Stop looking for excuses and accept the responsibility of a fair but imperfect election. ------------------
Art, posted by me in another thread... "Gore should do the honorable thing and concede. He lost after the recount. That's good enough for me. Bush (god help us, is the president). Its not like all of these voting problems haven't happened before. Didn't Nixon concede a defeat even after an election was basically stolen from him? All of this nonsense is not worth throwing the constitution into chaos." ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
The Consitution is in violation. That's the problem (maybe). These people may have been denied the right to vote because of the ballot design. The right to vote is in the Consitution. So we are not throwing the Constution into a mess, we are asking it to solve the problem. When this is all over you will see the power of the Consitution. You will actually get to see it work if everything falls just right. That is something special and should be appreciated. This is exactly why we have a consitution. Is it is designed to meet the unexpected problems head on. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
Phi said: "These people may have been denied the right to vote because of the ballot design. " Phi the folks who voted incorrectly were careless. There was (according to reports) in the '96 election 12-13K ballots dismissed due to double punching. It wasn't a problem then because Clinton won easily. If it was a constitutional infringement why wasn't it brought up then? It wasn't an infringement it was carelessness or mistakes (or possibly people actually voting for Buchanon). Don't blame the system for an election the Gore will lose because he could not carry his home state. The same ballot has been used (according to rports I heard) in the county since 1976. And as usual the liberals don't get what they want so rather tahn accepting it they cry to the courts, politicians, media, etc to correct things. Voters in Florida screwed up and Gore lost. ------------------
I guess that's part of my point. I don't see that anyone's Constitutional right was violated. They have a right to vote. They voted. They just voted in a way that can't be counted. Who's responsible to make sure some one votes correctly? The person voting. I still see it as fair but imperfect election. ------------------
