NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democrats, in specific Al Gore, have bastardized the whole election process. I have no idea what will happen in the 2004 election, but I hope to God it is not a repeat of the 2000 election. But in a race this close, it seems very likely that there might be another Florida, be it in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or any other swing state, it seems that a repeat of the 2000 Florida snafu might happen. Now, the problem with Florida was not that it was a close race. That is perfectly fine. Neither is the problem that the mandatory recount was taken, or that 1 more recount was taken. The problem is the number of recounts taking place, and the unjustness of the recount process. People say the Supreme Court unfairly gave Bush the election. The Supreme Court stopped the recount process because 1.) it was not taking place statewide, just in the strategic counties that could help Al Gore and 2.) after excessive recounts, George Bush still won.

All the recounts have created a mindset in the American people. It now seems to many Americans, and many young Americans, too young to vote, that the presidential race does not end after all the votes have been counted. Now, the race does not end there, and candidates keep on campaigning after the votes are counted. There is recount after recount after recount, and there is the issue of campaigning to human vote counters, many of whom in the disputed Florida counties were Democrats. This may have not been the case in 2000, but what happens when, say in 2004 in Ohio some human vote counters doing hand recounts purposely incorrectly count votes because of party affiliation, and this tips the election one way or another. This would be disastrous.

What I am saying is this: The Florida isuue has ruined the election process, so that the race is not over when the votes are counted, but a candidate may demand recounts until he finally wins by by shady methods, or a candidate may take a case to court, where Judges with party affiliations may make biased or partisan decisions to see their candidate into office. This is not the American way of free elections, this is awful.

Lastly, I will make a wish, and a prediction. My initially wish is for the candidate who loses a hotly contested state, that they will not demand excessive recounts, and do not take an issue to court for a frivolous cause, just to try to win the state after the election, by force. And my prediction is this, that if George Bush is on the losing end of a close race in a deciding state, that he will not demand excessive recounts or unjustly take the election to a court ruling; but if John Kerry is on the losing end, I feel he will have no qualms about trying to win the state after the election, by forcing excessive recounts, and trying to win with other methods after the election.

How many people actually read that??

Of course Bush will concede defeat gracefully, but Kerry will continuously demand recounts until he wins.

Wouldn't you agree that it was the Republicans who messed everything up by hiring a database company, owned by a Republican, to come up with a faulty list of people to scrub from the voting roles. A list of about 70,000 people (mainly democrats and mainly black).

They got the contract to do the work for millions of dollars when there were other groups bidding for the job and were only going to charge about $2,000.

Yes.... it was the Republicans and their need to cheat their way into the Whitehouse that has ruined everything. If G. Bush's Help America Vote Act gets passed, they can then disenfranchise black democratic voters in every state and not just Florida, and then things are going to get worse.

And my prediction is this, that if George Bush is on the losing end of a close race in a deciding state, that he will not demand excessive recounts or unjustly take the election to a court ruling; but if John Kerry is on the losing end, I feel he will have no qualms about trying to win the state after the election, by forcing excessive recounts, and trying to win with other methods after the election.

You're absolutely right. Georgie doesn't believe the courts have any authority anyways, so he'll just sign an executive order saying he gets to win and tell us that if he doesn't win, we are all unpatriotic and the terrorists have already won.

Seriously though, you shouldn't be worried about recounts ruining the upcoming election. What is actually going to ruin it is the cheap-ass state governments who refused to have a paper trail for their elections even though it has been shown that the system can be misused. (Hell, my boyfriend experimented with a voting machine, zapped the little card with a little ESD - like if you walked across the carpet dragging your feet - and not only erased all the votes already on it, but also got admin rights to the computer). So, yeah, the ACLU is going to sue in several states the minute the election is over and pretty much get them all thrown out. We may very well have a president chosen by state representatives telling the electors how to vote this year. Fun, huh?

Yes, yes of course.

Republicans are poor winners -- they keep on bashing the Democrats for questioning Florida and the wonderful "hanging chad" system...

