Internal dissension is starting to grow...

Democrats Split Over Possibility of Court Battle

By RICHARD L. BERKE and ALISON MITCHELL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 B The Gore campaign's threat of a court fight over the presidential balloting in Florida set off a backstage debate in the Democratic Party today between party leaders who are rallying behind the vice president and others, including longtime Gore loyalists, who warn that such a fight could damage the party and the democratic process.

In a range of interviews, most Democrats said that, at least for now, they were fully supportive of Vice President Al Gore's decision to follow through with the recount of the vote in Florida, and some were passionately behind Mr. Gore.

Yet a smaller number contended that if Gov. George W. Bush was still ahead after the final count of absentee ballots late next week, Mr. Gore should back down and not prolong the battle. These Democrats said they feared that Mr. Gore's aggressive strategy could make them look like sore losers and hinder the party's drive to capture control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections.

Gore campaign officials, nervous that the misgivings of some Democrats could undermine their effort, urged Democrats to unite behind the vice president B and prevent open defections. They delivered talking points to Democratic state chairmen and to members of Congress. And they planned to dispatch party leaders B and probably Mr. Gore himself B to meet with Congressional Democrats, possibly as early as this weekend.

Mr. Gore; his running mate, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman; and his campaign chairman, William M. Daley, have already begun calling potentially wayward Democrats in Congress, seeking their support and counsel.

"Obviously," said Mark Fabiani, Mr. Gore's deputy campaign manager, "this is a situation where consensus is very important, and everyone needs to understand what's at stake here and what we're fighting for and how we're fighting for it."

The Congressional Democrat who has been most vociferous in raising questions about the Gore strategy is Senator Robert G. Torricelli of New Jersey, who heads the party's drive to help Democratic Senate contenders.

Far beyond Washington, other Democrats have raised questions as well.

"I think you have to worry about destroying our citizens' confidence in our system," said Casper R. Taylor, the Democratic House speaker in Maryland, who has been in public office for 25 years. "One of the things we've had going for us throughout our history is a fundamental belief in and respect for the American system. We damn near lost it in the Civil War, and we spilled one hell of a lot of blood to avoid losing it. And that's a lesson we should reflect on."

Many leading Democrats were just as outspoken in their defense of the Gore campaign. They said they saw no need to avoid court.

"I don't understand why it's a controversy," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts. "Inauguration Day is more than two months away. This doesn't interfere with anything."

Referring to suggestions that many voters in Palm Beach mistakenly voted for Patrick J. Buchanan when they intended to vote for Mr. Gore, Mr. Frank added, "Why would you not clean this up?"

He wondered sarcastically whether Mr. Bush wanted to "become president because of the involuntary existence of a group known as Jews for Buchanan."

The two Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill fell into step with the Gore campaign, playing down the possibility of a court challenge but leaving the door to one open.

"Obviously there are diverse opinions," said Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the minority leader. "I would say the overwhelming consensus appears to be the vice president needs to exhaust the remedies available to him to hold open the possibility of a court settlement. That shouldn't be rejected outright before we know the facts. Most of us are interested in finality but not at the expense of fairness."

Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the House minority leader, who held a conference call on Thursday with House Democrats to assess the election results, said: "My sense is that people are patient. They think this is really close, and Florida is the obvious decider of this race."

Mr. Gephardt said he thought it would be a mistake to rule out going to court.

"They want an accurate count, then they'll see where they are," he said. "If the court has got to be used for some reason for some valid purpose, that's another issue."

"Patience is a virtue," Mr. Gephardt said in an interview. But he also had to admit that he was watching a cooking channel at home on Veterans Day rather than the round- the-clock news coverage because "I just couldn't take it anymore."

Other Democrats are not so patient. An important fund-raiser for Mr. Gore questioned the vice president's strategy, saying, "At some point, you have to acknowledge that life is unfair and move on."

He and other Gore loyalists expressed concern that Mr. Gore and his top advisers risked putting the vice president in the worst possible position: he will have abandoned the posture of a statesman while also losing the election B and that that could diminish his future viability as a candidate.

Mr. Torricelli put it this way: "There needs to be some understanding of the bounds of conduct. The proper bounds of this is that this should be settled with the counting of the ballots or there will be collateral attacks, it will lead to legal filings in state after state, and no one will succeed and the American people will have short patience."

H. Carl McCall, the New York State comptroller, while standing by Mr. Gore, suggested that he, too, had reservations about possible lawsuits from the vice president's campaign. If Mr. Gore is still behind after the recount, he said, he was not sure what the next step should be.

"There were clearly irregularities," Mr. McCall said, "but he could be perceived as unnecessarily prolonging this and creating instability. That's a very tough decision B and only one the vice president can make."

And Joe Carmichael, the Democratic chairman in Missouri, said: "I'm a lawyer. We can play things out for an eternity. Obviously, that doesn't have to happen here."

It was clear that Gore lieutenants were exasperated about restive Democrats. Campaign officials said they scolded Democrats, including Senator John B. Breaux of Louisiana, who publicly warned the campaign not to push too hard on the challenge.

"Bill Daley has been on the phone nonstop," Mr. Daschle said, adding that Mr. Gore and Mr. Lieberman had "talked to people including me. It's pretty clear they are attempting to stay in close touch with the leadership and the membership."

Mr. Fabiani dismissed Mr. Torricelli's remarks. "Torricelli has been critical of the Gore campaign for many months," he said. "Nothing he says bothers us or particularly surprises us."

Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska telephoned a reporter to clarify that he was fully behind Mr. Gore after a campaign official suggested to him that this article would include comments from critical Democrats. "I heard you're writing a story, `Congressional Support Is Collapsing,' " Mr. Kerrey said. "I think they should keep pushing it to the point they can say we fairly evaluated this thing."

Even Democrats who think Mr. Gore should cut short his appeals said they felt deeply for him. "It's unbearable," Mr. Taylor said. "It's a human tragedy."

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said the problem was that any course the Democrats took was fraught with risks. "There can be danger if it keeps going beyond next week," Mr. Schumer said. "But all the evidence shows there could be danger in not having it go beyond next week."

At least one Democrat, Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, argued that the Gore campaign should make its case even more energetically.

"Al Gore ought to get in there and fight for the majority of people in this country that voted for him," Mr. Harpootlian said. "I'm a litigator. I'd be a lot more aggressive than they have been in terms of litigating these issues."

