Review validates Supreme Court's decision
May 14, 2001 11:16 AM Subscribe
Review validates Supreme Court's decision or so says the Miami Herald which endorsed Al Gore for president.
The review may confirm that Bush took Florida. It does not, however, "validate" the Supreme Court's decision. Nothing could do that.
posted by jpoulos at 11:32 AM on May 14, 2001
posted by jpoulos at 11:32 AM on May 14, 2001
And it goes on to say... "Mr. Gore failed to seek such a recount last fall, a decision that history may see as a major blunder. Under the rules in place then, and using a standard that even the Gore campaign accepted, Mr. Bush's victory is clear. "
I'm in total agreement that our election system needs a major overhaul. But the time to do is before the election, not during it.
posted by revbrian at 11:33 AM on May 14, 2001
I'm in total agreement that our election system needs a major overhaul. But the time to do is before the election, not during it.
posted by revbrian at 11:33 AM on May 14, 2001
There has been much vote counting and speculation since the "victor" was declared. What is never counted in one way or the other,however, is the number of minority folks who did not get to cast votes because they had been turned away. In a close count, those rightfully intending to vote who did not vote make an important difference. I do not know how many lost their right to vote. The figure I believe was significant.
posted by Postroad at 11:44 AM on May 14, 2001
posted by Postroad at 11:44 AM on May 14, 2001
I would think that a single person (regardless of ethnic background) being dissuaded from voting is significant.
posted by revbrian at 12:15 PM on May 14, 2001
posted by revbrian at 12:15 PM on May 14, 2001
The statement attempts to imply Gore's complicity in the result--because he 'could have asked' for a recount that took three months or more!!! It's a credit to Gore that even though he could have asked for this and won, he didn't.
They act as if the Gore campaign was given unlimited room to make such a recount. Given the pressure, and the protests that the Bush administration was not getting enough transistion time and damage was being done to the Constitution because of the recount, Gore as the respectful citizen he is, tried for the fairest recount in a time-expedient manner; those places where problems occured. As it turned out, he was right: the problems with machines mostly occured with Gore voters.
posted by brucec at 12:18 PM on May 14, 2001
They act as if the Gore campaign was given unlimited room to make such a recount. Given the pressure, and the protests that the Bush administration was not getting enough transistion time and damage was being done to the Constitution because of the recount, Gore as the respectful citizen he is, tried for the fairest recount in a time-expedient manner; those places where problems occured. As it turned out, he was right: the problems with machines mostly occured with Gore voters.
posted by brucec at 12:18 PM on May 14, 2001
[the problems with machines mostly occurred with Gore voters.]
In Florida this did seem to be the case. Elsewhere it wasn't.
In my opinion the problem is that votes don't count all over the place. For example : I live in Pennsylvania where the urban areas overwhelmingly supported Gore and the rural areas overwhelmingly supported Bush. I voted for Bush. My vote really meant nothing because the Gore voters in urban areas outnumbered the rural voters. If, as in some states, the electoral votes were split by percentage I would have felt I had some input.
By this method I believe Gore would have won by a landslide but at least it seems a bit more fair.
posted by revbrian at 12:25 PM on May 14, 2001
In Florida this did seem to be the case. Elsewhere it wasn't.
In my opinion the problem is that votes don't count all over the place. For example : I live in Pennsylvania where the urban areas overwhelmingly supported Gore and the rural areas overwhelmingly supported Bush. I voted for Bush. My vote really meant nothing because the Gore voters in urban areas outnumbered the rural voters. If, as in some states, the electoral votes were split by percentage I would have felt I had some input.
By this method I believe Gore would have won by a landslide but at least it seems a bit more fair.
posted by revbrian at 12:25 PM on May 14, 2001
I voted for Gore, but I don't think his recount strategy was motivated by what a respectful citizen he is. He played to win, and his decision to focus on a small group of Democratic counties was a political disaster. He should have played the "count every vote" strategy to the hilt instead of micromanaging the recount.
As for the Supreme Court, nothing can validate its decision to halt the counting of votes. There was enough time for the courts to mandate a fair standard and require all Florida counties to follow it -- in 1960, Hawaii did not resolve a dispute involving its electors until Jan. 4.
posted by rcade at 12:35 PM on May 14, 2001
As for the Supreme Court, nothing can validate its decision to halt the counting of votes. There was enough time for the courts to mandate a fair standard and require all Florida counties to follow it -- in 1960, Hawaii did not resolve a dispute involving its electors until Jan. 4.
posted by rcade at 12:35 PM on May 14, 2001
I thought in 1960, Hawaii only resolved its dispute after Nixon 'condeded' the state because even if he received their votes, it wouldn't affect the outcome of the election. At least thats what I remember from back watching enless hours of Chris Matthews during late 2000. :)
posted by schlyer at 1:03 PM on May 14, 2001
posted by schlyer at 1:03 PM on May 14, 2001
This is good news and reaffirms the supreme court made the correct decision in awarding Bush the presidency. Those who democrats who feel the 2000 election was stolen by Bush. may harken back to when Kennedy stole the election from Nixon in 1960... fair is fair....
posted by PatMcGroin at 1:28 PM on May 14, 2001
posted by PatMcGroin at 1:28 PM on May 14, 2001
"fair is fair...."