And the system that was in place for their next local election that also worked remarkably badly....


And notice that the closer the race (with Kerry ahead) the more of this "They don't play fair!!!" nonsense we'll hear.

I still want to know why polls closed early, and why voters were turned away... just a mistake, you say?

Pretty big mistake, to my mind.

So sure, let's have the election and no matter what inconsistencies there appear to be, DON'T LOOK INTO THEM. Better to preserve the sanctity of the vote than to uncover possible wrongdoing -- in a state run by the elected's brother, no less.

Truthfully now -- if the roles were reversed and a Democrat was elected under the same set of circumstances, would you be saying, "Let it go?" or would you want to know what actually happened?

Why didn't Gore want the absentee military votes to count in Florida? I guess he didn't care about the common men who were defending this nation, and the fact that they were sick of Clinton/Gore and wanted someone else to be their commander-in-chief, shows why Gore didn't want those votes counted.

So who was actually the sore loser?

bump

Of course Bush will concede defeat gracefully, but Kerry will continuously demand recounts until he wins.
Uhm... Let me think about this.

If Bush concedes defeat gracefully, then that means Kerry wins, so why would be need a recount, if he has already won?? :confused:

Wouldn't you agree that it was the Republicans who messed everything up by hiring a database company, owned by a Republican, to come up with a faulty list of people to scrub from the voting roles. A list of about 70,000 people (mainly democrats and mainly black).

They got the contract to do the work for millions of dollars when there were other groups bidding for the job and were only going to charge about $2,000.

Yes.... it was the Republicans and their need to cheat their way into the Whitehouse that has ruined everything. If G. Bush's Help America Vote Act gets passed, they can then disenfranchise black democratic voters in every state and not just Florida, and then things are going to get worse.
no he wouldn't agree (or she, whatever)

It is my prediction that 2000 was NOTHING compared to what 2004 will be.
No one will be satisfied no matter who wins.
Florida will again be a key state, especially if Kerry loses it.
I predict a very dark november (and possibly even further than that)

furthermore, I should say, no, it doesn't bother me at all that someone insists the votes are counted. Although it's hard to count them if they were illegally denied to begin with :eek: :cool:

Uhm... Let me think about this.

If Bush concedes defeat gracefully, then that means Kerry wins, so why would be need a recount, if he has already won?? :confused:

He means if Bush Wins, Kerry will demand the excessive recounts till he wins.

I fear the consequences that will occur if Bush is reelected... It'll be the end of democracy.

no he wouldn't agree (or she, whatever)

It is my prediction that 2000 was NOTHING compared to what 2004 will be.
No one will be satisfied no matter who wins.
Florida will again be a key state, especially if Kerry loses it.
I predict a very dark november (and possibly even further than that)

Well there is a Federal Deadline for such so who knows. Can someone say House Vote?

He means if Bush Wins, Kerry will demand the excessive recounts till he wins.
Look at the meaning of concedes.

con·cede
v. con·ced·ed, con·ced·ing, con·cedes
v. tr.

1. To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit. See Synonyms at acknowledge.
2. To yield or grant (a privilege or right, for example).

I fear the consequences that will occur if Bush is reelected... It'll be the end of democracy.

*warning sirens goes off*

Sorry Kryozerkia I don't believe that for one Second. Bush getting re-elected wont mean the end of Democracy and besides, we're actually a Federal Republic! LOL

If we have a repeat of 2000, I'll probably die of a massive heart attack caused by staying awake for well over 2 straight weeks on a diet of coffee, Red Bull, and donuts. Or I'll get shot during a protest of Bush's shady electioneering. Either way, if Bush cheats, I die.
...Vote Kerry!

Why didn't Gore want the absentee military votes to count in Florida? I guess he didn't care about the common men who were defending this nation, and the fact that they were sick of Clinton/Gore and wanted someone else to be their commander-in-chief, shows why Gore didn't want those votes counted.

