Well, I'm in almost total agreement with you, Muskwa. I really do not understand the kick the religious right is making about this. It's not as if he advocated masturbation or anything.
The conservative "worry" that campaign finance reform undercuts "free speech" is both patently partisan and blatantly bogus. It's a case of paytriots trying to thwart patriots.
Where were they a year ago, when Blacks in Florida (and elsewhere) were disenfranchised during Election 2000, stripped of their most fundamental, free, democratic choice? Conservatives, to a white-butted man, were as mute as boulders about that mockery of our hallowed liberty, and still try to downplay it, despite many findings (including by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission) of its egregiousness.
Then there's the Constitution-eroding domestic aspect of the war on terrorism. During decades of supposedly being the mortal enemy of our basic liberties and values, the USSR never even fractionally damaged our freedom as Bush, Ashcroft and Ridge have in just a few months, by parlaying 9/11 into hysterical, essential repression. Just one among many examples: The Veep's wife (Lynne Cheney) has crusaded against "un-American dissent" on college campuses. Blacklists of war critics have been published. Educators have been fired, students suspended. Shamefully, Democrat Joe Lieberman has joined in this dark quashing of vital, critical thought.
Again, no protest -- no championing of the Bill of Rights -- from the Right.
But now, as we're finally making headway in cleaning up the pervasively corrupting sleaze of big-money politics (so profitable to conservative, special interests)...oh my God, we're threatened with tyranny!
Get real, get moral, get credible, and get the Hell out of the way of the single, most pivotal means of once again making America a nation of, by and for the common people, NOT Enron-style thieves!
"...Blacks in Florida (and elsewhere) were disenfranchised [sic] during Election 2000, stripped of their most fundamental, free, democratic choice? Conservatives, to a white-butted man, were as mute as boulders about that mockery of our hallowed liberty, and still try to downplay it, despite many findings (including by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission) of its egregiousness."
This disfranchising of blacks has been shown to be totally bogus. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission is a farce.
The NAACP initially provided a forum for countless Florida blacks (and members of other minorities of color) to air the various ways in which they were unfairly treated/represented in the election.
That information then formed the basis of the evidence that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission concluded constituted widespread and systematic disenfranchisement.
To summarize:
African-American voters were most harshly affected, the commission said, with blacks 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in Florida. On a statewide basis, while blacks comprised about 11 percent of all state voters in the 2000 elections, African Americans cast about 54 percent of the votes that were either not detected by voting machines or rejected for containing mistakes. Nine out of the ten counties with the highest percentage of African-American voters had spoilage rates above the Florida average, with Gadsden County, which has the highest percentage of black voters in the state, also claiming the highest rate of rejected ballots.
The commission blamed these results on “restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors and inadequate and unequal resources,” including the use of antiquated and error-prone punch card systems in working class and minority neighborhoods.
Referring to the expected high turnout of African-American voters—which increased 65 percent over 1996—the report says President Bush's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and Secretary of State Katherine Harris in particular “chose to simply ignore the mounting evidence that many counties were experiencing rising voter registration rates in communities with out-dated voting technology.” Before and during the election, the report says, “state and county officials were aware of several key factors that ultimately contributed to the disenfranchisement of qualified voters.”
You can contend that the disenfranchisement never happened, Muskwa (a curiously concrete position for a woman of color), or that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission is a "farce" (again, very odd), but what it all comes down to is the PEOPLE who, even before the polls closed, were widely reporting that they'd been dealt with unfairly as they sought to exercise their franchise.
White conservatives, in a very racist way, never took their charges seriously.
The allegants were simply dismissed as "not credible"...
Let's face it... Florida, the only state to have voting irregularities, and coincidentally, the ONLY state that has a Bush Brother in the Governors chair, screwed up the presidential election in favor of that state's Governor's brother.