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000

Answers

Some questions to ponder...

If the N.Y. Times' slogan were changed from "All the News That's Fit to Print" to, say, "All the News That Fits, We'll Print," would anyone notice? And if so, would sales drop? Would it go up? Or what?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said the problem was that any course the Democrats took was fraught with risks. "There can be danger if it keeps going beyond next week," Mr. Schumer said. "But all the evidence shows there could be danger in not having it go beyond next week."

When the junior Senator from NY speaks, people listen.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 11, 2000.

The Republican Party filed an injunction to stop the hand-count in Florida, meaning they're the only party to initiate litigation.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.

Anita -- yep, they did. But IMO, it's the good kind -- the kind that goes towards sealing the potential open wound and indefinite hemorrhaging the country would suffer by a practically infinite number of recounts by the Democrats (and in response, by Republicans too), spreading all over the country, until the parties get the result they happen to like. An indefinite one-upmanship, right past inauguration day, smack into a Constitutional crisis.

I'll take THIS kind of lawsuit any day.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

>> ...it's the good kind -- the kind that goes towards sealing the potential open wound and indefinite hemorrhaging the country would suffer by a practically infinite number of recounts... <<

Recounts have to be requested within a certain number of days after the election. There is no provision for a "practically infinite number" to be undertaken. In my view the "potential open wound and hemorrhaging" isn't grounded in counting or recounting of votes. That is a neutral activity when conducted under the existing safeguards.

No, the potential open wound comes from the constant bickering, chest-beating partisanship, and continuing (and baseless) accusations of fraud and ill will laid against both parties and repeated as rumors in a whispering campaign that is designed to make the country dissatisfied with the result, even if the results are obtained by following the process, as laid out in the law and the constitution.

If the country is led to trust the process we are now in the midst of, it will trust the result. It is in the best interests of both sides to pursue that goal and lead the country in that direction and away from the acrimony of campaigning. The campaign is over. The voting is over. The election is still underway.

As far as I can see, both candidate should be doing much more to calm people rather than to incite them. Both are at fault. Bush keeps pretending he has won. Gore has not admonished Jesse Jackson publically to stop whining and back off. Jim Baker should know better than to turn a recount into a partisan issue.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 11, 2000.

Brian,

"Jim Baker should know better than to turn a recount into a partisan issue."

He is the point man for his team on this particular issue. What else would you expect him to do?

-- flora (***@__._), November 11, 2000.

"Gore has not admonished Jesse Jackson publically to stop whining and back off."

I've been watching Jesse since I was a little girl. He's a Civil Right's activist, who was told of the possibilities of civil right's violations. NOBODY tells Jesse to back off. He's working independently. I might add that Jesse has done a LOT of good throughout the years. Gore has NOTHING to do with the Rainbow Coalition, which is as it should be.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.

>> What else would you expect him to do? <<

Strongly advise Bush the Younger to act statesmanlike, to announce that he will abide by the results of the vote of the people, and that we should all just await the outcome as the votes are counted. If he wants to initiate his own set of recounts in other places, like Wisconsin and Iowa, he should do so. Calmly. And announce that he merely wants to ensure that the outcome in those states is a true reflection of the vote in those states.

He should NOT be hinting that Gore is trying to pull a fast one. He should NOT be obstructing the count of the vote. He should be projecting himself as a man who is waiting for the voice of the people to be heard and who will obey that voice. Period.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 11, 2000.

Brian,

To the extent recounts would be prohibited (btw, how long before they can no longer be requested?), the "last-scene-in-Blazing-Saddles" - type chaos would simply switch the theatre to focus on "revoting" with all sorts of real and trumped-up accusations of fraud as the pretext. (So, what's the window period for remedies for fraud in THIS context?)

Your points about the contentiousness and wild accusations are, in general, well taken. But, on the one hand you're indicating that everyone should stop the "bickering and chest-beating," etc. -- in other words, to stop whining and back off. Then you seem to object that someone's told Jesse Jackson "to stop whining and back off." So, in other words, -- if I read you right -- everyone except Jesse Jackson should "stop whining and back off." Could you reconcile this?

My apologies if I've misconstrued what you were trying to say.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

>> NOBODY tells Jesse to back off. He's working independently. <<

I agree. But I think it is important for Gore to take the opportunity to put distance between his own judgement and JJ's actions. The public should not be allowed to perceive Jackson as working Al's will. He should be seen as a purely independent entity and it is up to Gore to make that plain as day.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 11, 2000.

Brian,

Please skip my last comment about Jackson; I think I'd missed your point. Sorry.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

>> Then you seem to object that someone's told Jesse Jackson "to stop whining and back off." So, in other words, -- if I read you right -- everyone except Jesse Jackson should "stop whining and back off." <<

Read it again. You got my intention backwards. While Gore can't "call off" Jackson, Gore can tell Jackson publically that he prefers Jackson to remove himself from the situtation - that it isn't Jackson's fight and Gore doesn't need him throwing any punches on his behalf.

If Gore has done this already, it got past me.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 11, 2000.

Brian,

If we used a chess board analogy, I think Baker would be operating from perhaps the Bishop's position { eve or David L may see it differently }. He's the designated hitter who has to come out & get blood on his hands to protect the figurehead's image and viability.

I actually respected Baker's demeanor in the old administration, & no I'm not a Republican. When I saw him in the early press snips this time, I knew it was a game of hardball. Baker can take the furthest position, and when Bush comes in to cut a public deal he will appear to be a moderating force {smelling like a rose?}.

-- flora (***@__._), November 11, 2000.

Brian,

"Gore can tell Jackson publically that he prefers Jackson to remove himself from the situtation - that it isn't Jackson's fight and Gore doesn't need him throwing any punches on his behalf."

They may each see the writing on the wall, and be using this tremendous opportunity for a kind of 'publicity'. Passions can be stirred, and the potential for 'building coalitions' is possibly at its strongest.

-- flora (***@__._), November 11, 2000.

Bush left it up to Baker to decide whether or not to go ahead with the lawsuit. Baker chose to go ahead.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 11, 2000.

>> Bush left it up to Baker to decide whether or not to go ahead with the lawsuit. Baker chose to go ahead. <<

Oh, Lord! This can't be true!

If this were true it would just be so lame I can't stand it. What are we supposed to think, if someone who about to be President can't make a decision of this importance?

