NationStates Jolt Archive

Aside from the double-voting, illegal voting, butterfly ballots, voting discouragement, chads, and recounts the 2000 Presidential Election should have went to the House of Represenatives.

Florida's Electoral Votes were never varified in time and should have been thrown out with all the controversy. There was no clear winner with court disputes and all what went on there. That would have ment niether Gore or Bush would have reached the majority # of Electoral Votes to capture the Presidency.

The House would then decide the Presidency. Bush would have been elected by the House anyway. But, we should have ran by what are law says and not what courts put their spin on. Each state would come together to produce a vote for that state. Bush would have won, because the majority of the states were republican controlled. I believed this happened between Burr and Jefferson or (adams and jefferson) and the house remained deadlock until Jefferson won on the 5th vote or so..then this happened in the election with John Q. Adams..Never has happened again, since no 3rd party canidates gets votes.

Yea, I agree. Question is: do we know how Gore would handle the 9.11 crisis?

Personally I believed he would have done what Bush did to some extent to put a lot more money in Homeland Security. He probably would have gone over to the Middle East and asked for cooperation and finding terriosts. He probably would have used Military action in Afghanistan. But, he is a real pacifist and have no doubt he wouldn't have gone to Iraq.

Doom777']Yea, I agree. Question is: do we know how Gore would handle the 9.11 crisis?

If Gore had been elected Sept. 11 would have never happened...

Just making a rash statement to get your attention, but I read that the Sept. 11 attacks were a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of GWB's plans to invade Iraq. I also read that Saddam Hussein was anticipating an American invasion of Iraq even before Sept 11 and as a result, reorganised his armies to fight a guerrilla style war against the U.S. This reorganisation also included stashing caches of small arms all over Iraq and in neighbouring countries.

If Gore had been elected Sept. 11 would have never happened...

Just making a rash statement to get your attention, but I read that the Sept. 11 attacks were a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of GWB's plans to invade Iraq. I also read that Saddam Hussein was anticipating an American invasion of Iraq even before Sept 11 and as a result, reorganised his armies to fight a guerrilla style war against the U.S. This reorganisation also included stashing caches of small arms all over Iraq and in neighbouring countries.

Very Interesting,

I heard that Bush Administration knew that 9-11 was going to happen, but never heard it was a result of the Terriost World knowing that we were going to have a pre-emptive strike of Iraq.

but I read that I also read that

I read that Gargamel had a plan to turn the Smurfs into gold. I read that Dr. Claw was going to get Gadget quote "Next Time". I also that people all over the world are gonna join hands and form a love train, love train. And that this train will keep on riding, riding on through.

It's clear what we need now, a global War on Gargamel.

Very Interesting,

I heard that Bush Administration knew that 9-11 was going to happen, but never heard it was a result of the Terriost World knowing that we were going to have a pre-emptive strike of Iraq.
I don't know what sources you guys are reading, but they're pretty ridiculous.

Why is this thread even coming up? The election was five years ago. There would have been a 9/11, and Gore would not have won the feelings of security that Bush did, because people know he would have tried to be diplomatic. Bush made some mistakes, but he and his father both had the highest popularity ratings of anyone since JFK, and they didn't measure popularity ratings before then. Those ratings are around 90% if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah and both Bushes really did blow their popularity ratings. GHWB with his "no new taxes". Then Bush goes into Iraq and his ratings are now at 43% or so...He is clearly not liked. The only reason Bush was well so like after 9-11 is that everone wanted to come together and people were scared. Bush used political oppurtunism to go into Iraq and people didn't question him. But, now they realize the facts and what Bush did to descive the American people.

I never read those sources the guys said..but don't you remember the memo to Condaleza Rice...That Bush Admin got a memo in August about the possible 9-11 attacks?

The 2000 election did not "go to" the Supreme Court. The Court simply decided that the recounts in Florida were unconstitutional because the entire sate wasn't being recounted. Most of the areas being recounted were heavily liberal. With the recounts ended the election went to Bush. So, what have we learned? The Supreme Court did not decide the president it simply ended an unfare move by the democratic party. The End. Now all the newly enlightened liberals can finally move on and complain about something that happened in at leasst the last four years.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/NorrisScott/EndOfWorld.jpg

God, sorry, but I just HAD TO dump this image SOMEWHERE!

Yeah and both Bushes really did blow their popularity ratings. GHWB with his "no new taxes". Then Bush goes into Iraq and his ratings are now at 43% or so...He is clearly not liked. The only reason Bush was well so like after 9-11 is that everone wanted to come together and people were scared. Bush used political oppurtunism to go into Iraq and people didn't question him. But, now they realize the facts and what Bush did to descive the American people.

I never read those sources the guys said..but don't you remember the memo to Condaleza Rice...That Bush Admin got a memo in August about the possible 9-11 attacks?
You are right on blowing the popularity ratings, but you can look back and see in Vietnam that a president's popularity drops after about a year in a war. That's why Johnson's sucked and Nixon's never took off at the beginning.

