NationStates Jolt Archive

In the aftermath of the 2000 election many people made the claim that the Supreme Court had "elected" George W. Bush the President. This is a false claim that needs to end. The court ended the recounts, but this was MANDATORY UNDER FLORIDA LAW.

Under Florida Constitution Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 11

"If the county returns are not received by the Department of State by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified."

That means that any recounts after that date were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist mentioned this in his opinion......

Under the U.S. Constitution:

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors"

The Republican Florida state legislature could appoint anybody that it wanted as electors in the electoral College....which means even if the Supreme Court had not ended the recounts Bush still would have won.

What could have happened or what might have happened is irrelevant--what did happen is that the SCOTUS interefered in the recount process and effectively took the Florida election out of the hands of the proper authorities. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that Bush won Florida by a vote count of 5-4 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the aftermath of the 2000 election many people made the claim that the Supreme Court had "elected" George W. Bush the President. This is a false claim that needs to end. The court ended the recounts, but this was MANDATORY UNDER FLORIDA LAW.

Under Florida Constitution Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 11

"If the county returns are not received by the Department of State by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified."

That means that any recounts after that date were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist mentioned this in his opinion......

Under the U.S. Constitution:

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors"

The Republican Florida state legislature could appoint anybody that it wanted as electors in the electoral College....which means even if the Supreme Court had not ended the recounts Bush still would have won.
now you just need to find a very good reason why the missing county returns did not arrive in time. flat tyre? the dog ate the alarm clock?

Hang on, let me get this straight.

Your argument:

Under Florida law the State Legislature could have picked anyone. Therefore, because of the fact that this higher authority exists, the Court picking Bush means that it didn't pick Bush.

Right?

The US system is weird and stupid. What's wrong with direct democracy, i.e. the popular vote?

What could have happened or what might have happened is irrelevant--what did happen is that the SCOTUS interefered in the recount process and effectively took the Florida election out of the hands of the proper authorities. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that Bush won Florida by a vote count of 5-4 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

But that does not make sense. Did you read my post? Florida election code demanded that there be no recount process.

*checks calendar*

Yep ... 2006.

Astounding. What's it like living in the past?

now you just need to find a very good reason why the missing county returns did not arrive in time. flat tyre? the dog ate the alarm clock?

They did arrive on time. The count showed that Bush won.

Hang on, let me get this straight.

Your argument:

Under Florida law the State Legislature could have picked anyone. Therefore, because of the fact that this higher authority exists, the Court picking Bush means that it didn't pick Bush.

Right?

Wrong. It means that the court really had nothing to do with the final result.

The US system is weird and stupid. What's wrong with direct democracy, i.e. the popular vote?
Idiots like to pretend it would disenfranchise the American voter more than the bullshit electoral system.

The US system is weird and stupid. What's wrong with direct democracy, i.e. the popular vote?

America is a country only because 50 states have decided to band together. Each state elects the President by popular vote and then appoints electors to form a national consensus.

But that does not make sense. Did you read my post? Florida election code demanded that there be no recount process.
Florida election code requires that recounts be done on a county by county basis as opposed to a single statewide recount request. SCOTUS stopped all recounts, even those that had been legally requested under Florida law. You really should read up more on what happened down here in 2000 before you go making sweeping generalizations about the case.

*checks calendar*

Yep ... 2006.

Astounding. What's it like living in the past?

Well...this does sort of have an impact on recent events...you know?

Florida election code requires that recounts be done on a county by county basis as opposed to a single statewide recount request. SCOTUS stopped all recounts, even those that had been legally requested under Florida law. You really should read up more on what happened down here in 2000 before you go making sweeping generalizations about the case.

Florida code states that all recounts must end by November 13, 2000. The Supreme Court ruled on December 12, 2000......theres a sweeping generalization for you.

Wrong. It means that the court really had nothing to do with the final result.
Of course not. It just picked the President, that's all. :)

Of course not. It just picked the President, that's all. :)

You missed the boat. The Court merely insisted the Florida election code be followed. Even if the court had not done this the Florida state legislature still would have put Bush electors into the College. Given the quote from the Florida Constitution that I provided and the fact about the legislature....I really don't see how anybody can get off claiming that the court "picked the President". It might make you feel better though....to ignore the fact that if it was 5-4 in Gore's favor Bush would still be the President today.

Well...this does sort of have an impact on recent events...you know?

Nah ... this is what we call in the business "beating a dead horse".

Nah ... this is what we call in the business "beating a dead horse".


Obviously it is not. Numerous people have, in the past few moments, claimed that Bush is our President right now because of the Supreme Court. This is not true and I have offered proof.

Obviously it is not. Numerous people have, in the past few moments, claimed that Bush is our President right now because of the Supreme Court. This is not true and I have offered proof.
No, you have selected 'truth' to present a pre-determined 'fact'.

And the fact that people disagree with you doesn't make this anything less than yesterday's news.

America is a country only because 50 states have decided to band together. Each state elects the President by popular vote and then appoints electors to form a national consensus.

...

States get too much rights. They're states, not countries. Everyone should follow the damn popular vote, and if the state don't like it, they can try to leave (emphasize the word "try").

No, you have selected 'truth' to present a pre-determined 'fact'.

.

Fact: The Florida state legislature was prepared to appoint electors that were pro- Bush even if the Supreme Court ruled for Gore

Can you actualy make an argument against this?

...

States get too much rights. They're states, not countries. Everyone should follow the damn popular vote, and if the state don't like it, they can try to leave (emphasize the word "try").

But the country is the "United States of America". The popular vote total of every state comboned has never counted for anything other than curiosity. States are the one's who have always held the power.

Fact: The Florida state legislature was prepared to appoint electors that were pro- Bush even if the Supreme Court ruled for Gore

Can you actualy make an argument against this?
What would you like me to argue against?

Your argument is circular. "Even though the Supreme Court appointed Bush, the Supreme Court did not appoint Bush."

Perhaps if you provided a more coherent argument you would get more interest. For example, 'The Supreme Court was Required to pick Bush" would have been a better opening argument.

You are trying to argue a point that even you admit is wrong. The Supreme Court did pick Bush, even if you believe there are reasons why it had to.

What would you like me to argue against?

Your argument is circular. "Even though the Supreme Court appointed Bush, the Supreme Court did not appoint Bush."

Perhaps if you provided a more coherent argument you would get more interest. For example, 'The Supreme Court was Required to pick Bush" would have been a better opening argument.

You are trying to argue a point that even you admit is wrong. The Supreme Court did pick Bush, even if you believe there are reasons why it had to.


My argument is that the Supreme Court did not select Bush. Did you read the title of the thread buddy?????????????

What the Supreme Court ruled had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION.

IF THE COURT RULED FOR BUSH...THE ELECTORAL VOTES WOULD HAVE GONE TO BUSH

IF THE COURT RULED FOR GORE...THE ELECTORAL VOTES WOULD HAVE GONE TO BUSH.

