Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Harris' Partisan Fixers
July 17, 2001 4:24 AM   Subscribe

Harris' Partisan Fixers How Bush got the help needed to "win" in Florida. No. Not the NY Times piece on absentee votes but how Harris rigged things.
posted by Postroad (52 comments total)

 
Kinda thin article. I'm over it, anyone else over it? If someone has a smoking gun, great, but a change in semantics about oversees ballot acceptance does not equal "a fix." Was she impartial? No... Will election reform remove the likelyhood of this partisanism happening again? Probably not.
posted by machaus at 4:47 AM on July 17, 2001


I'm not over it. I'll never be over it. I believe in democracy. Usurpation of democracy is much too serious to "get over it."

"..there is no right to suffrage.." - Antonin Scalia 12-2000
posted by nofundy at 6:04 AM on July 17, 2001


nofundy, you are right...
my idealism wanes before my first cup of coffee. I just question whether it is possible to remove the electoral responsibilities from a partisan office at the banana republic state level.
posted by machaus at 6:11 AM on July 17, 2001


This one might be a little more substantial. The Dragon Lady photos may scare kids, but it's the Supreme Court that made stealing the election stick. A lot of us will never get over it.
posted by gwyon at 6:14 AM on July 17, 2001


Some folks don't "get over it" and take action:
http://www.salon.com/politics/red/2001/07/16/blue/index.html
posted by Postroad at 6:30 AM on July 17, 2001


No news there, just more opinion, and not based on much. Try again, folks.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:38 AM on July 17, 2001


Face it, ljr, your guy (Bush) got in by a fix. He DEFIANTLY lost the popular vote, and if not for the partisan fix of the Republican cronies of his governor brother, he should have lost Florida as well! This, in the cradle of so-called-democracy!

Shame on you for trying to ignore and belittle this! Shame on the FL Repubs./Sup. Ct. partisans for the "rig," and shame on the masses for their ignorance/apathy!
posted by Rastafari at 7:00 AM on July 17, 2001


Face it, ljr, your guy (Bush) got in by a fix. He DEFIANTLY lost the popular vote, and if not for the partisan fix of the Republican cronies of his governor brother, he should have lost Florida as well! This, in the cradle of so-called-democracy!

Shame on you for trying to ignore and belittle this! Shame on the FL Repubs./Sup. Ct. partisans for the "rig," and shame on the masses for their ignorance/apathy!


First of all, my guy wasn't Bush.

Secondly, I assume you have an adequate familiarity with the American electoral system, so you know that the popular vote is irrelevant.

Third, if you really believe it was all a 'fix' perhaps you should also investigate those people who claim that the moon landings were all staged in Arizona and that we neve actually went there. Apparently you'll believe any wacky conspiracy.

Fourth, I belittle this article because there's nothing substantial in it.

Fifth, the American people are not apathetic, they simply don't buy into your anti-Bush conspiracy.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:06 AM on July 17, 2001


rastafari, I'm as liberal as they get, but I'm with LJR on this one. The journalism surrounding these stories is stilted and weak. I'd prefer to focus on electoral reform and put this behind us. The dems are no less guilty of playing the game, and stretching the rules, they just didn't have the resources in Florida. Florida was just a microcosm of a much larger picture.
posted by machaus at 7:11 AM on July 17, 2001


ljr: that Florida's election machinery was tainted by partisan influence is "opinion"? I'd say the evidence presented here (reversals of policy from FL SecState office under guidance of Republican hacks) and elsewhere (high correlation coefficient between race/SES and vote rejection rate, irregularities in voting data surrounding Palm Beach area, etc.) qualify as fact. Cite factual counterexamples, or the criteria you are using to dismiss this article - not to mention the rest of the data - as faulty or opinionated.

(and now, to respond to the post during preview).

On your third point: Please leave the ad hominem action at the door.

