posted on December 28, 2000 11:16:02 AM new
nearthesea,
You've got a basic misunderstanding. Courts, whether their justices are republicans or democrats are expected to hold a standard of objectivity removed from any party affiliation.
I believe that the Florida Supreme Court did just that in seeking a way for the votes to be counted. It was not their failing that the legislative enacted measures for counting votes was ambiguous. Counting votes is what elections are supposed to be about, not finding ways to keep votes from being counted which is exactly what the republican party and the U.S. supreme court did.
posted on December 28, 2000 11:20:28 AM newCounting votes is what elections are supposed to be about, not finding ways to keep votes from being counted...
krs...does this include Military votes and those whose applications had numbers hand printed on them?
posted on December 28, 2000 11:20:38 AM new
Hi KatyD, Thanks for reminding me that I left the "H" out of rhetoric in my post! Oh well, Never said I was a perfect speller![no, you didn't say it, you just spelled it correctly!]
Why Katy, I did not know that Rush had his own school! LOL!
posted on December 28, 2000 11:21:12 AM new
Nicely said, rawbunzel.
As someone who has been thru a coup before, and known and worked with refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, Argentina, and Haiti, I do not want to see this country go the same way.
A stolen election is the first step toward totalitarianism.
posted on December 28, 2000 11:25:33 AM newdoes this include Military votes and those whose applications had numbers hand printed on them? You don't EVEN want to go there..
Robin, I only knew there was an "h" in "rhetoric" because it seems to be one of the most used words on these boards lately.
posted on December 28, 2000 11:29:21 AM new
nearthesea,
No, that is not correct. See the link (sacramento bee, California) above about Sandra O'conner. Is that an objective judge?
Run and find previous links which I've posted (from Rueters, Washington Post, AP) which describe Scalia's son's employment. Particularly the one about son John, who accepted a position on Nov. ( in the very same firm which represented GW in all court endeavors and employed the silver haired lawyer as a partner.
I don't think I did post links to descriptions of William Renquist's politickin' before he became a judge. That's a republican who used to give law and reading tests to indians in Arizona at polling places and beat them up if they persisted in voting. Very nasty guy.
The fix was in for Bush. It's probably why he jumped up and surprised everyone by immediately running to the supreme court when it all started.
posted on December 28, 2000 11:33:05 AM new
Katy, I have wondered about that particular catch phrase since the first time I heard it used. Can't wait to see what it really means.
posted on December 28, 2000 11:34:25 AM new
I don't think anyone had a problem with counting the VOTES. The argument came down to the way they were being counted and the "Divining Intent" issue.
You don't EVEN want to go there..
KatyD...of course. That would be foolish to point out the inconsistencies.
posted on December 28, 2000 11:39:33 AM new
That "divining intent" requirement that the intent of a voter be determined as best as possible was placed into Florida law by a republican legislature, yet it's our republicans who have a problem with it?
Makes a person think that it may have been put there as a mechanism to use if the election had gone the other way.
posted on December 28, 2000 11:43:57 AM newThe argument came down to the way they were being counted and the "Divining Intent" issue.
No, njrzad, that was the Republican's "argument". Gore just wanted the votes counted period, which they were not. The term "divining intent" was certainly a clever little "catch phrase" coined by Mr. HeWhoIsReallyGoingToBePresident Cheney, but it means nothing. It's not too awfully hard to "divine intent" when a ballot is marked for Al Gore, and then the NAME Al Gore is written in the "write-in" section. But it is all coming out with the media's scrutiny of the cast ballots. No doubt you will come up with yet ANOTHER explanation for why Al Gore actually did receive the majority of votes in Florida. If not, you can always fall back on the mantra, because the Supreme Court SAID so! Heh, whatever works for you.
posted on December 28, 2000 11:52:11 AM newWhat does the procedure in law require? A postmark, and that THE VOTER provide all relevant information on an application for a ballot.
Actually, Federal Law does not stipulate a postmark provision for Military mail.
Could you provide your voter number if asked for it? I'm assuming mine is my SS#, but I've never even looked for one on my absentee ballot. The application should not have anything to do with a ballot. As long as the Ballot itself is legal (as the judges decided), then there is no bearing.
And divining intent would have been fine if set standards were used state-wide to begin with (as determined by the US SC) and not determined after the fact.
posted on December 28, 2000 11:59:34 AM new
KatyD...since some of the "divining intent" reasons for the Gore votes included (but were not limited to)...Well, all their other votes were for Democrats, so they must have wanted Gore...There is a tiny scratch on the Gore chad and even though all their other choices punched through just fine, they must have wanted Gore...
The company that makes the Vote-a-matic machines is local to here and they have run several articles in our paper regarding the machine itself and it's popularity across the country. The machine makers have said they have tried to make dimpled chads themselves and have not been able to do that. The fact that they can't make one on purpose makes it very difficult to believe that so many others were able to do so accidentally.
A double punched ballot is an overvote and is thrown out. It is the voter's responsibility to make sure their ballot is correctly cast. What would be the purpose of writing in a Candidate that is already on the slate? So they could have 2 votes?
posted on December 28, 2000 12:08:23 PM new
Florida voters are given a card with their number on it and Florida law requires a potmark. The election process in Florida is conducted (or is supposed to be) in accordance with Florida law.
Federal Law???? And you call yourself a republican? You ought to be ashamed of yorself to try to rely on a federal law in a state's rights situation.
Oh, I forgot, Your boy does that when he gets a booboo, so why shouldn't you?
posted on December 28, 2000 12:13:50 PM new
njrazd,
Your votomatic locals are a little partial to their machine...you think?
