here is where I post the stuff that says stuff.... I didn't read any of the articles but my belief is stifling the military vote is a horrible move for the democrats, if they are just questioning it then it is a very valid question considering that everyone in the military is the employee of the commanderor chief and in a controlled environment and could very well be manipulated very easy.. Now I don't believe in Zombie's but the dead do raise to vote in America quite often and these are things that should not be happening...
Under Florida state law a recount must be made if an election is won by 0.5% or less:lowing wrote:
elections are disputed by democrats who loose. then the question each recount until they can come up with a recount in their favor. trouble is, they could never find a recount that favored them......SO this trick might work.Spark wrote:
You know, you guys (americans in general) could solve all these problems if you just standardised your voting system.
Here, it's just a piece of paper, a pencil and a few numbers. That's it, no hassles, and NOT ONCE has an election been disputed.
And a manual recount must be made in a county if the margin of victory is 0.25% or less:
Gore didn't have much choice in the matter, but it was Harris' conduct that led to lawsuits both by individual counties and the challengers themselves. Actually the Supreme court case was Bush v. Gore, it was Bush that initially appealed the Florida supreme court decision.
It was the Bush camp that appealed to stop recounts (which included absentee and military ballots) at nearly every juncture and it was the Bush camp that fought to keep the amended county returns invalidated and only use the initial certified results.
Since this ended up on the bottom of the previous page I'll repost it here:
Masques wrote:
From both links:And ATG, Gore never sought to have military ballots disqualified (or any other absentee ballots disqualified.In a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Democratic Rep. Rush Holt said the electronic registration and voting service is well-intentioned, but could expose troops to identity theft, or allow hackers or others to tamper with the ballots when they are in transit.http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/flo … pinion.pdfSubsequent to the circuit court’s order, the Secretary announced that she was
in receipt of certified returns (i.e., the returns resulting from the initial recount) from
all counties in the State. The Secretary then instructed Florida’s Supervisors of
Elections (Supervisors) that they must submit to her by 2 p.m., Wednesday,
November 15, 2000, a written statement of “the facts and circumstances” justifying
any belief on their part that they should be allowed to amend the certified returns
previously filed. Four counties submitted their statements on time. After
considering the reasons in light of specific criteria,5 the Secretary on Wednesday, November 15, 2000, rejected the reasons and again announced that she would not
accept the amended returns but rather would rely on the earlier certified totals for the
four counties. The Secretary further stated that after she received the certified
returns of the overseas absentee ballots from each county, she would certify the
results of the presidential election on Saturday, November 18, 2000.
On Thursday, November 16, 2000, the Florida Democratic Party and Albert
Gore filed a motion in Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County,
Florida, seeking to compel the Secretary to accept amended returns.
Basically after the initial recount (mandated by Florida law due to the closeness of the result) both candidates were allowed to request manual recounts in contested counties and those counties were then able to submit amended recount totals. Harris disallowed the amended totals even after the counties adhered to her criteria. Gore then sought to have her accept the amended returns, not to get military and absentee votes disqualified. Gore's suit was brought after Volusia county's suit against Harris when she declared that the manual recount would be invalidated the following day (her declaration was on Nov. 13 targeted toward the 14th). This is by far not enough time to correctly tabulate millions of votes.
ummmmmmm the electoral college is the system we use to elect our presidents,right or wrong. It is consistant with all other elections. The fact that you NEED to change to the elcetion process that has sustained us for over 200 years for no other reason other than to allow your poodle another chance at recount really does go hand in hand with the topic of this thread.........good jobAgent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Want to take away the electoral college, and then try that comment again? Mmmmkay, didn't think so.lowing wrote:
elections are disputed by democrats who loose. then the question each recount until they can come up with a recount in their favor. trouble is, they could never find a recount that favored them......SO this trick might work.Spark wrote:
You know, you guys (americans in general) could solve all these problems if you just standardised your voting system.
Here, it's just a piece of paper, a pencil and a few numbers. That's it, no hassles, and NOT ONCE has an election been disputed.
mmmmmmmkay????