Even if this is not true, I can scarcely believe the bad judgement involved in willingly posing before the public in such a lame position! If the Bush campaign actually said this, it just makes me want to go in the corner, where I can rock back and forth and moan softly to myself.

Tell me it isn't true. Please. I'm begging you here.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 11, 2000.

hmm,

So, does that mean you think Baker's the Bishop or the Queen?

"Text of Baker's request for an injunction to block additional recount". http://www.sun- sentinel.com/news/daily/detail/0,1136,36000000000125722,00.html

-- flora (***@__._), November 11, 2000.

Tell me it isn't true. Please. I'm begging you here.

When Bush spoke with reporters yesterday afternoon, he refused to answer any questions about the Fla. vote thingee. He refered the reporters to direct their questions to Jim Baker (who wasn't even there).

So in other words...he wasn't talking about it.

-- Peg (em@i.l), November 11, 2000.

Tell me it isn't true. Please. I'm begging you here.

I'm afraid it is.

LINK

In a late-night conference call Friday, Bush gave James A. Baker III - the former secretary of state who's protecting the Texas governor's interests in Florida - authority to seek a court injunction barring the manual recounts, according to several GOP officials involved in the discussions. The officials said it was very likely the injunction would be sought, but stressed that it was up to Baker to make the final decision. A source close to Baker said the former secretary had not decided.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 11, 2000.

"it's the good kind -- the kind that goes towards sealing the potential open wound and indefinite hemorrhaging the country would suffer by a practically infinite number of recounts by the Democrats"

Eve how can a manual recount, which is done by three people, be "practically infinite" -- ?? It's done once by request.

How can it be "good" to BLOCK or censor the choice of voters the machines couldn't read?

If you got a gas bill that was obviously wrong because of computer error, would you just say, oh well, the machine messed up, I have to live with it??? Now what about the future of our nation? Should we leave it up to machine error?

These are votes that the machine could not read. Why is it "good" that to legally thwart the will of voters with legitimate (single vote) claims to exercise their right?

-- Democracy blocked (by@republicans.com), November 11, 2000.

Democracy,

I wasn't speaking of one recount (btw, I saw a roomful on TV re Palm Beach -- not just 3); I was anticipating a never-ending see-saw battle of recounts spreading across Florida, into Iowa, Wisconsin, etc., to the extent each brings a result in favor of the opponent.

It's "good" to block (it's not censorship) if you look at the wider context. E.g., the voters AND their representatives had weeks to review the ballots prior to the voting --and did nothing. And think about the "cancer" that would spread everywhere -- e.g., if Gore wins this round, then why shouldn't Bush encourage the opening up of, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, etc. to recounts as well? I understand that there are lots of allegations of fraud in Wisconsin, for instance.

"Machine error?" What about human error -- and human fraud? Do you know the background of all of the counters? Do you know their party affiliation? Do you know their propensities for "mischief"?

Finally I think one could argue that the voters waived their right for a second chance when they (and their elected representative) ignored the ballot issued to them weeks in advance.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

Don't worry, be happy. :)

-- (Nero@Rome.fiddle_festival), November 11, 2000.

The overarching principle is that votes count. Sometimes these things take patience.

-- chiming in (w@2.com), November 11, 2000.

What's so surprising about Bush leaving it to Baker whether to file a lawsuit or not. Most people know that a vote for Bush is a vote for Daddy Bush, Sr. and Cheney, who will be the behind the scenes presdient, with Shrubya being the spokesperson. Now if he can just remember his lines........

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), November 11, 2000.

Democracy,

Voters make mistakes on ballots in every state. This can be the result of carelessness. And machines can mess up. Do you propose we go back through each and every county in the country to determine the extent of this and allow them all to revote? How could you tell if it was voter negligence or machine error that a ballot was invalidated? Would you allow second chances in either case? What about third chances? Fourth? Would you continue until every ballot in the country was validated? What if all this took us until past inauguration day? Would that matter to you?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

Eve, you're confusing issues here. The Republicans are trying to block the manual recount of votes that could not be read by machines.

This has nothing to do with the ballot design, or the contested "butterfly" design. It has nothing to do with other states. It has to do with the full, fair recount of Florida's votes, which the GOP is trying to block. It has to do with the machine's inability to read legitimate votes that should count.

If the outcome of the legal action taken by the GOP spreads to other states, that's the GOP's choice to spread the "cancer", not Gore's.

As for "human error," this is how manual recounts are conducted:

"The manual recount on which the presidential election may hinge is a laborious process in which election officials wearing rubber gloves plow through stacks of computer cards one-by-one to determine what voters intended when they punched their ballots.

"The process requires an election official to hold up each punch-card ballot to the three members of the local canvassing board, composed of the supervisor of elections, a county court judge--who acts as chairman--and the chairman of the board of county commissioners.

"Each member scans the ballot, and the three reach a decision on how the voter voted in that race. Since three people are involved, there can't be a split decision over how the ballot is counted." (from Wash. Post). The process is overseen by members from BOTH parties.

What's "unfair" about this? It's a thorough and sensible way to make sure votes count.

If the GOP thought it was fair to manually recount New Mexico so the results would swing to Gore, why is it unfair for Democrats to suggest the same thoroughness be applied to Florida?

-- Democracy blocked (by@GOP.com), November 11, 2000.

"What if's" don't matter right now. What matters is that an accurate reading of ALL legitimate votes be counted in Florida.

Bush is trying to make sure that doesn't happen.

-- Democracy blocked (by@GOP.com), November 11, 2000.

Democracy,

I think ballot design could very well have had a lot to do with it. A ballot that was different from what the voter was used to seeing could have led to an inappropriate action by the voter causing the machine's inability to read it.

Re the ballot counters: Take a look at MSNBC, where they show a whole roomful of people working on the ballots.

If we're primarily concerned about the rights of the voter, why wouldn't we open the entire country back up to examination, recounts and possible revotes? Why just certain heavily Democratic counties in Florida? Methinks it's just to the extent the candidate you like will prevail.

My "what ifs" are intended to highlight that there is a wider context here whose ramifications could create a Constitutional crisis and damage the country. This should be weighed against the implications of, and decisions regarding, whether someone's vote was lost through negligence (or machine error).

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

Eve,

I'm all for manual recounts in any county of Florida, even the Republican ones. Let it begin. Let it be thorough. And after all the votes have been tabulated, the loser should concede. I think that's what all Americans want, regardless of their party preference.