Coherent enough?

My argument is that the Supreme Court did not select Bush. Did you read the title of the thread buddy?????????????
Who did then, 'Buddy'?

The Republican Florida state legislature could appoint anybody that it wanted as electors in the electoral College....which means even if the Supreme Court had not ended the recounts Bush still would have won.
As you say yourself, the Supreme Court did select Bush. What you are trying to argue is that even had it not, Bush still would have won.

You expect people to disagree with you when you don't even know what you're saying yourself?

Who did then, 'Buddy'?





sigh...read my previous posts.....ah, all well, I will type it...again. The Florida state legislature would have appointed Bush electors no matter how the Court ruled. And it would be perfectly Constitutional.

As you say yourself, the Supreme Court did select Bush. What you are trying to argue is that even had it not, Bush still would have won.

You expect people to disagree with you when you don't even know what you're saying yourself?


NO, NOW I HAVE SAID IT MORE THAN THREE TIMES IN A ROW. THE COURT DID NOT SELECT BUSH. IT DID NOT. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. ARE YOU JUST NOT READING ANYTHING THAT I HAVE SAID? HOW MANY TIMES MUST YOU FORCE ME TO REPEAT MYSELF. THE COURT DID NOT PICK BUSH. THAT IF WHY I CALLED THE F'ING THREAD " THE COURT DID NOT ELECT BUSH". Hello?

The popular vote total of every state comboned has never counted for anything other than curiosity.

essentially you just said voting doesnt matter because the states rule everything. voting is simply a 'curiosity'. then why vote? it doesnt matter, according to you. seeing as the electoral college does whatever the fuck it wants to.

big giant :rolleyes:

even though without the constitution they would not be states.

What could have happened or what might have happened is irrelevant--what did happen is that the SCOTUS interefered in the recount process and effectively took the Florida election out of the hands of the proper authorities. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that Bush won Florida by a vote count of 5-4 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
But only after the Florida Supreme Court modified the laws that governed the state election process. All the U.S. Supremes did was set things back to the initial conditions.

essentially you just said voting doesnt matter because the states rule everything. voting is simply a 'curiosity'. then why vote? it doesnt matter, according to you. seeing as the electoral college does whatever the fuck it wants to.

big giant :rolleyes:

even though without the constitution they would not be states.


uh...essentially I said no such thing. The combined popular votes of the states has no point. Each state's internal vote total guides the state legislature in choosing electors. Your vote matters alot. hell, just look at how close a state like Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania can be. Its just that the state legislature appoints the electors based on who it believes won your state. The state totals are added up for a national total.

*checks calendar*

Yep ... 2006.

Astounding. What's it like living in the past?
They call it Bushevikism. :p

As opposed to Kerryism: to confuse yourself with your own statements

uh...essentially I said no such thing. The combined popular votes of the states has no point. Each state's internal vote total guides the state legislature in choosing electors. Your vote matters alot. hell, just look at how close a state like Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania can be. Its just that the state legislature appoints the electors based on who it believes won your state. The state totals are added up for a national total.

Hold on a second here, let's take a closer look at that.

Each state's internal vote total guides the state legislature in choosing electors.

Guides? So it guides the decision? It doesn't determine it? It's just you know, a kind of, "We'd really appreciate it if you did this, but you can go off and do that if you like" thing?

Yeah, our electoral system sucks.

As opposed to Kerryism: to confuse yourself with your own statements

Heaven forbid someone should actually change their mind.

They did arrive on time. The count showed that Bush won.
assuming the ellection fraud allegations are false, why then are you bring this (below) up?
sorry, i missed your point...
"If the county returns are not received by the Department of State by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified."
in any case, i feel that this is really old news. current criticism of bush is based on much more than the election results...

As opposed to Kerryism: to confuse yourself with your own statements
better than not even being able to pronounce those statements :p

Hold on a second here, let's take a closer look at that.



Guides? So it guides the decision? It doesn't determine it? It's just you know, a kind of, "We'd really appreciate it if you did this, but you can go off and do that if you like" thing?

Yeah, our electoral system sucks.

Well, I only said "guides" because if it believes ( like in Florida in 2000) that a winner has been chosen in an inappropriate way because of illegal recounts it can act on that initiative. Our election system is the oldest and most stable on planet earth (exepting that which chooses the Pope). It serves us well, thanks.

Heaven forbid someone should actually change their mind.

depending on what state they are speaking in and to whom.

assuming the ellection fraud allegations are false, why then are you bring this (below) up?
sorry, i missed your point...

...

My point was that the recounts that Gore demanded were unconstitutional according to both Florida and federal law.

Well, I only said "guides" because if it believes ( like in Florida in 2000) that a winner has been chosen in an inappropriate way because of illegal recounts it can act on that initiative. Our election system is the oldest and most stable on planet earth (exepting that which chooses the Pope). It serves us well, thanks.
San Marino

English Parliament

Ancient Greece
not the oldest, and i would like to challenge the stablest with the English Parliament.

Well, I only said "guides" because if it believes ( like in Florida in 2000) that a winner has been chosen in an inappropriate way because of illegal recounts it can act on that initiative. Our election system is the oldest and most stable on planet earth (exepting that which chooses the Pope). It serves us well, thanks.

So you don't believe that the final choice should rest with the people as a whole? I honestly don't see any reason why the president shouldn't simply be picked via nationwide popular vote.

I'd say that if the majority of the eligible voters in the US vote for one candidate, he should win.

Well, I only said "guides" because if it believes ( like in Florida in 2000) that a winner has been chosen in an inappropriate way because of illegal recounts it can act on that initiative. Our election system is the oldest and most stable on planet earth (exepting that which chooses the Pope). It serves us well, thanks.
and oldest = best? my thesaurus doesn't say that.

plus, i hope you are not trying to imply you are the oldest democracy, just to make that pretty clear...

I quite like New Zealands system.
MMP, it works well.

My point was that the recounts that Gore demanded were unconstitutional according to both Florida and federal law.
and why weren't those recounts done earlier?

San Marino

English Parliament

not the oldest, and i would like to challenge the stablest with the English Parliament.

Well, we have the oldest Constitution. That is what I meant. Codified law.

And about Great Britain....I guess you are unaware of the electoral crises of 1974...or the lack of regular elections.

I'd say that if the majority of the eligible voters in the US vote for one candidate, he should win.

So you don't believe that Clinton should have ever won?

and why weren't those recounts done earlier?

Before the election?What?

So you don't believe that Clinton should have ever won?

If the majority of voters didn't support him, no he shouldn't have won.

Well, we have the oldest Constitution. That is what I meant. Codified law.

And about Great Britain....I guess you are unaware of the electoral crises of 1974...or the lack of regular elections.

