They just opened a huge can of worms..

[KvHagedorn]

Well the little 3 person commission in Palm Beach county, egged on by an extremely annoying old woman, has decided to recount by hand all votes in this Florida county. If they insist on recounting all votes in only this extremely liberal Democratic county, the Bush people will surely insist upon manual recounts in counties which are predominantly Republican. None of this is fair, nor will it be fair unless every single vote in the whole country is recounted by hand. The votes must at least all be recounted in the close states: New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa, and Wisconsin. They should really be recounted in Michigan and Illinois as well, since the potential for voter fraud is so great in those states. If we make an exception and count only one county or one state where a bunch of angry liberals demanded a recount, and then give them the result they were looking for because they counted only areas in which the Democrats were likely to gain votes, the election becomes completely biased and contaminated.

Twice within the last 40 years, a Republican candidate was gracious enough to concede a close election, even when it was likely that voter fraud (read Cook County, Illinois) played a part. This time the Democrats were given the chance to be gracious. Instead, we see them in the full glory of what they really are.. a bunch of whining crybabies who will do anything to tilt the election in their favor. They are making this country less free by their actions.

[Joel]

I pretty much am willing to bet my next paycheck that if this stituation had been reversed we would still be seeing what we are seeing. And IMO Gore, at this point, will do himself more good by concedeing this election and then try again in 4 years. Because if Gore does get in there then he will have to contend with this for the next four years. Which means basically that nothing will get done for the next four years. And if Bush takes this then he will have to contend with the fact that even though he won the election by electoral votes he was still not what the people wanted. Which still equates to basically nothing getting done for the next four years.

Joel

Who can proudly proclaim 'Don't blame me I didn't Vote for either one of the Idiots.'.

[Bixler]

Joel: Here's a thought for you on the argument that Gore won the popular vote, hence Bush's legitimacy would be in question.

By 7:00 p.m. Eastern time Florida had been called for Gore, and this was broadcast while polls were still open (even in Florida!) in the western states, most notably California.

Place yourself in the position of a Bush Supporter in California for a moment. He's driving home from work at 5:00 p.m. and hears on the radio that Gore has won Florida, and is ahead in electoral votes...that trends are in his favor...blah blah blah. This same supporter also "knows" because of the infernal news media's incessant polling that California is a state that will go for Gore.

I'm speculating that many, many of those potential voters simply drive on home instead of going to the polls, out of a sense that their vote won't matter in the electoral college system, since their state is heavily leaning to Gore They've been effectively told by the news media that their vote won't count for anything real. So why vote? Personally, I would anyway, but I think you get my drift about attitudes.

My point is, I guess, that if we are going to scrap the electoral college, we should certainly enter into a national dialogue on the subject and do so "if it is the will of the people." But you CANNOT assign legitimacy or illegitimacy to a candidate who conducted his campaign under one set of rules (the electoral college,) and then will be assigned legitimacy under another set of rules (Pure popular vote.)

As long as the Electoral College is the set of rules that we operate under, "popular vote" arguments for another candidate shouldn't be used, since a popular vote campaign would be conducted in an entirely different manner, and with a completely different strategy.

Personally, I have no problem with scrapping the Electoral College if most Americans want to get rid of it. But not during this election cycle when the rules were different.

[Pneumatic]

The difference in the popular vote nation wide is 200 thousand votes. That sounds like a lot but when you consider that there were 100 MILLION votes cast, that 200 thousand only represents .2% of the vote. That's not two percent that is two tenths of one percent. The Dems are trying to make it sound like they walked all over Bush, when in fact it was basically a tie.

[paulcs]

One man, one vote! I say ditch the Electoral College.

I don't have a problem with the recounts. In an election this close, they couldn't report their results until the "Floridians' Abroad" votes are counted.

I don't know about the intervention of the courts, however. I find arguments on both sides compelling.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Joel]

Bixler, you bring up a good point. I think the news media should be barred from airing any results until all election polls are closed. And I don't mean change the rules now in mid stream but look at it for the next time around. I think that by going to a popular vote system that more voters would feel that their vote can matter. Right now that is a big problem. People feeling that their vote doesn't matter.

I think Al Gore should concede this race lick his wounds and try again in 2004. Bush should go ahead and try to show the people that he can and will do what he has promised. If not we do vote again in 4 years. And with the House and Senate being so closely evenly divided plus the Independents I don't see that he can mess things up too much.

Joel

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 12 November 2000).]

[paulcs]

I've never heard of Palm Beach County being described as "extremely liberal" before. I think this characterization belies the ideological makeup of the county. Clearly, the vote there was very close.

There has been a tendency in the Soap Box lately to characterize people in the center or just left of center as "liberal," and "extremely liberal," and even "Socialist." This is demagoguery. It was also a common tactic of *Europe's* extreme right and left during the first half of this century. At best, it is inflamatory hyperbole. At worst, it is the proverbial road to ruin.

It is first and foremost a tactic with dual purposes: it is designed to mainstream extremist views while characterizing mainstream views as the extreme. (And when it succeeds, terrible events tend to follow.) It is also an insult to Democrats who are left of center and Republicans who are right of center, as they are inevitably painted as Bolsheviks and fascists.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 12 November 2000).]