They don't want the process thwarted by fearful Republicans.

If the Republicans want manual recounts in Republican counties, let it happen. Let them make claim to it.

Speculative "ramifications" should not be a reason to block a fair recount. "What ifs" don't matter -- what matters is that the count proceeds fairly.

As for procedure, I refer you to the NYTimes which just ran an article describing how the handcount procedure is going. Both parties have representatives watching the process, and a decision is being fairly made, not by a mob of people, but in an orderly fashion by an equal representation of both parties.

-- Democracy thwarted (by@GOP.com), November 11, 2000.

Brian:

"Gore can tell Jackson publically that he prefers Jackson to remove himself from the situtation - that it isn't Jackson's fight and Gore doesn't need him throwing any punches on his behalf."

There certainly IS a fight for Jesse in Florida [that has absolutely NOTHING to do with butterfly ballots, undercounts, overcounts, etc.], although a portion of Jesse's people were affected by those, as well. Black students at Florida A&M lost a campus polling place this year for the first time EVER. When they arrived at the place they were told to vote, their registration wasn't listed. Blacks went to the polls and were told there were no more ballots. They were turned away from polls when the closing hour came, although they'd been in line before the poll closing time. In one precinct, police were allegedly stopping black voters within a mile of the polling place.

I'm not saying similar things didn't happen to white voters in Florida, nor am I suggesting that similar things didn't happen across the nation. I'm simply saying that when the Rainbow Coalition gets a mass of civil rights complaints, which they did, Jesse feels obliged to check them out, which he did.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.

Democracy,

Ok, you indicate you're all for manual recounts in any county of Florida. But why not then outside of Florida as well?

Context IS important. Do the ramifications of this chaos leading past inauguration day mean anything at all to you? I take it by your last response that they mean next to nothing. So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I never said that the counters were a "mob." I said that there was a "roomful." It looked like a couple dozen.

And at a time when most folks' emotions on this issue are running at a fever pitch (i.e., the worst possible time for a hand count), I don't see how you could have full faith and trust in a group of unknown civil servants with ultimately unknown (regardless of what they may say) party or candidate preferences, or axes to grind, decide the fate of the nation.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

"What's so surprising about Bush leaving it to Baker whether to file a lawsuit or not. Most people know that a vote for Bush is a vote for Daddy Bush, Sr. and Cheney, who will be the behind the scenes presdient, with Shrubya being the spokesperson. Now if he can just remember his lines........ "

Gilda, I'm not surprised at all. This was a blatant attempt to thwart the accurate and thorough counting of all legitimate votes. It smacks of strong-arm banana republic tactics, not democracy. Bush doesn't want to be directly associated with the decision because America will rightly perceive this lawsuit as a desperate attempt to thwart the will of the people. If it is overruled, and Baker appeals, it will make them look even worse.

If that appeal is overruled, then the votes, hopefully, will be allowed to count. If I had voted in Florida, I'd want my vote to count.

-- Democracy blocked (by@gop.com), November 11, 2000.

>>Ok, you indicate you're all for manual recounts in any county of Florida. But why not then outside of Florida as well?>>

I'm saying that if they spread beyond like a "cancer," to use your word, that will be the will of the GOP, not Gore. If the GOP wants to recount any state, it has the right to ask for it. And I believe they will.

By the way, why no address the New Mexico recount, Eve? Why was it ok for the GOP to hand count there?

>>Context IS important. Do the ramifications of this chaos leading past inauguration day mean anything at all to you? I take it by your last response that they mean next to nothing.>>

Your guess, or my guess, or anyone's guess about ramifications shouldn't stop the accurate counting of the vote. All I'm saying, Eve, is that Democracy should be given a chance to work in Florida. The votes should count in Florida, and it should be fair and thorough. You cannot make a case for blocking the accurate recount of ALL LEGITIMATE votes because of "What ifs". You don't have an argument to stand on here, because your guess about "context" is just as uselessly speculative as anyone else's at this point.

What we need is a full, fair count, not desperate strong-arm attempts to thwart the count.

Why not addres the real point -- should those votes count? If you don't think the votes should count, make your case, but not on "what ifs" that are speculation only.

>>I never said that the counters were a "mob." I said that there was a "roomful." It looked like a couple dozen.>>

Again, I refer you to the NYTimes which describes the process. It's up right now if you want to read it.

>>And at a time when most folks' emotions on this issue are running at a fever pitch (i.e., the worst possible time for a hand count),>>

So this is the "worst possible time" for a hand count. But that's just more speculation and opinion. Is there some perfect, ideal time for democracy to count, Eve, for democracy to matter? If not now, when is that magical time when votes should count?

>>I don't see how you could have full faith and trust in a group of unknown civil servants with ultimately unknown (regardless of what they may say) party or candidate preferences, or axes to grind, decide the fate of the nation.>>

Those "civil servants" are citizens just like you or me. The process is being overseen in a clean, responsible, and fair way, overseen by both parties. There is no room for "axes to grind" when you look at a ballot in a structured, carefully monitored fashion with all representatives at the table.

I don't see how you can have "full faith and trust" in the GOP who is trying to block the will of the people, the people who voted in full faith and trust in the process of democracy.

Who do you put your faith and trust in, Eve? The GOP multi- millionaires who are suing to stop democracy? Or the American people they are attempting to disenfranchise?

-- Democracy blocked (by@gop.com), November 11, 2000.

blocked:

I think what eve is saying is that there are going to be irregularities in every election, and at damn near every polling place. People will screw up. Sometimes their intentions can be interpreted, and sometimes the interpretation depends on the preference and bias of whoever is doing the interpreting.

Yes, we all agree that every valid ballot should be counted. We *ought* to agree that invalid ballots should not count. There's something fishy about insisting that ballots requiring interpretation (by someone) should be interpreted in the interest of "fairness", but ONLY in districts where YOUR guy is almost certain to benefit from this.

What Bush is trying to block is a SECOND recount, but THIS time done by interpreters rather than by machine, and ONLY where Gore stands to benefit. I can guarantee you that if MY people look at questionable ballots enough times, and decide which ones are questionable, I will win. By definition, if I lose the vote was not fair.

And what we end up with is, elections become nothing more than springboards for lawsuits by everyone. Even if one side clearly lost big, they can tie the election results up in the courts indefinitely. All in the interests of "fairness", of course.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 11, 2000.