San Marino has had codified law since the 300s. and they have been a republic since the tenth century. no typo, since the year 301 AD.

And we probably have the oldest 'constitution', depending on what san marino calls their codified laws.

i guess you are unaware of 1874 with Tilden/Hayes, when people rioted because votes were not counted and courts decided the votes for four states.

If the majority of voters didn't support him, no he shouldn't have won.


Along with J.Q. Adams, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon.

So you don't believe that Clinton should have ever won?
Along with J.Q. Adams, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon.

but you just said the combined popular vote doesnt matter. a curiosity, as you called it.

why does it matter now, when Bush is not the president involved?

As opposed to Kerryism: to confuse yourself with your own statements
Oh, I am not confused in the least.

Perhaps a better title for this thread would be:

Katherine Harris elects Bush as US President

The actions of the Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, who was in charge of state election procedures, also came under fire, due to her status as a Bush state campaign co-chairwoman, her involvement with the "scrub list", and her behavior during the recount crisis. In particular democracy advocates have taken issue with her antagonizing of Democratic lawyers, dispatching of a lawyer to Palm Beach county to convince the voting board of voting down a manual recount (despite thousands of protesters within the county including 12,000 with affidavits), and in particular her collaboration with Republican party advisers (at one point housing them).

i guess you are unaware of 1874 with Tilden/Hayes, when people rioted because votes were not counted and courts decided the votes for four states.

um.....you need to read some history. First of all you still don't know about the 74' elections in Britain do you? Second, a bit of math tells me there was no Presidential election in the U.S. in 1874. Ah, 1876......Tilden and Hayes. If I remember correctly the courts did not decide anything...an electoral commission of equal ideological balance did.

but you just said the combined popular vote doesnt matter. a curiosity, as you called it.

why does it matter now, when Bush is not the president involved?

My point is that the vote total combined is completely irrelavant. It is jsut that, a curiosity....as I just demonstrated by listing the type of random examples you can come up with.

Oh, I am not confused in the least.

Perhaps a better title for this thread would be:

Katherine Harris elects Bush as US President

The actions of the Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, who was in charge of state election procedures, also came under fire, due to her status as a Bush state campaign co-chairwoman, her involvement with the "scrub list", and her behavior during the recount crisis. In particular democracy advocates have taken issue with her antagonizing of Democratic lawyers, dispatching of a lawyer to Palm Beach county to convince the voting board of voting down a manual recount (despite thousands of protesters within the county including 12,000 with affidavits), and in particular her collaboration with Republican party advisers (at one point housing them).

But it was not up to Katherine Harris. She had no power other than enforcing the State Constitution which clearly said that all votes not recieved by November 13, 2000 should be "ignored".

Dude, your country's election process sucks. When we vote for a parliament, we have full over what shithead makes it into the house and which one remains in the cesspit.

um.....you need to read some history. First of all you still don't know about the 74' elections in Britain do you? Second, a bit of math tells me there was no Presidential election in the U.S. in 1874. Ah, 1876......Tilden and Hayes. If I remember correctly the courts did not decide anything...an electoral commission of equal ideological balance did.

the bold is wrong. the supreme court members were 5-4 republican democrat. the swing vote was a republican.

barrygoldwater, do you concede that the u.s. is not the oldest constitution, or do i need more proof about san marino for you?

Dude, your country's election process sucks. When we vote for a parliament, we have full over what shithead makes it into the house and which one remains in the cesspit.

ok, so when is your next election?
and how come Labour got 35% of the votes and 55% of the seats?

hmmmmmm?????

the bold is wrong. the supreme court members were 5-4 republican democrat. the swing vote was a republican.

The Court did not decide anything in the 1876 election. Look it up.

The Court did not decide anything in the 1876 election. Look it up.
dude, the supreme court was in the electoral commission. look it up.

barrygoldwater, do you concede that the u.s. is not the oldest constitution, or do i need more proof about san marino for you?

Look, I highly doubt that San Marino has a Constitution. But look, I will accept your point because I

A) do not want to waste your time having you look up stuff about a place that I was previously unaware existed
B) do not think this has anything to do with anything

dude, the supreme court was in the electoral commission. look it up.

Nope. 5 Justices were though. The Supreme Court decided nothing (as I said).

umm...yeah, this has nothing to do with the 2000 election.

Look, I highly doubt that San Marino has a Constitution. But look, I will accept your point because I

A) do not want to waste your time having you look up stuff about a place that I was previously unaware existed
B) do not think this has anything to do with anything
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Marino
San Marino adopted its written constitution on October 8, 1600.

Well wikipedia is not a viable source. But ok, I accept your point......again...

Nope. 5 Justices were though. The Supreme Court decided nothing (as I said).

umm...yeah, this has nothing to do with the 2000 election.

Okay, you said that the US had the most stable election system. The riots in 1876 would seem to indicate otherwise. You first rapidly shifted the focus away from the riots and then tried to dismiss the topic completely.

Same thing with the San Marino constitution, except that you skipped shifting the focus and went straight to dismissal.

Hello? This is not a relavent discussion. Get back on topic. For the love of God, riots in 1876 have nothing to do with anything. The election was decided and the President was sworn in on time. That is called "stability". Even in the most bitterly disputed elections, we have never not had an elected President on Inauguration day ( "stablity"). I am not going to accept your point on San Marino ( because I have already done it twice) again. Your little diversion is over. Get back on topic.

Well, we have the oldest Constitution. That is what I meant. Codified law.

Depends, I would say the oldest constitution probebrbly dates back much further to the Romans or Greeks. If your talking about active constitutions then what about the Magna Carta


And about Great Britain....I guess you are unaware of the electoral crises of 1974...or the lack of regular elections.

A hung parliament, once. I'd hardly call it a crisis. It was sorted out less than a year later. And its not like it has happened since. As for regular elections, we have them aproximately every 5 years, although that is the maximum (but it can and has been less)

Well wikipedia is not a viable source. But ok, I accept your point......again...
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sm.html
http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/sanmarino.html

sorry, wikipedia is so easy.

Depends, I would say the oldest constitution probebrbly dates back much further to the Romans or Greeks. If your talking about active constitutions then what about the Magna Carta

already smashed

ever read the papers after the last British election?
the labor party got 35% of the votes and 55% percent of the seats.
Whereas the Conservative party got 32% if the votes and 30% of the seats.


can you say: " bad system"?

Get back on topic.

The only topic I see here is you wanting everyone to pat you on the back, say how right you are, and shower you with cash prizes for stating something that was stated umpteen bazillion times .... 6 YEARS AGO!

Now is the time to start speculation and prodding in the upcoming mid-term election 2006, not beating a horse that's already rotted away to bones.

Okay, you said that the US had the most stable election system. The riots in 1876 would seem to indicate otherwise. You first rapidly shifted the focus away from the riots and then tried to dismiss the topic completely.