Wrong, there were major irregularities in Missouri and Illinois also. There were a couple of states that the vote was really close. Bush could have contested several states that he lost. The ONLY thing that is certain is that it was a close election and BUSH won. Alll the media did a recount and Bush won every recount.
There's no doubt that some precincts in the country need an overhaul, but that's clearly up to the states. The federal government should notget involved, beyond encouragement.
I have voted in places that used the punch-card ballot. All that is required is an ability to read, and a minimum of comprehension.
All that is required is an ability to read, and a minimum of comprehension.
The first time I voted in Richmond, VA, (the 2000 presidential election) and I found out we had to use a butterfly ballot (I had never seen one before,) I was dumbfounded. Dumbfounded because I couldn't believe that in last year of the 20th century, such antiquated technology was still being used for something so important. So. I had no problem figuring out the ballot. But my wife, who is not an unintelligent person (I will put her up against anybody in this thread,) has epilepsy, and certain types of repetetive patterns confuse the motor centers of her brain. And she had never seen a butterfly ballot before, and was unprepared for it. She's still not sure she voted correctly, even with the aid of the workers who were stationed there for that express purpose. My point is, there are lots of people with infirmities, reading disabilities and other kinds of mild debilitations who might take issue with the smartass contention that "all that is required is an ability to read, and a minimum of comprehension." Voting is a right that is guaranteed to citizens, and there is no statutory requirements that they have either a certain level of literacy or physical skills. There used to be laws about this, but the US Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional, along with all the other Jim Crow laws.
Let's face it... Florida, the only state to have voting irregularities, and coincidentally, the ONLY state that has a Bush Brother in the Governors chair, screwed up the presidential election in favor of that state's Governor's brother.
It wasn't by accident or cosmic chance.
Sorry Fold, but I have to take issue with you on this one. You are 100% wrong. It was not the ONLY sate to have voting irregularities. There were many other states, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada I believe just to name a couple. They were considering recounting some of those states as well.
Fact, The previous presidential election in 96 in Florida had more votes thrown out than this one due to hanging "chads" more than one candidate etc. Funny but I didn't hear anyone protesting. I didn't see Sharpton or Jackson marching and screaming foul in 96 when more votes were thrown out. I didn't see or hear anything about anyone being confused or disinfranchised. Perhaps because their guy one. And if he won, why complain ? Here's another tid bit for you. The ballot was approved by the state's DEMOCRATIC comittee chairwoman. A funny little story about the Dem's in Florida too. Oddly it seems a vote counting machine was missing. Guess where they found one ? in one of the local Democratic officials trunk ! Oops, it also happens to be illegal since they aren't supposed to be handled by party officials. I have the link for you if you'd like. Hmmm which party is famous for cruising homelss shelters and the streets for people and paying them 5 bucks a head and giving them a ride to the polls ? It happened in the 2000 election. Hmmm. Jeb recused himself as he probably should of. There were other states where many votes were thrown out. It happens every year (can you say Chicago?) In fact less last year than in previous years, Why is it any less o.k because the margin of victory was larger in those years ? Probably because their guy won, why no whining then ? He lost, they counted and recounted and tried to be selective on areas they thought would favor them. They STILL lost. the media in it's typical idiotic fdashion called Florida WAY too soon. How many people stayed home because they thought it was over ? Who knows, but Gore lost. Period. Get over it and move on.
LOL, I couldn't believe it when I saw Daley on the news either. I thought you know, maybe the Dem's ought to have somebody else be talking about voting irregularites, it was almost surreal if not ironic to have him preaching about voting irregularities. I am in agreement that we should go to a standardized systm of some type, the system needs to be fixed no doubt, but I am tired of hearing the whining. Why no outrage in 96' ? What's the difference ? NONE. Just because a tighter margin happened doesn't mean those peoples votes were any less valuable. But only now do they complain or want to change the system, fine, do it, you don't like mechanisms or the electoral college, fine,change it, but you can't go back and rewrite rules to favor you or your party. He won. .....Next.