So who was actually the sore loser?


Thunderland is right, you do tend to whine.

It's called Politics. Both sides do cheap things.

The Repubs can laugh all they want but if their candidate was good then the votes would not have been so close

Susa: a candidate can ask for a recount all he wants. Especially is it is so close as the system has a history of abuse.

All the mistakes seem to happen in Florida for some reason. Why is that? :rolleyes:

All the mistakes seem to happen in Florida for some reason. Why is that? :rolleyes:

I don't know but they seem to happen in the Democrat Controlled portions! Why is that?

no partisan blame from this side - i'm an anarchist after all. however, multiple recounts are exactly what you need in all elections. see, when you measure anything there is a margin of error in the measurement method, and the best way to find out the 'real' measurement is to take the mean of multiple measurements. each time you run a large number of votes through the counting machine you will get a different number - i've read that the machine counting error is somewhere in the 5% region - and therefore you need to do at least one more full recount to even pretend to know what the actual result was. not a hand recount though - they have a higher margin of error than machine counts, which means you are even less likely to know how many votes people got after a hand count.

and in cases where the margin of victory is smaller than the margin of error (iirc, in at least 6 states in the 2000 election. maybe more depending on the counting method used) then no matter how you count it you can't know who won at all. if you count again, an entirely different candidate could win. close elections are statistical ties - there is no winner nor is there a legitimate way to determine one. you might as well flip a coin.

I don't know but they seem to happen in the Democrat Controlled portions! Why is that?

Why not ask the govenor about it.

Ok. Now why would a democratic controlled area want voters tossed?

Read the thread again. Many valid voters were tossed due to a "mistake"

Did I say that? no but most of the problems in 2000 took place in Democrat held locations! You didn't answer it! lol

Did I say that? no but most of the problems in 2000 took place in Democrat held locations! You didn't answer it! lol

Sorry re-edited it after you read.

Again ask the govenor about it.

were you IN the US and older than say...16 in 2000?
you seem to remember it rather oddly.

were you IN the US and older than say...16 in 2000?
you seem to remember it rather oddly.

Actually I was 12 and how do I remember it is because, I followed it as did my brother. We taped the Florida Supreme Court Cases as well as the US Supreme Court Cases! We also kept some of the Newspaper articles. That is how I remember it!

Oh and I Live in the USA! Born here too!

The only thing I have to say is this; when reading the title to this thread it sounds like your saying-

"Yep, all them there Liberals! Voting! PSHA! They've ruined it for the rest of us... and our opposing views!"

And let's face it, it makes you sound like a red neck hack.

Second...

Let the Gore thing go, Holy "I-Blee-From-My-Hands" Christ, man.

I don't rant on Nixon.
Or the Conservatives and slaves.

Plus, cut all the words down man. Brevity is the soul of wit... and since I'm assuming you want summon' to read that I'd cut it down.

I fear the consequences that will occur if Bush is reelected... It'll be the end of democracy.welocme to the united states of america. the "christian" police state.

welocme to the united states of america. the "christian" police state.

Last time I checked the lawsuits, Christian Symbals are being torn down by order of the Courts.

no partisan blame from this side - i'm an anarchist after all. however, multiple recounts are exactly what you need in all elections. see, when you measure anything there is a margin of error in the measurement method, and the best way to find out the 'real' measurement is to take the mean of multiple measurements. each time you run a large number of votes through the counting machine you will get a different number - i've read that the machine counting error is somewhere in the 5% region - and therefore you need to do at least one more full recount to even pretend to know what the actual result was. not a hand recount though - they have a higher margin of error than machine counts, which means you are even less likely to know how many votes people got after a hand count.

and in cases where the margin of victory is smaller than the margin of error (iirc, in at least 6 states in the 2000 election. maybe more depending on the counting method used) then no matter how you count it you can't know who won at all. if you count again, an entirely different candidate could win. close elections are statistical ties - there is no winner nor is there a legitimate way to determine one. you might as well flip a coin.