I remember the memo; do you not remember the 9/11 commission? Bush got a memo saying that a possible terrorist attack was going to happen SOMEWHERE in the US at SOMETIME. How are you supposed to stop this? The country had never gone through anything like 9/11 beforehand, and they had no idea when it was going to happen. What if Bush had closed off a lot of the airports and all and nothing had happened? The country would have been even more pissed, and the economy would definitely have been screwed. You can't put yourself in the shoes of a man who has to run one of the most powerful countries in the world until you do it yourself.

the 2000 Presidential Election should have went to the House of Represenatives.

i remember saying something to that effect at the time.

Bush would have won, because the majority of the states were republican controlled.

yeah, but a number of them were just barely to one side or the other. and there is always the possibility that some people will be too sick to go in and vote, or get stuck in traffic. hilarity ensues.

and there is always the possibility that some people will be too sick to go in and vote, or get stuck in traffic. hilarity ensues.
And so you describe Congress. DC does have horrible traffic though.

Yeah and both Bushes really did blow their popularity ratings. GHWB with his "no new taxes". Then Bush goes into Iraq and his ratings are now at 43% or so...He is clearly not liked.

Yeah, BS. More like 50%..

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

In any case, I've yet to hear any real evidence of voter fraud in Florida. Electoral ties go to the House of Representatives, not shady claims of "discouragement" or whatever else.

Edit: Of course, the GOP controlled the House at the time, so the difference would have been... what, exactly? Bush/Lieberman, if the Senate picked Lieberman VP? It woulda been a lonely term for old Joe.

By my count:(going by who ever has more reps by party)

25 states would have gone to Bush
20 states would have gone to Gore

5 states are toss ups, because they are split for 4 of them and 1 one of them is an independent from Vermont. He probably would have gone Gore, because he usually sided with the Dems. but I didn't take that into affect.

Tennesse has one more republican then democrat and probably gone to Bush.
Texas has two more democrats (yes in texas) then republicans and would have probably gone to Gore.

Weird..but thats if all people vote along party lines...Some states were seperated by one, so you never know where it could have gone. It would have been VERY close.

Yeah they determine ties which also include not reaching the min. number of votes.. It should have gone to it, because of varification. Yes you can dispute the fraud charges, but nonetheless they weren't varified in time and thats where it should have gone. But yes for all we know it could have been Liberman the President..Cheny the VP..they could have elected Nadar if they wanted..they could have gone with anyone..they could have gotten together and elected someone in the house widely liked..

DC does have horrible traffic though.

and me and my comrades can snarl up traffic for an entire day pretty much at will, too.

Very Interesting,

I heard that Bush Administration knew that 9-11 was going to happen, but never heard it was a result of the Terriost World knowing that we were going to have a pre-emptive strike of Iraq.

From what I understand... (I know there are some people out there who don't like the expression "I read") Saddam Hussein was very paranoid of having to deal with another Bush Administration. There were some communications between Hussein and the Taliban regarding the need to prepare for a possible U.S. invasion before September 11, 2001.

I read that Gargamel had a plan to turn the Smurfs into gold. I read that Dr. Claw was going to get Gadget quote "Next Time". I also that people all over the world are gonna join hands and form a love train, love train. And that this train will keep on riding, riding on through.

It's clear what we need now, a global War on Gargamel.
I don't think the mods will take issue with you on this post, and i personally am impressed. It would appear you've researched well for it.

;)
BTW, an intrepid individual might be persuaded to turn Azrael against him, maybe even in his sleep, so that the cat might perform the same actions as were referenced in the movie "Cat's Eye" ... steal his breath.
*Note- i'm aware it wasn't the cat doing it, it was the cat who took the blame!*

Yeah and both Bushes really did blow their popularity ratings. GHWB with his "no new taxes". Then Bush goes into Iraq and his ratings are now at 43% or so...He is clearly not liked. The only reason Bush was well so like after 9-11 is that everone wanted to come together and people were scared. Bush used political oppurtunism to go into Iraq and people didn't question him. But, now they realize the facts and what Bush did to descive the American people.

I never read those sources the guys said..but don't you remember the memo to Condaleza Rice...That Bush Admin got a memo in August about the possible 9-11 attacks?
She got 52 of them, actually, of lesser or greater degree between April and September of that year. She outright lied to the commission about it - which for those of y'all who want to contest it, that statement is pretty easy to quantify. Also, i've actually watched the footage of her lying and squirming on that topic. But feel free to dig that up if you want, it's in the archives.
If no one else bothers, fine, but don't say you weren't informed or you heard otherwise and try and stick to it.
Oh, and btw, for those who say also that Bush was only using his CIA intelligence, feel free to make an arse of yourself explaining away the
DOWNING STREET MEMO
and
THE DUELFER REPORT
.

Yeah, BS. More like 50%..

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

In any case, I've yet to hear any real evidence of voter fraud in Florida. Electoral ties go to the House of Representatives, not shady claims of "discouragement" or whatever else.

Edit: Of course, the GOP controlled the House at the time, so the difference would have been... what, exactly? Bush/Lieberman, if the Senate picked Lieberman VP? It woulda been a lonely term for old Joe.
Not in my usual style but i'm taxed at the moment.

www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,949709,00.html
and
Atlanta Constitution, May 28, 2001 (pertinent Database Technologies)
Washington Times, November 12, 2001 (recount)
and maybe
www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

and maybe even

St. Petersburg Times, December 21, 2003
and
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001 (pertinent ChoicePoint)

Might help pull your whatever out of wherever.