The question is, Naz, what system would be hunky-dory for everyone?
The problem with the butterfly ballot we used in Virginia (which was apparently very much like the ones used in Florida) are multiple--the design of the ballot itself was iffy, the readers malfunction, and we all know about hanging chads. My point is, the whole thing is very very low-tech, and it seems to me we could bring modern technology to bear on this problem. In Louisiana, where I first voted in 1978, we used the old style lever voting machines. They would only allow you to vote for one candidate per race, for instance, and they were only sort of medium-tech. I don't know exactly what the answer is, but I know that punching holes in cards with a little stick is not the best way, and any idiot could foresee that it might cause problems.
I know that punching holes in cards with a little stick is not the best way, and any idiot could foresee that it might cause problems.
I hear ya there. I think states and counties should be able to do whatever the hell they want for their ballots, but the federal government should make a uniform federal voting system for federal offices. It would cost a lot and be a big pain in the ass to implement, but it's one of the most basic functions of government- to let the people vote for their leaders.
The problem is that the conservatives, and I don't totally disagree, will state that this is another example of big government mandating that the states do something, without explaining where the money to pay for it will come from. But, yes, something has got to be done.
Fact, The previous presidential election in 96 in Florida had more votes thrown out than this one due to hanging "chads" more than one candidate etc. Funny but I didn't hear anyone protesting. I didn't see Sharpton or Jackson marching and screaming foul in 96 when more votes were thrown out. I didn't see or hear anything about anyone being confused or disinfranchised. Perhaps because their guy one. And if he won, why complain ?
The GOP didn't complain? Why not?
Why is it any less o.k because the margin of victory was larger in those years ?
Well, it's pretty logical that, if the percentage of votes thrown out was smaller than the margin of victory, it becomes irrelevant. Sure, in hindsight, something should have been done. But just because it wasn't done then, doesn't mean something shouldn't be done now.
The problem is that the conservatives, and I don't totally disagree, will state that this is another example of big government mandating that the states do something, without explaining where the money to pay for it will come from.
And if that was how it was done, I'd be right there with them. It's a federal function. It should be paid for and completed by the federal government. It should have been done that way in 1783. It's basic federal infrastructure.
It's a federal function. It should be paid for and completed by the federal government.
But, again, the states have the legal authority to regulate and set their own voting statutes. I am all for this idea, believe me, but I'm not sure what the constitutional hurdles, and, as you said, Lance, the cost, would be.
Well, it's pretty logical that, if the percentage of votes thrown out was smaller than the margin of victory, it becomes irrelevant. Sure, in hindsight, something should have been done. But just because it wasn't done then, doesn't mean something shouldn't be done now.
No it doesn't become irrelavant. The whole argument being made by the left was that every vote should count and that voters were disinfranchised and the ballot was confusing. Maybe so but my point was that there were actually more votes in the 96' election thrown out and I didn't hear a peep out of Sharpton, Jackson, Carville etc. Suddenly it was a crisis in 00'? Sure because your guy lost and it was a small margin of victory and you were using that argument to bolster their opinion. It just seems hypocritical to me or at least disingenuos that they were suddenly worried about votes being tossed out. It wouldn't have changed the outcome. He lost, sorry, he lost, try again. Should something be done to change it. You bet, I've never nor would I say something shouldn't be done. But the fact is. Gore lost under the system we have. I think you might be off the mark when you say that conservatives would be against modernizing or mandating or standardizing voting procedures or machines. I think it's a great idea. With technology etc. We could do things alot differently. And I think we should it needs to be standard or at the least updated.
I don't think our system functioned correctly. Florida probably should have been denied its electoral college votes.