Democracy,

Ok, so after the second recount that Gore wants, in the counties that he's selected, in the way that he wants -- and if he comes out ahead (my assumption) THEN we can call it a cancer. I think I've got it straight now.

I hadn't addressed New Mexico, because I wasn't yet familiar with the situation there, other than that Bush apparently pulled ahead by 17 votes. But I would be against hand counts there as well.

Do my "speculations" about context -- about the possibility of this thing dragging on through inauguration day, and the potential significance of it -- make sense to you? If not, why not? Do you believe it's possible?

"Should these votes count"?

I've given you my reasons through the points I've already made (indefinite extension of new counts, by both sides, possible Constitutional crisis, voters having had weeks to examine ballots in advance, inaccuracies and possible fraud in hand counts through hand counters having strong emotional ties, possible axes to grind, etc.). If you see them all as meaningless, that's your choice.

I'll take a look at the N. Y. Times article on the hand count process. Have you seen the MSNBC pieces on it?

"When is that magical time when votes should count?"

In a presidential election, generally, after the first count. A second shot should be given individuals in clear instances of fraud, harassment or someone being physically denied the chance to vote, where it can be proven; or if it was proven that a machine destroyed ballots where voter negligence or mistake was absolutely not a factor. Voter mistakes that are discovered and reported prior to submitting their ballots should always lead to the voter being given another chance.

I understand that you have full faith and trust in the hand counters. For the reasons I gave above, I beg to differ.

"Who do you put your faith and trust in, Eve?"

In a system that, while flawed, must have reasonable closure in order that our nation recover from this situation before it becomes a crisis. Or worse.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

Flint,

>Yes, we all agree that every valid ballot should be counted. We *ought* to agree that invalid ballots should not count. There's something fishy about insisting that ballots requiring interpretation (by someone) should be interpreted in the interest of "fairness",

There a difference between an invalid ballot and a valid ballot that was not correctly processed by counting machine. If it takes human manual inspection and interpretation to correctly count a ballot in the latter category, so be it.

The manual recount will not change invalid ballots to valid ones, but it will count valid ballots that were not correctly counted by machine.

>but ONLY in districts where YOUR guy is almost certain to benefit from this.

Bush supporters are free to request manual recounts in districts where THEIR guy is almost certain to benefit from this. So what's wrong with the Gore camp's following established legal procedures?

Do you expect the Gore folks to request manual recounts in districts where such recounts would probably favor Bush? That's the Bush folks' job.

>What Bush is trying to block is a SECOND recount,

What Bush is trying to do is to skip the state courts (where he knows his protests could cost him more votes than they gain) and go to _federal_ court to stop _state_ legal procedures! This is the man who repeatedly claimed during the campaign that he favored states' rights over federal power!

>but THIS time done by interpreters rather than by machine,

See my previous comments on this.

>and ONLY where Gore stands to benefit.

See my previous comments on this.

>I can guarantee you that if MY people look at questionable ballots enough times, and decide which ones are questionable, I will win.

You understand that in Florida the manual recounts are performed by designated elected officials, not just by any ol' party-selected folks, don't you?

>By definition, if I lose the vote was not fair.

I sincerely hope that was sarcasm on your part.

>And what we end up with is, elections become nothing more than springboards for lawsuits by everyone.

Not really. There are established legal procedures in each state for recounting or challenging election results. As long as thoes procedures are followed, there's no reason to exaggerate the situation.

>Even if one side clearly lost big, they can tie the election results up in the courts indefinitely.

Not true. There are limits to the established legal procedures. Stop exaggerating.

>All in the interests of "fairness", of course.

I hope you don't object to true "fairness" (in contrast to the sarcastic type) and established legal procedures.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.

No Spam:

I think you nailed the crux of this when you wrote:

[Do you expect the Gore folks to request manual recounts in districts where such recounts would probably favor Bush? That's the Bush folks' job.]

So you say, in so many words, that how, and whether, and where, recounts take place is really a partisan political decision. And in banana republics this is quite true. Whoever gets to count the votes, or decide which are counted or how, tends to win.

I would like to see all clear and valid ballots counted. If there is *any* room for ambiguity as to the intentions of the voter, then the vote should not be counted. It shouldn't be the responsibility of one of the competing parties to determine where special multiple recounts take place (banana republic again).

In the political arena, we *must* assume that impartiality is neither possible nor desired. This is why elections are carefully removed from the political arena, and *kept* out. When partisan interests are introduced into the mechanics of voting, then the results lose their legitimacy.

It is neither the Gore nor Bush camp's "job" to *manipulate* either the results, or the *appearance* of those results, as suits their self interest. You are flat wrong here.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 11, 2000.

Flint, No Spam accurately rebutted your flawed argument.

Eve,

>>Ok, so after the second recount that Gore wants, in the counties that he's selected, in the way that he wants -- and if he comes out ahead (my assumption) THEN we can call it a cancer. I think I've got it straight now.>>

I said it's up to the Republicans to spread this recount thing into other states if they want to. It's not "cancererous" to get an accurate recount of votes that a machine did not pick up. It has nothing to do with who comes out ahead, it's the process that's important.

>>I hadn't addressed New Mexico, because I wasn't yet familiar with the situation there, other than that Bush apparently pulled ahead by 17 votes. But I would be against hand counts there as well.>>

Well, Bush wasn't, and what's more, he signed into law in 1997 a Texas bill that said manual counting was preferable to machine counting! That's his law! Except in Florida, of course. By bush, it's okay in New Mexico, or Texas, but not Florida.

>>Do my "speculations" about context -- about the possibility of this thing dragging on through inauguration day, and the potential significance of it -- make sense to you? If not, why not? Do you believe it's possible?>>

It's not a question of whether your speculations make "sense" to me, because they have no bearing on whether due process ought to occur in Florida. The voters of Florida deserve an accurate count of all votes. What the outcome could be is anyone's guess. They already did it in New Mexico, and I don't see any "ramifications" spreading like "cancer" throughout the land from the manual recount there.

A hand count is not an "indefinite extension of new counts."

There is no "Constitutional crisis."

"Voters having had weeks to examine ballots in advance" doesn't have anything to do with a machine's inability to scan a ballot properly.

The extremely tight oversight and regulation prevents "inaccuracies and possible fraud in hand counts through hand counters having strong emotional ties, possible axes to grind, etc." Again, all sides are well represented and are carefully monitoring the recount.

"If you see them all as meaningless, that's your choice."

