http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/03/florida.recount/index.html?s=10 Here's are some fun snippets: The Miami Herald conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 ballots in all 67 Florida counties. Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes would have tripled to 1,655 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival Al Gore. Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched ballots advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a Gore lead of just three votes, the newspaper reported. The Herald's review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were no different from ballots deemed to be valid. The paper concluded that Gore would be in the White House today if those ballots had been counted. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
I think that count used the liberal counting of accepting any chad type. The more strict count use by Florida actually swung it in Gore's favor by .... get this ... 3 votes. This was reported by NPR this morning with an interview of the guy headed up the counting. He said it was ironic that the count favored Bush when counting chads like the dems wanted, but it favored Gore when using the method that the republicans wanted. This is so ironic; it is too funny.
I think the whole election was a big joke! ------------------ Nice guys finish last ... and im surely not going to finish last!
Doesn't direct election of the President mean that the voters of Florida, Texas, New York and California get to decide who is President? If we had direct election, imagine how corrupt campaign finance would become. All efforts would be put into those 4 states. The validity of the Senate is the same empowering argument that justifies the Electoral College. It keeps the big from dominating the small. A Republic (which we are) is different from a Democracy, isn't it? ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. PowerbizOnline.com [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited April 04, 2001).]
Agree wholeheartedly...without the electoral college, rural areas would be entirely ignored by candidates. Those who live in larger cities tend to fall along closer political lines....LA, NY and Chicago tend to fall in line exactly politically. The electoral college guards against that. ------------------
RichRocket: That's an absolute myth. Even it it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. PEOPLE are important... not states. A state doesn't feel, think, hunger, or bleed. And the system that benefits the most PEOPLE should be selected. Now, on to why it's a myth. How many times did Presidential candidates visit MA after the debate? The answer is ZERO. How many times did Gore go to Utah? Zero. Bush? Zero. Right now, the system favors the "battleground states." Almost all political promises, etc, are designed to attract votes in those close states. In this way, the current system does NOT serve the people at all. It's completely silly... ------------------ Boston College - Big East -East Division Regular Season Champs Worst to First in 2001!
Of course the flip-side is, huge populations are ignored because they are polarized enough to make the swing votes insignificant. Take for instance in the past election, the two most populous states, California and Texas, were virtually ignored in the campaigning, because the swing vote was so insignificant that the outcome was a given, while other states like Pennsylvania and Florida were beaten up -- states with medium population, but the potential for a swing vote. I don't think a popular vote would cause smaller states to be ignored -- many smaller states are ignored now, because they aren't identified as swing states, or have an insignificant number of votes. Did anyone even notice that Florida wasn't the last state to have it's votes counted? (well, counting the origional count and recount, not the re-recount or specific county hand counts. ) Did anyone care that another state's (New Mexico) votes were contested? A popular vote would actually make many areas count more, since candidates would be campaigning to the whole (probably with more national campaigns and debates), rather than regional campaigning only in battleground states. Remember, the electoral college was not created to give smaller states power. It was created out of necessity -- people voted for representatives who would then travel on horseback to the capital to listen to the candidates and cast their ballots. The number at each state was a compromise -- based on the size of congress, and had the effect of giving small states more power -- but that wasn't the goal. ------------------ Stay Cool...
dc sports: You just stole my thundre... I was justa bout to edit my post to include that last bit. He's completely right. The electoral college was created in a day when people didn't think about being "US citizens." They thought of them selves as Virginians, or New Yorkers first. IT just isn't that way anymore. We're citizens of our NATION first. As such, we should have a true NATIONAL election. ------------------ Boston College - Big East -East Division Regular Season Champs Worst to First in 2001!
Haven, your whole argumentation still seems to be based on this idea that the integrity and sovereignty of the States is a relic of the past with no modern significance. I think that is patently wrong. And, the whole issue of the electoral college hinges on what exactly the role of the states should be. ------------------ RealGM Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
JuanValdez: State sovereignty is dead. The recent Lopez decision carved out a little niche for it, but not much of one. Look back for the routs of state sovereignty. Look at the reasons WHY it was considered important. These reasons, with mass transport, the internet, tv, radio, no longer exist. Once, the US was a small nation with no important foreign policy. Now, we're the most powerful country on earth, and the economy is national, not local. Issues are probably more important at the national level. It's been said that the interstate commerce act ended the era where states were extremely important as actors. This is accurate. National problems. National vote. Besides, it's an issue of fundamental fairness. Someone from North Dakota's vote should NOT count 1.9 more itmes than someone from NY. That's simply not right. ------------------ Boston College - Big East -East Division Regular Season Champs Worst to First in 2001! [This message has been edited by haven (edited April 04, 2001).]