WOW that's a huge statement, forget the laws and constitution because I don't like them and I think the system needs to be fixed (it does) But should we look at every state over the last 40 years because they have always thrown out those votes that didn't meet the criteria But you're saying because their is flaws we should throw out an entire states voice ? Yikes. Should we have thrown out the E.C votes in 96' since there were more votes disqualified that year ? O.K how about the other states that had just as many votes thrown out or that had problems ? Should we have thrown out their electoral college votes ? There were millions of votes that get thrown out each year due to those things, I'm not saying it should be that way, but that was the system and laws we had in place at the time. How about a re-vote completley since the media (again) screwed the public by calling it WAY too early and probably keeping people from the polls ? Again, many problems that need to be fixed and it should. No one would deny that. But you can't go back and change laws and procedures if you don't like the outcome. If Gore had won can you honestly be telling me we would be having this conversation ? I highly doubt it.
Well, I'm all for getting rid of the electoral college completely and letting the popular vote decide the election, anyway, and have felt that way for a long time (not just since the 2000 election.)
If Gore had won can you honestly be telling me we would be having this conversation ? I highly doubt it.
I can guarantee it, only the roles would be reversed.
You could be right, and you'd probably saying get over it LOL :)
As far as the electoral system goes I can see it both ways, but there's one major flaw in my opinion with getting rid of the E.C system. Now you would essentially have the large towns or highly populated states dictating candidates in primaries and those same towns or states crowning our leaders. There is about 4.5 million in MN. I think it's close to 30 mill in CA. So who are the politicians going to listen or pander too ? Surely not us or our opinions if he/she wants to get elected or re-elected. If you look around the nation you see huge differences and needs from people in New York and L.A to people in Bemidji Minn. More than likeley you would see the candidates pandering only to large population areas to garner votes. To get the most votes. Now we essentiallty have New York, california etc. Choosing policy and deciding policy. I can see the arguments against it too but the E.C system was designed partially to prevent that from happening. There is good and bad reasons on each side. I think we ought to start with actually doing voting standards as we discuussed earlier.
But you can't go back and change laws and procedures if you don't like the outcome.
I wouldn't have liked the outcome no matter which of those losers got elected. I don't have a favorite horse in that race. The reason I think FL's electoral votes should have gotten thrown out is because, put simply, the state wasn't able to figure out its own vote.
If Gore had won can you honestly be telling me we would be having this conversation ? I highly doubt it.
Naz is right. We definitely would. My role wouldn't be reversed though. I'd still think Florida's EC votes should have been thrown out.
If Florida's electoral votes had been thrown out Congress would have had to make the call. Would you have liked that better?
At least then, people with accountability to the entire country (Congress) would have been the ones to make the decision. If the country at large was unhappy with their decision, their displeasure could have been manifest at the next election. The way it turned out, a few Republican judges and Florida state officials, none of whom have I or will I ever have a chance to vote for or against, made the decision for the entire country.
Because Naz, they still have equal representation in the Govt. Sure they are always have and will pander to the bigger E.C states, but they can't totally ignore the smaller states because they still need those E.C votes from the smaller states to win and politically get anything done. If we scrap it now all a politician has to do is win CA, N.Y, FLA, and a few other East Coast states to be elected, all the while ignoring the needs of people in MN, SD, MT, NV, NM etc. I know there is flaws with the E.C as well, but to have what happened in 2000 is rare if not the only time it has happend. I don't think there is a perfect solution but I think scrapping our constitutional mandate is a bad way to go. At least everyone get's some consideration under E.C. I can see where you would want to go to the other system though.
At least then, people with accountability to the entire country (Congress) would have been the ones to make the decision. If the country at large was unhappy with their decision, their displeasure could have been manifest at the next election. The way it turned out, a few Republican judges and Florida state officials, none of whom have I or will I ever have a chance to vote for or against, made the decision for the entire country.
That is the way the law was written, I am not saying it is good or right but it was the law. Like I said, change a law or procedure if you're unhappy but you can't change it at the time because you don't like the law or the outcome. But the argument you make about Judges is dead on. It is another example of judicial activism. I abhore it. I think before we scrap the E.C we ought to start with voting for judges. If they are going to legislate from the bench they should be accountable. And run for office like any candidate.