FYI:

Jefferson vs. Adams Election went to the House..but it then became a match between Jefferson and Burr. On the first 35 ballots Burr and Jefferson were deadlocked. Although Hamiliton opposed Jefferson in many cases, he said he rather have Jefferson over Burr and Jefferson then won on the 36th Ballot due to Hamiliton's support. Burr then dueled Hamiliton over this, because it cost Burr the Presidency and Hamiliton was killed.

The other time was John Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson...Adams had less electoral votes then Jackson, but Jackson didn't have enough and it went to the House...Adams got 13 on the first ballot, Jackson 7, and Crawford 4.

FYI:

Jefferson vs. Adams Election went to the House..but it then became a match between Jefferson and Burr. On the first 35 ballots Burr and Jefferson were deadlocked. Although Hamiliton opposed Jefferson in many cases, he said he rather have Jefferson over Burr and Jefferson then won on the 36th Ballot due to Hamiliton's support. Burr then dueled Hamiliton over this, because it cost Burr the Presidency and Hamiliton was killed.

The other time was John Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson...Adams had less electoral votes then Jackson, but Jackson didn't have enough and it went to the House...Adams got 13 on the first ballot, Jackson 7, and Crawford 4.
*hears cheasey music and sees giant star float across the screen*

I read that Gargamel had a plan to turn the Smurfs into gold. I read that Dr. Claw was going to get Gadget quote "Next Time". I also that people all over the world are gonna join hands and form a love train, love train. And that this train will keep on riding, riding on through.

It's clear what we need now, a global War on Gargamel.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA <3.

The 2000 Presidential Election should not have been reviewed anywhere. Period. The U.S. Constitution is not vague in its description of election process. Votes in the Electoral College are what determines the winner of the Presidency, not popular vote, and that is not something open to party biased interpretation, it is fact. The popular vote was irrelevant. Face it: you lost. Get over it.

Ok i just have 1 thing to say about this

Gore won, he had the most votes from the public. But the electora colledge overruled the public. What kind of democracy is that? Amerika is gonna be ruined by bush and the stupid people in their goverment i feel sorry for all Amerikans.

AND the Electoral colledge was started because the people back in the day because the government thought that the public was not well enough informed. Well now there is tv and radio and newspapers. The electoral colledge is stupid and out dated.

Ok i just have 1 thing to say about this

Gore won, he had the most votes from the public. But the electora colledge overruled the public. What kind of democracy is that? Amerika is gonna be ruined by bush and the stupid people in their goverment i feel sorry for all Amerikans.

AND the Electoral colledge was started because the people back in the day because the government thought that the public was not well enough informed. Well now there is tv and radio and newspapers. The electoral colledge is stupid and out dated.
All together now:

The US isn't a democracy.

Aside from the double-voting, illegal voting, butterfly ballots, voting discouragement, chads, and recounts the 2000 Presidential Election should have went to the House of Represenatives.

Florida's Electoral Votes were never varified in time and should have been thrown out with all the controversy. There was no clear winner with court disputes and all what went on there. That would have ment niether Gore or Bush would have reached the majority # of Electoral Votes to capture the Presidency.

The House would then decide the Presidency. Bush would have been elected by the House anyway. But, we should have ran by what are law says and not what courts put their spin on. Each state would come together to produce a vote for that state. Bush would have won, because the majority of the states were republican controlled. I believed this happened between Burr and Jefferson or (adams and jefferson) and the house remained deadlock until Jefferson won on the 5th vote or so..then this happened in the election with John Q. Adams..Never has happened again, since no 3rd party canidates gets votes.
Talk about not being able to let go... Get over it!

I am over it! But, you must be against our country. Because, your against our Voting Process and what our laws and Constitution says...Thats what Conservatives say to Liberals when they critize the President or anything...

I am over it, but I am arguing our PROCESS not the election. Bush won there is no doubt, but he won by the wrong process..

I am over it! But, you must be against our country. Because, your against our Voting Process and what our laws and Constitution says...Thats what Conservatives say to Liberals when they critize the President or anything...

I am over it, but I am arguing our PROCESS not the election. Bush won there is no doubt, but he won by the wrong process..

Yeah, I remember saying that. Wait, no I don't. Stereotypes are bad for your health, unless based on statistics, which yours are not.

Ok i just have 1 thing to say about this

Gore won, he had the most votes from the public. But the electora colledge overruled the public. What kind of democracy is that? Amerika is gonna be ruined by bush and the stupid people in their goverment i feel sorry for all Amerikans. AND the Electoral colledge was started because the people back in the day because the government thought that the public was not well enough informed. Well now there is tv and radio and newspapers. The electoral colledge is stupid and out dated.

Bush won, he had the most votes from the electoral college. That's how we decide it here. Most Americans are uninformed, the Founding Fathers were right. I would dare anyone to poll ten random voters, I would be incredibly surprised if six knew who the [expletive deleted] Vice President was. Besides, calling America stupid and spelling it wrong in the same sentence doesn't exactly make your opinion on the matter very credible.

