greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

Who are the winners and losers so far in the Florida election.


- Katherine Harris. Greatly elevated her status. Wouldn't be surprised to see her run for Congress in the future.

- Joe Leiberman. In a no-lose situation. Either he's VP or goes back to the Senate with an elevated status.

- The lawyers. A lot of them are working pro bono (without fee) for the exposure and publicity. Will be great on their resume.

- The newscasters. They are getting a great deal of exposure they wouldn't have had otherwise. Like Bernard Wilson from CCN just happening to be in Bagdad the night the fireworks started.

- Governor Bush. Even if he does lose, he will have a greatly evevated status within the GOP as the party standard bearer.

- The Florida economy. All of these newscasters, attorneys, hangers-on, etc. are spending money for hotels, meals, etc.

The losers:

- VP Gore. I can see him coming out of this with a good reputation either way.

- Others yet to be determine.

Your nominees?

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), November 29, 2000


Question about Joe Leiberman. I am not positive about my dates, but Congress convenes on Jan 3 and the House certifies the Electoral vote on Jan 6. Does Leiberman have to decide before Jan 3 if he wants to be a Senator or potential VP? Interesting.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), November 29, 2000.

If Leiberman does not return to the Senate I am about 99.9% sure the Governor of Conn. would name his replacement pending a special election in a couple of years. Does anyone know if the Governor is a Democrat or Republican?

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), November 29, 2000.

The real loser is the American people. The properly defined election process is being held hostage by a man and his party who will not admit they did not win. Perhaps they simply cannot believe it was possible for them to lose, but Gore and his handlers are slowly doing all they can to mangle the American electoral process. They will likely be the catalyst for changing the electoral process, which I doubt seriously will be in the best interest of we, the people. When was the last time a politician or political party tried to change something because it best served the people or the country? They change things because it best serves them and other politicians.

And who know, perhaps Clinton will turn out to be the big winner, at least for a while. Perhaps he will declare himself indispensible to the betterment and preservation of this country and stay in office because "there is no clear cut winner". He has been busy hiring more people into the FEMA offices. After all, all that is required for him to declare a federal emergency is a little executive order, and as we discussed in depth here before Y2K, the mechanism is in place to give FEMA absolute control over the people of this country. They can, with the stroke of a pen, have absolute control over us and everything we own. I know a lot of you are shaking your heads and declaring me to be a paranoid person, and you are right. But remember, the paranoid survive. It's the comfortable ones that don't worry that get taken by surprise.

-- Green (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), November 29, 2000.

I think Bush and Gore both lose. Let's say Bush gets the White House-- -and he didn't get the popular vote---he's going to be ridiculed as a poseur for 4 years. Gore loses too, because he doesn't know when to say when. IMHO, if Gore said 'uncle' earlier he would have retained his dignity, such as it was, and could have slammed Bush in 4 years. I say both of their careers will end here. Probably why Gore is pushing so hard.

I hope Bush takes English lessons in preparation for the White House.

-- Anne (HT@HM.com), November 29, 2000.

The Gov. of Conn. is GOP.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), November 29, 2000.

Don't agree with the American people being the losers, Green...

...quite the contrary. This is exactly the kind of shakeup we needed as a nation to kick people out of their complacency. Maybe we're embarrassed in the short term, but in the long term, consider...

* Election laws, rules and regulations will be scrutinized as never before.

* The Electoral College debate will kick into high gear. I'm not saying it is good or bad, but it's defenders have got to come up with something better than "we've always done it that way". Its detractors have got to say something better than "it's out of date".

* There will be a big push to find a replacement for the punch card ballot machine.

* There will be a new debate about how much the Federal government should manage Federal elections.

* To keep the Feds out, states will have to get their acts together to standardize election processes so that individual counties don't "wing it".

* The House and Senate party divisions are so close that if the Reps and Dems DON'T start working together, nothing will get done and then you'll REALLY see some P.O.ed voters. Enough perhaps, for the proverbial third party to make some solid gains.

These next four years are going to be, uh, interesting.


-- Craig Miller (CMiller@ssd.com), November 29, 2000.

One can only hope that some good comes out of this, such as the end of both Gore's and Bush's political careers. Both are showing as the sleaze they are.