Yeah, JB, if you have an opinion about something like this (which, no matter how you present it, this is an opionion,) you need to at least have a rudimentary argument to back it up. An argument of your own doing, I mean.
Well, I'm in almost total agreement with you, Muskwa. I really do not understand the kick the religious right is making about this. It's not as if he advocated masturbation or anything.
Then he'd get fired.
The conservative "worry" that campaign finance reform undercuts "free speech" is both patently partisan and blatantly bogus. It's a case of paytriots trying to thwart patriots.
Where were they a year ago, when Blacks in Florida (and elsewhere) were disenfranchised during Election 2000, stripped of their most fundamental, free, democratic choice? Conservatives, to a white-butted man, were as mute as boulders about that mockery of our hallowed liberty, and still try to downplay it, despite many findings (including by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission) of its egregiousness.
Then there's the Constitution-eroding domestic aspect of the war on terrorism. During decades of supposedly being the mortal enemy of our basic liberties and values, the USSR never even fractionally damaged our freedom as Bush, Ashcroft and Ridge have in just a few months, by parlaying 9/11 into hysterical, essential repression. Just one among many examples: The Veep's wife (Lynne Cheney) has crusaded against "un-American dissent" on college campuses. Blacklists of war critics have been published. Educators have been fired, students suspended. Shamefully, Democrat Joe Lieberman has joined in this dark quashing of vital, critical thought.
Again, no protest -- no championing of the Bill of Rights -- from the Right.
But now, as we're finally making headway in cleaning up the pervasively corrupting sleaze of big-money politics (so profitable to conservative, special interests)...oh my God, we're threatened with tyranny!
Get real, get moral, get credible, and get the Hell out of the way of the single, most pivotal means of once again making America a nation of, by and for the common people, NOT Enron-style thieves!
"...Blacks in Florida (and elsewhere) were disenfranchised [sic] during Election 2000, stripped of their most fundamental, free, democratic choice? Conservatives, to a white-butted man, were as mute as boulders about that mockery of our hallowed liberty, and still try to downplay it, despite many findings (including by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission) of its egregiousness."
This disfranchising of blacks has been shown to be totally bogus. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission is a farce.
What are your sources?
The NAACP initially provided a forum for countless Florida blacks (and members of other minorities of color) to air the various ways in which they were unfairly treated/represented in the election.
That information then formed the basis of the evidence that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission concluded constituted
widespread and systematic disenfranchisement.
To summarize:
African-American voters were most harshly affected, the commission said, with blacks 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in Florida. On a statewide basis, while blacks comprised about 11 percent of all state voters in the 2000 elections, African Americans cast about 54 percent of the votes that were either not detected by voting machines or rejected for containing mistakes. Nine out of the ten counties with the highest percentage of African-American voters had spoilage rates above the Florida average, with Gadsden County, which has the highest percentage of black voters in the state, also claiming the highest rate of rejected ballots.
The commission blamed these results on “restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors and inadequate and unequal resources,” including the use of antiquated and error-prone punch card systems in working class and minority neighborhoods.
Referring to the expected high turnout of African-American voters—which increased 65 percent over 1996—the report says President Bush's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and Secretary of State Katherine Harris in particular “chose to simply ignore the mounting evidence that many counties were experiencing rising voter registration rates in communities with out-dated voting technology.” Before and during the election, the report says, “state and county officials were aware of several key factors that ultimately contributed to the disenfranchisement of qualified voters.”
You can contend that the disenfranchisement never happened, Muskwa (a curiously concrete position for a woman of color), or that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission is a "farce" (again, very odd), but what it all comes down to is the PEOPLE who, even before the polls closed, were widely reporting that they'd been dealt with unfairly as they sought to exercise their franchise.
White conservatives, in a very racist way, never took their charges seriously.
The allegants were simply dismissed as "not credible"...