And recounts will be impossible without a paper trail, which is the reason that elections this year are going to be screwed.

Many states have refused to use the electronic voting machines. So that is good news.

I don't see why it would be so hard for Diebold to make everyone happy by adding a module that gives people a receipt showing them who they voted for and a second one to collect for itself for a manual recount that can double check the machines count.

Of course it will cost money to do that but anyone who thought that it was a good idea to leave those out in the first place should be sent to Abu Grahib and tortured and sodomized by US soldiers.

All the recounts have created a mindset in the American people. It now seems to many Americans, and many young Americans, too young to vote, that the presidential race does not end after all the votes have been counted.

Well someone clearly doesn't understand US election process ...

The young people in your scenario have it right. The Presidential race doesn't end when all the votes have been counted, it ends when the Senate canvasses the votes.

Geeze ... where have you been?

Here ... this will help, but it's simplified:

Step I: Primaries and Caucuses
In these elections, party members get to vote for the candidate that will represent their party in the upcoming general election.

Step 2: National Conventions
At the end of the primaries and caucuses, each party holds a national convention to finalize the selection of one Presidential nominee.

Step 3: The General (or Popular) Election
When a person casts a vote in the general election, they are not voting directly for an individual Presidential candidate. Instead, voters in each state actually cast their vote for a group of people, known as electors. These electors are part of the Electoral College and are supposed to vote for their state’s preferred candidate.

Step 4: The Electoral College
In December (following the general election), the electors cast their votes. When the votes are counted on January 6th, the Presidential candidate that gets more than half (270) wins the election. The President-elect and Vice President-elect take the oath of office and are inaugurated two weeks later, on January 20th.

This doesn't include the Secretary of State from each state canvassing the popular votes and determining which candidate in each Senatorial District got the majority vote, nor does it really show how Electors become Electors, but it's good enough for now.

Technically, the Presidential election doesn't end until the votes are counted on January 6th. The News Media only projects the winners based on the uncanvassed popular vote. Stop watching CNN and start paying attention to the actual process.

Don't expect an absolute, concrete decision of who the next President is on November 3rd, 2004.

Yeesh.

:rolleyes:

Many states have refused to use the electronic voting machines. So that is good news.

I don't see why it would be so hard for Diebold to make everyone happy by adding a module that gives people a receipt showing them who they voted for and a second one to collect for itself for a manual recount that can double check the machines count.

Of course it will cost money to do that but anyone who thought that it was a good idea to leave those out in the first place should be sent to Abu Grahib and tortured and sodomized by US soldiers.

Yeah, well Diebold likes to *claim* that their voting machines are secure, despite repeated proof otherwise. In my state, my boyfriend was working for the state senate and his senator was on the committee deciding whether or not to bring a paper trail in. He demonstrated that he could erase an entire card of votes and get full administrative rights to the computer in the voting machine simply by giving the card a small shock (on the order of walking across the carpet and then touching a doorknob). They still decided paying the amount that Diebold wants to add a little printer to the machine was too much and decided not to do it.

*scared for the future of America*

Thunderland is right, you do tend to whine.

It's called Politics. Both sides do cheap things.

The Repubs can laugh all they want but if their candidate was good then the votes would not have been so close

Susa: a candidate can ask for a recount all he wants. Especially is it is so close as the system has a history of abuse.

All the mistakes seem to happen in Florida for some reason. Why is that? :rolleyes:


Hmmm, and thunderland is an expert on anything. All he is a glorified hand holder. I doubt that he actually saw combat, he sounds like a coward anyway. BTW when was I whining (do you even know what whining is), I was just asking why didn't Gore want those votes counted? You are more of a whiner then I'll ever be. Just sit there and eat your snacks. Nevermind the fact that you can't see your toes. I bet you have more chins then Chinatown!