On your fifth: In a recent poll presented on MeFi, while President Bush has a 50-something percent approval rating, only about three quarters of the respondents accept him as the legitimate chief executive of the nation (early, no coffee yet, if someone has that link handy I'd appreciate it). Presuming the sampling error is not atrocious, that indicates there are over fifty million American citizens who do not accept the right to rule of the government currently claiming power. I'd say that fact, coupled with the fact we are not currently experiencing a civil revolutionary war, indicates quite a lot of apathy.
posted by Vetinari at 7:17 AM on July 17, 2001


ljr: that Florida's election machinery was tainted by partisan influence is "opinion"? I'd say the evidence presented here (reversals of policy from FL SecState office under guidance of Republican hacks)

This is an opinion piece not a news story. Did you miss this: "A Times Editorial" at the top of the page? And as for your assertion there were "reversals of policy from FL SecState office under guidance of Republican hacks", the article never says that and cites no evidence of it, you merely have bought into their suggestion of such.

and elsewhere (high correlation coefficient between race/SES and vote rejection rate, irregularities in voting data surrounding Palm Beach area, etc.) qualify as fact.

Facts open to wide interpretation, none of which prove that there was some sort of political machine in place to guarantee a Bush win in Florida.

On your third point: Please leave the ad hominem action at the door.

That wasn't an ad hominem, it was the appropriate response to an absurd consipracy theory (i.e., "the fix", "rigged", etc.)

On your fifth: In a recent poll presented on MeFi, while President Bush has a 50-something percent approval rating, only about three quarters of the respondents accept him as the legitimate chief executive of the nation

Sure. How many of those people were Gore/Nader voters?
posted by ljromanoff at 7:44 AM on July 17, 2001


"First of all, my guy wasn't Bush.

Secondly, I assume you have an adequate familiarity with the American electoral system, so you know that the popular vote is irrelevant."

Wrong.

The electoral college is based upon the popular vote. The electoral system has a provision that allows officials to set aside the states that mess up their electora responsibility. In Florida Harris simply set revised the rules the day after the election. I'd say that having the state secretary serve as co-chair of the presidential campaign for the governor's brother is just about as screwed up a storyline as Oliver Stone ever dreamed of.

On a side note, I'm tired of third party candidate supporters acting as if an election going to the more corrupt political campaign is somehow going to motivate future voters.
posted by Sqwerty at 7:45 AM on July 17, 2001


Wrong.

The electoral college is based upon the popular vote.


It is based upon the popular result of 50 separate elections. Totalling up the numbers from those 50 elections and pretending that the number you come up with actually means something is to misunderstand how the system works.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:51 AM on July 17, 2001


First of all, my guy wasn't Bush.

Whoever your guy was, it obviously wasn't Gore, since you don't care and think this election (especially in FL) was legitimate.

Secondly, I assume you have an adequate familiarity with the American electoral system, so you know that the popular vote is irrelevant.

I assume you are speaking of the electoral college system, of which I am thoroughly familiar with, HOWEVER, I don't believe for a second that the popular vote is *irrelevant*. I assume that you know that the founding fathers created the electoral college because they were suspicious of the masses, and wanted some sort of checks and balances against the popular will (which is also why up until the mid-19th century, Senators were elected by state representatives rather than by popular vote). So, the ONLY reason for the electoral college system was deliberate indifference for the masses, which I think is outdated.

Third, if you really believe it was all a 'fix' perhaps you should also investigate those people who claim that the moon landings were all staged in Arizona and that we never actually went there. Apparently you'll believe any wacky conspiracy.

For you to associate the shenanigans in FL with "moon landings in AZ," I feel sorry for you! If after all you have read and heard, it's just "wacky conspiracy," then obviously your head is stuck in the sand.

I don't need to address your fourth point, and for your fifth point, all I'll say is that the the *majority* who voted for Gore/Nadar are apathetic, but not because they "don't buy into it," but because they don't think their voice matters, as they saw from the last election. Hell, if my vote DOESN'T count, what's the point of speaking up? Not the same as "not buying into it."