And that goofy mix master of a voting system. Whether its half way accurate or not, it needs to be unified and hopefully computerized in a way to prevent any bad or late counted ballots and to make it very easy to tally, write ins and all. If something looks fishy it will definitely be because of intentional tampering, not playing games with weaknesses or even apparent weakness in the physical method of voting. I support absolute fairness. Eliminate even the appearance of any possible mixups with dimples, pimples, or other chitchat. Notice I said eliminate even the APPEARANCE of problems. You want confidence in election results you have to strive for that ultimate goal. Calling names in a partisan manner does nobody any long term good. Just fodder for the lawyers and newspeople. In my notion if the initial results were reversed, both Al and W would take exactly opposite position from their present stance. Neither supports absolute fairness and accuracy. They both just want what benefits them personally in very short term. Not a good quality in a true leader.

-- Hermit John (hermit@hilltop_homestead.zzn.com), November 29, 2000.

Pardon me, perhaps I missed something but I didn't notice Bush doing anything sleazy. Perhaps you could fill us in?

-- Sue (animalfarm@address.com), November 29, 2000.

Yup, Hermit John, I agree. I remember hearing once that perception is everything. When it comes to elections I think every effort should be made to keep the reality and the perception above board and squeeky clean. While I understand the comments of others about Gore wanting to recount until he wins(one perception) another is that every vote should be counted and it seems to me the Republicans are fighting that tooth and nail. Maybe they know if it happens their boy will loose.

And Sue, I can't give you any firm examples of Bush sleezyness but I have a hunch Hermit John is right. He had a cake walk with the media during the campaign and I suspect there's alot we don't know about him that would be less than pleasing to most of us.

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), November 29, 2000.

I havn't seen anything Bush has done as slezzy. I'm glad he didn't just sit back and let Gore do anything he wanted. What's he supposed to do? Just go away? Allot of Dems I know are changing their party now that all this crying is going on, and on, and on, and on. What I don't understand is why they have been allowed to continue after the first recount.

Now don't slam me for speaking, but I believe God sometimes allows things to happen to open people's eyes. Just my thinking here, no one elses. Don't anyone get upset. For pete's sake, this country's morals have been going downhill for years and no one cares WHAT goes on as long as the money flows. I will try to see the good in things, and maybe, just maybe, this is what this country needed to slap them out of their sleep. Either that or just condone recount till you win.

-- Cindy in Ky (solidrockranch@msn.com), November 30, 2000.

Maybe sleazy is wrong word? I dont think so, but I wasnt insinuating that I had proof of either of these golden boys having done a Watergate or a Monica, although I wouldnt put it past them. What I am really disgusted with is the selfish, running roughshod over all obstical, attitude both of these people showed all through the election and in this Florida election controversity. Neither is taking a mature attitude. Just spin, spin, spin. Bush is pulling out all stops to prevent an accurate recount while he's ahead (running out the clock so to speak) and Gore only wants votes recounted that might give him an advantage. Neither has any true respect for the commmon citizen and that citizen's vote. I wouldnt expect any fairness or respect for average guy whichever of these bozos finally grabs the presidency. I hope Floridians and others push to improve their ballot system as I said before to eliminate any wiggle room for selfish candidates and their hired guns. As shown, our current ballot system just doesnt cut it with big population and a close election.

-- Hermit John (hermit@hilltop_homestead.zzn.com), November 30, 2000.

In response to the earlier post which stated that Bush doesn't want an accurate recount, please explain how trying to keep the democrats from recounting only a few select counties is wrong? I agree that voting should be fair and as easy as possible and I agree with other posts that call for reform. We use a "line-ballot" here and it seems very easy. But before anyone gets too emotional about those dis- enfranchised voters in those three counties consider in every county in the USA votes are disqualified due to improper procedure. In other words what happened in those disputed counties happened EVERYWHERE!! So what is fair about only recounting those votes? According to Fla. law you only have 48hrs after election to file for a recount, and you can rest assure Gores lawyers know this since I've heard them say it. Therefore any attempts to recount the 50something counties in FLA that the rebuplicans won would be illegal. Maybe this court hearing will change that.

-- Mark M in NC (magicmark@aol.com), November 30, 2000.

I think Gore is the main looser, I listen to talk radio and have heard many dems call in to say they voted for Gore and would change thier vote now if they could, havn't heard the same said of Bush.