I'll say it one more time. The 2000 Presidential Election should not have been reviewed anywhere. Period. The U.S. Constitution is not vague in its description of election process. Votes in the Electoral College are what determines the winner of the Presidency, not popular vote, and that is not something open to party biased interpretation, it is fact. The popular vote was irrelevant. Face it: you lost. Get over it.

If the electoral college were abolished, shit much worse than winning in the electoral college while losing the popular vote could go wrong. For instance, it would immediately be possible for forty-nine states to elect a President by majority, and still lose the election. Do you think the majority in one state should decide the outcome for the rest? That would result in massive Presidential campaigning in one or two states, max, to ensure a landslide victory where a lot of people were, and result in the rest of the states being ignored. It would be Texas versus California. It would be a joke.

Bush won, he had the most votes from the electoral college. That's how we decide it here. Most Americans are uninformed, the Founding Fathers were right. I would dare anyone to poll ten random voters, I would be incredibly surprised if six knew who the [expletive deleted] Vice President was. Besides, calling America stupid and spelling it wrong in the same sentence doesn't exactly make your opinion on the matter very credible.

I'll say it one more time. The 2000 Presidential Election should not have been reviewed anywhere. Period. The U.S. Constitution is not vague in its description of election process. Votes in the Electoral College are what determines the winner of the Presidency, not popular vote, and that is not something open to party biased interpretation, it is fact. The popular vote was irrelevant. Face it: you lost. Get over it.

If the electoral college were abolished, shit much worse than winning in the electoral college while losing the popular vote could go wrong. For instance, it would immediately be possible for forty-nine states to elect a President by majority, and still lose the election. Do you think the majority in one state should decide the outcome for the rest? That would result in massive Presidential campaigning in one or two states, max, to ensure a landslide victory where a lot of people were, and result in the rest of the states being ignored. It would be Texas versus California. It would be a joke.No i just dont think that you want to admit that the government in america is corrupt. Give me one good reason Bush should be president? Or Kerry? They were both idiots. But as south park says you are always voting for a giant deuch or giant terd sandwich. Im not one that really ever cares about this but come on Bush is killing innocent americans that have nothing to do with Iraq. Why should your people be fighting for a good for nothing country, nothing will come out of that war except for death and blood of the innocent.

Good point Lusavia.

I think the electoral college should be reformed not abolished. Where EACH DISTRICT, since the districts usually have the same amount of people it would be even. Each District would be worth one electoral vote and whoever had more votes in the state would get the additional two electoral votes. Instead of a guy losing California's 54 votes..he could still salvage 20 which would be much more fair. But, I just don't get why we just can't use the popular vote...THe electoral college used to be used for the smaller rural areas and big city population difference, because most people thought that if they just had a popular vote all the campagining would happen in big cities not the tiny towns. But that was when our country was like that..with TV and everything like that now days the COllege is no longer needed. But, its tradition and America is obsessed with tradition..

Yea, I agree. Question is: do we know how Gore would handle the 9.11 crisis?
Surely the issue here is the preservation of democracy.

I don't know what sources you guys are reading, but they're pretty ridiculous.

Why is this thread even coming up? The election was five years ago. There would have been a 9/11, and Gore would not have won the feelings of security that Bush did, because people know he would have tried to be diplomatic. Bush made some mistakes, but he and his father both had the highest popularity ratings of anyone since JFK, and they didn't measure popularity ratings before then. Those ratings are around 90% if I'm not mistaken.

That's B.S. It's misleading.

Of course, immediately after a terrorist attack that shocks the country the President would become popular. JFK EARNED his popularity by cultivating the respect of the population. Daddy Bush and L'il Bush got theirs by going to war. Daddy Bush had a decent reason (defending freedom). L'il Bush just wanted revenge. It was NEVER, EVER a war of "liberation". It was a war begun because we had "incontravertable proof that Saddam Hussein [had] weapons of mass destruction." And where are they now. Nowhere.

You know how secure I feel now? LESS secure than before the terrorist attacks. LESS secure than the day 9/11 happened. LESS secure every day as our administration makes boneheaded diplomatic decision after boneheaded diplomatic decision. So we had Spain and Great Britain on our side. We snubbed Spain after their huge terrorist attacks (EDIT: Deleted a personal attack that I may have posted in a moment of anger. Sorry.) by claiming that "They ran and hid in the face of terrorism." So, we've honked off everyone in the world but Tony Blair.

Why do people discuss history? BECAUSE IF WE DON'T REMEMBER IT WE WILL REPEAT IT. AND WE WILL ELECT A MORON LIKE BUSH AGAIN. Don't bother to reply to this. I'm not going to check this again. Ignorance disgusts me, and I just had to vent some steam.

BiLiberal
Each District would be worth one electoral vote and whoever had more votes in the state would get the additional two electoral votes.