1+1=2, not zero. Two wrongs are two wrongs. If I thought Bush had stolen the election I wouldn't support him.
posted by revbrian at 1:57 PM on May 14, 2001
1+1=2, not zero. Two wrongs are two wrongs. If I thought Bush had stolen the election I wouldn't support him.
posted by revbrian at 1:57 PM on May 14, 2001
That Nixon felt Kennedy stole that election does not make it a fact.
That the Supreme Court ruled in a way that concurred with a theoretical outcome does not make their ruling right.
posted by dhartung at 6:05 PM on May 14, 2001
That the Supreme Court ruled in a way that concurred with a theoretical outcome does not make their ruling right.
posted by dhartung at 6:05 PM on May 14, 2001
Still to me, it seemed that the Florida Supreme Court forced the USSC's hand, overturning a Democrat judge and earning a strong dissent from it's Democrat Chief Justice. So basically, both courts acted in a somewhat Partisan fashion.
posted by gyc at 7:36 PM on May 14, 2001
posted by gyc at 7:36 PM on May 14, 2001
[the problems with machines mostly occurred with Gore voters.]
In Florida this did seem to be the case. Elsewhere it wasn't.
you may be right or wrong. No other state has been examined. Generally urban voters have worse voting equipment, but I wouldn't claim other states had more or less problems until investigated.
My vote really meant nothing because the Gore voters in urban areas outnumbered the rural voters.
In Pennsylvania it was up in the air until Election day, but it was Philie suburbs areas that made the difference. But yes,
in the end your vote did not effect the Electoral College. But it did influence Pennsylvania's choice. And it was counted.
Those who democrats who feel the 2000 election was stolen by Bush. may harken back to when Kennedy stole
the election from Nixon in 1960... fair is fair....
Except for the truth. The vote difference was no where near the .0006% that determined florida There were several state recounts in 1960 , and although Nixon backed off, or pretended he did, Nixon aides and the Republican party in these states did pursue them. Illinois may have had tinkered with for Kennedy and Ohio may have been tinkered with for Nixon.
posted by brucec at 8:21 PM on May 14, 2001
In Florida this did seem to be the case. Elsewhere it wasn't.
you may be right or wrong. No other state has been examined. Generally urban voters have worse voting equipment, but I wouldn't claim other states had more or less problems until investigated.
My vote really meant nothing because the Gore voters in urban areas outnumbered the rural voters.
In Pennsylvania it was up in the air until Election day, but it was Philie suburbs areas that made the difference. But yes,
in the end your vote did not effect the Electoral College. But it did influence Pennsylvania's choice. And it was counted.
Those who democrats who feel the 2000 election was stolen by Bush. may harken back to when Kennedy stole
the election from Nixon in 1960... fair is fair....
Except for the truth. The vote difference was no where near the .0006% that determined florida There were several state recounts in 1960 , and although Nixon backed off, or pretended he did, Nixon aides and the Republican party in these states did pursue them. Illinois may have had tinkered with for Kennedy and Ohio may have been tinkered with for Nixon.
posted by brucec at 8:21 PM on May 14, 2001
If I remember the Illinois story correctly, Nixon backed off of ordering examination in the city of Chicago because he may have been responsible for voter fraud in southern Illinois.
It wouldn't surprise me, considering the numerous crimes Nixon or his cronies had their fingers in.
regards
posted by drezdn at 10:24 PM on May 14, 2001
It wouldn't surprise me, considering the numerous crimes Nixon or his cronies had their fingers in.
regards
posted by drezdn at 10:24 PM on May 14, 2001
I think this thread has proved one thing. It aint over...
posted by brucec at 4:36 AM on May 15, 2001
At least it was a flame free discussion! No Bush or Gore bashing, a rather amazing feat for Metafilter.
posted by revbrian at 5:05 AM on May 15, 2001
posted by revbrian at 5:05 AM on May 15, 2001
When is Bush going to give Nader the Cabinet position he deserves for his help in electing him?
posted by brucec at 9:03 AM on May 15, 2001
posted by brucec at 9:03 AM on May 15, 2001
« Older Only in Las Vegas... | Woggers, unite! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
president only if all undervotes with clearly discernible dimples and
hanging chads had been counted as valid, and if recoverable
``overvotes'' (those in which the voter's intent was clear) had been
examined and counted. None of the latter were.
In other words, if all the votes of people who went to the
polls intending to vote for President were actually counted...
posted by brucec at 11:27 AM on May 14, 2001