-- Tina (clia88@newmexico.com), November 30, 2000.

OK, U.S. Supreme Court hearing Friday morning. What is the betting it will go either way?

A bit complicated: If they side with Bush, the election results of November 14th stand. If they side with Gore, the election results of November 26th stand - so Gore loses either way - unless the Florida Supreme Court steps in again.

I am a Republican, so you know my bias. However, more and more people simply want to get this over. On CNN yesterday there had to be several hours of live shots of the Ryder truck going from Palm Beach County to Tallahassee. Must have been a slow news day. Probably the same thing today from Miami/Dade County to Tallahassee.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 01, 2000.

New Democratic Party Seal http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1328907&a=9880128&p=34456420&Sequence=0&res=high

-- ~Rogo (rogo2020@yahoo.com), December 01, 2000.

I got this in my email today. I didn't write it. I don't belong to any party but thought this was very thought provoking. I suggest that you read it from the IMAGINE perspective . . . . ********************

"This is from an article in which a Zimbabwe politician was quoted as saying that children should study this event closely for it shows that election fraud is not only a third world phenomena....

1. Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self-declared winner was the son of the former prime minister and that former prime minister was himself the former head of that nation's secret police (CIA).

2. Imagine that the self-declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some old colonial holdover (electoral college) from the nation's pre-democracy past.

3. Imagine that the self-declared winner's 'victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother!

4. Imagine that the poorly drafted ballots of one district, a district heavily favoring the self-declared winner's opponent, led thousands of voters to vote for the wrong candidate.

5. Imagine that members of that nation's most despised caste, fearing for their lives/livelihoods, turned out in record numbers to vote in near-universal opposition to the self-declared winner's candidacy.

6. Imagine that hundreds of members of that most-despised caste were intercepted on their way to the polls by state police operating under the authority of the self-declared winner's brother.

7. Imagine that six million people voted in the disputed province and that the self-declared winner's 'lead' was only 327 votes. Fewer, certainly, than the vote counting machines' margin of error.

8. Imagine that the self-declared winner and his political party opposed a more careful by-hand inspection and re-counting of the ballots in the disputed province or in its most hotly disputed district.

9. Imagine that the self-declared winner, himself a governor of a major province, had the worst human rights record of any province in his nation and actually led the nation in executions.

10. Imagine that a major campaign promise of the self-declared winner was to appoint like-minded human rights violators to lifetime positions on the high court of that nation.

None of us would deem such an election to be representative of anything other than the self-declared winner's will-to-power. All of us, I imagine, would wearily turn the page thinking that it was another sad tale of pitiful pre- or anti-democracy peoples in some strange elsewhere."

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), December 01, 2000.

Wow Joy, you sure got me thinking with that one!!!!

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), December 01, 2000.

Joy, very interesting perspective. One thing that I don't do very well, but wish I did (and keep trying to) is that anytime I feel my "buttons being pushed" (i.e.: something emotional is grabbing me!) to calmly turn the tables and imagine how I would feel in the other person's position. It helps define the real issue(s) and give a person a little empathy to boot. This election has people so emotional, that I fear that it's hard to imagine being "on the other side" to get the needed perspective, and hence, wisdom about it. HOWEVER, by this example, one can remove the party viewpoint and see how it could be seen in the above context. Looking at the way an independent party might view current political events (kind of the old "if a Martian landed on the planet and saw what was going on" type of perspective....)one can see that the idea of "stealing the election" can be seen from another perspective besides just the Bush camp's. Thanks for providing it.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 01, 2000.

btw, Maria Cantwell just won the Senate seat here in WA state. So, looks like a tie in the Senate, thus far.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 01, 2000.

Folks, I'm not into a big argument about who's sleazier, but I agree with Hermit John. I think both Bore and Gush have been less than honest in claiming that "I'm only interested in the voice of the American citizen being heard."

If Gore wanted to hear the American people, he'd step down. And if Bush wanted to hear it, he'd step down (after all, there is NO dispute about the popular vote.)

BUT! Even if there were NO corruption, NO miscounts, NO "misleading ballots", NO pregnant chads (you know, the pregnancy caused by incomplete insertion of the tool), the truth is, we would still have a TIE! There is no system in the known world which is perfect at counting ballots, whether it's human or machine. There's also no process which is so clear that someone can't claim that they were tricked by it.