Same thing with the San Marino constitution, except that you skipped shifting the focus and went straight to dismissal.

thank you. i now leave, seeing as the person who strayed off topic wants to bring it back. :D

ever read the papers after the last British election?
the labor party got 35% of the votes and 55% percent of the seats.
Whereas the Conservative party got 32% if the votes and 30% of the seats.


can you say: " bad system"?

Nothing wrong with that at all. You assume that PR is the best by that. What you are doing is taking Britian and assuming that the public is a single entity. It isnt. PR assumes that the public is one voice but it isnt. You have to treat the indvidiual constituancies as indvidals and not the country as a whole with regard to voting. What PR says is "60% of the country want X to run it, therefore X should run it". Which is problematic because it assumes the people speek with one voice. They dont. FPTP allows for them to multiply speek it "60% of the people in community A want X to win, 52% of comunity B want Y to win" etc. Which allows individual commiunities a proper voice rather than being drowned out by the rest of the coutntry.

The only topic I see here is you wanting everyone to pat you on the back, say how right you are, and shower you with cash prizes for stating something that was stated umpteen bazillion times .... 6 YEARS AGO!

.


Yet here we are....6 years later...and the left is still saying that Bush was chosen by the Supreme Court and therefore not legit. to begin with. It has nothing to do with me. I have plenty of cash too. It has to do with this false claim that the left seems to take as fact. The Supreme Court has never decided who became the President of the United States. People need to stop making this claim.

Yet here we are....6 years later...and the left is still saying that Bush was chosen by the Supreme Court and therefore not legit.

So fuckin' what?

I allow people the delusion to believe in God, allow me the delusion to believe SCOTUS elected Bush.

Nothing wrong with that at all. You assume that PR is the best by that. What you are doing is taking Britian and assuming that the public is a single entity. It isnt. PR assumes that the public is one voice but it isnt. You have to treat the indvidiual constituancies as indvidals and not the country as a whole with regard to voting.

"PR"? I just want to know how you can justify such a wildy off base system. The labor party is vastly over-represented and the Conservatives got less seats than they deserved. A political system based on such obviously gerrymandered districts is insane. It is barely even democratic in a pretend way.

So fuckin' what?

, allow me the delusion to believe SCOTUS elected Bush.


no

In Britain.....

for every 26,859 votes that Labor got it recieved one vote in Parliament.
for every 44,306 votes that the Conservatives got they recieved one vote in parliament.
for every 96,481 votes that the Liberal Democrats recieved they recieved one vote in Parliament.

And the British dare mock the American system. Haha.

no

Too bad, nothing you can do to change it. Post all you want in big, bold, all-caps and I will still never recognise the legitimacy of George Bush's "Presidency" from 2000-2004.

Ain't gonna happen.

By all means, though, beat that dead horse. It's funny to watch you get all flustered.

Too bad, nothing you can do to change it. Post all you want in big, bold, all-caps and I will still never recognise the legitimacy of George Bush's "Presidency" from 2000-2004.

Ain't gonna happen.

By all means, though, beat that dead horse. It's funny to watch you get all flustered.

I am not "flustered."

You have no actual reason ( other than politics) to refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the first 4 years of the Bush Presidency.

You have no actual reason ( other than politics) to refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the first 4 years of the Bush Presidency.

You have no actual reason (other than politics) to recognise the legitimacy of the "first" 4 years of the Bush Presidency.

In Britain.....

for every 26,859 votes that Labor got it recieved one vote in Parliament.
for every 44,306 votes that the Conservatives got they recieved one vote in parliament.
for every 96,481 votes that the Liberal Democrats recieved they recieved one vote in Parliament.

And the British dare mock the American system. Haha.
In the US...
In 1996, for every 39,198,755 votes the Republicans got, it recieved no votes in the White House
In 2000, for every 51,003,926 votes the Democrats got, it recieved no votes in the White House
In 2004, for every 59,028,111 votes the Democrats got, it recieved no votes in the White House

And the Americans dare mock another country's democratic electoral system. Haha.

ok, so when is your next election?
and how come Labour got 35% of the votes and 55% of the seats?

hmmmmmm?????

You don't even know what you're talking about. For your information: Yes, my country has a group called 'Labour Party' in english. No, it isn't Britain. You made the mistake of assuming just because I live in a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of two houses means I live in the only country known to Americans outside the US.

I can't tell you about the English system, but we get what we vote. Granted, I refuse to believe there are so many idiots that where necessary to get the current parties in power, thus you might assume it's all corrupt. But sadly, it's not. There are just too many stupid people voting for wannabe conservatives and evil liberals. But at least WE voted them. YOU got your president handed to you by judges and electors. As if the people mattered...

You have no actual reason (other than politics) to recognise the legitimacy of the "first" 4 years of the Bush Presidency.

Yes I do. I have already explained them in detail. Here is a quick version of it:

1) Bush won the most electoral votes
2) the recounts were required by law to end in Florida by November 13th
3) The Supreme Court of the United States enforced this
4) the Florida legislature saw that Bush had won and awarded Florida's votes to Bush

None of these facts has anything to do with me. The legitimacy was confirmed when Al Gore conceded for the second time and was further enhanced when Congress authenticated the results of the election. It was finalized when Bush was sworn in ( under the Constitution) as the 43rd President. Through all of this....my political views were absent.

Look, I highly doubt that San Marino has a Constitution. But look, I will accept your point because I

A) do not want to waste your time having you look up stuff about a place that I was previously unaware existed
B) do not think this has anything to do with anything

Why is anyone bothering to debate a complex issue with a guy who doesn't even know that one of the oldest countries in the world exists.

NB, this statement also manages to live up to all the stereotypes of American Republicans I've been trying to stop believing in over the past few years.

It was finalized when Bush was sworn in ( under the Constitution) as the 43rd President.

Thanks to SCOTUS.

End of discussion.

In the US...
In 1996, for every 39,198,755 votes the Republicans got, it recieved no votes in the White House
In 2000, for every 51,003,926 votes the Democrats got, it recieved no votes in the White House
In 2004, for every 59,028,111 votes the Democrats got, it recieved no votes in the White House

And the Americans dare mock another country's democratic electoral system. Haha.

The move that you just pulled there is insane. Should the two parties share the White House? OK, I will do to you what you just did to me......

For every 9,600,943 votes the Conservatives got in 1997 they got 0 prime ministers.

For every 8,357,615 votes the Conservatives got in 2001 they got 0 Prime ministers.

For every 8,772,598 votes the Conservatives got in 2006 they got 0 Prime Ministers.

Next time you try to pull such a cheap and lame trick you should try it on a person who is a little bit less sharp than I. Also, this has nothing to do with anything.

Why is anyone bothering to debate a complex issue with a guy who doesn't even know that one of the oldest countries in the world exists.