If you see logic and reason as meaningless in this case, that's your choice.

"A second shot should be given individuals in clear instances of fraud, harassment or someone being physically denied the chance to vote, where it can be proven"

Good, glad to hear you want to give all the blacks that were turned away a second chance to vote.

"or if it was proven that a machine destroyed ballots where voter negligence or mistake was absolutely not a factor."

Glad you can see the errors machines can make. It's not just "destroying" ballots, but a machine's INABILITY to read a ballot.

"I understand that you have full faith and trust in the hand counters. For the reasons I gave above, I beg to differ."

I have full faith and trust in the people who will take this seriously and perform responsibly. People take their right to vote seriously, and they will take their responsibilities to be fair, lawful, and just very seriously as they recount this important vote.

"In a system that, while flawed, must have reasonable closure in order that our nation recover from this situation before it becomes a crisis. Or worse."

Agreed. And reasonable closure necessarily includes an accurate, thorough count of all LEGITIMATE votes in Florida, not sweeping those votes under the mat.

The new motto for you and the Bush camp appears to be:

"Trust the machines! Not the people!"

-- Democracy blocked (by@gop.com), November 11, 2000.

Newsweek poll: 72% say a fair and accurate count is more important than a quick resolution, which 25% said was more important. Two- thirds of respondents said Gore was right to retract his concession...

-- update (this@evening.com), November 11, 2000.

blocked:

Your position ultimately boils down NOT to democracy being blocked, but rather Gore being blocked. If Gore were ahead by 300 votes and trying to block hand counts, you'd be in lockstep with him just like the rest of the party. Do you think this is pure coincidence? Like Gore's campaign, you jump up and down about democracy and fairness and having everyone's vote count -- in a couple of heavily Democratic counties. And how about counties where your opponent wins? Well, No Spam says that's Bush's "job".

When you say "trust the machines and not the people" you are simply muddying the waters. I trust the voters, and I trust the voting machines. I do NOT trust ANY human vote counters in a very close election. I'm willing to flat *guarantee* that if eve did the count, Bush would win, and if you did the count, Gore would win. Same votes, same process, both of you being as "objective" as you possibly can. *Guaranteed*.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 11, 2000.

Flint,

>So you say, in so many words, that how, and whether, and where, recounts take place is really a partisan political decision.

No, that's not what I said (and I think you know it).

How a manual recount takes place is specified by Florida law. According to what I've heard, three county officials perform the manual recount, and political parties may have observers monitoring this, so Republicans can insept the whole operation if they want to.

Whether and where (in which county, that is) a manual recount takes place depends on whether someone makes the proper request. Any voter can do this. It doesn't depend on partisan politics. Now, it's in the interests of Democrats to request a manual recount where it would tend to favor them, and in the interests of Republicans to request a manual recount where it would tend to favor their party's candidates, all else being equal. But the opportunity and right to request a manual recount is open to voters of any party. Requesting a manual recount is "partisan" only insofar as the election was "partisan" -- it has condidates from opposing political parties vying for a political office.

I'm disappointed that you made that allegation about what I wrote. I know you're capable of making a more reasonable interpretation of my words.

>Whoever gets to count the votes, or decide which are counted or how, tends to win.

Not if the legal procedure has safeguards to ensure that the result is accurate. AFAIK, Florida's do.

And I'm sure you didn't intend to imply that Jeb Bush is governor of a banana republic.

>I would like to see all clear and valid ballots counted.

So would I. For some ballots, this may require a manual inspection because of imperfections in the counting machines or imperfections in the ballots that do not affect their validity.

>If there is *any* room for ambiguity as to the intentions of the voter, then the vote should not be counted.

Don't you think that's up to Florida state law? I'm sure it specifies detailed standards.

>It shouldn't be the responsibility of one of the competing parties to determine where special multiple recounts take place

It is the reponsibility of Floridians, as specified by Florida law, to request the recounts to which you refer. Legally, whether those Floridians are proponents of one political party or the other doesn't matter.

As a matter of practicality and human nature, it is rational for a Republican Floridian to request a recount only where that person thinks such a recount is to the advantage of Republicans. But that person's _legal right_ to request a recount doesn't depend on party.

If a Republican thinks a recount is desirable, and no Democrat or adherent of any other political party cares to request that recount, then it is that Republican's responsibility to request the recount. The tooth fairy ain't gonna do it for him.

>In the political arena, we *must* assume that impartiality is neither possible nor desired.

Well, it is possible to set up legal checks and balances to maximize the probability of impartiality. And while I can see how you might legitimately mean that impartiality is not desired in the political arena, I can also see how it can be legitimately desired, and can be gained through balancing of opposing interests.

>This is why elections are carefully removed from the political arena, and *kept* out.

Well, I'd prefer to say that elections have, or should have, procedures to safeguard the rights of all legitimate political interests. By their nature, some elections are political and this can't be changed, but they can be arranged so as to safeguard everyone's political rights.

Also, I think we may be using different interpretations of the idea of whether an election is or is not in the political arena.

>When partisan interests are introduced into the mechanics of voting, then the results lose their legitimacy.

I would insert "unbalanced, unregulated" before "partisan" and insert "without safeguarding the rights of all citizens," after "voting,"

>It is neither the Gore nor Bush camp's "job" to *manipulate* either the results, or the *appearance* of those results, as suits their self interest. You are flat wrong here.

Flint, YOU are flat wrong in attributing to me the idea that it is either camp's "job" to "manipulate". I wrote no such thing, and I think you would ordinarily recognize that if you were not in political fervor. Apologize.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.

For those of you complaining about this hand count, decisions are NOT being made on what people MIGHT have intended. The manual count is simply picking up the ballots that had chads stuck in the closed position, and the criteria are very specific. It's been all over the news all day, but I'll highlight the criteria here:

A punch in a punch-card resembles a rectangle. ....7....

1>[---]<2

3>|.0.|<4 5>[---]<6

....8.... Pretend those dashes represent the top of the chad and the bottom of the chad, respectively. The 0 represents a dimple in the chad. Dimples are NOT counted.

If the sides [top=7], [bottom=8], [left side=3], [right side=4] are broken, with the corners [represented by 1, 2, 5, and 6] intact, the chad is pregnant. The chad bulges, but can't flip either way.] I couldn't flip when I was pregnant either. Pregnant chads are not counted.