And machaus, I respectfully disagree. I agree that election reforms are needed, but only, and only, if we focus on the 2000 election debacle. Here, I believe that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it, and I for one don't want to repeat it.
posted by Rastafari at 7:55 AM on July 17, 2001


"That wasn't an ad hominem, it was the appropriate response to an absurd consipracy theory "

Just because you have an opinion regarding the absurdity of anothers view doesn't mean your retort wasn't ad hominem. It was.

"Totalling up the numbers from those 50 elections and pretending that the number you come up with actually means something is to misunderstand how the system works."

It isn't at all pretense to think that the popular vote means something, nor does it imply misunderstanding. The electoral college has been the target of election reformers for sometime now, and it likely will remain so. Further more, as has been pointed out in this thread already, the popular vote lends or denies credence to the man in the White House with the puplic that person is supposed to serve. To say that a particular faith in the efficacy of the popular vote implies ignorance or confusion of "how the system works" is , at heart, just more ad hominum trickery.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:06 AM on July 17, 2001


I assume that you know that the founding fathers created the electoral college because they were suspicious of the masses, and wanted some sort of checks and balances against the popular will

The Electoral College system was established as a guarantee of states' sovereignty in the election of the chief executive. It had nothing to do with suspicion of the masses. The system is designed to insure that the president is elected as the result of 50 (or at that time, 13) independent elections, rather than a nationwide election.


(which is also why up until the mid-19th century,

1913

Senators were elected by state representatives rather than by popular vote

Which was also a measure to insure that there would be a federal body that represented the states, in contrast to the House of Representatives which represents the body of citizens as a whole. The 17th amendment essentially gave us, for good or bad, two Houses of Representatives.

It isn't at all pretense to think that the popular vote means something, nor does it imply misunderstanding.

Since you're aren't the individual who made those comments, you really have no way to know the motivation behind them.

Further more, as has been pointed out in this thread already, the popular vote lends or denies credence to the man in the White House with the puplic that person is supposed to serve.

The only credence it could provide is to those people who don't understand how the system works. If the objective was to gain the largest number of votes nationwide, period, then all the presidential candidates would have campaigned very differently, which would have produced a very different popular vote result. Since the objective was never to get the most votes in total, that total means nothing in regard to the election.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:12 AM on July 17, 2001


No, I didn't miss the fact this was an opinion piece. However, editorials must still be based upon fact lest the publishers be sued for libel, and it is those facts which I am taking from the article. 'Tis not wise to dismiss information as false simply because you don't like the presentation thereof.

Sure. How many of those people were Gore/Nader voters?

Hmm. Probably somewhere north of 95% of them. Of course those who intentionally voted for Bush recognize him as legitimate. They're happy, their guy won, and in the great American tradition of "be first, win at all costs" they're ignoring any irregularities surrounding that victory. And, as Gore had a 50% plurality of the popular vote, it follows that around half of Gore voters have turned a blind eye as well in order to "get over it." But I fail to see the relevance of your point.

No matter how many disliked President Reagan's irresponsible fiscal policies, international brinksmanship, and questionable ties to the Iran-Contra arms trading debacle, none could question the legitimacy of his 1984 trouncing of Walter Mondale, or the legitimacy of his heir George Bush's 1988 victory over Mike Dukakis, without invoking improbably grand visions of massive conspiracies. Any irregularities that existed would have been irrelevant to the final outcome.

In this case, however, there is enough evidence that the will of the American people was subverted at both the state and federal levels for over fifty million people to question the legitimacy of the current government. That's the point I'm making - it doesn't matter for whom they voted, it just matters that they percieve the government as illegitimate. And no grand conspiracy was necessary to perform this subversion: fewer than a dozen people where directly involved in the decision to deliver the Oval Office to President Bush.
posted by Vetinari at 8:24 AM on July 17, 2001


So, the ONLY reason for the electoral college system was deliberate indifference for the masses, which I think is outdated.

the masses are sheep, happily baaing and following around anyone who will shepard them. i don't trust the general population to do the right thing. unfortunately, electors stopped being (if ever they were) the best and brightest among us and are all would-be shepards who vote for the guy willing to screw the same sheep they do.
posted by tolkhan at 8:26 AM on July 17, 2001


In this case, however, there is enough evidence that the will of the American people was subverted at both the state and federal levels for over fifty million people to question the legitimacy of the current government...But I fail to see the relevance of your point.