Fact is, the count is so close that we could recount every ballot in the whole damn country ten times and get ten different results.

I only see two ways to settle this without causing lots of bitterness, and loss of confidence in the system:

1) Either Bush or Gore should bow out in the interest of the good of all of us. It appears it might be a bit late in the process for this, unfortunately. Incidentally, whichever one would have bowed out (at least before turning on their sleaziness) would have had a shining reputation going into the NEXT election, and whichever one did not bow out would spend four years being the object of suspicion and scorn.

2) Have both Gush and Bore meet somewhere, in private, and agree to a method of solving the dilema. Maybe flip a coin. Maybe the best three out of five flips of the coin. Maybe a friendly game of five card stud. Or two out of three. I don't particularly like this second method, but I like it a heluvalot better than what is happening in "reality".


-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 01, 2000.

Geez Joy, that's really great!!! And here us oh-so-sophisticated Americans have been lecturing the poor-ignorant-Africans on how to run democratic elections!!! Guess we got slapped one up alongside the head on that one!

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), December 02, 2000.

I seen a cute cartoon the other day that had Bush and Gore sharing the seat in the presidents office with a caption I'll take mon, wed, and fri and you can have tues, thurs and sat and we can alternate sundays. just a thought.

-- cynthia (cynthiahemenway@hotmail.com), December 02, 2000.

If they counted each county (ie..Hardin County, Meade County) in each state as 1 instead of using Electorial Votes by states, Bush would have won by a major landslide. Bush got more than 3/4 of the land mass in the US. That is saying something, and that is important. I don't think the counties with more people should be more important than the other counties.

-- Cindy in Ky (solidrockranch@msn.com), December 02, 2000.

So, it's the actual land mass that counts more than the actual people? I cannot understand that reasoning . . . can you explain?

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), December 02, 2000.

Glued to the TV the past couple of days. What an education in American politics and the legal system! My assessment is yesterday Gore went 0-3-1 (with the one being a possible no-judgement from the U.S. Supreme Court. Today Bush's lawyers seemed to make major, major holes in the positions of Gore's 'expert' witnesses. To use two of Yogi's: "It ain't over till its over" and "It aint over until the fat lady sings." Someone wake up the fat lady.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 02, 2000.

Let's see, no president, tie in the senate....... if we can just figure out how to keep the house locked up, we could be close to a perfectly run government. This may not be so bad after all. John

-- John in S IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), December 02, 2000.

Okay, okay, I confess. I spent all day today, Saturday, watching the Leon county court case. I watched it on c-span so that I would not have to listen to any media spins and could make my own judgement on the events. It was absolutely fascinating. Hubby and I spent all day watching it and discussing what we thought was happening. The absolutely BIGGEST thing that came out of this is that the Gore team fed their statistician expert witness false information which allowed him to come to false conclusions which helped their case. The Bush team was able to show a) that the statistician did not realize his affidavit was being used in the Florida supreme court case this past week. He stated that he thought it was just a draft and it still had errors that needed correcting. b. Because of the information that the Gore team provided him, he came to false conclusions and had to admit that on national television. It made him look like he was a liar. But besides the fact that the Gore team knowingly allowed false testimony to be presented, (gee democrats don't have to tell the truth under oath, do we?) they also may have ruined this poor young man's professional career. He is a Harvard professor who is a Canadian citizen and therefore did not vote in our election. He was made to look like he was a liar. I feel extremely sorry for this poor young man who has his whole career ahead of him. He was a very good witness until Bush's team was able to show that he made his analysis on false information which was provided by Gore's team. How low will the Democrats stoop to try to get elected? They committed illegal acts, allowed testimony which they knew to be based on false information to be submitted to the Florida Supreme court which resulted in a ruling in their favor. I'm sorry but I think this election should be decided on truth, not lies. When will this madness stop. The Democrats are really scaring me because I always thought that Clinton was the only one willing to commit perjury to cover his butt. Now I have learned that there are many others willing to commit perjury for the Democratic party. This is absolutely outrageous. Watch MSNBC if you want to see reruns of the Bush attorney, Mr. Beck, expose this witness as providing false testimony. The guy is crestfallen. He can't believe he has been duped by the Gore lawyers. I hope he doesn't commit suicide because he sees his integrity trashed beyond recovery. What a way to treat our Canadian neighbor. Where will it all end? At this point, if Gore wins, I absolutely will not trust his administration. His lawyers have shown they have no hesitation to lie and perjure themselves to meet their objective.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), December 02, 2000.

