Could E2K have been this bad?
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
Xen
Banned
No I doubt it, worse come to worse they could do another vote in Florida sometime in December.
The thing that gets me though is they had said Gore won the state in the early part of that election night, then they came on the news saying there was a mistake and that Bush won the state. Very intresting this happened in the state where Dubyas brother was governor dont you think?
The thing that gets me though is they had said Gore won the state in the early part of that election night, then they came on the news saying there was a mistake and that Bush won the state. Very intresting this happened in the state where Dubyas brother was governor dont you think?
What bilge...
The SCOUS simply stated that the criteria used by the Florida Supreme Court (which voted 4-3 to adopt a highly selective vote recount) was not sufficient (note that they - the SCOUS - had previously ruled on this very issue, and the Florida SC simply ignored the ruling...), and that the recount could not proceed in its existing form. Given the very short period of time left before the constitutionally-mandated deadline for submitting a vote count would expire, this effectively ended the process. Note that the Florida SC did have several proposed recount strategies in front of it that would have permitted a recount to proceed, but they rejected them in favor of a heavily biased strategy that would have recounted ONLY overwhelmingly Democratic districts, while ignoring all GOP-dominated districts. The Florida SC that did this was highly partisan (in fairness, state SCs typically are), certainly no less (likely much greater) than the SCOUS. The point is that the SOCUS didn't appoint or select anyone, and in fact they had given the Florida SC two separate opportunities to conduct a recount before they obvious bias of that court forced their intervention.
As to what would have happened if the courts hadn't intervened? A second vote was NOT going to happen (this would be unconstitutional on several different grounds), but a disputed ballot might have been challenged in the House of Representatives (the folks who actually vote to certify an election) the week before the inauguration. Given the balance of votes there, it is likely that there would have been any chance in the results, but one never knows...
The partisan nature of the election was (and remains) a point of contention, but might I ask what other outcome would have been possible? Election officials are indeed political (and thus partisan) appointees, a principle enshrined in Florida's constitution. Had Katherine Harris stepped down, who would have replaced her? To listen to some (SOME, not all) of Gore's partisans, only appointing Larry Tribe would have been a satisfactory result, which suggests that the debate wasn't about the process, but more about the outcome. The Florida SC was packed with partisans, and the SCOUS, while somewhat less partisan clearly was split along political lines. Hence this is more a question about which biased court ruling do you want to embrace, not which ruling was unbiased.
A final point, had Bush's brother wished to intervene (and it is important to note that Jeb Bush deliberately and quite publicly recused himself from any intervention in the election mess specifically because of his obvious conflict of interest), it would have been simple enough to have ignore Democratic protests at the beginning, and certified the vote count before the Florida courts could get their hands on the case. Neither Jeb Bush nor Katherine Harris did anything like this, though it would have been simple enough to do.
The SCOUS simply stated that the criteria used by the Florida Supreme Court (which voted 4-3 to adopt a highly selective vote recount) was not sufficient (note that they - the SCOUS - had previously ruled on this very issue, and the Florida SC simply ignored the ruling...), and that the recount could not proceed in its existing form. Given the very short period of time left before the constitutionally-mandated deadline for submitting a vote count would expire, this effectively ended the process. Note that the Florida SC did have several proposed recount strategies in front of it that would have permitted a recount to proceed, but they rejected them in favor of a heavily biased strategy that would have recounted ONLY overwhelmingly Democratic districts, while ignoring all GOP-dominated districts. The Florida SC that did this was highly partisan (in fairness, state SCs typically are), certainly no less (likely much greater) than the SCOUS. The point is that the SOCUS didn't appoint or select anyone, and in fact they had given the Florida SC two separate opportunities to conduct a recount before they obvious bias of that court forced their intervention.
As to what would have happened if the courts hadn't intervened? A second vote was NOT going to happen (this would be unconstitutional on several different grounds), but a disputed ballot might have been challenged in the House of Representatives (the folks who actually vote to certify an election) the week before the inauguration. Given the balance of votes there, it is likely that there would have been any chance in the results, but one never knows...