The relevance of my point is that the reason that these people do not accept the legitimacy of Bush is because of their ideology, not due to the facts or 'evidence'. The closeness of the election will guarantee that some will never accept Bush, regardless of the facts.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:41 AM on July 17, 2001


To me, the most disturbing part of the Florida fiasco was the actions of certain members of the Supreme Court. Two of them discarded substantial arguments for recusal based on the premise that a full tainted court was better than a partial contaminated one. A third, when she thought that Gore had won Florida, stated she was horrified because she wanted to retire but refused to do so under a Democratic president.

It's a good thing they are the Supreme Court, because some of the opinions they wrote would suffer from scrutiny. They were contradictory, ill-founded, and totally failed to uphold the lofty precepts spouted by their authors. (I especially liked the caveat that the opinions were good for this case only -- no precedents being set here, move along folks, you can't use this to leverage reform.)

Harris was/is a low-level political hack of the type that can be manufactured out of the nearest available used-car salesman. These justices disgraced themselves (which is OK -- they deserve contempt), but sadly, they disgraced the institution they embody. Bush/Gore, what does it matter? Either one would be crashing on the rocks of public opinion in such a divided election. As a people and a nation, we were ill served by the justices and that's where our rancor should be directed.
posted by joaquim at 10:48 AM on July 17, 2001


The relevance of my point is that the reason that these people do not accept the legitimacy of Bush is because of their ideology, not due to the facts or 'evidence'. The closeness of the election will guarantee that some will never accept Bush, regardless of the facts.

Conjectural, and unverifiable. In any case, we're both wrong - it's not all based upon evidence (my mistake); I'm certain lots of whining lefties are questioning Bush's legitimacy because they just don't like him, just as a lot of whining righties just spent eight years trying to use the courts to get rid of a president they didn't like, even though there were no major irregularities in either '92 or '96. And even though I voted for Gore, primarily on my opinion that Bush is a pitifully stupid sock puppet on the hands of several fairly sinister interests, after the Supreme Court got involved I did not consider the process legitimate, regardless of the outcome.

The electoral process is designed to decide, without a shadow of a doubt, the succession of public office. It is this lack of doubt that makes peacable transfer of executive power possible; it's the reason we don't have a new military dictatorship and a new constitution every fifteen years. We have policies in place to handle voting irregularities such as Florida's in 2000 - if a state's election is in question, and cannot be brought out of question before the College meets, we don't count its electoral votes. If no ticket has a majority, we move the vote to Congress. Clear, concise, simple, written-down instructions in language anyone can understand, a procedure that probably would have ended up putting Bush in the White House by the book. Instead, we have Harris changing the policies of the State of Florida on the fly, the Supreme Court deciding questions it does not have clear constitutional authority to decide, and a questionable election.

You're right, some won't accept Bush. It's not just the closeness of the election, though, it's the fact that the rules by which he won were made up on the spot. I won't accept Bush until he clearly wins a democratic election without partisan interference.
posted by Vetinari at 11:07 AM on July 17, 2001


And even though I voted for Gore, primarily on my opinion that Bush is a pitifully stupid sock puppet on the hands of several fairly sinister interests, after the Supreme Court got involved I did not consider the process legitimate, regardless of the outcome.

You do not accept any judgement from the U.S. Supreme Court, who agreed - across ideological boundaries, in a 7 - 2 ruling - that what Florida was doing wasn't constitutional, but you do accept the involvement of the Florida Supreme Court, who were clearly politically motivated and were in fact the ones changing the rules at will (not Harris)?