That sounds like a good idea. Republicans would win every presidential election by even more. :D

County by County 2000: here (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://mwhodges.home.att.net/usmap-large.gif&imgrefurl=http://mwhodges.home.att.net/voting.htm&h=486&w=640&sz=63&tbnid=tWvZNgCy7z4J:&tbnh=102&tbnw=134&hl=en&start=6&prev=/images%3Fq%3D2000%2Belection%2Bresults%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D)

County by County 2004:here (http://photos1.blogger.com/img/213/2068/640/county.jpg)

I read that Gargamel had a plan to turn the Smurfs into gold. I read that Dr. Claw was going to get Gadget quote "Next Time". I also that people all over the world are gonna join hands and form a love train, love train. And that this train will keep on riding, riding on through.

It's clear what we need now, a global War on Gargamel.

Personally I have nothing against Gargamel, but maybe you should try some heavier reading in the future...

“The invasion can be considered a resumption of the 1991 Gulf War, which ended with a conditional ceasefire that (they contend) Iraq has subsequently breached… In 1997, Iraq expelled all US members of the inspection team, alleging that the United States was using the inspections as a front for espionage, which the U.S. later admitted was true… In September 2000, in the Rebuilding America's Defenses (pg. 17) report, Project for the New American Century, a largely Republican think tank, advocated that the United States shift to more ground-based air forces to help contain the forces of Saddam Hussein… According to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, an attack was planned since the inauguration, and the first security council meeting discussed plans on invasion of the country… One year later, on the day of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is reported to have written in his notes, "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]." Shortly thereafter, the George W. Bush administration announced a War on Terrorism…

…The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning and deployment in order to reduce the strain caused by enforcing the No Fly Zones and to free up an aircraft carrier. It uses the U.S.'s Gulf War success as an example of why the world requires American military might. Looking ahead, the report states "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Project-for-the-New-American-Century

Ugg maybe by proportion..

ie: Say in a state worth 10 electoral votes and Canidate A gets 63% of the state vote and the other guy gets 37%. Canidate A gets 6 votes and Canidate B gets 4..it would make it more fair. But, the Poplulation vote should actually count..

I am over it! But, you must be against our country. Because, your against our Voting Process and what our laws and Constitution says...Thats what Conservatives say to Liberals when they critize the President or anything...

I am over it, but I am arguing our PROCESS not the election. Bush won there is no doubt, but he won by the wrong process..
Okay, I'll give you a serious answer.

The votes were counted iaw Florida law. Then they were recounted iaw Florida law. Then the court battles started. The Florida SC modified Florida election laws to allow even more recounts on terms that were favorable to Mr. Gore. The the US SC stepped in and said the Florida court was wrong and that all the counties in the state must be recounted, or that the recount must stop, as all of Florida's election laws had been satisfied.

No problem with the recount, or the subsequent assignment of electoral votes. No reason to go to the House. Process worked just the way it was supposed to.

BiLiberal


That sounds like a good idea. Republicans would win every presidential election by even more. :D

County by County 2000: here (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://mwhodges.home.att.net/usmap-large.gif&imgrefurl=http://mwhodges.home.att.net/voting.htm&h=486&w=640&sz=63&tbnid=tWvZNgCy7z4J:&tbnh=102&tbnw=134&hl=en&start=6&prev=/images%3Fq%3D2000%2Belection%2Bresults%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D)

County by County 2004:here (http://photos1.blogger.com/img/213/2068/640/county.jpg)
Which would give the county that New York is in, with around 5-10 million people in it, the same number of votes as podunk Nebraska, with 2 people in it.

Well as a Sweden I don't actually understand that happens in Florida. Because in Sweden all votes is handcounted the night of the election and then automaticly all votes is recounted in a weeks period to conferm the results. I don't know if it ever happen but if it's a differantion between who's two results you do a another recount but that I think is very rare that happens. Also we use simple paper and pen so you don't get evil butterflies or evil computerbugs. That is the way I think it should be so you know who won. Also I belive one people one vote not one vote people in region A and two votes people in region B.

No i just dont think that you want to admit that the government in america is corrupt. Give me one good reason Bush should be president? Or Kerry? They were both idiots. But as south park says you are always voting for a giant deuch or giant terd sandwich. Im not one that really ever cares about this but come on Bush is killing innocent americans that have nothing to do with Iraq. Why should your people be fighting for a good for nothing country, nothing will come out of that war except for death and blood of the innocent.

Okay, completely ignore all of my points and then make some bullshit reply unrelated to them as if you have any idea how American politics work. Yes, the U.S. government is corrupt, yes, we always vote for a douche or a turd sandwich, but it's always been that way. You're a moron. You act as if Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone, as if replacing their government was a bad thing, whether or not we were wrong about the WMDs. First of all, M6, Russian Intel, and most of the CIA told Bush that Iraq had WMDs. Saddam had shown before that he would use them, and waiting was not worth the risk. Even without the WMDs, the Saddam was one of the sickest bastards out there, and his sons came pretty close. Saddam had strong ties to Hezbollah, and supported Palestine suicide bombings by giving thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers. He was tied to similarly Al Qaeda. His son Uday would periodically have eleven- and twelve-year-old girls sent to him from schools so that he could have his way with them, and then dispose of them when he was finished. Bush Sr. was more of a dick than Bush Jr. by pulling out of Iraq way too early, instead of finishing the job or letting the next President finish it. Clinton was a pussy that let the taliban takeover rule in Afghanistan, dropped a whole fucking three bombs in the middle of the desert in retaliation to the first attempt at destroying the Twin Towers, and let Osama slip out of his fingers more than once, when they could have just killed him and effectually prevented 9/11 from happening.

