"What a difference one day would have made" sounds like a major rationalization in someone's angry mind.
Oh, by the way, Bush still would have won the rerererererecounts even if the decision had gone the other way. So get over it or don't, we don't care.
posted by aaron at 11:30 AM on September 9, 2001
If you're talking about the military votes, there weren't really any illegalities. There were probably some soldiers who sent in votes after Election Day, yes. But according to the law, the only thing that matters with those ballots is when they arrived, not when they were sent. Federal law says those ballots must be accepted by the state for up to ten days after Election Day. Florida's own rules said otherwise, but the federal law trumps it. So sending out such ballots late might have been tacky, might have been against the general spirit of the rules, but it was legal.
In any case, I don't recall those media conclusions being so mixed. I thought they only came up with one or two scenarios in which Gore could actually have pulled ahead, and they were the two least likely possibilities.
Remember, Bush lost to Gore by half a million votes overall, so if he wants to claim any legitimacy, it must come from a flawless adherence to the legalities of the system.
Well, yes, to a point (see next graf), but who is the final arbiter of what constitutes flawless adherence to the legalities of the system? The United States Supreme Court.
As for legitimacy, what Bush (or Gore, or any elected official) wants to claim as legitimacy doesn't matter. What matters is what the citizens accept as legitimacy. As we can see, Bush is safely ensconced in the White House, performing all the duties required of the president (yeah yeah, insert joke here). The Congress is in session, and all 535 members accept him as the legitimate leader, even if some of them don't like it. There are no riots in the streets. Our government, our society, function as normal. Even those of you that are completely livid about the outcome are not out there attempting a violent overthrow of the United States Government (unless there's something you're not telling me). Thus, the Bush presidency is legitimate. If the Chairman of the JCS were to carry out a successful coup tomorrow, and the public accepted it, he too would have legitimacy.
Regarding the half-million votes Gore scored over Bush - I know this is going to be a controversial statement, but it's my theory: There was a massive, massive get-out-the-vote drive by the Democratic Party on Election Day, especially in mostly-black precincts. They called it "knock and drag," where paid workers would do practically anything to get every registered Democratic voter to the polls. And this strategy worked very well, in terms of getting actual votes cast. What it did not do, however, is create a mass of Democratic voters that actually cared that much one way or the other. I think this is why the response Democrats got during the post-election fight was so much lesser than you would have hoped for (or at least why it was so much less that I was expecting to see). I also think it's why Bush's approval ratings have been between 50-60% almost the entire time so far. The Dems got, I'm guesstimating, several million people to the polls that wouldn't have bothered to show up of their own volition, thus Gore won the popular vote. But after that lever was thrown or hole punched, those several million immediately fell back into their normal "who cares about politics anyway" roles. And Gore was left with that many million less who really cared about wanting him to win. And again, those several million are perfectly happy considering Bush the legitimate president.
The point, anyway, of this article is that ... the process should have been allowed to play itself out WITHOUT any interference by the Supreme Court for EITHER side.
Not all of the article (actually, several articles on this one topic) says that. This article contains the argument that best matches my beliefs: That the Florida Supreme Court so blatantly rigged the vote-counting process in that state that the US Supreme Court had to take this case on to stave off a truly unfathomable constitutional crisis, in which any state would have been free to throw equal protection to the wind and rig every election from now until the end of time.
What would you have said if the Supremes would have ruled for Gore? You'd probably be screaming bloody murder.
For the first couple days, sure. But I would have read the opinion, as I did this one, and then, as I said above, I believe Bush would have won anyway.
As for Bugliosi, this article completely deflates all six parts of his argument, in just a few short paragraphs. (Actually, most of those six claims are also made by everyone else critical of the decision, so it's a must read.)
posted by aaron at 1:18 PM on September 9, 2001
In Clay County for instance, ballots with no witness signatures were accepted, as well as ones without signatures across the seal of the envelope. Two faxed-in ballots -- albeit ones that arrived by Nov. 7 -- were even added to Bush's tally. "That's not the normal protocol," says Stephanie Thomas, assistant supervisor of elections in Clay County. "The law is you don't count faxes. But it was up to the canvassing board, and it was their determination to accept them."-Salon
Contrary to Florida law, Collier County accepted overseas ballots that were not signed, dated or postmarked. Escambia County accepted some overseas ballots clearly postmarked after Election Day. So did Santa Rosa County, which also counted five ballots that arrived after the 10-day post-election window allowed by the state for overseas ballots. It also accepted ballots arriving after Nov. 7 that carried a U.S., not an overseas, postmark -- even though all absentee ballots mailed from within the U.S. are supposed to arrive by Election Day. Meanwhile, Pasco County waived the state law requiring that an absentee ballot only be counted if there is a request for it on file.