Haven using your logic, we should do away with the Senate and just have a house of Representatives. States rights DO matter. Why should the people of TEXAS have to go along with certain legislation that people in New York have. Glad you had no saying when it came to writing the constitution. ------------------ Now this shirt is chafing me
Tv_Webb: Do you know anything about Constitutional law? States rights have been dead since the 40's, in realit. The current electoral system is an antique relic that has lost its meaning. WHY do state's rights matter? Most countries don't have states rights. France, Germany, GB, Japan... none of them have state's rights. They're all unitary. Works much better. National politicians are generally better and more knowledgeable. They're smarter, better educated, and less likely to be ignorant yahoos. And you're right... I DON'T think we should have a Senate. It's not fair, and empowers a minority of the population. I believe we should have a bicameral legislature, but one done through districts, and the other done through direct-national electoins BTW, your argument that a unitary government would give NY coercive powers over Texas is just completley innaccurate. BTW, resorting to ad hominems in a political discussion is fruitless. ------------------ Boston College - Big East -East Division Regular Season Champs Worst to First in 2001!
The Senate does ensure that the states are not unfairly treated on the basis of size. Two representatives for each state. The president represents all of the people -- NOT individual states. Very little of what he does impacts states on an individual basis. He represents everyone equally, so he should be elected on that basis. But, it's not going to happen. ------------------ Stay Cool...
Why not just get rid of states all together. That way we could simplify such things as taxes and law enforcement? ------------------ Hike up your skirt a little more, and show the world to me.
Haven: you're painting with a 4-foot wide brush there! States rights are not dead. Yeah, the Dems are trying to sound taps but it's not over yet. National politicians are not really better educated, they're just slicker. How would you explain that most national politicians started out as local and/or state politicians? Did they go back to school to get more eduation, etc. All of you Electoral College opponents have made some valid complaints but I don't want only the most populous states having the power to directly elect the President. Granted every candidate can't go everywhere but seems to me if we go to a direct popular election, the candidates would not court the national vote. They would court the vote of Texans, Floridians, Californians, and New Yorkers principally. Can we get rid of Hillary since she's all for direct elections? Her senatorial duties would no longer be needed since her vote is negated by the junior senator from South Dakota. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. PowerbizOnline.com
RichRocket, why does it matter which states have larger populations? I don't understand this intuition. If a 100 people vote one way in California, how is it different from a 100 people that vote in Montana? If they're all citizens, why should votes be weighed differently??? Plato argued that people were too stupid to rule themselves (he didn't use those words though ). That may be so... but the ads all say 'most advanced democracy on earth', not the 'most advanced republic on earth'. It is elitist for there to be a middle man between my vote and the outcome of a Presidential election. It is asinine to think that 30,000,000 people in California are inherently different than 30,000,000 people in a set of other states. We constantly complain about the lack of participation in national elections. Don't you think that the republicans in Orange County or the democrats in Texas might take pride in their country if their voices actually counted? ------------------ I'm sorry, but it's vital to the health of the U.S. economy that we destroy the entire Earth - Chris Stratton, Delivery Driver, on Global Warming.
you and i are both Texans but i have a feeling we voted differently in the last election. just because people live in the same city/state doesn't mean they will have the same opinions and beliefs. it should be one person one vote like in the rest of the civilized world. ------------------
What was the breakdown in Texas? 60/40...that means that 40% of Texas's population (a large quantity) were rendered impotent. That 40% of the Texas population could have drawn a picture of Mickey Mouse on the ballot and the result would have been the same. RichRocket, I think Haven was implying that the bad politicians do not make it beyond local level...the good ones are sifted through. ------------------ Whitey will pay.
*grabs Achebe and hugs him* You're my new hero! Thank god someone agrees... or at least doesn't disagree . RichRocket: Repeart after me: State's rights are dead. The reinterpretation of the interstate commerce clause in the 40's killed them in any mearningful way. You can believe they should be REINSTATED. The Rehnquist court ruling in the Lopez case indicates that the court is leaning to allow SOME protection, but subsequent cases have shown that it's NOT MUCH. The feds can do anything they want. Sorry if you don't like it: write your congressman. The electoral college is a relic of a bygone age. The SC couldn't change that. ------------------ Boston College - Big East -East Division Regular Season Champs Worst to First in 2001! [This message has been edited by haven (edited April 04, 2001).]
