help Nie understand

[Nie Trink Wasser]

for me the 2000 election issue was over when Gore conceded.


anyone else here feel the same way or am I just a right wing nazi ?

 

[corplinx]

Never forget the betrayal by the supreme court, the right wing media, and the democrat voting authorities who counted the votes! Democr... Well.... Uh... Nevermind.....

 

[Tricky]

for me the 2000 election issue was over when Gore conceded.

The election was over. The issues remain. We need to try to be sure nothing like that happens again. As you can see, it is still tearing the country apart.

anyone else here feel the same way or am I just a right wing nazi ?

I dunno. According to Jedi, Nazi's are left wing.

 

[corplinx]

The election raised serious issues about many things. It raised concerns about the "user friendliness" of voting mechanisms.

Also, the third party who does felony checks on the voter roles in Florida was put through due scrutiny.

I also think we need to realize that the election more than other event demonstrates the hypocrisy of some people. It to me is what defines a critical thinking liberal/democrat. Sorta like how the OJ trial was black americans. Simply put, if you jumped up and down hooting and cheering when OJ was declared innocent, you are simply not a critical thinker when it comes to issues sensitive to you as a black american. In the same way, liberals who go around talking about betrayals display the same lack of critical thinking skills.

Riddle me this. A voter in Florida gets instructions in the mail saying to punch a chad completely through and that hanging chads do not count as votes. The voting area has the instructions on the wall. The same instructions are in the voting booth. Also, it is feat of dexterity and precision to intentionally create a hanging chad as the things pop out with the slightest pressure. So how is it that a selective recount of 3 counties with the standard of a vote reduced to stray marks on a chad (probably manufacturing defects) is not betrayal while a supreme court decision stopping the foolishness is?

A hanging chad is an improperly cast vote. In the case of military ballots lacking the correct postmark, the vote was properly cast but the ship post officer didnt not mark them correctly. How is it not a betrayal when they try to keep these votes from being counted?

I don't claim the pro-Bush camp are angels but I find the one sided claims of betrayal to be shallow and hypocritical.

Its pure rubbish. The only legitimate concern I have seen is over the role of the third party company who checked registrations for felonies. Unfortunately, it is not quantifiable how many people intended to vote that were not allowed. It sucks, we all know it, but its over. All we can do is fix it so it doesnt happen again.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Re: Re: help Nie understand

I dunno. According to Jedi, Nazi's are left wing. [/B]

and from my experiences in life, I'd have to agree with Jedi.

 

[jj]

for me the 2000 election issue was over when Gore conceded.

In other words, when we had a president appointed by a court, you were happy with the result, so it was over.

None the less, it is still entirely unclear who "won" the election, the results of voting in Dade Co are still bizzare, and the voting system in his brother's own state is the cause. (To be clear, I am not talking about the popular vote here.)

But we can ignore all that, because you like the guy who won.

Yeah, right.

Why does a line from Mikado come to mind?

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Re: Re: help Nie understand

In other words, when we had a president appointed by a court, you were happy with the result, so it was over.

no

when Gore called Bush on the phone and admitted defeat, it was over for me.

I wouldn't want someone in office that can't even make up his own mind about his election stance.

What does the Constitution say about elections like this ?

 

[corplinx]

You have to expect people to be bitter. There are still people bitter about the Kennedy/Nixon fiasco.

 

[Dancing David]

Uh, yes the electionw as over when Gore said I quit, but I have two issues,

A. the Rebuplicans saying 'these ballots have been recounted and recounted, when is it going to stop', when point of fact there hadbn't been even a machine recount. (Nothing exceptional just hypocrasy)

B. There were allegations of severe abuses of the right to vote, which I never heard what happened when they were investigated. Voters who were in line were told they could not vote when the polls closed and roadblock (allegedly) to stop democrats from voting.


It is my belief that tensions would be just as high had things worked out in Gore's favor.

What I would like to know is if the research done on the election will ever be seen in the media?

(I agree that this is a moot issue, but I also feel that voting rights are important either way.)

 

[Checkmite]

Re: Re: Re: help Nie understand

What does the Constitution say about elections like this ?

Nothing...which is why so many are confused.

 

[corplinx]

A. the Rebuplicans saying 'these ballots have been recounted and recounted, when is it going to stop', when point of fact there hadbn't been even a machine recount. (Nothing exceptional just hypocrasy)

Wasn't there a second automatic machine recount after the first tally? I could be wrong.

 

[Dancing David]

I heard on NPR that this was not the case in many counties, although I never heard about the contested counties, which was why I asked why we haven't had it all aired out in the media yet.

My god this wasn't even as boring as the Carter/Regan election, now there was a snoozer.