[KvHagedorn]

Tim Bixler made an excellent point up there. This election was run by one set of rules which very much affected everyone's decision to vote. I live in Texas and know a couple of people who would have voted for Bush, but they knew he would take Texas easily so rather than go to the hassle of trying to get in and vote after work, they went home. I even considered this, but went anyway. Who knows what the outcome would have been in popular vote if that's the way we had been playing the game and we all knew it.

My assertion that Palm Beach County is "extremely liberal" is based on the vote totals there. I pulled them up for you, Paul: 269,732 for Gore, and 152,951 for Bush. This seems preponderant to me. I didn't suggest (and didnt mean to suggest) that they were all carrying little red books or anything. There was also one of the angry loud women who was protesting outside as soon as the media started harping on that particular ballot used in Palm Beach County. She was screaming that she "knows" the people in this county (all 1 million plus of them?) and there's no WAY Buchannan could have gotten 3000 votes. Her feeling was that she lived in a very liberal county.

This brings up another point. When you count ballots by hand, it is an extremely subjective process. THREE people got to decide the "intent" of the voters in the sample precincts counted. The extremely loud and pushy woman I mentioned in my first post was one of them. The other two people were relatively passive. Whose opinion do YOU think prevailed in the counting? Trust me, this woman was so extremely annoying you would do almost anything to shut her up, including giving her her way in an argument. And yes, she DID seem "extremely liberal" to me. At least her eagerness to proceed with a full hand count of all votes in the county was so extreme that she showed herself to be eager to find more Gore votes to count.

What this brings up was my original point. If this loud and pushy woman's subjective judgement in one county is to push the balance Gore's way, then this election has been completely contaminated. The only way to make it reasonably fair once this hand count in Palm Beach county has been done, is to do a hand count for every vote cast in the state. And further, since Florida was settled by a subjective hand count, every close state must also be recounted by hand. This calls into play the biased subjective judgement of every human invloved in the hand count, and truly.. in decisions done by commitee, the loudest and pushiest person on the commitee usually gets his/her way. That's the mess we find ourselves in now.

------------------
Kind Regards,

KvH

[KvHagedorn]

Here's a pic of the pushy annoying woman in question. I believe her name is Carol Roberts. She is seen here berating the commitee chairman, Charles Burton. The other person on the commitee was Theresa LePore, the Democrat who came up with the butterfly ballot in the first place.

[paulcs]

I don't think Palm Beach County is extremely liberal and I don't think Gore is extremely liberal or even a liberal. I live in an extremely liberal city now and lived in an extremely liberal part of New York City before. To characterize the people of San Francisco or Manhattan's Upper West Side as Marxist or Communist is a complete distortion, yet that's where they end up when Gore and Palm Beach County are moved so much further to the left than they are.

Never has anyone in either of these places legislated special ID's for domestics from a poorer part of the county who work in the richer part (West Palm Beach vs. Palm Beach).

I don't think anyone has moved outside the rules yet, and ultimately, Congress has the final say in this matter. They can (and have) reject Electors if they feel their votes are somehow tainted. The Electors themselves are not obligated to cast their votes until December 18th. Then it's Congress's turn to accept or reject votes and finalize the results. There are plenty of checks in this process, both legal and legislative. I have to assume that people of good will will prevail, and this will all be resolved.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 12 November 2000).]

[Rags]

Paul,

You are missing his point altogether. He is saying that the majority of the county by a LARGE MARGIN is liberal, not that they are extremists. Basically, the county is heavily populated by democrat voters. Get it?

Rags

[KvHagedorn]

Thanks, Matt.. couldn't have said it better myself. Look at the vote totals I posted above for Gore and Bush in Palm Beach County. What I am saying is that this county voted predominantly for Gore, and that there are more Gore supporters here than Bush supporters, therefore any questionable ballots found there are more likely to go Gore's way. Sorry if I was unclear there.

------------------
Kind Regards,

KvH

[paulcs]

But being a liberal and being a Democrat are two different things. I was reacting to the "extremely liberal" Palm Beach County line. Democrat and liberal are not synonyms, and there is nothing particularly extreme about the County that I'm aware of.

I think I got it.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[paulcs]

KV, I was responding to Matt. I understand what you meant now. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 12 November 2000).]

[Rags]

Paul,

I wasn't trying to be mean, I was just pointing out what I thought he meant, and it appears that I was correct.

What the democrats (and they are liberal for the most part, too ) are now doing is looking in counties where the ratio of democrat voters is unusually high, and doing a manual recount with them. They know with the lead as small as it is, all that needs to be done now is find a few thousand ballots between these counties that didn't get processed for one reason or another (this happens in almost every precinct across the nation, some ballots just don't register), and with the ratio of democrat voters being so disproportianate, then the lead could be overcome. If they were really sincere about their intentions, then they would insist on each and every precinct in florida do a manual recount, but they don't want that. Just do the ones that favor them, then say it was the will of the people. Pretty slick, eh?

And I am in no way a right-wing guy either. I voted in this election for more than 2/3rds democrats, but the president was not one of them.

Rags