Let's play "what if." What if Gore was elected instead of Dubya?

1) Clinton was already at war with Al Qaeda (remember tomahawk strikes on Afghan training sites and a Sudanese pharmaceuticals factory?). The Clinton administration drew up plans for an invasion of Afghanistan during its last few months. They decided not to prosecute the war because they didn't want to hand an active war over to an incoming administration. So they sat on the plans for a few months, then held briefings with the incoming Bush administration on how serious the threat is, and what should be done about it. The Bush team responded by launching Operation Ignore.

If Gore is elected, there is continuity in the White House handover, and Clinton can afford to prosecute the war before his administration steps down. Afghanistan is invaded prior to 9/11. Or, he waits as before, and Gore prosecutes it immediately after taking over.

2) The Iraq war never happens, because a democrat in the White House would not feel the need to manufacture evidence to support an invasion. Thousands of American soldiers are still alive. Also, because we don't waste resources against Iraq, we actually get Bin Laden.

Aside from the double-voting, illegal voting, butterfly ballots, voting discouragement, chads, and recounts the 2000 Presidential Election should have went to the House of Represenatives.

I agree!

Florida's Electoral Votes were never varified in time and should have been thrown out with all the controversy. There was no clear winner with court disputes and all what went on there. That would have ment niether Gore or Bush would have reached the majority # of Electoral Votes to capture the Presidency.

Actually it was done intime. However, due to all the voting irregularities, yes it should've gone to the house but the outcome still would've been the same. Bush would be in the White House with Cheney as Vice President.

The House would then decide the Presidency. Bush would have been elected by the House anyway. But, we should have ran by what are law says and not what courts put their spin on. Each state would come together to produce a vote for that state. Bush would have won, because the majority of the states were republican controlled. I believed this happened between Burr and Jefferson or (adams and jefferson) and the house remained deadlock until Jefferson won on the 5th vote or so..then this happened in the election with John Q. Adams..Never has happened again, since no 3rd party canidates gets votes.

However, you have to read the opinion of the Court to understand why they got involved in the 1st place. They could accounting irregularities being done as well as different counting standards. Not to mention the Florida Supreme Court's changing election laws while a recount was in progress.

Yes it should've gone to the House but it wasn't and it was 5 years ago so I don't really care anymore.

Ok i just have 1 thing to say about this

You do? LOL

Gore won, he had the most votes from the public. But the electora colledge overruled the public. What kind of democracy is that? Amerika is gonna be ruined by bush and the stupid people in their goverment i feel sorry for all Amerikans.

Someone needs to read up on the Constitution of the United States some more. Apparently someone DID NOT get the messege on how we run our elections. As for the Electoral College, we won't get rid of it but I do admit that it needs to be overhauled.

AND the Electoral colledge was started because the people back in the day because the government thought that the public was not well enough informed. Well now there is tv and radio and newspapers. The electoral colledge is stupid and out dated.

The people are still not that well informed.

I am over it! But, you must be against our country. Because, your against our Voting Process and what our laws and Constitution says...Thats what Conservatives say to Liberals when they critize the President or anything...

I am over it, but I am arguing our PROCESS not the election. Bush won there is no doubt, but he won by the wrong process..

Now I find this VERY INSULTING!

As an American who has voted in every election since I turned 18, I have the greatest respect for the voting process and for those that do get off their couch and vote.

As for the wrong process...Which wrong process are you bickering about? The fact that he really did win the Electoral Vote in Florida or the fact that SCOTUS found the Florida Supreme Court in Violation of their own laws and STUCK TO the Constitution of the United States?

Heck, I can even pull out SCOTUS's opinion on this and you won't like it one bit if I do.

Okay, I'll give you a serious answer.

The votes were counted iaw Florida law. Then they were recounted iaw Florida law. Then the court battles started. The Florida SC modified Florida election laws to allow even more recounts on terms that were favorable to Mr. Gore. The the US SC stepped in and said the Florida court was wrong and that all the counties in the state must be recounted, or that the recount must stop, as all of Florida's election laws had been satisfied.

No problem with the recount, or the subsequent assignment of electoral votes. No reason to go to the House. Process worked just the way it was supposed to.

THANK YOU Myrmidonisia.

Not to mention the Florida Supreme Court decisions were constantly 6-1! Six DEMOCRATS to one REPUBLICAN.

From what I understand... (I know there are some people out there who don't like the expression "I read") Saddam Hussein was very paranoid of having to deal with another Bush Administration. There were some communications between Hussein and the Taliban regarding the need to prepare for a possible U.S. invasion before September 11, 2001.


Wow. I mean, wow. It's funny how this argument against the GOP would have made an even better argument for his actions. I mean, wouldn't that be better justification for war in Iraq than saying that he is not connected to 9-11?

There was no direct connection between the 9-11 strikes and Iraq.
None.

Saddam DID have direct ties to terrorists, including the Taliban, but he did not plan the 9-11 attack, and we have no evidence that he knew about it before hand.