BTW-If Gore was such a great guy he should have won the election, afterall he was Clinton's VP. Heck he didn't even carry his home state. Nice and thunderland is as big a pansy as you are. I'm sure his band of brothers loved that Clinton guy.

Elections lost all credibility when voter eligibility requirements were thrown out. That crazy guy talking to himself outside the subway station has a vote worth just as much as yours.

And then we act surprised at the caliber of our politicians.

Bring back the property litmus test!

Why not ask the govenor about it.

Hmm, Why are you whining?

As a registered voter, I think it is my duty to speak for the vast left-wing conspiracy known as the Democratic Pary.

We've been accused in the past of wanting to kill babies, to not kill terrorists, and to make America more unsafe. Now you're calling us the party that wants to ruin the democratic process.

Fellow Democrats, unite with me in our new platform:

1. Screw democracy! Even if we lose the popular election this November, let's pull some strings to make sure Kerry gets the job anyway.

2. Kill babies! I know it was thinly veiled in the past, so let's just drop the charade. Also, we must be in favor of killing Dolphins, rabbits, kittens, etc. We cannot allow a dead baby gap with the terrorists!

3. Tax the rich! Everyone knows that Democrats are lazy. The only problem is that we can't always earn enough money for hot tubs on our yachts. So I propose taxing the rich, who have all earned their money honestly, and giving their money to lazy poor Democrats.

4. We must use all of our crafty subliminable messages, all of the judges in our pockets, all three of our liberal media outlets, everything we have to pass an arbitrary amendment to our Constitution. Make it create a separation between church and state. This "freedom of religion" principle, while ostensibly guarenteeing freedom of religion, will in practice make the populace of the United States Satan worshippers.

5. We must get the guns out of the hands of the people! This will make it so much easier when we initiate project Soylent Green.

6. Also, let's balance the budget. Because we're not crazy.

Last time I checked the lawsuits, Christian Symbals are being torn down by order of the Courts.

You know, I used to play the Christian Symbals, but then I switched to Islamic Clarinet.

You know, I used to play the Christian Symbals, but then I switched to Islamic Clarinet.

I play the clarinet myself!

"We could get together and make a hell of a band."

OR

"Hey, that music would be heavenly!"

God bless puns.

*warning sirens goes off*

Sorry Kryozerkia I don't believe that for one Second. Bush getting re-elected wont mean the end of Democracy and besides, we're actually a Federal Republic! LOL

More accurately, we are a Democratic Republic.

Democracy:
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Republic:
A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.

I fear the consequences that will occur if Bush is reelected... It'll be the end of democracy.

I hope your not referring to the United States as a democracy? because we're not, the US is a Republic, which uses a some democratic ideals, like voting.

Hmmm, and thunderland is an expert on anything. All he is a glorified hand holder. I doubt that he actually saw combat, he sounds like a coward anyway. BTW when was I whining (do you even know what whining is), I was just asking why didn't Gore want those votes counted? You are more of a whiner then I'll ever be. Just sit there and eat your snacks. Nevermind the fact that you can't see your toes. I bet you have more chins then Chinatown!

BTW-If Gore was such a great guy he should have won the election, afterall he was Clinton's VP. Heck he didn't even carry his home state. Nice and thunderland is as big a pansy as you are. I'm sure his band of brothers loved that Clinton guy.

He helps vets.

What do you do?

The question of combat? Well the exact same thing can be said of you. We have no way to prove your claims.

But I don't doubt his sincerity.

While you......

For such a brave man you sure complain about others perceptions. Maybe you have more of the coward then you will admit.

If Bush is reelected i will protest. If he even TRIES to move the day of the election, I'll be ready to take up arms.

HannibalSmith you may as well quit your whining. There is to need to be so thin-skinned. What are you; a democrat?

HannibalSmith you may as well quit your whining. There is to need to be so thin-skinned. What are you; a democrat?

That is good advice. This place is not for people with thin skin and or issues. People can get rather harsh.

He says he was military so he is probably a Repub or a Lib.