NB, this statement also manages to live up to all the stereotypes of American Republicans I've been trying to stop believing in over the past few years.
Its sad. Its like they forget that there are other countries that dont harbor terrorists/weapons of mass destruction/oil/[insert war reason here].

Why is anyone bothering to debate a complex issue with a guy who doesn't even know that one of the oldest countries in the world exists.

NB, this statement also manages to live up to all the stereotypes of American Republicans I've been trying to stop believing in over the past few years.

Translation: "I cannot debate the topic on this thread using facts so I will use various diversionary tactics to tick off my opposition."

Also, this has nothing to do with anything.

reading through this thread, he's the one who's originally gone off topic, then complains that is has nothing to do with anything.

strange. i feel a bible quote coming on.

YOU got your president handed to you by judges and electors. ...

Not so. No judge has ever decided an American election. The electors were selected based on the voting in each state.

Thanks to SCOTUS.

End of discussion.

Wrong! The Supreme Court could have ruled for Gore and Bush still would have won. Therefore, using logic, we can see that the Supreme Court's role was not relavent in choosing the winner.

Translation: "I cannot debate the topic on this thread using facts so I will use various diversionary tactics to tick off my opposition."

I'm sorry, at what point did I get involved in a debate? I was simply making an observation.

Not so. No judge has ever decided an American election. The electors were selected based on the voting in each state.
1876. a judge, actually five, as part of a commission, decided the election.

please be specific when responding. you could confuse people. :)

Its sad. Its like they forget that there are other countries that dont harbor terrorists/weapons of mass destruction/oil/[insert war reason here].

If that "they" is talking about me you are an idiot. Jeez, you don't know me. I jsut got back from living in China for Christ's sake.

Wrong! The Supreme Court could have ruled for Gore and Bush still would have won.

Speculation based on politics.

You lose.

I'm sorry, at what point did I get involved in a debate? I was simply making an observation.

Good point. Maybe you should try making posts that have to do with the thread!;)

If that "they" is talking about me you are an idiot. Jeez, you don't know me. I jsut got back from living in China for Christ's sake.

Are you a Republican?
Are you more than one person?

1876. a judge, actually five, as part of a commission, decided the election.

please be specific when responding. you could confuse people. :)

ok then, to be more accurate: the Supreme Court of the United States has never decided and American election.

Speculation based on politics.

You lose.

No it is a documented fact. The Florida legislaure entered special session to appoint the electors more than a week before the supreme court ruled for Bush They were bound by law to choose electors for Bush because he had already been certified as the winner more than a month before. There is no speculation on my part. You lose ( really bad ).

Are you a Republican?
Are you more than one person?

Yes.
No.

If that "they" is talking about me you are an idiot. Jeez, you don't know me. I jsut got back from living in China for Christ's sake.
no need for name calling.

You mentionned that the US is the oldest democracy, blah, blah, blah. They proved you wrong. You say it's off-topic. Then why did you say it in the first place?

If you can't be bothered to learn about San Marino, I'm sorry but we can'T be bothered to discuss the US and it's history. It's only fair.

Yes.
No.

The statement is a sweeping generalization of Republicans, so dont take it personally.

Why would you take a plural form as a personal insult?

If you can't be bothered to learn about San Marino, I'm sorry but we can'T be bothered to discuss the US and it's history. It's only fair.

Wow, that is pretty absurd isnt it. Then again, I am sure that San Marino played some role in the 2000 election contaversy. I just can't seem to remember.

The statement is a sweeping generalization of Republicans, so dont take it personally.



We accept that you did not mean to insult us personally. :D

Wow, that is pretty absurd isnt it. Then again, I am sure that San Marino played some role in the 2000 election contaversy. I just can't seem to remember.

Then again, I'm sure America having the oldest democrazy played some role in the 2000 election controversy. I just cant seem to remember.

The bottom line here is that SCOTUS was simply not relavent in the final result of election 2000. It would have gone to Bush no matter what.

Wow, that is pretty absurd isnt it. Then again, I am sure that San Marino played some role in the 2000 election contaversy. I just can't seem to remember.
I don't know and I don't care. It's not like I'm interested in what happened 6 years ago in a foreign country. Go talk to someone else and bring your dead horse with you.

I don't know and I don't care. It's not like I'm interested in what happened 6 years ago in a foreign country. Go talk to someone else and bring your dead horse with you.
ZING! :D

So I guess now these gitmo people don't need trials after all. He he he.

So I guess now these gitmo people don't need trials after all. He he he.
How is that relevant to what happened in 2000?

I don't know and I don't care. It's not like I'm interested in what happened 6 years ago in a foreign country. Go talk to someone else and bring your dead horse with you.

So why have you spent all of this time posting? You have avoided actualy talking about the 2000 election so I guess you are just here to be a rash for me to repeatedly itch?

So I guess now these gitmo people don't need trials after all. He he he.
Thats offtopic. That has nothing to do with anything.

*please try and stay on topic in your own thread please*

Thats offtopic. That has nothing to do with anything.

*please try and stay on topic in your own thread please*

Sorry about that, these are the mistakes that a very tired fellow makes when he is on AIM and this at the same time. Yawn....

To sum up, SCOTUS was simply not relavent in the final result of election 2000. It would have gone to Bush no matter what.

So why have you spent all of this time posting? You have avoided actualy talking about the 2000 election so I guess you are just here to be a rash for me to repeatedly itch?
Meh, I was bored.

Actually I posted to remind you that flame are not tolerated. Then, I was being polite in explaining to you why San Marino got into your conversation.

Again, can't be bothered with what happened in your neck of the woods since you clearly can'T be bothered with what happened in my neck of the wood. Only fair.

Meh, I was bored.

Actually I posted to remind you that flame are not tolerated. Then, I was being polite in explaining to you why San Marino got into your conversation.

Again, can't be bothered with what happened in your neck of the woods since you clearly can'T be bothered with what happened in my neck of the wood. Only fair.
wait . . . . . . . . you live in san marino? :p

wait . . . . . . . . you live in san marino? :p
I visited once. Besides, my neck of the wood is a big place. ;)

Nothing wrong with that at all. You assume that PR is the best by that. What you are doing is taking Britian and assuming that the public is a single entity. It isnt. PR assumes that the public is one voice but it isnt. You have to treat the indvidiual constituancies as indvidals and not the country as a whole with regard to voting. What PR says is "60% of the country want X to run it, therefore X should run it". Which is problematic because it assumes the people speek with one voice. They dont. FPTP allows for them to multiply speek it "60% of the people in community A want X to win, 52% of comunity B want Y to win" etc. Which allows individual commiunities a proper voice rather than being drowned out by the rest of the coutntry.

The samish thing happens in America with each state deciding. I don't agree with either.

"PR"?

Proportional represnetation. You obvioulsly have never studied politics. Or if you have, you didnt look at anything east of the Hudson


I just want to know how you can justify such a wildy off base system. The labor party is vastly over-represented and the Conservatives got less seats than they deserved. A political system based on such obviously gerrymandered districts is insane. It is barely even democratic in a pretend way.