Joy, I will explain. The way it is they don't divide up the electoral votes fairly. In a state, one gets all and one gets nothing. To me this is not the way the state voted. They should divide up the electoral votes between the canidates. It would be a much more accurate assesment of the voters. And there should always be a way to balance the populated areas with the not so populated areas. Otherwise, like everyone has said before, the cities will always make all the decisions for the whole country.

-- Cindy in Ky (solidrockranch@msn.com), December 02, 2000.

Yes, I agree the electoral college concept could be amended to make the count more equitable; however this does not address the seemingly ridiculous notion that land mass has something to do with who wins an election! Seems to me the PEOPLE are who do the voting,and all of us people should have an equal vote. Doesn't matter to me if they live in Podunk Arkansas or New York City.

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000.


Mr. Beck didn't just trash their expert statistician, I think he also trashed their voting machine expert. When the expert witness started to say, "I image," Beck jumped on him. About the only thing he proved was how explicit the instructions on the voting machine booth were. I don't think the judge is going to give his testimony, or that of the statistician, much weight.

On the chad build-up, I think Gore's attorneys missed a key point to support this theory. I have used a three-hole punch on numberous occasions to do a large stack of paper. If you don't clean out the collection tray every so often the punches will stop going through because of the build-up under the punches. This could have easily been demonstrated.

Since you watched CSPAN you likely missed a bit of humor offered by the judge from Palm Beach County. He said in an interview when he checked in at the airport in Washington, DC to come to Tallahassee the ticket agent looked at him, then held up his ticket to the light.

Gore's attorneys are going to have to prove gross misconduct on the part of the Canvasing Board Committees and I doubt they will do that.

Real sleeper here is the one lawsuit to throw out all of the absentee ballots in one county because Republicans added some information to the application form - not the ballots - just the form for requesting a ballot. That one will likely end up in the FL Supreme Court.

Now that court knows the original Gore brief contained, if not deliberately false, at least delibertly misleading, information I doubt Gore is going to get much sympathy there in the future.

Note that Gore has gone back to keeping a low profile while Bush has stepped up his.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 03, 2000.

In response to Joys "land mass" statement. It is important that we maintain an equality of all "land mass" regoions. Tell me, do you own one of those Manhatten or S.C. Los Angeles homesteads? Without the college, the people in those areas would be the ones deciding the whole contest. Consider this, citizens not in those heavily populated area usually own property and pay tax on it and their incomes, while most metro areas are housed in commercial housing (that is taxed at a different rate) and only pay tax on income. Also, according to cenus figures, most immigrants concentrate in these areas. True many of these may be intent on carving a home here, but many more are only here temporary and fully intend to return to their homeland after "making their fortune" in this country. In closing, I find it very difficult to understand how some can profess to be pursuing a self sufficient lifestyle, independently of as much outside help as is feasible and support a political machine that runs on contoling a country and people with government support and handouts that are funded by the hard working people and property owners of this country. How many of us here really want to share the fruits of our hard labors with those that don't want to even consider anything harder than public aid. Democratic adminitrations have historically made it too easy for abuse of public aid.

-- Jay Blair (jayblair678@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000.

Colleen, isn't it interesting how ten people can watch the same show and come up with ten different opinions on what took place, depending on the perspective we brought with us when we sat down? All that negative energy spewing forth has got to be draining; can be very damaging to one's health. I also remind myself frequently that whenever I point my finger at someone/something , I am pointing three back at myself.....

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000.

Ken, same absentee ballot problems now in Martin County (like the ones in Seminole County) that you mentioned as the "sleeper" issue above, and I have referenced on two threads. This is really interesting to me (plus I have relatives in Stuart, FL, who can provide me with their version! They are Repubs, tho...LOL!) It would be a coincidence, wouldn't it, if TWO counties had the same "creative" partisan way of helping resolve the missing Voter ID numbers problem, wouldn't it? Coincidence is an interesting concept. Hmmmm. The truth is out there Scully.....