Bush won the election, every time the recounted, are you really going to blame him for say enough of this bullshit. IF someone didn't stop it, the democrats would still be in there trying t ofigure out a recount process that put the poodle on top or GoreMasques wrote:
Under Florida state law a recount must be made if an election is won by 0.5% or less:lowing wrote:
elections are disputed by democrats who loose. then the question each recount until they can come up with a recount in their favor. trouble is, they could never find a recount that favored them......SO this trick might work.Spark wrote:
You know, you guys (americans in general) could solve all these problems if you just standardised your voting system.
Here, it's just a piece of paper, a pencil and a few numbers. That's it, no hassles, and NOT ONCE has an election been disputed.And a manual recount must be made in a county if the margin of victory is 0.25% or less:Gore didn't have much choice in the matter, but it was Harris' conduct that led to lawsuits both by individual counties and the challengers themselves. Actually the Supreme court case was Bush v. Gore, it was Bush that initially appealed the Florida supreme court decision.It was the Bush camp that appealed to stop recounts (which included absentee and military ballots) at nearly every juncture and it was the Bush camp that fought to keep the amended county returns invalidated and only use the initial certified results.
If a recount of a small percentage of votes in one county yielded previously uncounted votes for Gore it makes sense (given the irregularities that the general election produced) to insist on a recount. Beyond that, Florida law MANDATES a total recount if the margin of victory is 0.5% or less and a county recount if the marigin of victory is 0.25% or less.lowing wrote:
Bush won the election, every time the recounted, are you really going to blame him for say enough of this bullshit. IF someone didn't stop it, the democrats would still be in there trying t ofigure out a recount process that put the poodle on top or Gore
The Bush camp sued to stop those recounts which were required by Florida law. How is that's Gore's fault? From court documents it appears that they simply wanted to stop the counting when the totals showed victory for them regardless of the fact that the process had not completed. Not exactly a free and fair election is it? Not to mention that it's a contravention of the whole "states' rights" mantra that American conservatives like to cling to when it suits their purposes.
Considering Harris' behaviour in the 2000 election, this would seem to indicate a clear pattern of behaviour, at least among some of those in power in the Republican party:
Now Reed believes the anger toward him is driven by a feeling he hasn't been Republican enough. For example, some think he should have backed the party's call for county auditors to reopen their tallies in hopes of getting more Rossi votes counted.
...
"There are people who think I should be using the position of secretary of state simply to weigh the scales on the side of my own party. I just don't accept that, and it would not be proper," he said.
"There are some people who have been dismayed that I wasn't a Katherine Harris who took the position, 'I'm a Republican, and by God that comes first.' "
I think "rotten" would be a better description.TeamZephyr wrote:
Your voting system in America is the most rooted voting system in the democratic world.
It's times like these when I wonder if voting even matters. As someone once said, it doesn't matter how many votes are counted, but who counts the votes.
Maybe democracy functions better as a facade to make the people think they have power, when in truth, it's just another version of the same plutocracy that runs every country.
Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-05 12:13:02)
http://www.indiana.edu/~jah/election2000/Masques wrote:
If a recount of a small percentage of votes in one county yielded previously uncounted votes for Gore it makes sense (given the irregularities that the general election produced) to insist on a recount. Beyond that, Florida law MANDATES a total recount if the margin of victory is 0.5% or less and a county recount if the marigin of victory is 0.25% or less.lowing wrote:
Bush won the election, every time the recounted, are you really going to blame him for say enough of this bullshit. IF someone didn't stop it, the democrats would still be in there trying t ofigure out a recount process that put the poodle on top or Gore
The Bush camp sued to stop those recounts which were required by Florida law. How is that's Gore's fault? From court documents it appears that they simply wanted to stop the counting when the totals showed victory for them regardless of the fact that the process had not completed. Not exactly a free and fair election is it? Not to mention that it's a contravention of the whole "states' rights" mantra that American conservatives like to cling to when it suits their purposes.
Considering Harris' behaviour in the 2000 election, this would seem to indicate a clear pattern of behaviour, at least among some of those in power in the Republican party:Now Reed believes the anger toward him is driven by a feeling he hasn't been Republican enough. For example, some think he should have backed the party's call for county auditors to reopen their tallies in hopes of getting more Rossi votes counted.