Its quite simple. PR and other akin systems assume that the country is one big community, and that the public is a single entity. The public is not a single entity. It is many entities. The FPTP system means that rather than

"Over 50% of the country voted for X, therefore X is in power"

It says

"Over 50% of the people in this community voted for X, therefore X gets a seat in Parliament"

This brings democracy to the lowest level, and gives the power more to the MP rather than the party (Although in practise the party machine wields too much power, which should be stopped in my view)

The samish thing happens in America with each state deciding. I don't agree with either.

My understanding of the American system was that each state got an assigned value based on its population and other factors. If it were more like the British system (IE communities within the states electing individual parliament memebers to a State parliament and then the exective leader of that state going to the national parliament) it would be fairer

The thread title is correct. SCOTUS didn't elect Bush. They selected his dumb ass.

EDIT:
But this was after Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris authorized ChoicePoint/DBT's purge of 57,700 voters from the Florida rolls. That purge was of former felons who had been re-enfranchised after serving their time in other states. Florida had no right to deny them the vote, but did so anyway. SCOTUS was merely a footnote.

The scary thing is that it could be interpreted to mean that Bush could legally run again in 2008, having won only one election legitimately (and that's still debatable) in 2004. And my country is juuuust dumb enough to let him have four more years if it were possible.

"PR"? I just want to know how you can justify such a wildy off base system. The labor party is vastly over-represented and the Conservatives got less seats than they deserved. A political system based on such obviously gerrymandered districts is insane. It is barely even democratic in a pretend way.
You talkin' about Texas?

*snip to make room for BG's ego*
Next time you try to pull such a cheap and lame trick you should try it on a person who is a little bit less sharp than I.
...and a little more modest?

The scary thing is that it could be interpreted to mean that Bush could legally run again in 2008, having won only one election legitimately (and that's still debatable) in 2004. And my country is juuuust dumb enough to let him have four more years if it were possible.

Hehe ... would be a fun tactic for them to try, but the XXII Amendment is clear:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

To anyone who still gives a shit, read the following book:

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast.

It explains in detail (correct detail, I add for Goldwater's tired sake...flogging a dead horse is tiring) exactly what happened in November of 2000. If it doesn't make you angry, well, that's okay, but it should at least make you think.

Hehe ... would be a fun tactic for them to try, but the XXII Amendment is clear:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
I figured that was the case, but I was too lazy to look it up. My copy of the Constitution isn't with me here in Seattle.

I figured that was the case, but I was too lazy to look it up. My copy of the Constitution isn't with me here in Seattle.

:eek: I never, ever, ever would be caught dead without a ready, on-hand copy!

The thread title is correct. SCOTUS didn't elect Bush. They selected his dumb ass.

EDIT:
But this was after Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris authorized ChoicePoint/DBT's purge of 57,700 voters from the Florida rolls. That purge was of former felons who had been re-enfranchised after serving their time in other states. Florida had no right to deny them the vote, but did so anyway. SCOTUS was merely a footnote.

or more often than not they had a name similar to a felons or they had commited a felony years into the future.

I was just having this discussion here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489795&page=6

But apparently I'm a moonbat with guano flavored pixie dust and a alien ray blocking tin foil hat (I wonder what I could get for that on eBay).

To anyone who still gives a shit, read the following book:

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast.

It explains in detail (correct detail, I add for Goldwater's tired sake...flogging a dead horse is tiring) exactly what happened in November of 2000. If it doesn't make you angry, well, that's okay, but it should at least make you think.


Good book. Greg Palast, while having a venemous tongue, is my hero in regards to investigative journalism.

BarryGoldwater, look into it, as if the SCOTUS had ruled in favor of Gore and Bush still would have won as you say... it may be true that he would have had more votes since they didnt allow tens of thousands of black democrats to vote despite being legally able to.

or more often than not they had a name similar to a felons or they had commited a felony years into the future.

I was just having this discussion here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489795&page=6

But apparently I'm a moonbat with guano flavored pixie dust and a alien ray blocking tin foil hat (I wonder what I could get for that on eBay).

Oh dear god. 'Leftist Jihadis from Canada'? What the hell is he smoking?

Oh dear god. 'Leftist Jihadis from Canada'? What the hell is he smoking?


lol - yeah - I figured out right away that this guy was full of piss and vinegar (actually I don't know how to use this saying but it sounded right) and I shoudlnt waste my time on him, but I did it anyway. I dunno why.

The US system is weird and stupid. What's wrong with direct democracy, i.e. the popular vote?

When the Presidency was founded as a political position it wasn't supposed to have much to do with domestic politics. He was the Head of State. He was supposed to represent the United States in dealings with other countries, enforce agreements between states, and respond to threats to the various states.

Today, a succession of presidents have made it a domestic policy position too via political maneuvering, so it seems odd that the people don't get much of a direct voice in choosing him, but we've actually had an amendments regarding how he is elected to reflect his changing role. They're just a bit behind the times. Like how it took about 10 years to repeal prohibition.

In the aftermath of the 2000 election many people made the claim that the Supreme Court had "elected" George W. Bush the President. This is a false claim that needs to end. The court ended the recounts, but this was MANDATORY UNDER FLORIDA LAW.

Under Florida Constitution Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 11

"If the county returns are not received by the Department of State by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified."First of all, this provision appears to relate strictly to returns which are not received, not returns which require a recount due to ambiguities and questionable votes.

Secondly--and more importantly--the majority on the Supreme Court took a flying leap off of the entire history of precedent, in which it had always been held that the state courts are the final interpreters of the state constitutions, and even state law. When the Supreme Court hears a challenge to state law, they invariably comment that they are bound to the reading of the state courts--so that they will only invalidate the law if even under the reading given by the state courts, it violates federal law or the federal Constitution.

But that does not make sense. Did you read my post? Florida election code demanded that there be no recount process.That was for the Florida courts to decide, not the federal Supreme Court.

Being a conservative, I should think you'd have more respect for federalism.

Oh wait... conservatives only support states' rights when its convenient for them. Sorry, I forgot.

To anyone who still gives a shit, read the following book:

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast.

It explains in detail (correct detail, I add for Goldwater's tired sake...flogging a dead horse is tiring) exactly what happened in November of 2000. If it doesn't make you angry, well, that's okay, but it should at least make you think.

Yes, but you see, to a Conservative it doesn't matter how much evidence or how many facts you've got.

To disprove a thing in a Conservative's eyes, all you have to do is produce some poor evidence and then debunk that one piece. To a conservative you can tear down a house by building a house of cards inside it and then knocking that down.

* Ascendence of humans via evolution is wrong because the Piltdown Man, which was hailed as the "missing link" that would prove the connection between man and ape was a hoax.