Have you ever used a three hole punch? Works great for as long as the little chad catching try is emptied regularly, but even republican poll workers have admitted that they didn't do that. One election supervisor, also a republican, told poll workers not to worry about the tray. Bet that person knew exactly what would happen if they weren't cleaned out now and then.
posted on December 28, 2000 12:27:12 PM new
krs...we use the vote-a-matics here and I would imagine if they were really, really full, not only would none of the chads ever push through, but that they would weigh a ton! They are about 10" x 12" x 3" approximate and it would be almost impossible for those seniors to even lift them. It is one big storage space at the bottom, not individual chambers for each hole.
The other thing to think about is the presidential voting lines are always near the top. Let's say a vote-a-matic hasn't been emptied out it about 5 years and is almost full to capacity with chads. If anything, the top chads would go through rather than those on the bottom, and you would not be able to put your stylus through all the way. I think that would be pretty obvious there was a problem from the voters' point of view if the stylus wouldn't go down to the hilt. A problem incurred with a vote-a-matic so full that you couldn't fit another chad in there would cause ALL of the chads to be dimpled, not just some of them.
posted on December 28, 2000 12:48:10 PM new
"Divining Intent"
There is no language in the Florida law that talks about "Divining Intent." "Divining Intent" was made up by the Republicans, a nifty little phrase fraught with meaning, short enough to be easily remembered, trotted out, and parrotted.
Just because Bush is president, it's not "over." It's far from being over, Bush's term hasn't even begun yet. You can badger the Congressmen, get your friends and family to do it too. Tell them to block whichever of Bush's proposals you disagree with. Do it for 4 years. Badger the media. During elections isn't the only time that the populace can make itself heard, you think the Freepers stop because an election's over? Not at all, that's only the beginning.
posted on December 28, 2000 12:48:24 PM new
Rawbunzel,
I am a democrat but I am like you on this one. I see this problem as much larger than a Democrat vs Republican issue. I see it as a wake up call to the people of the United States Of America making sure that these problems never happen again.
The same voting machines being used from the 60's, people tampering with the absentee ballots. I thought they were kept under lock and key until they were ready to be counted?
Why would those ballots be allowed to be corrected by a group of republicans but it was not possible on a recount with both sides there to see that a person had indeed voted for Gore?
I also don't understand how a state can set up a procedure to contest and then decide there is not enough time especially if the clock is run out so we get a president by default again?
katyD,
Thank you for the definition. Ashcroft = Comassionate Conservative = oxymoron.
posted on December 28, 2000 01:21:48 PM new
It always gets me when people go on and on about absentee ballots not being counted. Check out this thread...
Geez, absentee ballots that weren't signed, dated or postmarked were accepted, as were *faxed* ballots. All sorts of illegal absentee ballots were accepted *and counted*.
posted on December 28, 2000 01:25:29 PM newWhy would those ballots be allowed to be corrected by a group of republicans but it was not possible on a recount with both sides there to see that a person had indeed voted for Gore?
Shar9...the BALLOTS were never corrected, only the the ballot applications. They are two different things. Both parties send out absentee ballot applications to their constiuents, who sign them and send them back so an absentee ballot can be mailed to them. The adding of the voter numbers did not have any affect on the actual ballot.
posted on December 28, 2000 01:39:14 PM new...the BALLOTS were never corrected, only the the ballot applications.
Oh so those Seminole County absentee ballot applications were only "corrected". Excuse me while I LMAO at your definition of "corrected". FYI, the Republican Party activity vis a vis those "corrected" ballot applications were fraudulent and illegal. But that doesn't seem to bother you. Can't have it both ways, Njrzad. Rules are rules ya know. ROTFLMAO!
posted on December 28, 2000 02:06:51 PM newDivining Intent.....
I think the reason they said this is because they almost said "Divine Intent" where Republican Bush(The only holy and righteous party) is to be President because God wants it that way and from now on. You know, like the French Kings, before they all lost their heads.
posted on December 28, 2000 02:47:05 PM new
barbarake,
"All kinds of illegal absentee ballots were excepted., unsigned, undated, unpostmarked."
And that makes it right but to contest legally is not?
I will go back to my basic concern. Every American needs to know that their vote does count. I believe we have that right and I don't think we should accept any less standard and we should start getting ready and correcting our problems before next election otherwise, what is the use of voting.
I want to work toward the next election. I want to know that now that we see what has happened and what can happen is corrected. I was always of the opinion that in America we may not get it right but we would keep working until we did get it right.
I want to know that when we vote it counts. I want the American people to be able to elect a president.
This could just as easily have happened to GW or any other person running for the President of The United States of America.
njrazd,
Ballot applications. It makes no difference. They were taken in a room under no supervision by one party. I don't care what party it is that should have been overseeing these ballot applications and I don't care which party it was that took them into a room to affix a # a signature a date or anything else. This should not happen.
That is just it. It was not just one thing that stunk regarding procedures, rules and laws. It is the whole of what has happened.
I would be willing to bet that if this had happened to GW the same procedures would have been used in fact they were using their own procedures to counteract and act but put the shoes on the other foot and he would have done exactly the same thing and it isn't right no matter which party it is.
This election can be dressed to the nines. We can swear an oath, take a pledge, promise bring out the flags and GW can try to look as presidential as he wants but he could also very well be an imposter or the real thing. There will always be a cloud over this election and I think it an embarrassment to the United States of America and I don't think we should settle for anything less than getting it right.
The ending of this election has been like trying to turn a sow into a silk purse no matter how hard you try it is not going to work.
I should use a better example because I am not calling GW a sow but for the moment this will have to do.