...
"There are people who think I should be using the position of secretary of state simply to weigh the scales on the side of my own party. I just don't accept that, and it would not be proper," he said.
"There are some people who have been dismayed that I wasn't a Katherine Harris who took the position, 'I'm a Republican, and by God that comes first.' "
well it was a cluster fuck regardless who you supported.
Perhaps, but the initial premise of many of those posting in the thread is that in 2000 the Dems initiated the lawsuits and tried to stifle the military vote. That is clearly not true. The first legal action listed on your link is the Nov. 11th case by the Bush campaign to stop Palm Beach County's (and presumably other counties') manual recount efforts.lowing wrote:
http://www.indiana.edu/~jah/election2000/
well it was a cluster fuck regardless who you supported.
The legal "clusterfuck" that ensued seems to spring from that event and Harris' behaviour.
actually the way I read it was the shit started on nov 9 with Jesse Jackso screaming racisim already, then on nov 10 when dems started demanding a recount in counties where n o recount was legally required.Masques wrote:
Perhaps, but the initial premise of many of those posting in the thread is that in 2000 the Dems initiated the lawsuits and tried to stifle the military vote. That is clearly not true. The first legal action listed on your link is the Nov. 11th case by the Bush campaign to stop Palm Beach County's (and presumably other counties') manual recount efforts.lowing wrote:
http://www.indiana.edu/~jah/election2000/
well it was a cluster fuck regardless who you supported.
The legal "clusterfuck" that ensued seems to spring from that event and Harris' behaviour.
The ballots inquestion were disputed in those counties (per your link) so it makes sense that they would request manual recounts (again allowed under Florida law).lowing wrote:
actually the way I read it was the shit started on nov 9 with Jesse Jackso screaming racisim already, then on nov 10 when dems started demanding a recount in counties where n o recount was legally required.Masques wrote:
Perhaps, but the initial premise of many of those posting in the thread is that in 2000 the Dems initiated the lawsuits and tried to stifle the military vote. That is clearly not true. The first legal action listed on your link is the Nov. 11th case by the Bush campaign to stop Palm Beach County's (and presumably other counties') manual recount efforts.lowing wrote:
http://www.indiana.edu/~jah/election2000/
well it was a cluster fuck regardless who you supported.
The legal "clusterfuck" that ensued seems to spring from that event and Harris' behaviour.
So what about Jesse Jackson demanding an investigation. He wasn't the head of any campaigns and didn't initiate legal action. Again, that distinction lies with Bush who tried to stop legal recounts.
You can try to argue around the point, but it's a matter of fact that the Bush campaign began the trend of legal action.
It looks like the automatic recount process was already established, so there would be no reason for the dems to demand a recount in those counties if it were already going to happen.Masques wrote:
The ballots inquestion were disputed in those counties (per your link) so it makes sense that they would request manual recounts (again allowed under Florida law).lowing wrote:
actually the way I read it was the shit started on nov 9 with Jesse Jackso screaming racisim already, then on nov 10 when dems started demanding a recount in counties where n o recount was legally required.Masques wrote:
Perhaps, but the initial premise of many of those posting in the thread is that in 2000 the Dems initiated the lawsuits and tried to stifle the military vote. That is clearly not true. The first legal action listed on your link is the Nov. 11th case by the Bush campaign to stop Palm Beach County's (and presumably other counties') manual recount efforts.
The legal "clusterfuck" that ensued seems to spring from that event and Harris' behaviour.
So what about Jesse Jackson demanding an investigation. He wasn't the head of any campaigns and didn't initiate legal action. Again, that distinction lies with Bush who tried to stop legal recounts.
You can try to argue around the point, but it's a matter of fact that the Bush campaign began the trend of legal action.
Jesse Jackson?? Please.........that SOB is a democrat and a half, don't even begin to think to act like he is bi-partisan and has no vested interest in the outcome of that election.
I read it that Bush tried to stop the ADDITIONAL recounting of ballots that were not legally covered in the re-count process that was already established.