-------- edit ------

I take that back. He was caught quoting Savage so I bet Repub.....

If Bush is reelected i will protest. If he even TRIES to move the day of the election, I'll be ready to take up arms.

ok what do you mean by this statement? What do you mean TRIES to move the day of the election?

Actually I was 12 and how do I remember it is because, I followed it as did my brother. We taped the Florida Supreme Court Cases as well as the US Supreme Court Cases! We also kept some of the Newspaper articles. That is how I remember it!

Oh and I Live in the USA! Born here too!
oh i meant susa not you, formal. the notion of Democrats ruining elections because of florida is a little..... odd

the "problems" occurred in democratic areas of florida because only the democrats asked for recounts and then only in a few counties they thought they had the most problems with. it seems that recounts are done on a county by county basis, at least in florida. there were counting problems all over the state but the republicans didnt ask for recounts in areas that might have had a higher than counted republican vote.

Wouldn't you agree that it was the Republicans who messed everything up by hiring a database company, owned by a Republican, to come up with a faulty list of people to scrub from the voting roles. A list of about 70,000 people (mainly democrats and mainly black).

They got the contract to do the work for millions of dollars when there were other groups bidding for the job and were only going to charge about $2,000.

Yes.... it was the Republicans and their need to cheat their way into the Whitehouse that has ruined everything. If G. Bush's Help America Vote Act gets passed, they can then disenfranchise black democratic voters in every state and not just Florida, and then things are going to get worse.
Yes it would appear that it was indeed the Republicans who used all the methods required for them to ultimately prevail in that election.

This is a very close election again by the looks of the recent polls and the Democrats will have to work extra hard in getting the vote out.

There are many tools that Democrats can use to help increase the vote totals in favour of Democrats.


Work at a local constituency office.

Encourage those who you know would favour the Democrats to get out and vote.


Offer transportation to those unable to get to the polling booth on their own.


Donate funds to the Democratic local area office.

Wear party buttons, display bumber stickers, and place a sign in your window or on your lawn.

Know the important issues and convey them as often as possible.

Knock on doors and deliver pamphlets.

Encourage voters to go and see Fahrenheit 911.

And remember that most voters that do not go out and vote, would probably vote Democrat. More than likely, if everyone in the US voted, the Republicans would never win another election?

If every Democrat does their part, there is every reason to believe that a Democrat victory can be obtained!!

GO KERRY GO

oh i meant susa not you, formal. the notion of Democrats ruining elections because of florida is a little..... odd

the "problems" occurred in democratic areas of florida because only the democrats asked for recounts and then only in a few counties they thought they had the most problems with. it seems that recounts are done on a county by county basis, at least in florida. there were counting problems all over the state but the republicans didnt ask for recounts in areas that might have had a higher than counted republican vote.And that was the basis of the supreme courts decision. The recounts only being done in select liberal counties violated Bush's constitutional rights.

I fear the consequences that will occur if Bush is reelected... It'll be the end of democracy.
I don't believe that it would be the end of democracy, but I think there would be a further polarization of politics in the US and that there will probably be more wars waged, as well as an increase in terrorist attacks.

The fact that liberals and democrats suscribe to the "vote early, Vote often" theory is very telling about their election record.

The fact that liberals and democrats suscribe to the "vote early, Vote often" theory is very telling about their election record.
However, it is more difficult to vote, if you have somehow been disenfranchised by someone like Kathleen Harris?

However, it is more difficult to vote, if you have somehow been disenfranchised by someone like Kathleen Harris?
It is not whoever difficult to vote apparently when you are a convicted felon, dead, or just want to vote more than once, if you are voting democrat. It is however difficult to vote if you are military, and don't vote for the Democrat.

It is not whoever difficult to vote apparently when you are a convicted felon, dead, or just want to vote more than once, if you are voting democrat. It is however difficult to vote if you are military, and don't vote for the Democrat.
when jimmy carter first started in politics in georgia, they passed a law saying you couldnt vote for more than 3 years after you died.
they figured your "widow" would have a pretty good idea of how you woulda voted if you were still alive for about that amount of time, and that it wasnt fair that you dint get a vote just because you were dead.