The partisan nature of the election was (and remains) a point of contention, but might I ask what other outcome would have been possible? Election officials are indeed political (and thus partisan) appointees, a principle enshrined in Florida's constitution. Had Katherine Harris stepped down, who would have replaced her? To listen to some (SOME, not all) of Gore's partisans, only appointing Larry Tribe would have been a satisfactory result, which suggests that the debate wasn't about the process, but more about the outcome. The Florida SC was packed with partisans, and the SCOUS, while somewhat less partisan clearly was split along political lines. Hence this is more a question about which biased court ruling do you want to embrace, not which ruling was unbiased.
A final point, had Bush's brother wished to intervene (and it is important to note that Jeb Bush deliberately and quite publicly recused himself from any intervention in the election mess specifically because of his obvious conflict of interest), it would have been simple enough to have ignore Democratic protests at the beginning, and certified the vote count before the Florida courts could get their hands on the case. Neither Jeb Bush nor Katherine Harris did anything like this, though it would have been simple enough to do.
Scott Rosenthal said:
What he says is all well, but I think we can all agree that what politicians say and what they do are two completely different things. I seem to recall that W. said to Jeb that 'if he doesn't give me Florida then it's going to be a cold Thanjsgiving;' that right before the election, several Bush I and Reagan Administration officials flew down to Florida; and that on the dayof the election itself, several hundred Democrats, mostly black, weren't allowed to vote.
And if the SC had been evenly split, the abstainer(s) would be forced to vote.
For Bush to have had proxies in Florida before the election to 'ensure' the result would have required an almost supernatural prescience, since the state wasn't supposed to be in play. Florida was ONLY important because of several other (unlikely) events that came to pass, notably Gore defeats in TN and several other southern states where he was supposed to win. One might also point to razor thing Gore victories in MO and WI (not to mention NM and several other states such as PA, which was considered a lock for Bush), none of which could have been adequately predicted ahead of time. The point is that whatever Bush said to his brother (and since his brother had energetically campaigned for him BEFORE the election, comments like that were both expected and entirely reasonable), there is no evidence whatsoever that Jeb Bush interfered with the progress of the election itself.
On the subject of black voters not getting a chance to vote, 4 separate Justice Department investigations afterwards showed not a single case where a black individual was prevented from voting when they attempted to do so. Sharpton, Jackson, and the usual suspects made many accusations, but they came up rather short on the evidence side of things. A substantial number of former felons tried to vote (this was in direct violation of Florida law), but this group was disproportionately white, hence the suggestion that blacks were turned away from the polls as part of some racist conspiracy remains both unproven and unlikely...
On the subject of black voters not getting a chance to vote, 4 separate Justice Department investigations afterwards showed not a single case where a black individual was prevented from voting when they attempted to do so. Sharpton, Jackson, and the usual suspects made many accusations, but they came up rather short on the evidence side of things. A substantial number of former felons tried to vote (this was in direct violation of Florida law), but this group was disproportionately white, hence the suggestion that blacks were turned away from the polls as part of some racist conspiracy remains both unproven and unlikely...
I heard that if the imbroglio continued, the election for Pres. might have gone to the House and VP to the Senate. Supposedly the most-predicted outcome would have been a President Bush and a Vice President Lieberman.
Hmm...I wonder how that would work? Would Lieberman run against Bush in 2004? That might be fun...VP versus the President.
Hmm...I wonder how that would work? Would Lieberman run against Bush in 2004? That might be fun...VP versus the President.
Elections go to the HOUSE, not the Senate, VP included. Even if they had gone to the Senate, the GOP had a majority at that time (remember, this was BEFORE Jeffords switched sides...), so you still don't get Lieberman...
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Scott Rosenthal said:
Scott, that is the biggest load of bunk I have ever heard. Jeb recused himself, but he didn't go off and play golf, he was still controlling things from behind the scenes. And Harris' actions were so slanted and partisan I don't even have time to start listing them.
That being said, if Gore had been a good citizen and demanded a recount of ALL votes instead of just in heavily Democratic candidates, making his team just as grossly partisan as Bush's, he would be President today.