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 03, 2000.

We can discuss all day but the truth is that if the recount had been done without the repubs trying to stop it at every turn it would be over with an accurate count. If the vote was this close in Texas then it would be automatic to recount by hand. Bush signed that into law in Texas so what is his problem? It's standard, It's legal and it is just. So just do it already.

-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), December 03, 2000.

"Land mass" was just a figure of speech. People live in the land. It should always be about all of us, not just the concentrated areas.

-- Cindy in Ky (solidrockranch@msn.com), December 03, 2000.

Jay, did my question to Cindy tick you off somehow? I sort of got that impression from your post. Did you really want an answer to your question "do you own one of those Manhatten or S.C. Los Angeles homesteads?" If so, the answer is no, I live in Wisconsin.

If you go back and read Cindy's post, right above my question, you will see that she is talking about counties in a state. Quote: "I don't think the counties with more people should be more important than the other counties." When I said, land mass, I probably should have said, square miles. If each county has as much say (within a state) as the next, regardless of population, what is it that makes "county" the defining land mass to be counted? Why not each town? Each block in each town? Each dwelling? Each adult? Oops, that's popular vote isn't it? Why is one definition of division more important than the other? That is what I was asking Cindy.

She says she doesn't think that the "winner take all" set up in most the states is fair (that WAS what you were saying, wasn't it Cindy?). Well, fine, she's entitled to her opinion, and entitled to work in her state to change the way the electoral votes are apportioned. Maine and another state aren't winner take all -- it's up the the states, i.e. the people that live and vote in them. Actually, I don't think "winner takes all" is the best way to apportion the electoral votes of a state either. I just didn't understand why a particular land mass (delineated by an artificial, human designation) was more important than any other designation or the general population.

Now, Jay, the rest of your post doesn't make sense to me either. For instance, the part about who pays how much taxes. It seems you are saying that those who pay MORE taxes are more important than those who pay less taxes, in this case property taxes. So, are only taxpayers allowed to vote? Or if I pay more taxes than you, does my vote carry more weight? Lots of people here post about how they're trying to earn so little money, they won't have to pay income tax. So maybe their votes shouldn't count? In the case of the maybe "temporary" immigrants, if, by our laws they're entitled to vote, why should their votes not count? I'm not just being argumentative, I really do not see what you are getting at. And if the part about "supporting a political machine" etc. was directed at me, I have to tell you, I DON'T support this politcal machine, and I didn't vote for Gore.

-- Joy F (SouthernWisc) (dragnfly@chorus.net), December 04, 2000.

I understood everything Jay said, and it makes allot of sense. He said it very clear and to the point.

-- Cindy in Ky (solidrockranch@msn.com), December 04, 2000.

In a way, rural areas are equally represented.

Each state has a legislature. One may be combined, but rest have a house and senate of specific size. Representatives and Senators are assigned districts based on population. Use the example of a state of 100,000 with 20,000 living in one metro area and 30,000 in another and there are 100 reps. and 40 sens. Metro area one would be allotted 30 reps. and 8 sens. Metro area two would be allotted 30 reps and 12 sens. The others would be scattered around the rest of the state based on population areas, which can include one or more counties. If this same state had 60,000 republicans, 30,000 democrats and 10,000 independents or other parties, one would reasonably expect the chambers to reflect this.

Electorial votes are assigned to states on the basis of their number of Congressional representatives and senators, which itself is based on population for representatives. As the result of the 2000 census, the mix between states will change. Likely, at least Florida, will pick up additional electors as the result of population growth above normal birth rates. These must be taken from somewhere else as the result of some states gaining additional representatives and some states losing them, again based on population changes as reflected by the census.

It is a beautiful checks and balances system (as is the system of a Legislature, Executive and Judicial brances). In my opinion, the Electorial College is a very critical part of this system.

Yes, two states allocate electorial slates based on the vote, but I think winner take all is just as fair. Use this year when it appears Bush will have 271 electorial votes, one more than needed. If the electors had been allocated based percent of vote, at least one third party would have enough not to give a majority to anyone - and it is thrown in the U.S. Congress. Now the deal making starts and shades of governments like Italy, France, Canada, Israel, etc. where the term of a President or Prime Minister is sometimes measured in months. Look at how many different governments (administrations) Italy has had just since WW-II. Israel faces yet another governmental vote. We just had one in Canada.