 

[peptoabysmal]

for me the 2000 election issue was over when Gore conceded.


anyone else here feel the same way or am I just a right wing nazi ?

I agree and I voted for Gore. That's how recently I was a commie.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

for me the 2000 election issue was over when Gore conceded.


anyone else here feel the same way or am I just a right wing nazi ?

I didn't vote, so I don't care.

Besides, it's 2003. It's time to move on. Get over it.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Re: Re: help Nie understand

I agree and I voted for Gore. That's how recently I was a commie.

*yawn*

 

[karl]

Riddle me this. A voter in Florida gets instructions in the mail saying to punch a chad completely through and that hanging chads do not count as votes. The voting area has the instructions on the wall. The same instructions are in the voting booth. Also, it is feat of dexterity and precision to intentionally create a hanging chad as the things pop out with the slightest pressure. So how is it that a selective recount of 3 counties with the standard of a vote reduced to stray marks on a chad (probably manufacturing defects) is not betrayal while a supreme court decision stopping the foolishness is?

A hanging chad is an improperly cast vote. In the case of military ballots lacking the correct postmark, the vote was properly cast but the ship post officer didnt not mark them correctly. How is it not a betrayal when they try to keep these votes from being counted?

It's like this ... [going into cynical mode]

When you create a voting process that requires people to read and understand instructions, you're not doing your job right, because it's inevitable that there will be a lot of improperly cast votes.

Like it or not, if you believe in democracy you can't exclude a portion of the lazy, stupid, clumsy or confused voters due to a technical matter. When they screw up (at least when they screw up in large numbers), it's due to the system not being foolproof enough, and it becomes the responsibility of those who organized the election to set things right.

 

[Baker]

It's like this ... [going into cynical mode]

When you create a voting process that requires people to read and understand instructions, you're not doing your job right, because it's inevitable that there will be a lot of improperly cast votes.

Like it or not, if you believe in democracy you can't exclude a portion of the lazy, stupid, clumsy or confused voters due to a technical matter. When they screw up (at least when they screw up in large numbers), it's due to the system not being foolproof enough, and it becomes the responsibility of those who organized the election to set things right.

Just how many votes where do to error I don’t see how Bush would get so many vote from error and not Gore also Jeb Bush George W’s brother won a in land slide election for governor since then was that also do to error?

 

[Zep]

Re: Re: help Nie understand

I didn't vote, so I don't care.

[cynical_mode] One more time for the dummies; [/cynical_mode] Why are elections in the USA still NON-compulsory?

From outside, US election results as published seem like sheer nonsense, really. When way less than 50% of the population votes, and the winner in a two-horse race just scrapes in with a majority, that means less than 25% of the whole country voted this guy's way. It seems that if there was a candidate called "Don't Care" then he would romp in.

I would suggest that the results would be hugely different, hanging chads be buggered, if everyone actually said their 2c worth at the polls instead of sitting at home on the couch scratching their anatomies or whatever. It's not like most Americans don't feel free to voice their opinions strongly most other times!

And none of this malarkey about the right not to vote either! What if the vast majority didn't vote? How easy would it be to have an election result that comes nowhere near representing the actual will of the people? Put another way: How small a voting turnout does it have to be to reduce an election to a completely unrepresentative farce?

But since voting it IS non-complusory, if you didn't vote then, who cares what you think now? If you really care about your issues and/or candidates and/or processes, have a go at getting them fixed, and try turning out at a polling place in 2004 instead.

[end_of_rant]

Zep

 

[karl]

Re: Re: Re: help Nie understand

And none of this malarkey about the right not to vote either! What if the vast majority didn't vote? How easy would it be to have an election result that comes nowhere near representing the actual will of the people? Put another way: How small a voting turnout does it have to be to reduce an election to a completely unrepresentative farce?

If you ask the politicians, I don't think there is any lower limit. OK, maybe there has to be at least one voter.

Where I live we have annual elections for the student unions at our universities. Voter turnout was around 12-13% during my time (it may have dropped further since then), typically resulting in a governing coalition of parties that together narrowly managed half of those votes. And as one might expect, they proudly claim to democratically represent the interests of the students.

 

[Dancing David]

It's like this ... [going into cynical mode]

When you create a voting process that requires people to read and understand instructions, you're not doing your job right, because it's inevitable that there will be a lot of improperly cast votes.

Like it or not, if you believe in democracy you can't exclude a portion of the lazy, stupid, clumsy or confused voters due to a technical matter. When they screw up (at least when they screw up in large numbers), it's due to the system not being foolproof enough, and it becomes the responsibility of those who organized the election to set things right.

Well the real shame is that it was a democratic ballot designed by democrats and approved by democrats, pretty funny!