The Supreme Court was disappointing because they overturned the decision of a lower court for no apparent reason, and the basis for their ruling would invalidate all elections everywhere, ever, and they knew it, because they specified that their decision applied ONLY to the current Florida vote, and no others, past, present, and future.
While I'm no fan of Bush and I voted for Gore, I've never believed any of the conspiracy theories about FL. Scott gave the overwhelming reason why: no one could have predicted that it would all come down to who won there. By the time anyone realized how close it would be, it was too late to do any influencing, no matter who's brother was governor there.....
Scott Rosenthal said:
The newly elected Senate would have chosen the vice-president, and presuming a 50-50 tie (the senate was 50-50 at the time), Gore would have cast the tiebraeking vote for Lieberman.
So I'd assume Lieberman would be running against Bush right now.
Abdul: Short of suicide, what could Jeb Bush have done to convince you that he wasn't 'pulling the strings' behind the scenes? He made no public statements, and none of the players involved (including the courts, and the lawyers on BOTH sides, many of whom wrote extensively about the experience later) ever suggested that his behavior had been anything less than proper. You want a villian here to validate your paranoia, you will have to find a better one.
Gore indeed created his own problems by trying to game the system with a skewed vote count, but there is very little evidence to suggest that he would have benefitted from doing otherwise. Now one of the recounts (using all ballots EXCEPT for the heavily GOP-slanting absentee ballots) did give Gore a victory (thinner than Bush's, by the way), but all of the other ones (and note that these were administered by a media consortium not known before or since for its friendliness to Bush) gave Bush bigger wins than in OTL.
You might be right about a recount giving different results (with the votes that close, it is simply impossible to ever know for sure), but making the comment that a recount would have certainly given the victory to either side is simply nonsense. Provide some evidence, not simply hyperbolic ventings from partisans of EITHER candidate.
Regarding the SCOUS decision, the court had every right to rule on a federal election, and their choice was to throw out a decision that flew in the face of their earlier ruling directed specifically at the court. Now both sides were clearly partisan in this ruling (how could it be otherwise?...this should be a good warning to those who wish to turn all difficult decisions over to the courts, and ignore the workings of democracy), but the court showed great wisdom in limiting the scope of their ruling to this election only. As you said, it would tend to undermine all elections over time. After all, do you really want to have every close election (and 2000 had numerous close states) dragged through the courts by aggrieved partisans every year?
On the subject of faithless electors, one might argue that they would have been most useful in this election, had their been overwhelming evidence of fraud, and the courts had refused to do anything about it. I suspect that the founders left them in the system to provide for that kind of 'fail-safe', but to be honest, I don't have any more than intuition to back it up...
Gore indeed created his own problems by trying to game the system with a skewed vote count, but there is very little evidence to suggest that he would have benefitted from doing otherwise. Now one of the recounts (using all ballots EXCEPT for the heavily GOP-slanting absentee ballots) did give Gore a victory (thinner than Bush's, by the way), but all of the other ones (and note that these were administered by a media consortium not known before or since for its friendliness to Bush) gave Bush bigger wins than in OTL.
You might be right about a recount giving different results (with the votes that close, it is simply impossible to ever know for sure), but making the comment that a recount would have certainly given the victory to either side is simply nonsense. Provide some evidence, not simply hyperbolic ventings from partisans of EITHER candidate.
Regarding the SCOUS decision, the court had every right to rule on a federal election, and their choice was to throw out a decision that flew in the face of their earlier ruling directed specifically at the court. Now both sides were clearly partisan in this ruling (how could it be otherwise?...this should be a good warning to those who wish to turn all difficult decisions over to the courts, and ignore the workings of democracy), but the court showed great wisdom in limiting the scope of their ruling to this election only. As you said, it would tend to undermine all elections over time. After all, do you really want to have every close election (and 2000 had numerous close states) dragged through the courts by aggrieved partisans every year?
On the subject of faithless electors, one might argue that they would have been most useful in this election, had their been overwhelming evidence of fraud, and the courts had refused to do anything about it. I suspect that the founders left them in the system to provide for that kind of 'fail-safe', but to be honest, I don't have any more than intuition to back it up...