And that was the basis of the supreme courts decision. The recounts only being done in select liberal counties violated Bush's constitutional rights.
Nah--the basis of the Supreme Court's decision was that Bush would have been irreparably harmed by allowing the recount to continue. That's what his lawyers argued in court, and that's how the decision came down 5-4. It was such a bad and partisan decision that they refuse to allow it to ever be cited as precedent for future cases, and I've got a sneaking suspicion that the reason none of the current Justices who were thinking about retiring did so is because they didn't want their long-term reputations blemished by such a partisan decision. They feel dirty.

Someone here used sarcasim to imply the rich wern't taxed.

The most wealthy people in america, (The 1% people) are taxed for 34% of all income tax...

Wow, that's SO not taxed...

I don't believe that it would be the end of democracy, but I think there would be a further polarization of politics in the US and that there will probably be more wars waged, as well as an increase in terrorist attacks.

Don't have a heart attack CanuckHeaven but for once you and I are on the samepage here! I believe that this will occur as well!

*prepares to give CPR*

when jimmy carter first started in politics in georgia, they passed a law saying you couldnt vote for more than 3 years after you died.
they figured your "widow" would have a pretty good idea of how you woulda voted if you were still alive for about that amount of time, and that it wasnt fair that you dint get a vote just because you were dead.

Hey now! You can't use us Georgians as any sort of example! Things are weird here. Just a year or so ago, the legislature was voting on whether or not to require all restaraunts in the state to have sweet tea. Weird, huh?

hehe

ok what do you mean by this statement? What do you mean TRIES to move the day of the election?
The government was considering changing the day of the national election to foil any plans of terrorist attacks.

The government was considering changing the day of the national election to foil any plans of terrorist attacks.

Yea I heard that. All options do have to be explored but I do think that is a bad idea but it still has to be looked into as well as the Constitutionality of it. I don't think we'll have to fear anything from this.

And thanks for answering my question calmly and coherently!

Yea I heard that. All options do have to be explored but I do think that is a bad idea but it still has to be looked into as well as the Constitutionality of it. I don't think we'll have to fear anything from this.

And thanks for answering my question calmly and coherently!

We had elections in WWII, we had elections during the Civil War. If we moved or postponed elections this year, it would be the first time in our country's history this has happened through far more dangerous times than present. It would also send the wrong message to the terrorists, that they have enough power to so disrupt our basic political system. It's gotten all the consideration it deserves to have and then some.

Hey now! You can't use us Georgians as any sort of example! Things are weird here. Just a year or so ago, the legislature was voting on whether or not to require all restaraunts in the state to have sweet tea. Weird, huh?

hehe

Bah. There shouldn't be a vote on that!

You're in the South. Sweet tea should just be a given!

We had elections in WWII, we had elections during the Civil War. If we moved or postponed elections this year, it would be the first time in our country's history this has happened through far more dangerous times than present. It would also send the wrong message to the terrorists, that they have enough power to so disrupt our basic political system. It's gotten all the consideration it deserves to have and then some.

Hey I won't say your wrong Berkylvania. I did say that I don't think it will happen nor should it occur. It would disrupt us AND give terrorists a victory.

Hey I won't say your wrong Berkylvania. I did say that I don't think it will happen nor should it occur. It would disrupt us AND give terrorists a victory.

I know you didn't, but the fact that it's even being considered at all is highly disturbing, almost a preemptive kowtow to the terrorists actions before they even make them.

P.S.: It's good to know we finally sort of agree on something. :)

I know you didn't, but the fact that it's even being considered at all is highly disturbing, almost a preemptive kowtow to the terrorists actions before they even make them.

P.S.: It's good to know we finally sort of agree on something. :)

your right on BOTH COUNTS! LOL

Dear God please don't make fun of Georgia. We've screwed ourselves up bad enough, although at least that ugly-ass flag is gone forever.