We have policies in place to handle voting irregularities such as Florida's in 2000 - if a state's election is in question, and cannot be brought out of question before the College meets, we don't count its electoral votes. If no ticket has a majority, we move the vote to Congress.

And presumably this would have happened had not some resolution come out of Florida. Undoubtedly, had Katherine Harris had attempted to rule that the state's electors were unavailable due to the closeness of the election, that action would also have been seen as a political ploy as it would have sent the election to the Republican-majority House. And we'd be right where we are now, with Bush in the White House and a percentage of the public who are his political enemies refusing to accept him as legitimate regardless of the fact that every informal vote count post-election has verified that he had more votes, not even taking into account the thousands of votes he likely lost due to the press prematurely reporting Gore's victory while the polls were still open.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:25 AM on July 17, 2001


the U.S. Supreme Court, who agreed - across ideological boundaries, in a 7 - 2 ruling - that what Florida was doing wasn't constitutional

which ruling was that?
posted by tolkhan at 2:22 PM on July 17, 2001


I swear to God (or your deity/nondeity of choice) that I wish Bush had been legitimately elected. It would allow me to focus on his poor policy full time (as opposed to 90% of the time). I was diametrically opposed to Bush I and Reagan but I never questioned their legitimacy as President.

It also strikes me as funny that the party who is allegedly "anti-federalism" wraps themselves in the robes of the Supreme Court when its convenient. Why is it so many of them can't seem to do that for Roe vs. Wade? One wonders.

thousands of votes he likely lost due to the press prematurely reporting Gore's victory while the polls were still open

As opposed to Fox News calling a Bush victory in Florida?
posted by owillis at 2:45 PM on July 17, 2001


the U.S. Supreme Court, who agreed - across ideological boundaries, in a 7 - 2 ruling - that what Florida was doing wasn't constitutional

which ruling was that?


This one.

It also strikes me as funny that the party who is allegedly "anti-federalism" wraps themselves in the robes of the Supreme Court when its convenient. Why is it so many of them can't seem to do that for Roe vs. Wade?

Maybe because Roe v. Wade was bad law based on non-existant Constitutional clauses and reads more like legislation than a legal decision?

thousands of votes he likely lost due to the press prematurely reporting Gore's victory while the polls were still open

As opposed to Fox News calling a Bush victory in Florida?


First of all, that was after the polls had closed. Secondly, it was accurate.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:25 PM on July 17, 2001


reads more like legislation than a legal decision?

Sort of like their decision on the election?

First of all, that was after the polls had closed. Secondly, it was accurate.

At the time, it was not accurate. The race was "too close to call" and it helped set the tone for the next month.

But the two of us arguing in a circle doesnt do much good, huh?
posted by owillis at 3:59 PM on July 17, 2001


reads more like legislation than a legal decision?

Sort of like their decision on the election?


You may not agree with it, but I wouldn't characterize it in that fashion.

At the time, it was not accurate. The race was "too close to call" and it helped set the tone for the next month.

But the two of us arguing in a circle doesnt do much good, huh?


No, probably not.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:04 PM on July 17, 2001


At least we agree on something.
posted by owillis at 5:41 PM on July 17, 2001


I read the cite provided by ljromanoff in support of his belief that there was 7-2 split and found the following.

"Although the ruling reflected a 7-2 split, the concurring and dissenting opinions revealed a 5-4 split along ideological lines, with the conservative faction ruling against the recounts and the liberal wing arguing the case lacked merit and the recounts must continue.

Broadly speaking, the 7-2 split was over the question of reversing the Florida court, but the 5-4 split was over the termination of manual recounts.

Denouncing the majority for stopping the manual recounts, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Bush campaign had no legal basis for its claims, other than an "unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges."

"Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit," he wrote. "The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land," he said."

SCOTUS was split along party lines in regards to the recounts. That doesn't read like 7-2 to me.
posted by Sqwerty at 5:50 PM on July 17, 2001


That doesn't read like 7-2 to me.