Recount
Remember that the TV networks started calling the election before the polls closed in west Florida, Supposily stopping last minute Voters from brothering {assumtion that rural west Florida whould vote Republican} Thru I have allway wondered how many would be voters are affecfted by this.
Also Remember that the [??Impartial???] - NY Times & Media- Recount of All the Ballots Statewide, showed that Bush did get a Slim Majority of the Popular vote in Florida. Bush should have gone for the statewide option.
The Bigger Problem IMVHO is the winner take all Elector system, If The Us had a system where the electors are picked by electoral District, [Several States do this,] There would never have been a Question who won the most electors.
Remember that the TV networks started calling the election before the polls closed in west Florida, Supposily stopping last minute Voters from brothering {assumtion that rural west Florida whould vote Republican} Thru I have allway wondered how many would be voters are affecfted by this.
Also Remember that the [??Impartial???] - NY Times & Media- Recount of All the Ballots Statewide, showed that Bush did get a Slim Majority of the Popular vote in Florida. Bush should have gone for the statewide option.
The Bigger Problem IMVHO is the winner take all Elector system, If The Us had a system where the electors are picked by electoral District, [Several States do this,] There would never have been a Question who won the most electors.
The whole point of the Electoral College was to dilute the impact of large states, something that would be lost with a district-based electoral system. A fairly effective electoral strategy (with a district-based system) would require only about 14-17 states, effectively disenfranchising the others. By using a winner-take-all system, it becomes extremely difficult to simply 'ignore' whole regions, thus ensuring (at least in principle) fairly 'national' candidates...
Check out the Federalist Papers for a far better description of the reasoning here than I have been able to present. I believe that Federalist 17 (I could be wrong about the number) has the best description...
Check out the Federalist Papers for a far better description of the reasoning here than I have been able to present. I believe that Federalist 17 (I could be wrong about the number) has the best description...
Scott R. - Thank you for setting the record straight. I'm sick and tired of listening to all the BS about the "partisan Supreme Court appointing the President." As you quite correctly pointed out, all that they did was overrule the highly partisan (Democratic) ruling of the Florida State Supreme Court.
The main bias in Florida was the premature declaration of a Gore victory by the national media, which almost certainly kept thousands of pro-Bush voters at home. If that hadn't happened, Bush would have won the state by a fairly small but incontestable margin, and the country would have been spared this whole load of silliness.
The main bias in Florida was the premature declaration of a Gore victory by the national media, which almost certainly kept thousands of pro-Bush voters at home. If that hadn't happened, Bush would have won the state by a fairly small but incontestable margin, and the country would have been spared this whole load of silliness.
Tom: Your point is well taken, and I cannot say that I don't see the value of it. The point that the founders made (and yes, these were men, not demi-gods, but their creation has lasted quite nicely over a very long time, so I tend to respect their wisdom, or at least give it the benefit of the doubt) was that there would be times (rarely) when 'studied disobedience' might be necessary, even desirable. The founders were big on including the human factor as a check against a system run riot...a most amazing bit of insight, given that they lived long before large complex systems such as our own...
Paul: Thanks for the kind words, but lets not fall into the trap that some of our Democratic friends have. We will never know the results of the media's early call (or for that matter any of half-a-dozen other odd events of that night in numerous states), and perhaps we have to live with that. Elections, particularly ones this size, are not simply exact affairs, but 'fuzzy' events where many variables enter into things. We simply have to learn to live with some level of uncertainty, as uncomfortable as that might be at times...
Paul: Thanks for the kind words, but lets not fall into the trap that some of our Democratic friends have. We will never know the results of the media's early call (or for that matter any of half-a-dozen other odd events of that night in numerous states), and perhaps we have to live with that. Elections, particularly ones this size, are not simply exact affairs, but 'fuzzy' events where many variables enter into things. We simply have to learn to live with some level of uncertainty, as uncomfortable as that might be at times...
IMHO, the biggest lesson of the 2000 election should have been, "VOTE!!". If the turnout in FL had been higher, it's likely one candidate would have won unequivocally. As it was, I pictured thousands of Democrats in FL who didn't bother to vote kicking themselves the next day....