The current system may not be perfect, but it has worked for better than 200 years and has a long-life expectancy if people don't go around playing with it.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 04, 2000.

If you like those Sore/Loserman signs, they, and bumper stickers, can be ordered from www.largerthanlifegraphics.com. If your neighbor still has Gore/Leiberman yards signs you can sneak over at night and put one of these over theirs.

About the only anti-Bush bumper sticker I have seen is "Hey there Georgie's boy."

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 04, 2000.

Right now my sister is wishing that Washington state had a county electoral system. A Senator was just elected by 2000 votes by carrying five counties in the entire state. What does this say about our political life when we have this diversity between city and rural areas? Why are democrats taking city areas by storm? It's because they are the ones with the deep pockets. Living in the city naturally makes you dependent on services, so why not vote for who provides more services. In addition, it is very easy for city people to tell country people how to care for their land, when they don't live on it themselves. If this situation is not remedied soon, there will be food shortages will result, and it won't be because of over- population. It will be because of under-population in rural areas. I remeber watching this movie where everyone in the world was packed into a dome city, supposedly because of nuclear holocaust. The rest of the earth was empty. One guy didn't believe that it was dangerous, and escaped. Come to find out there was a whole lot of others who had too and were living in peace and harmony, while the rest of humanity was under the thumb of the despotic government inside the dome. I only wish that such a thing was possible. It would solve a lot of problems to my way of thinking.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), December 04, 2000.

Someone please go and wake up the fat lady. She needs to start warming up. The U.S. Supreme Court has just overturned the FL Supreme Court ruling which provided an extension to hand-counting ballots. Basically everything else going on in Florida courts is now moot.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 04, 2000.

I am trying to say yippee Ken but I know there will be more legal challenges to this decision. I keep telling hubby that this won't be over until some time next year unless Gore concedes. And I don't think he will ever do that. He will keep whining and trying until all avenues are exhausted. I think the Democrats in Congress need to step in and say this is getting ridiculous. What part of No doesn't Gore understand? The N or the O?

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), December 04, 2000.


Yes, another Yogism is "It ain't over till it's over." However, today the Gore team lost in both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Florida Circuit Court. On the first it was returned for additional information on how the FL Supreme Court reached its decision. On the second, they lost on all points raised.

At this point I just don't see the case against Seminole and Martin Countries for absentee ballots making a difference.

The clock is simply running out on the Gore team.

Only thing probably absolutely positive at this point is Attorney Boise won't be the next Attorney General.

-- Ken S.in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 04, 2000.

That fat lady is indeed warming up. But, you never know! Like I said, Gore might just be stalling to see what Republican (in the words of Elmer Fudd) twickewy can be exposed before the "Game Over" sign flashes on!

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 04, 2000.


It is something like: Bush 6-0 - Gore 0-6. Sooner or later he'll figure it out. I still think he has lost so much clout he will never again be a national candidate. Tennessee doesn't want him back either.

Also bear in mind it would take only two electorates to go against their slate to not give Bush enough Electorial College votes. This is unlikely since the slates are generally made up of county chair people and the like, but... I understand all of the electorates are being bombarded with mail and calls asking them to change their vote to Gore.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 05, 2000.

Here's one I got this morning in my e-mail: Advertisement for Florida.

Palm Beach County. We put the "duh" in Florida!

-- Cindy in Ky (solidrockranch@msn.com), December 05, 2000.

Nick, if you mean "hand count" by your "recount", how can you put that in the same sentence with "accurate"? I saw the hand process, filmed for CNN. Get real. IF, however, you mean the original recount--by machine, YES, I agree--as accurate as a (non-partisan) machine can be and as accurate as the voter who can't be bothered to check his work against the directions (or ask for aid) should expect-- and enough for me. Bravo!

-- weary of it all but glad for the civics lesson to the "awakened" uninformed (zumende@aol.com), December 05, 2000.

New Florida bumper sticker, "Don't blame me, I voted for both of them".

-- Mark M in NC (magicmark@aol.com), December 05, 2000.

Please post further comments on the above to the new thread.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 06, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