What many people seem to have forgotten was that the original recounts in Florida did not take place because the Democrats asked for them, but because under Federal law, with the margin of victory that close, a recount was NECESSARY.

And "vote early, vote often" means VOTE AS SOON AS YOU CAN, THEN VOTE EVERY DAMN TIME AFTER THAT. And it can be used as a joke.

And as for the rich being taxed? Yes, the top 1% pays 30-odd percent of all taxes, and the top 20% pays I believe about 80% of them. But quick, what percent of the nation's wealth do they control/own? Guess what, about 80%. Fair enough. Or are you suggesting we should raise taxes on people who can already barely afford shelter, food, and clothes for their family and let up on the people who already spend thousands on tax attorneys to exploit every loophole they can?

Bah. There shouldn't be a vote on that!

You're in the South. Sweet tea should just be a given!
seriously, who needs a law
I live in SC, and spend lots of time in GA (have lots of family there)
and I can tell you right now, every restaurant DOES have sweet tea

What I am saying is this: The Florida isuue has ruined the election process, so that the race is not over when the votes are counted, but a candidate may demand recounts until he finally wins by by shady methods, or a candidate may take a case to court, where Judges with party affiliations may make biased or partisan decisions to see their candidate into office. This is not the American way of free elections, this is awful.


If the race had simply been over as soon as the votes were counted, Gore would have won. The electoral college is an antiquated system left over from a time when states were even more separatist than they are now, and when it would have been impossible to count the popular vote in a timely fashion due to the technological constraints of the era.

Also, to my knowledge, there haven't been anymore elections since 2000 in which the decision has been so drawn out. I don't know if there have even been any recounts called for in any of the intervening elections.(If either of these things have occured, could someone out there please inform me so I don't feel so woefully ignorant)
Of course, you may only have been referring to presidential elections, which are quite obviously the only ones that actually matter. ;)


Why didn't Gore want the absentee military votes to count in Florida? I guess he didn't care about the common men who were defending this nation, and the fact that they were sick of Clinton/Gore and wanted someone else to be their commander-in-chief, shows why Gore didn't want those votes counted.


The reason an attempt was made to exclude certain absentee ballots was because some of them were illegally obtained. Some of the higher ups of the bush campaign sent out absentee ballots to likely republican voters, completely bypassing the application proccess. Hmm, actually, I shouldn't say completely. The applications were filled out, just not by the people the ballots were intended for.

Nah--the basis of the Supreme Court's decision was that Bush would have been irreparably harmed by allowing the recount to continue. That's what his lawyers argued in court, and that's how the decision came down 5-4. It was such a bad and partisan decision that they refuse to allow it to ever be cited as precedent for future cases, and I've got a sneaking suspicion that the reason none of the current Justices who were thinking about retiring did so is because they didn't want their long-term reputations blemished by such a partisan decision. They feel dirty.
I've never watched/read the Supreme Court's decision, did it really say that?

But didn't Gore losing cause him damage?

Yes--the Supreme Court decision limited the holding in Bush v Gore only to that case and stated explicitly that it could not be used as precedent. That didn't stop a 3-judge panel from the 9th Circuit from citing it in their original decision to postpone California's recall election (giving SCOTUS the finger), even though the entire 9th Circuit eventually overturned the panel's decision.

Plenty of dirty dealings *this* time around, in *ahem* *Jeb* Bush's state, if you follow the news...

Be worried.

Yeah--I know. Another "felon list" that, fortunately, was exposed as a fraud and pulled, as well as questionable electronic voting machines and the whole Broward county supervisor of elections brouhaha--my girlfriend is from outside Fort Lauderdale, so we keep up with the local news there. I get the feeling that Bush may have screwed himself out of Florida completely with that retarded decision to restrict travel to Cuba. He might not win even if the Cubans vote for him, but he certainly won't win without them.