Anyway, maybe if Al wasn't such a doofus he would have had recounts in all counties in Florida.
I thought the election was over a year ago.
Bill, is that a picture of Bono from U2?
That's James Gandolfini aka Tony Soprano, if I am not mistaken.
Let's face it... Florida, the only state to have voting irregularities, and coincidentally, the ONLY state that has a Bush Brother in the Governors chair, screwed up the presidential election in favor of that state's Governor's brother.
Wrong, there were major irregularities in Missouri and Illinois also. There were a couple of states that the vote was really close. Bush could have contested several states that he lost. The ONLY thing that is certain is that it was a close election and BUSH won. Alll the media did a recount and Bush won every recount.
.....media did a recount and Bush won every recount.
Exactly!
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/17/bush.lay/index.html
BUSH-LAY LOVE LETTERS DISCLOSED
This is obscene. I wonder if Dick was involved.
There's no doubt that some precincts in the country need an overhaul, but that's clearly up to the states. The federal government should notget involved, beyond encouragement.
I have voted in places that used the punch-card ballot. All that is required is an ability to read, and a minimum of comprehension.
a minimum of comprehension.
You're asking too much.
More's the pity.
The first time I voted in Richmond, VA, (the 2000 presidential election) and I found out we had to use a butterfly ballot (I had never seen one before,) I was dumbfounded. Dumbfounded because I couldn't believe that in last year of the 20th century, such antiquated technology was still being used for something so important. So. I had no problem figuring out the ballot. But my wife, who is not an unintelligent person (I will put her up against anybody in this thread,) has epilepsy, and certain types of repetetive patterns confuse the motor centers of her brain. And she had never seen a butterfly ballot before, and was unprepared for it. She's still not sure she voted correctly, even with the aid of the workers who were stationed there for that express purpose. My point is, there are lots of people with infirmities, reading disabilities and other kinds of mild debilitations who might take issue with the smartass contention that "all that is required is an ability to read, and a minimum of comprehension." Voting is a right that is guaranteed to citizens, and there is no statutory requirements that they have either a certain level of literacy or physical skills. There used to be laws about this, but the US Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional, along with all the other Jim Crow laws.
That's Iggy Pop.
No offense meant, naz
He's the man in Europe.
None taken.
I'm not poking, I'm really curious if there's an answer. I agree we need to upgrade the system...but to what?
OT: Enron sucks!
Fold,
It wasn't by accident or cosmic chance.
Sorry Fold, but I have to take issue with you on this one. You are 100% wrong. It was not the ONLY sate to have voting irregularities. There were many other states, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada I believe just to name a couple. They were considering recounting some of those states as well.
Fact, The previous presidential election in 96 in Florida had more votes thrown out than this one due to hanging "chads" more than one candidate etc. Funny but I didn't hear anyone protesting. I didn't see Sharpton or Jackson marching and screaming foul in 96 when more votes were thrown out. I didn't see or hear anything about anyone being confused or disinfranchised. Perhaps because their guy one. And if he won, why complain ? Here's another tid bit for you. The ballot was approved by the state's DEMOCRATIC comittee chairwoman. A funny little story about the Dem's in Florida too. Oddly it seems a vote counting machine was missing. Guess where they found one ? in one of the local Democratic officials trunk ! Oops, it also happens to be illegal since they aren't supposed to be handled by party officials. I have the link for you if you'd like. Hmmm which party is famous for cruising homelss shelters and the streets for people and paying them 5 bucks a head and giving them a ride to the polls ? It happened in the 2000 election. Hmmm.
Jeb recused himself as he probably should of. There were other states where many votes were thrown out. It happens every year (can you say Chicago?) In fact less last year than in previous years, Why is it any less o.k because the margin of victory was larger in those years ? Probably because their guy won, why no whining then ? He lost, they counted and recounted and tried to be selective on areas they thought would favor them. They STILL lost. the media in it's typical idiotic fdashion called Florida WAY too soon. How many people stayed home because they thought it was over ? Who knows, but Gore lost. Period. Get over it and move on.