Now, what would the world look like if he had? And if we had some (any) evidence that he knew about 9-11 before hand?

If there were evidence that Saddam had planned the attacks or had any relationship to them in ANY way, the republicans would have it announced everywhere all the time. The GOP would make sure that we all knew for sure that Saddam is directly related to the 9-11 attacks, and that the war in Iraq is direct retaliation for his open attack on US soil.

Unless the democrats rule the news. Even then, Fox would have said something, and even they haven't made that claim.

What you read is speculative journalism, if that.

Hang on, you can't just throw out florida!
State laws decide who wins that state's electoral votes. It is like this in every state.

Even if there were some way to substantiate the claims of voter fraud (oh, and there weren't) you still cannot throw the state away. That's unprecidented.

Constitutionally speaking- you just cannot throw out a whole state full of voters and still think you are a constitutional democracy.
You could investigate, but even then the constitution does not say you can EVER throw out votes like that.
And if you don't throw out votes, then Bush got the majority.

On a related topic, I have been against overhauling the electoral system since i learned that the popular vote was closer than the florida vote (worked out by %) and well within the margine for error. Imagine all of that florida nonesense happening across the country?

Good point Lusavia.

I think the electoral college should be reformed not abolished. Where EACH DISTRICT, since the districts usually have the same amount of people it would be even. Each District would be worth one electoral vote and whoever had more votes in the state would get the additional two electoral votes. Instead of a guy losing California's 54 votes..he could still salvage 20 which would be much more fair. But, I just don't get why we just can't use the popular vote...THe electoral college used to be used for the smaller rural areas and big city population difference, because most people thought that if they just had a popular vote all the campagining would happen in big cities not the tiny towns. But that was when our country was like that..with TV and everything like that now days the COllege is no longer needed. But, its tradition and America is obsessed with tradition..


This system is subject to gerrymandering, though. the district lines are based on party bias.

I think that splitting up the electoral votes in every state would not be a bad idea, but Constitutionally, it has to be done by the states- it cannot be done all at once. Since splitting up your vote hurts your electoral power, no one wants to do it.

Even if there were some way to substantiate the claims of voter fraud (oh, and there weren't) you still cannot throw the state away. That's unprecidented.

Quite substantiated, I'm afraid.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1

Quite substantiated, I'm afraid.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1

Cabinia, only complete idiots believe everything they read and see on TV, especially when what they're watching is so blatantly biased. The title of your article is "Florida's flawed "voter-cleansing" program," there's a little header on the left that says "Joker's Wild: Dubya's Trick Deck," and there's a cartoon picture of Tony Blair's head on a poodle. There's a book advertisement in the bottom left advertising a book called "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," as well as an advertisement for "Weapon of Mass Instruction Live." When you look at all that, and then still take the text to be credible and unbiased, you're completely retarded. Not to mention that the article itself has a few punctuation errors. No credible source lets that shit slide.

Bogus statements that you can find in Cabinia's Article:

The company acknowledged the error, and blamed it on the original source of the list -- the state of Texas.
First of all, how is the state of Texas a [expletive deleted] source? A state does not give anyone anything. If they would have said the governor of Texas, or various Texan mayors, or Texan senators, or something, it may have been mildly credible. But they don't even specify who in Texas they got the information from. Also, you do not use --, you use a - that's twice as long.
Nevertheless, the large number of errors uncovered in individual counties suggests that thousands of eligible voters may have been turned away at the polls.
Gee, the "large number of errors." That's not vague at all, he says dripping with sarcasm. Secondly, the author fails to point out that many counties with errors in them were held by Democrats. Why would the Democrats turn away their own kind, unless A: they were retarded, or B: the author is full of shit.

I'll update this as I read on.

Cabinia, only complete idiots believe everything they read and see on TV, especially when what they're watching is so blatantly biased. The title of your article is "Florida's flawed "voter-cleansing" program," there's a little header on the left that says "Joker's Wild: Dubya's Trick Deck," and there's a cartoon picture of Tony Blair's head on a poodle. There's a book advertisement in the bottom left advertising a book called "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," as well as an advertisement for "Weapon of Mass Instruction Live." When you look at all that, and then still take the text to be credible and unbiased, you're completely retarded.
The original source for that article, if you'd bothered to read it, was the Miami Herald. They ran a similar story for the 2004 election.

The original source for that article, if you'd bothered to read it, was the Miami Herald. They ran a similar story for the 2004 election.
There was not a single case that was brought to trial. Not even after Congress sent a committee to Florida to expose it. The only "evidence" of voter fraud is the claim of "widespread mishandling" of votes. If there is not a single person that can say he was denied the right to vote, I have a hard time giving any credence to internet reports.

Often overlooked, by the way, is another state that could have turned the tide for Mr. Gore. He lost his home state of Tennessee. The very same Tennessee that elected him to the Senate time and again. Those votes could have given him the majority of electoral votes he needed to win the election.

The original source for that article, if you'd bothered to read it, was the Miami Herald. They ran a similar story for the 2004 election.
You act as if newspapers are automatically unbiased sources of information. Newspaper companies don't write the facts, they write the facts as their investors will want to read them.