* George W. Bush did not benifit from illegal voter suppresion because there were some people who filled out fake voter registration forms as Democrats.

* Pat Robertson didn't advocate assassinating Hugo Chavez because his exact words were "take him out," which could mean anything.

* George W. Bush didn't say that he would fire Karl Rove if he leaked Plame's name, he said that "if that person has commited a crime, that person will be taken care of."

In each of those cases there is proof of the contention that the conservatives oppose, but they think that disproof has been achieved by debunking a piece of evidence that they made up.

They did arrive on time.Exactly. Hence, the constitutional provision you cite (which refers to counties that do not return a vote count) is irrelevant. The count showed that Bush won.Yes, but it was precisely this result that was contested. That was the whole point of the recount ordered by the Florida courts... a recount that was never completed because, in an unprecedented and untenable move, a majority on the Supreme Court decided that they know Florida law better than the Florida Supreme Court. :rolleyes:

10 pages in 1 day on an issue that's been moot for at least 2 years, if not 6.

Will this still be talked about after 20 January 2009?

Barry Goldwater is joking. He must be. I refuse to believe anyone can be so out of touch.

...or the lack of regular elections.

What's so great about fixed election dates?

They constrain the schedules of governments, and they lead to incredibly long campaigns. Fixed election dates strike me as a bad thing.

It might make you feel better though....to ignore the fact that if it was 5-4 in Gore's favor Bush would still be the President today.No. You keep going on about how Republican-majority Florida state legislature could have simply chosen the Republican electors, according to the federal constitution.

You have made no case whatsoever that they would have. In fact, they probably would not have.

Just imagine... the recount continues, and it turns out that Gore won in Florida. So the Florida legislature decides to completely ignore their state's electoral practice in order to openly defy the wishes of a majority of Florida electors?

I think not. First of all, I think that many Republican legislators in Florida would have voted against such an action on principle--politicians are not, after all, entirely bad. Yes, even Republicans.

Second, I think that Florida legislators would want to distance themselves from the controversy... by all appearances, they were perfectly happy to let it be settled in the state courts rather than stick their own electoral necks out to defy the majority. Whether there would have been a backlash or not we can never know... but I think we understand the behavior of politicians well enough to know they would not be likely to risk it.

Fact: The Florida state legislature was prepared to appoint electors that were pro- Bush even if the Supreme Court ruled for GoreWere they? How do you know?

10 pages in 1 day on an issue that's been moot for at least 2 years, if not 6.

Will this still be talked about after 20 January 2009?

It's still not brought up as much as Clinton anytime a Republican is caught doing something wrong.

IF THE COURT RULED FOR BUSH...THE ELECTORAL VOTES WOULD HAVE GONE TO BUSH

IF THE COURT RULED FOR GORE...THE ELECTORAL VOTES WOULD HAVE GONE TO BUSH.One has to wonder, then, why they bothered to take the case.

They should have known, after all, that no matter what they decided the case would hurt their credibility as a neutral body: they really had no business interfering in a state's electoral process; and the fact that they did has revealed political motives much dirtier than a desire to uphold the law.

I think it should be clear that the conservative justices granted certiorari already knowing that they had the majority necessary to elect the candidate they preferred. If they had suspected that Bush would have won anyway, they would have steered clear of the whole controversy.

NO, NOW I HAVE SAID IT MORE THAN THREE TIMES IN A ROW. THE COURT DID NOT SELECT BUSH. IT DID NOT. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. ARE YOU JUST NOT READING ANYTHING THAT I HAVE SAID? HOW MANY TIMES MUST YOU FORCE ME TO REPEAT MYSELF. THE COURT DID NOT PICK BUSH. THAT IF WHY I CALLED THE F'ING THREAD " THE COURT DID NOT ELECT BUSH". Hello?The point he is trying to make is that, whether or not some other party would have made the same choice, the Court did make the decision.

Suppose the coach of a high school sports team is responsible for selecting a captain for the team. Now imagine that the coach is unavailable, so an assistant coach makes the decision.

It may well be that the coach, when he got around to it, would have picked the same student. The fact remains, however, that the assistant coach actually decided.

It's still not brought up as much as Clinton anytime a Republican is caught doing something wrong.

Not that I really care, but... I think that the drubbing Bush gets in the press and the whole Jack Abramoff thing as being quite "brought up as much". Never mind Halliburton, FEMA, et al.

I also find the coverups when a Kennedy gets in trouble to be as much of a free pass.

But only after the Florida Supreme Court modified the laws that governed the state election process. All the U.S. Supremes did was set things back to the initial conditions.Yes... something they had no authority to do.

If the highest court in the State decides that Florida law should be interpreted so as to allow the recount, the Supreme Court of the United States has no business telling them how Florida law should "really" be interpreted.

Our election system is the oldest and most stable on planet earth (exepting that which chooses the Pope).You must be forgetting the much older electoral system of the UK, which has remained largely unchanged in substance since the Magna Carta.

I blame Florida! *points to Florida* :eek:

Not that I really care, but... I think that the drubbing Bush gets in the press and the whole Jack Abramoff thing as being quite "brought up as much". Never mind Halliburton, FEMA, et al.

I also find the coverups when a Kennedy gets in trouble to be as much of a free pass.


No I am not talking about current events - As if Clinton wasn't being bashed in the press daily when he was President, especially as the Lewinsky thing came out (and still it gets parodied endlessly).

Bush is President now and so he deserves to be the focus of the press.

But you werent even talking about the press initially... you were talking about beatign a dead horse here on NSG. ALthough I don't agree because the theft of the US Presidency is far more contentious than getting a blowjob and lying about it.

So you don't believe that the final choice should rest with the people as a whole? I honestly don't see any reason why the president shouldn't simply be picked via nationwide popular vote.

I'd say that if the majority of the eligible voters in the US vote for one candidate, he should win.Basically, the argument is that this would create a situation in which the largest population centers effectively control the election of the President. Candidates would campaign only in major cities, and they would tend to propose policies favorable to urban areas and possibly detrimental to rural areas... since the votes of those in rural areas would be essentially unnecessary.

Were they? How do you know?

Doesn't Florida law, like almost every other state in the union, require that the Electors vote the way the majority of the people of the state vote, regardless of their political affiliation?

No I am not talking about current events - As if Clinton wasn't being bashed in the press daily when he was President, especially as the Lewinsky thing came out (and still it gets parodied endlessly).

Bush is President now and so he deserves to be the focus of the press.

But you werent even talking about the press initially... you were talking about beatign a dead horse here on NSG. ALthough I don't agree because the theft of the US Presidency is far more contentious than getting a blowjob and lying about it.

I don't care one way or the other -- I think both parties do a consumate job of ripping each other a new one at most any opportunity. I just take umbrage to say one or another had it easier or harder. :)

A dead horse is a dead horse. And a hummer is never a bad thing. :D

Well, we have the oldest Constitution.
Bullshit.