I didn't see Sharpton or Jackson marching and screaming foul in 96
Or Richard Daley from Chicago. Remember how he went down there to straighten it out?
That was a hoot.
His father practically invented the rigged election.
LOL, I couldn't believe it when I saw Daley on the news either. I thought you know, maybe the Dem's ought to have somebody else be talking about voting irregularites, it was almost surreal if not ironic to have him preaching about voting irregularities. I am in agreement that we should go to a standardized systm of some type, the system needs to be fixed no doubt, but I am tired of hearing the whining. Why no outrage in 96' ? What's the difference ? NONE. Just because a tighter margin happened doesn't mean those peoples votes were any less valuable. But only now do they complain or want to change the system, fine, do it, you don't like mechanisms or the electoral college, fine,change it, but you can't go back and rewrite rules to favor you or your party. He won. .....Next.
The problem with the butterfly ballot we used in Virginia (which was apparently very much like the ones used in Florida) are multiple--the design of the ballot itself was iffy, the readers malfunction, and we all know about hanging chads. My point is, the whole thing is very very low-tech, and it seems to me we could bring modern technology to bear on this problem. In Louisiana, where I first voted in 1978, we used the old style lever voting machines. They would only allow you to vote for one candidate per race, for instance, and they were only sort of medium-tech. I don't know exactly what the answer is, but I know that punching holes in cards with a little stick is not the best way, and any idiot could foresee that it might cause problems.
I hear ya there. I think states and counties should be able to do whatever the hell they want for their ballots, but the federal government should make a uniform federal voting system for federal offices. It would cost a lot and be a big pain in the ass to implement, but it's one of the most basic functions of government- to let the people vote for their leaders.
The problem is that the conservatives, and I don't totally disagree, will state that this is another example of big government mandating that the states do something, without explaining where the money to pay for it will come from. But, yes, something has got to be done.
The GOP didn't complain? Why not?
Well, it's pretty logical that, if the percentage of votes thrown out was smaller than the margin of victory, it becomes irrelevant. Sure, in hindsight, something should have been done. But just because it wasn't done then, doesn't mean something shouldn't be done now.
And if that was how it was done, I'd be right there with them. It's a federal function. It should be paid for and completed by the federal government. It should have been done that way in 1783. It's basic federal infrastructure.
But, again, the states have the legal authority to regulate and set their own voting statutes. I am all for this idea, believe me, but I'm not sure what the constitutional hurdles, and, as you said, Lance, the cost, would be.
Naz,
No it doesn't become irrelavant. The whole argument being made by the left was that every vote should count and that voters were disinfranchised and the ballot was confusing. Maybe so but my point was that there were actually more votes in the 96' election thrown out and I didn't hear a peep out of Sharpton, Jackson, Carville etc. Suddenly it was a crisis in 00'? Sure because your guy lost and it was a small margin of victory and you were using that argument to bolster their opinion. It just seems hypocritical to me or at least disingenuos that they were suddenly worried about votes being tossed out. It wouldn't have changed the outcome. He lost, sorry, he lost, try again. Should something be done to change it. You bet, I've never nor would I say something shouldn't be done. But the fact is. Gore lost under the system we have. I think you might be off the mark when you say that conservatives would be against modernizing or mandating or standardizing voting procedures or machines. I think it's a great idea. With technology etc. We could do things alot differently. And I think we should it needs to be standard or at the least updated.
I don't think our system functioned correctly. Florida probably should have been denied its electoral college votes.
WOW that's a huge statement, forget the laws and constitution because I don't like them and I think the system needs to be fixed (it does) But should we look at every state over the last 40 years because they have always thrown out those votes that didn't meet the criteria But you're saying because their is flaws we should throw out an entire states voice ? Yikes.
Should we have thrown out the E.C votes in 96' since there were more votes disqualified that year ?