There was not a single case that was brought to trial. Not even after Congress sent a committee to Florida to expose it. The only "evidence" of voter fraud is the claim of "widespread mishandling" of votes. If there is not a single person that can say he was denied the right to vote, I have a hard time giving any credence to internet reports.
The only reason it was not brought to trial is because it's one of those tricky things where nobody can be directly implicated. County registrars were following the law when they accepted the purge lists at face value. That the data was flawed has been conclusively established. That the company generating the data has connections to the Republican party is well established. That black voters were overwhelmingly victims of the errors has been well established.

What we cannot establish is intent. Mistakes were made. Were they deliberate or accidental? Lacking a confession, a whistleblower, or a memo, we can't say. There is no evidence for intent, and without it, you can't prove a case against any individuals.

You act as if newspapers are automatically unbiased sources of information. Newspaper companies don't write the facts, they write the facts as their investors will want to read them.

Depends on the newspaper. The New York Post, the Washington Times, and a bunch of others are nothing but filthy propagandist wings of the Republican Party. The Miami Herald has no such affiliation. Moreover, the Miami Herald's primary audience is a community overrepresented by pensioners in a Republican-controlled state. If your argument had any validity in this case, the Herald would not have run this story, or put a different spin on it. They didn't, so your argument is like Fox News: Wholly Without Merit.

You act as if newspapers are automatically unbiased sources of information. Newspaper companies don't write the facts, they write the facts as their investors will want to read them.
They've even been known to make up a fact here and there. Journalism isn't the craft it used to be either. Since the war in Vietnam, it seems that the purpose of journalism is to be more proactive that documentary. But that's another discussion.

The only reason it was not brought to trial is because it's one of those tricky things where nobody can be directly implicated. County registrars were following the law when they accepted the purge lists at face value. That the data was flawed has been conclusively established. That the company generating the data has connections to the Republican party is well established. That black voters were overwhelmingly victims of the errors has been well established.

What we cannot establish is intent. Mistakes were made. Were they deliberate or accidental? Lacking a confession, a whistleblower, or a memo, we can't say. There is no evidence for intent, and without it, you can't prove a case against any individuals.

Clearly _you_ are going to see non-specific allegations as a chain of events leading to voter disenfranchisement. The Congressional committee that investigated these allegations in 2001(?) didn't quite agree with that. They could not find a single person, not one man or woman, that could show that they had been denied the right to vote. Now, that's probably unfair because they should have been dealing in generalities, but that's undoubtedly a flaw in their procedures.

I'm not too sure about that claim that nobody was found to have been disenfranchised. Do you have a source?

Here are the findings of the Assistant Attorney General in the 2000 election. Scroll down to section 10: Alleged Irregularities in the Purging of Voters. http://www.gwu.edu/~action/dojfl060702.html

"Our inquiries, and the testimony of Florida election officials and the database
contractor's personnel in early 2001, showed that the matching process at
the state level was relatively broad - the system captured names that were
less than perfect matches."

"The Voting Section conducted a thorough investigation of this matter in
early 2001 to determine whether any eligible Florida voters had been
improperly removed from the rolls and prevented from voting by a violation
of federal law. While this investigation was proceeding, Florida enacted
its election reform law,... In light of these developments, and because it is unlikely that any injunctive relief won by the Division in litigation would have been as comprehensive as the state's own reform law, the investigation was closed."

Sounds like they closed the investigation before they could determine whether anyone was disenfranchised to me.

And, despite the aforementioned 2000 reforms, they did it again in 2004: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9062928.htm

I'm not too sure about that claim that nobody was found to have been disenfranchised. Do you have a source?

Here are the findings of the Assistant Attorney General in the 2000 election. Scroll down to section 10: Alleged Irregularities in the Purging of Voters. http://www.gwu.edu/~action/dojfl060702.html

"Our inquiries, and the testimony of Florida election officials and the database
contractor's personnel in early 2001, showed that the matching process at
the state level was relatively broad - the system captured names that were
less than perfect matches."

"The Voting Section conducted a thorough investigation of this matter in
early 2001 to determine whether any eligible Florida voters had been
improperly removed from the rolls and prevented from voting by a violation
of federal law. While this investigation was proceeding, Florida enacted
its election reform law,... In light of these developments, and because it is unlikely that any injunctive relief won by the Division in litigation would have been as comprehensive as the state's own reform law, the investigation was closed."

Sounds like they closed the investigation before they could determine whether anyone was disenfranchised to me.

And, despite the aforementioned 2000 reforms, they did it again in 2004: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9062928.htm
I looked for the results of the Congressional hearings, but it's too hard to find stuff from 2001. I suppose if I were really dedicated, or even more than mildly interested, I might spend the time hunting. But I'm not, so I guess I'm not going to have much more to add.

Still, from what I've remember reading at the time, these claims of widespread disenfranchisement seemed to be more of a exercise in crying wolf than any real exposition of wrongdoing. Plus, it goes both ways. The military absentee vote in Florida was systematically disqualified for the lack of signatures, stamps and other technicalities that were hard to come by in a deployed state. So I expect that mistakes and mischief on both sides probably cancelled out any gains that might have been made.

And if Al had been a favorite son of Tennessee instead of the family nutcase, he would probably be President today...