By the way, Norton, you're completely wrong. I wasn't denigrating the knock-and-drag efforts at all, or in any way claiming such votes somehow "count less" than those cast by people that showed up at the polls of their own volition. I was only pointing out how such actions led to the situation where we have a voting population that technically supported Gore, but in the end couldn't get that worked up about electoral college rules causing Bush to be the legitimate president.
But hey, fuck you for trying.
posted by aaron at 3:03 PM on September 9, 2001
As I made quite clear in my original post, federal law trumps Florida law.
posted by aaron at 3:05 PM on September 9, 2001
Come on, here's another chance to abandon the "principles" of the Republican party and argue for federal supremacy in state matters. Have at it.
GOP principles do not mean "States Rights Uber Alles" in every possible scenario to ever appear under the sun. Besides, if you're going to make that argument, you better ante up some reason why the Democrats didn't abandon their "principles" by arguing for state supremecy.
"...each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors."
Yup. The Legislature. Not the state Supreme Court.
posted by aaron at 3:35 PM on September 9, 2001
willnot explained why quite clearly: The article I referenced was about influencing black turnout. Plus, of course, the inconvenient fact that nowhere did I ever claim that the votes of said people were in any way less valid because of the way they were obtained.
At this point, you're just resorting to semantics and insults in order to bait. No thanks. Everyone else understands what I meant, and I'm done dealing with that angle unless someone has a legitmate debate point to bring up about it. Besides, we've finally reached the point where almost nobody believes it when a liberal cries "racism!" anyway, because they've done it falsely so many times that's become a complete joke.
aaron: Wasn't it the conservative wing of the GOP, now dominant, which always made a bigger deal about "principles" to begin with? Yep.
Well, I certainly thank you for admitting publicly that principles mean far less to the Democratic Party.
The principle remains: Count all the fucking votes.
Close, Oliver. The principle remains: Count all the legal fucking votes.
posted by aaron at 10:04 PM on September 9, 2001
Jayzus... as slippery slope arguments go, that's pretty damned lame. Okay, for starters as has been said the law in Florida was "the clear intent of the voter". What that meant was the source of much struggle in that November, to be sure. However, previous cases in Florida had established precedent for "clear intent", to mean that any way for determining who the voter was casting their vote for, if anyone in a particular race that election. As one example, previous election law cases in Florida had shown that if you marked the ballot with a pen instead of the #2 pencil as clearly described in the rule for voting, and the machine discarded it for that reason, a review by human eyes should be done to determine the clear intent of the voter and allow that vote. Others have detailed many other cases (and the law in the State of Texas that Bush signed into law) which essentially reinforce the notion that if you can look at a ballot and see a clear pattern of voting (all dimpled, all two-corner chads, punching the hole next to a candidate's name and writing in their name as well, or whatever) that suggested the clear intent of the voter, the vote should count. Why is that so hard to understand? It's the law
The Constitution gives the right to determine the electors to the State Legislatures- which in turn have written state laws saying that the electors will be determined by popular vote. Most states also include laws that have evolved to deal with disputes in elections, Florida being one. Resolving these disputes is the job of the Court system in that state, and the Florida court was faced with some conflicting statutes about when to allow counting and when to certify the election- and attempted to sort them out, something courts have been doing since friggin' 180- goddamn-3 in Marbury vs. Fucking Madison. The SCOTUS' long-standing practice was to not involve itself in state- law disputes- yet here they are stopping the voting with no good reason. There's no evidence that the Florida Court ruling was unreasonable or flew in the face of existing case law- but there is such evidence on the part of the SCOTUS, who are normally strict state's rightists who believe in law as precedent and principle and not as in Bush v. Gore declare their ruling to apply only to that case and not be precedent in any other cases. Gee whiz, that's odd...
posted by hincandenza at 11:31 PM on September 9, 2001
In Clay County for instance, ballots with no witness signatures were accepted, as well as ones without signatures across the seal of the envelope. Two faxed-in ballots -- albeit ones that arrived by Nov. 7 -- were even added to Bush's tally. "That's not the normal protocol," says Stephanie Thomas, assistant supervisor of elections in Clay County. "The law is you don't count faxes. But it was up to the canvassing board, and it was their determination to accept them."Let me know if your naked grab at victim status here distracts from the lie that there was nothing illegal going on with overseas ballots.
Contrary to Florida law, Collier County accepted overseas ballots that were not signed, dated or postmarked. Escambia County accepted some overseas ballots clearly postmarked after Election Day. So did Santa Rosa County, which also counted five ballots that arrived after the 10-day post-election window allowed by the state for overseas ballots. It also accepted ballots arriving after Nov. 7 that carried a U.S., not an overseas, postmark -- even though all absentee ballots mailed from within the U.S. are supposed to arrive by Election Day. Meanwhile, Pasco County waived the state law requiring that an absentee ballot only be counted if there is a request for it on file.
« Older As if by lightening, the shop keeper appeared...... | Best news ever for the lonely ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Rastafari at 11:20 AM on September 9, 2001