We have the oldest written constitution. But a constitution does not need to be contained in a single document in order to act as a constitution. Indeed, it would be mistake to claim that our constitution is entirely written down in the document ratified in 1789. That is only one (very important) part of our country's political constitution.

um.....you need to read some history. First of all you still don't know about the 74' elections in Britain do you?Perhaps you would care to tell us why you think this has anything to do with the longevity of the British system?

Ah, 1876......Tilden and Hayes. If I remember correctly the courts did not decide anything...an electoral commission of equal ideological balance did.Actually, historians believe that an informal deal was struck.

In exchange for southern acquiescence in Hayes' election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South.

Quite a crisis indeed.

Hello? This is not a relavent discussion. Get back on topic. For the love of God, riots in 1876 have nothing to do with anything. The election was decided and the President was sworn in on time. That is called "stability". Even in the most bitterly disputed elections, we have never not had an elected President on Inauguration day ( "stablity").Well, it's easy when you come up with your own arbitrary definitions of "stability."

can you say: " bad system"?And here I thought we were talking about longevity and stability.

The discussion of what kind of system promotes a healthy democracy is probably far beyond the scope of this thread. We are here to discuss the role of the Supreme Court in the 2000 election.

The UK system (and others) were only raised to shake your absurd assertion that the United States has the oldest and the most stable electoral system in the world.

Nothing wrong with that at all. You assume that PR is the best by that. What you are doing is taking Britian and assuming that the public is a single entity. It isnt. PR assumes that the public is one voice but it isnt. You have to treat the indvidiual constituancies as indvidals and not the country as a whole with regard to voting. What PR says is "60% of the country want X to run it, therefore X should run it". Which is problematic because it assumes the people speek with one voice. They dont. FPTP allows for them to multiply speek it "60% of the people in community A want X to win, 52% of comunity B want Y to win" etc. Which allows individual commiunities a proper voice rather than being drowned out by the rest of the coutntry.

Right. It's comparable (in its way) to the principle behind the US electoral system.

Now, Barrygoldwater insists that the electoral system is valid despite its lack of consistency with the popular vote. If he's okay with that, he should be okay with the same thing in Britain. :rolleyes:

In Britain.....

for every 26,859 votes that Labor got it recieved one vote in Parliament.
for every 44,306 votes that the Conservatives got they recieved one vote in parliament.
for every 96,481 votes that the Liberal Democrats recieved they recieved one vote in Parliament.

And the British dare mock the American system. Haha.Whenever you have an electoral system that does not simply tally the popular vote, you will have such inequities.

In the 2000 American election--among the closest in history--Bush got one electoral vote for every 186,199 votes cast for him. Gore got one electoral vote for every 191,744 votes cast for him. Inequity? Yes, as a result of the Electoral College system, which you claim to like.

It's been even worse in other elections. Basically any time you have the smaller states lining up on one side and the larger states lining up on the other, you're going to have the candidate favored by the smaller states gets a mathematical advantage in terms of the number of popular votes he needs to capture a single Electoral vote.

I don't care one way or the other -- I think both parties do a consumate job of ripping each other a new one at most any opportunity. I just take umbrage to say one or another had it easier or harder. :)

oh no I don't claim that.

A dead horse is a dead horse. And a hummer is never a bad thing. :D

You got that right! *high five*

Whenever you have an electoral system that does not simply tally the popular vote, you will have such inequities.

In the 2000 American election--among the closest in history--Bush got one electoral vote for every 186,199 votes cast for him. Gore got one electoral vote for every 191,744 votes cast for him. Inequity? Yes, as a result of the Electoral College system, which you claim to like.

It's been even worse in other elections. Basically any time you have the smaller states lining up on one side and the larger states lining up on the other, you're going to have the candidate favored by the smaller states gets a mathematical advantage in terms of the number of popular votes he needs to capture a single Electoral vote.

And thank the Founders for it!

Otherwise, the states wouldn't matter and one could be President by just campaigning anywhere there is an NFL franchise. Screw anyplace that didn't have 1 million or more with its city limits.

No thanks.

The US system is weird and stupid. What's wrong with direct democracy, i.e. the popular vote?

Then you get mob rule. Which is not good for anybody but that small majority.

No it is a documented fact. The Florida legislaure entered special session to appoint the electors more than a week before the supreme court ruled for Bush They were bound by law to choose electors for Bush because he had already been certified as the winner more than a month before. There is no speculation on my part. You lose ( really bad ).No. The farthest it ever went was committee.

On December 11, a committee of the Florida House votes 5 to 2 to approve a resolution to name presidential electors for George W. Bush. A half-hour later, a Florida Senate committee approves a similar resolution by a 4-to-3 vote.

You have utterly no evidence that the full legislative bodies would have agreed. This was a rush tactic of the Republican leadership, meant to compel the courts to set an early deadline for completing recounts... the earlier the deadline, the greater the likelihood that counties would be unable to complete the recount.

And thank the Founders for it!

Otherwise, the states wouldn't matter and one could be President by just campaigning anywhere there is an NFL franchise. Screw anyplace that didn't have 1 million or more with its city limits.

No thanks.

It is why we still have the College. Originally, they thought us to stupid (probably right on thgat point), now, it is meant to balance out the big states versus the small states, think the Great Compromise, and apply it to the election of the President

(For those of you not versed in American Constitutional History, the Great Compromise is what created the House as porportional representitive body and the Senate as the house where ALL states are treated equal.)

And thank the Founders for it!
Can I use that in my sig?

Doesn't Florida law, like almost every other state in the union, require that the Electors vote the way the majority of the people of the state vote, regardless of their political affiliation?Yes, it does.

What Barrygoldwater is referring to is the fact that Republican leaders in the Florida legislature threatened to hold a special session to change the law.

Of course, it's not even clear they could have done so... Since the election had already occurred (even if electoral votes had not been certified), Gore might have successfully challenged the law as applying after the fact--a violation of the federal Constitution (and probably Florida's, though I haven't checked).

Moreover, I seriously doubt that the full legislature would have voted to do so. The electoral backlash--even in a largely Republican state--could have been unprecedented. I mean, you would have had state legislatures openly defying the wishes of Florida voters. That can't be good policy.

Most likely it was a scare tactic: it was an attempt to send a message to the courts that they had better get things done quickly (faster was better for Republicans), or the legislature might take such a radical step.

It is why we still have the College. Originally, they thought us to stupid (probably right on thgat point), now, it is meant to balance out the big states versus the small states, think the Great Compromise, and apply it to the election of the President

Not at all! Polling was pretty low tech in 1789. Just moving the votes from the 13-15 states and counting them back then would have been nearly impossible.

Actually, intelligence has nothing to do with it... it's that way by design:

Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.


Can I use that in my sig?

Sure, feel free.