Well, you can probably thank CNN for focusing on the less relevant 5-4 opinion statements about remedy rather than the 7-2 decision about legality for that.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:37 PM on July 17, 2001


You really believe the remedy is less relevent than the legality?
posted by Sqwerty at 8:45 PM on July 17, 2001


I really have a hard time understanding anyone talking about the 'popular vote'.

Regardless of which side you're on, it doesn't mean anything. Why? Because if it did mean anything both sides (bush and gore) would have run different races.

It didn't matter back then, and it doesn't matter now.
posted by justgary at 9:45 PM on July 17, 2001


You really believe the remedy is less relevent than the legality?

Of course. If a man is charged with murder, what's more relevant: whether or not he's convicted, or whether - once convicted - he gets 40 years or 50 years in prison?
posted by ljromanoff at 6:21 AM on July 18, 2001


I really have a hard time understanding anyone talking about the 'popular vote'. Regardless of which side you're on, it doesn't mean anything.

Not in the actual election process, no. However, when you have a president who has actually come in second in the popular vote acting like he has a mandate from the people or using that tired old "will of the people" to justify his actions, it starts to mean something. He has neither a mandate nor the will of the people; he has some mathematically anomalous behavior in the electoral process.

President Bush would have a lot easier time if he would consider the election as less of a digital concept ("I win, I can do anything") and more of an analog one ("I have to consider the fact that more of my constituents voted against me than for me").
posted by joaquim at 10:36 AM on July 18, 2001


"Of course. If a man is charged with murder, what's more relevant: whether or not he's convicted, or whether - once convicted - he gets 40 years or 50 years in prison?"

Apples and oranges. They brought the case before the SCOTUS to seek an injunction.
posted by Sqwerty at 11:06 AM on July 18, 2001


"Of course. If a man is charged with murder, what's more relevant: whether or not he's convicted, or whether - once convicted - he gets 40 years or 50 years in prison?"

Apples and oranges. They brought the case before the SCOTUS to seek an injunction.


It's not really that different. The Supreme Court by a clear majority ruled that the FL. Supreme Court wasn't acting Constitutionally. Differing on a remedy to that acknowledged illegality is really not as pivotal as the fact that the FL Supreme Court's actions were ruled wrong. Furthermore, the two dissenters argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should not have heard the case - not that the FL Supreme Court was behaving appropriately, which would have resulted in the same outcome anyway, a Bush victory. For anyone to suggest that Bush somehow received a gift from the U.S. Supreme Court is ridiculous.

President Bush would have a lot easier time if he would consider the election as less of a digital concept ("I win, I can do anything") and more of an analog one ("I have to consider the fact that more of my constituents voted against me than for me").

I'd be curious to know how your view about how Bush should lead would translate into specific actions, and if you believe JFK should have taken the same approach, as it is certainly possible that he earned fewer votes than his opponent as well.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:15 AM on July 18, 2001


"It's not really that different. The Supreme Court by a clear majority ruled that the FL. Supreme Court wasn't acting Constitutionally."

You failed to read the small print, recounting wasn't declared unconstitutional, the deadline was the glitch. The following is cited from the ruling.

"The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary," the 13-page ruling said. "The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees."
posted by Sqwerty at 9:00 PM on July 18, 2001


You failed to read the small print, recounting wasn't declared unconstitutional, the deadline was the glitch. The following is cited from the ruling.

You're misreading that. They are saying that the fact there is a deadline is not an excuse to act in an unconstitutional manner. The method of the recount itself was declared unconstitutional.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:12 AM on July 19, 2001


Basically the SCOTUS said time was required to develop rules that would make it constitutionally okay. That is not the same as declaring recounts as a concept unconstitutional.

That is why the 5-4 disagreement about remedy was central to the finding.
posted by Sqwerty at 8:06 AM on July 19, 2001


Basically the SCOTUS said time was required to develop rules that would make it constitutionally okay. That is not the same as declaring recounts as a concept unconstitutional.