O.K how about the other states that had just as many votes thrown out or that had problems ? Should we have thrown out their electoral college votes ? There were millions of votes that get thrown out each year due to those things, I'm not saying it should be that way, but that was the system and laws we had in place at the time. How about a re-vote completley since the media (again) screwed the public by calling it WAY too early and probably keeping people from the polls ?
Again, many problems that need to be fixed and it should. No one would deny that. But you can't go back and change laws and procedures if you don't like the outcome. If Gore had won can you honestly be telling me we would be having this conversation ? I highly doubt it.
Well, I'm all for getting rid of the electoral college completely and letting the popular vote decide the election, anyway, and have felt that way for a long time (not just since the 2000 election.)
I can guarantee it, only the roles would be reversed.
You could be right, and you'd probably saying get over it LOL :)
As far as the electoral system goes I can see it both ways, but there's one major flaw in my opinion with getting rid of the E.C system. Now you would essentially have the large towns or highly populated states dictating candidates in primaries and those same towns or states crowning our leaders. There is about 4.5 million in MN. I think it's close to 30 mill in CA. So who are the politicians going to listen or pander too ? Surely not us or our opinions if he/she wants to get elected or re-elected. If you look around the nation you see huge differences and needs from people in New York and L.A to people in Bemidji Minn. More than likeley you would see the candidates pandering only to large population areas to garner votes. To get the most votes. Now we essentiallty have New York, california etc. Choosing policy and deciding policy. I can see the arguments against it too but the E.C system was designed partially to prevent that from happening. There is good and bad reasons on each side. I think we ought to start with actually doing voting standards as we discuussed earlier.
I wouldn't have liked the outcome no matter which of those losers got elected. I don't have a favorite horse in that race. The reason I think FL's electoral votes should have gotten thrown out is because, put simply, the state wasn't able to figure out its own vote.
Naz is right. We definitely would. My role wouldn't be reversed though. I'd still think Florida's EC votes should have been thrown out.
How is that different from how it is now?
If Florida's electoral votes had been thrown out Congress would have had to make the call. Would you have liked that better?
At least then, people with accountability to the entire country (Congress) would have been the ones to make the decision. If the country at large was unhappy with their decision, their displeasure could have been manifest at the next election. The way it turned out, a few Republican judges and Florida state officials, none of whom have I or will I ever have a chance to vote for or against, made the decision for the entire country.
Because Naz, they still have equal representation in the Govt. Sure they are always have and will pander to the bigger E.C states, but they can't totally ignore the smaller states because they still need those E.C votes from the smaller states to win and politically get anything done. If we scrap it now all a politician has to do is win CA, N.Y, FLA, and a few other East Coast states to be elected, all the while ignoring the needs of people in MN, SD, MT, NV, NM etc. I know there is flaws with the E.C as well, but to have what happened in 2000 is rare if not the only time it has happend. I don't think there is a perfect solution but I think scrapping our constitutional mandate is a bad way to go. At least everyone get's some consideration under E.C. I can see where you would want to go to the other system though.
The US Supreme Court made the correct legal decision.
Well, now I'm convinced!
Naz,
That is the way the law was written, I am not saying it is good or right but it was the law. Like I said, change a law or procedure if you're unhappy but you can't change it at the time because you don't like the law or the outcome. But the argument you make about Judges is dead on. It is another example of judicial activism. I abhore it. I think before we scrap the E.C we ought to start with voting for judges. If they are going to legislate from the bench they should be accountable. And run for office like any candidate.
How do you know that?
The US Supreme Court made the correct legal decision.
How do you know that?
Read the opinion. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-949
Yeah, JB, if you have an opinion about something like this (which, no matter how you present it, this is an opionion,) you need to at least have a rudimentary argument to back it up. An argument of your own doing, I mean.
o.k., and who says that's the correct legal decision?
Jethro does.
And what's good for Jethro is good for America.
Who loves ya Jethro?