If only ONE of the corners is broken, the chad can't flip either way. This is not counted. If [for instance] corners 1 and 6 are broken, the chad can't flip either. This is not counted. The same would be true if 2 and 5 are broken.

The chad WILL flip if 1 and 5 are broken, or if 2 and 6 are broken. It will also flip if 1 and 2 are broken or 5 and 6 are broken. Think about Christmas cards. Some flip open from the side and some flip open from the bottom.

The problem is that the chad can flip closed or flip open. If it flips open and STAYS open, the machine count picks it up. If it flips closed and STAYS closed, the machine count ignores it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.

That really formatted badly. I'll add breaks this time. A punch in a punch-card resembles a rectangle.
....7....
1>[----]<2
3>|..0..|<4
5>[----]<6
....8....


-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.

No Spam:

You are correct. I misunderstood and I apologize. My politics aren't so much oriented toward one candidate or the other, as they are toward honoring a process as specified, and not changing that process retroactively, *especially* if changing the process is instigated by the losing party and after application results in that party winning. To me, this gives every appearance of corruption *even if* none exists or was intended.

I think at the margin it's disingenuous to say that Florida law can specify every possible ambiguity in all possible ballots or voting procedure. If laws could be written this way, we would never have any lawyers or courts. I'm quite certain that two people could look at the same ballot, read the same applicable laws and regulations, and come to different conclusions as to the disposition of that ballot. I think you'd be foolish to deny this. And so *who* gets to recount makes a difference. It need only be a very tiny difference to change the disposition of 300 ballots out of 2 million cast in these counties.

So while I agree that recounting twice, once by machine and once by hand at the request of any party on the ballot, is legal, it doesn't *look* objective when actually done. No matter who wins.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 11, 2000.

Flint,

I accept your apology, and will consider the matter simply an anomaly.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.

Democracy,

The "cancer" that I refer to is not so much with respect to a particular recount; is has more to do with what it could lead to -- recounts (and/or revotes) spreading across the country like wildfire or a cancer, as each side tries to "one-up" the other.

With respect to New Mexico, I should have clarified that if hand counts are the only operating method in a state, then of course I'd have to accept it. But we should be careful to distinguish between hand counts done in the election-eve relatively tranquil environment (ok, emphasis on "relatively" here), as opposed to ones done in a highly emotionally-charged, volatile atmosphere such as we have today. Now I'm not saying bad things are going to happen during the hand recounts. But the likelihood is there, for the reasons I gave in a prior post, above.

"A hand count is not an 'indefinite extension of new counts.'"

I agree. One hand count is not. As I hope you can see from my explanation above, I'm referring to the potential of exponential increases in the NUMBER of hand recounts, machine recounts, and revotes, re-recounts, re-revotes, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum, if this thing gets out of hand, which I think it very well could.

"There is no 'Constitutional crisis.'"

I never said there was. But the potential is there, especially if this thing extends past inauguration day.

"Voters having had weeks to examine ballots in advance" doesn't have anything to do with a machine's inability to scan a ballot properly.

Assuming no negligence or errors by the voter, I agree.

Anita, I appreciate your "chad" explanation. And when you related it to your pregnancy, it really drove the point home for me. (palm- slap to the forehead "Oh, NOW I get it!"):)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

Eve:

With respect to New Mexico, I should have clarified that if hand counts are the only operating method in a state, then of course I'd have to accept it. But we should be careful to distinguish between hand counts done in the election-eve relatively tranquil environment (ok, emphasis on "relatively" here), as opposed to ones done in a highly emotionally-charged, volatile atmosphere such as we have today.

The hand recount in New Mexico was done yesterday.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.

Flint,

>honoring a process as specified, and not changing that process retroactively,

Agreed.

AFAIK, the recounts so far have all been requested and conducted according to extablished legal process. The Bush camp's statements or implications to the contrary are regrettable, but this is very high-stakes politics, and if the party situation were reversed we might well be hearing the Gore camp utter similar things. (*sigh*)

>*especially* if changing the process is instigated by the losing party and after application results in that party winning.

I'm not aware that the Gore folks have done or instigated any change in established Florida state process. After all, recount procedures are likely to be requested only by losing sides, so there is nothing sinister about the Gore folks having done so.

I resent statements from the Bush people implying that there is anything wrong with requesting recounts. Indeed, I was surprised by a lot of what they've implied or directly accused, until I remembered that this is the highest-stakes recount in my lifetime. We may be seeing some folks at their worst here. And if/when Bush folks request recounts in other states, there will probably be ugly words from some Gore people.

>I think at the margin it's disingenuous to say that Florida law can specify every possible ambiguity in all possible ballots or voting procedure.

Well, it can specify what's correct, and provide procedures for both foreseen categories of problems and most unforeseen ones.

After all, there's been two hundred years' experience with elections in some states, and the younger states haven't had to develop election law from scratch. Provisions for problems with modern voting machinery are largely appropriate extensions of provisions developed for manual ballots.

>I'm quite certain that two people could look at the same ballot, read the same applicable laws and regulations, and come to different conclusions as to the disposition of that ballot.

Well, for some unusual cases, maybe. But not for the vast majority.

Anyway, the Florida manual recount has _three_ people deciding the validity of each ballot, so there are no ties.

Interestingly, if one substitutes "voters" for "people", "instructions" for "laws and regulations", and "which hole to punch on" for "the disposition of" in that sentence of yours, one gets a statement that could be appropriate to the Palm Beach County situation.

>And so *who* gets to recount makes a difference. It need only be a very tiny difference to change the disposition of 300 ballots out of 2 million cast in these counties.

That's why most election procedures are carefully written, with provision for observers from each party.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 12, 2000.

Eve,

>The "cancer" that I refer to is not so much with respect to a particular recount; is has more to do with what it could lead to -- recounts (and/or revotes) spreading across the country like wildfire or a cancer, as each side tries to "one-up" the other.

I think that's an exaggeration. There won't be many recount requests where the margin between winning and losing candidates is large. And there are legal limits to the recount process -- it's not endless.

What's happening here is that the Bush camp is publicizing ideas they know very well not to be true -- that all recounts are the same, and that there could be a runaway number of recount requests. I attribute this to the extraordinary political pressures of this once-in-a-lifetime electoral situation, and would not be surprised to see some Gore folks say similar things if the situation were reversed. Also, it is a consequence of the unusually harsh political rhetoric of the past several years. A moderation of political speech would help our democracy run smoother.

>I'm referring to the potential of exponential increases in the NUMBER of hand recounts, machine recounts, and revotes, re-recounts, re-revotes, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum, if this thing gets out of hand, which I think it very well could.

What evidence do you have that such "exponential increases" are possible in actuality, rather than just in speeches or sound bites? Has it ever happened in the U.S. before? (Here, don't confuse lengthy disputes during the 19th century, when communications and transportation were much slower than they are today, with how fast things are likely to be resolved today. There weren't all that many "rounds" of recounts and other electoral procedures back then -- it's just that they were slower.)

I think you'll find that state electoral laws do not provide for such endlessness. There are limits to the numbers of recounts and challenges.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 12, 2000.

No Spam Please,

You've made some good points. Yet...

Since the legal limits are reflective of the various state laws, and dependent on whether we're talking recounts, revoting, second, third, etc. rounds of each, reasons for such (e.g., fraud vs. voter error vs. voter negligence vs. machine error, etc.), and the possiblity of all kinds of exceptions due to Gawd-knows-what types of extenuating circumstances, possible whim-expression and partisan-based decisions by judges, uncharted territory, egos the size of Texas, etc. etc., I remain very skeptical that all this would necessarily be accomplished by inauguration day. Can you show that it would? I realize I have a lack of knowledge about all this.

I mean at worst this could lead to...to...to... ("Hmmmm, I wonder if Sam's has more rice and beans on sale today...") :)

Really, though, I envy your faith in the process.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 12, 2000.

Anita, thanks for the info on the hand count in New Mexico. I guess it shows that as much as I'm into this, I've missed some obvious stuff.

To the extent it's a recount, generally I would disagree with it being taken (although I haven't seen the reasons given for it), for the wider-context concerns I've given above.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 12, 2000.

Eve,

Responding to you last comment first:

>I envy your faith in the process.

Well, I've voted in three different states, one of which seemed especially prone to recounts when I lived there. There was never any spiralling out of control or exponential recounts.

What we're hearing is a lot of verbal stuff pumped out by the Bush camp because they don't wan't any recounts in Florida (because they're ahead without recounts) and retorts from the Gore camp which is understandably interested in finding out whether a more accurate and complete count would give them the edge. It's especially shrill (but not especially enlightening) because there is such a big consequence hanging on the results. >Since the legal limits are reflective of the various state laws, and dependent on whether we're talking recounts, revoting, second, third, etc. rounds of each, reasons for such (e.g., fraud vs. voter error vs. voter negligence vs. machine error, etc.), and the possiblity of all kinds of exceptions due to Gawd-knows-what types of extenuating circumstances, possible whim-expression and partisan-based decisions by judges, uncharted territory, egos the size of Texas, etc. etc., I remain very skeptical that all this would necessarily be accomplished by inauguration day. Can you show that it would?

I can't prove that all the presidential vote challenges will be resolved by Inauguration Day. Maybe some court cases will drag out that long. However, any court cases involving this election will not be waiting in line behind non-election cases for the courts to resolve -- election cases will have the highest priority because of the importance of early resolution.

Also, large numbers of constitutional lawyers and jurists are putting their full attention to resolving election issues properly and promptly. The legal system can move fast in a national emergency, or to prevent one.

My opinion is that it is highly unlikely that the presidential vote will not have become clear by Inauguration Day, but likely that partisan rhetoric about this will continue to confuse citizens.

>I realize I have a lack of knowledge about all this.

And some politicians will try to achieve their ends by playing on folks' ignorance about the more obscure details of our electoral system that hardly ever get exercised. OTOH, responsible news media will be presenting education about, and explanation of, those details.

>I mean at worst this could lead to...to...to... ("Hmmmm, I wonder if Sam's has more rice and beans on sale today...") :)

No, it couldn't. The U.S. constitutional system is quite adequate to handle this. It seems scary because of our ignorance about some details that haven't been exercised in our lifetimes, and because some folks want to pump up the scariness for their own purposes. I advise paying attention to responsible and trustworthy sources of information about our electoral system.

And just be patient. The people who want this to be scary will try to make it seem that we don't have enough time to resolve the election. What we're going to have to get used to is simply that this election will take longer than most to resolve, and seem excruciatingly slow compared to the instant election results the TV networks have conditioned us to expect, but there is plenty of time before Inauguration Day to work things out.

The worst that can happen is that the House of Representatives will have to choose the President (probably Bush) and the Senate, the Vice President (probably Cheney) in January before Inauguration Day, and the transition between administrations will not be as smooth as usual. In that case, Bush-Cheney will have a rougher time than most administrations -- sorta like Clinton-Gore has had -- but the nation will muddle along for four years. And in 2004 the election will be more decisive.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 13, 2000.

No Spam Please,

I appreciate your perspective, although I disagree with elements of it, for reasons I previously expressed. I believe it's overly optimistic in a scenario that we've not yet experienced. Take a look at some new pieces I'm putting up today from the Wall Street Journal, though. They might give you pause.

Oh yes...my "rice and beans" comment was purely a tongue-in-cheek self-reference to my Y2K doomer days. I'm over all that. I think.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 13, 2000.

>I believe it's overly optimistic in a scenario that we've not yet experienced.

Well, somewhat similar things have happened in the past, and our country survived them.

>Take a look at some new pieces I'm putting up today from the Wall Street Journal, though.

Even responsible and trustworthy news sources will publish/broadcast some of the scary stuff to which I referred earlier. The articles you've just posted seem generally okay, but I think it a good idea to keep in mind that they are editorial, advocating a particular point of view, not necessarily as objective or balanced as straight news stories should be. Nothing wrong with editorials, as long as they aren't confused with straight news stories.

>They might give you pause.

Not really.

>Oh yes...my "rice and beans" comment was purely a tongue-in-cheek self-reference to my Y2K doomer days.

I knew.

>I'm over all that.

I thought so.

>I think.

I wrote my response in a more serious tone than tongue-in-cheek because I intended it for a wider readership than just you, including some readers who might be more seriously worried than you are.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 13, 2000.

No Spam Please,

Holy smokes, can you parse a post! I'm jealous.

I understand your concerns regarding the Journal's pieces generally coming from a specific partisan viewpoint. And this is true. Nevertheless, I submit that these essays, at least, contain penetrating, incisive points that can be divorced from any partisan bent and viewed, analyzed and critiqued in an objective way.

So there!

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 13, 2000.