I never claimed that that was the ruling that they made. They declared that the recounts as Florida was doing them were unconsititutional, and did so by a clear majority. That's a long, long way from the Court somehow giving Bush a gift, as some seem to think.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:30 AM on July 19, 2001


Judge Stevens rightfully noted in his dissenting opionion regarding Bush's petition:

"What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I respectfully dissent."

ljromanoff stated:

"I never claimed that that was the ruling that they made. They declared that the recounts as Florida was doing them were unconsititutional, and did so by a clear majority."

With the pair of split decisions the SCOTUS returned the power to Katherine Harris, a woman who both holds the responsiblity for the Florida electoral commission and sat as co-chair of the presidential comittee for one of the candidates.

Can you spell conflict of interest? I think you can.
posted by Sqwerty at 8:46 PM on July 19, 2001


With the pair of split decisions the SCOTUS returned the power to Katherine Harris, a woman who both holds the responsiblity for the Florida electoral commission and sat as co-chair of the presidential comittee for one of the candidates.

With a pair of majority decisions, the SCOTUS removed the power from a biased, unconstituionally acting Florida Supreme Court, all of whom were put into place and/or members of the political party of one of the candidates.

There's your conflict of interest.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:34 AM on July 20, 2001


Right, they tossed it all back in the lap of Katherine Harris.
posted by Sqwerty at 6:02 PM on July 20, 2001


Right, they tossed it all back in the lap of Katherine Harris.

So? Show me some evidence of Harris behaving illegally. There's nothing in the article linked above other than weak speculation.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:15 AM on July 21, 2001


Is your only standard legality? The courts have shown themselves to be as flawed and human as the rest of society.

If it had not been Katherine Harris, but Terry McAuliffe that had served a dual role as state secretary and co-chair can you honestly say that there would not be cries of protest from the conservative camp?
posted by Sqwerty at 9:12 AM on July 21, 2001


If it had not been Katherine Harris, but Terry McAuliffe that had served a dual role as state secretary and co-chair can you honestly say that there would not be cries of protest from the conservative camp?

So what is your remedy? Everyone who belonged to either political party who worked in Florida state government resign from office until the election matter is closed?

Unless you can show some wrongdoing by Harris, her mere partisanship is a non-issue.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:13 PM on July 21, 2001


"So what is your remedy? Everyone who belonged to either political party who worked in Florida state government resign from office until the election matter is closed?"

The answer is simple. You shouldn't be able to help direct a political campaign while working for the electoral commission.
posted by Sqwerty at 8:34 PM on July 21, 2001


The answer is simple. You shouldn't be able to help direct a political campaign while working for the electoral commission.

Well, you can't change the rules ex post facto. And I assume you would want to include all the Democrats on the county boards that were actually doing the recounts?
posted by ljromanoff at 7:00 AM on July 22, 2001


I didn't suggest changing the rules for the completed election, but future ones. Let's leave that unethical tactic with Harris who changed the rules the day after the election for a powerful family in her home state.

The author of the editorial suggests removal. I agree even if I doubt it will happen.
posted by Sqwerty at 11:39 AM on July 22, 2001


I didn't suggest changing the rules for the completed election, but future ones. Let's leave that unethical tactic with Harris who changed the rules the day after the election for a powerful family in her home state.

Again, show me the evidence. It seems clear who was really changing the rules, and they were swatted down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:14 PM on July 22, 2001


It is not my responsiblity to spoonfeed you the news. I'll leave it to the people of Florida to deal with the republican wrongdoing that occurred on their home turf.
posted by Sqwerty at 10:36 AM on July 23, 2001


It is not my responsiblity to spoonfeed you the news. I'll leave it to the people of Florida to deal with the republican wrongdoing that occurred on their home turf.

Sour grapes. No evidence = no valid argument.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:21 AM on July 23, 2001


« Older Animated GIF's are good for something....  |  A neat use for webcams, digita... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments