VisorCentral.com - (In)Decision 2000 Discussion

Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- (In)Decision 2000 Discussion (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=9179)

Posted by Gameboy70 on 11-10-2000 10:46 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by matty
only 2 states, mississippi and alabama, i think, can split their state electoral votes, the 49 remaining electoral districts are all or nothing, as i understand it. i.e.: if gore can sway the fla electorate, he sways the whole thing... this one's not going to the house. and, the economy is waiting on pins and needles, not turning over, yet.

Hmmm, I thought it was Oregon and Wisconsin. Since the Electoral College doesn't force the states to adopt a winner-take-all policy over giving all of the states' electoral votes to the winner of their popular votes, it'll be interesting to see if the states start reevaluating the wisdom of all-or-nothing. The states have the power to split electoral votes already, if they choose to do so. We don't need a Constitutional amendment to banish the EC

It's not fair to either candidate, considering the fact that exit polls are allowed to be broadcast. A citizen who might otherwise be inclined to vote for Candidate X can be discouraged from voting if Candidate Y shows a big lead on the East -- which could easily shift when states with more electoral votes weigh in.

Some Bush voters in the West, for instance, might have stayed home when Gore was prematurely called for Florida early on (not that I wouldn't prefer Gore, but that's beside the point). Proportional representation would blur the voting outcome long enough to keep people from making snap judgements before deciding to vote.

Still, I think Bush will get the write-in votes. Most of them are military, which is traditionally Republican. I expected to wake up Wednesday morning and see Confederate flags in the streets.

Posted by lennonhead on 11-10-2000 11:59 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by JHromadka

Wow, that's quite a conspiracy theory...

No, that's just the way the government is run. Whoever is the most ruthless (and has the most ruthless people working for him) will prevail. My guess is Bush will be declared the winner.

The only reason I am disappointed by this is that the rightful winner of the election will not be President. I don't like Bush or Gore, but if Gore got the most popular votes, more electoral votes (not counting Florida) and originally won Florida (until it miraculously changed hands) then he should be President. If we decided things based purely on the popular vote none of this would have happened and we would be content (some more than others) with a new President elect.

I can feel the heat already.

Posted by JHromadka on 11-11-2000 12:01 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by VoxDei
While I'm not usually in agreement with George Will, he published a column one week before election-day in which he reviewed the purpose and effectiveness of the electoral college, versus the alternative of "majoritarianism." It's worth a read and while I would differ with some of his side points, I think his thoughts certainly deserve consideration in this debate. A link to the simpler, printer version is below...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

Interesting read, but I disagree with him that the "dominance of two parties" is good; "producing a temperate politics of coalitions rather than a proliferation of ideological factions with charismatic leaders" is a bad thing. Most of the debates had Bush and Gore talking about the same 3-4 issues each time. Third parties would bring a new perspective and flesh out characteristics that we may not have known. Apportioning electoral votes would result in the need for runoff elections, but I don't see this as a bad thing necessarily.

Is it good to have one leader although more Americans felt that another person would have been better? Not IMHO. Should a candidate receive 19% of the vote but not get any electoral votes?

quote:
Why are you so concerned about this? What is it about longevity of residency that guarantees one person will be a better representative that someone from elsewhere? This issue was certainly debated throughout the campaign, as it should have been. New Yorkers are well-aware of their residency requirements and the unique historical opportunities they have offered individuals (including Robert Kennedy who did the exact same thing as Hillary). ...<snip>... To criticize the electoral processes of folks in another state comes awfully close to slamming the folks from that state as being too stupid to know otherwise.

Ah but non-NYers may not know that there is a history of moving to NY to run for office. As she got a high % of the vote, obviously NY feels she's the right one for the job. Long-term residency doesn't guarantee that someone will be better than someone that arrived last week, but the newbie will have a harder time being "of the people."

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

Posted by JHromadka on 11-11-2000 12:04 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by lennonhead
The only reason I am disappointed by this is that the rightful winner of the election will not be President. I don't like Bush or Gore, but if Gore got the most popular votes, more electoral votes (not counting Florida) and originally won Florida (until it miraculously changed hands) then he should be President. If we decided things based purely on the popular vote none of this would have happened and we would be content (some more than others) with a new President elect.

How do you project a winner when only 40% of the votes are in and there isn't a big gap among the candidates? Methinks that the press relies on exit polls too much.

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

Posted by yardie on 11-11-2000 12:52 PM:

From Texas

James is from Texas. I can tell whose side he is on

Posted by VoxDei on 11-11-2000 01:42 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by JHromadka
[QUOTE]How do you project a winner when only 40% of the votes are in and there isn't a big gap among the candidates? Methinks that the press relies on exit polls too much.

This the exactly the point we should all be stressing. But not only at 40%, how do you project an outcome when the margin of "victory" is far below the number of ballots yet to be counted?! The indications are that there are still millions of vote to count and in an election this close no one should be presuming an outcome before they are all counted and any potential counting problems addressed.

It was absurd for Gore to concede and to now be posturing around legal action (though he's backed off from that) and it is arrogant almost to the point of treason for Bush to be acting like he won and to be trying to bully Gore into giving up.

I suggest that the "best interest of the nation" is for everyone to admit that we don't know what the popular vote is and therefore we don't know what the electoral college count is. It seems to me that that approach would be the best was to "honor our democracy" and allow it to function. If anyone is to blame for "setting up" this mess, it is the media for their desire to "be first." The rest of the country, including the two major candidates, got caught up in that absurdity, but have yet to seriously question it and appropriately respond. If we have to wait for a week, or two, or even three, until every state has gone through their own proper process, so be it.

__________________
We All Believe in Something. . .

<a href="http://www.beliefnet.com" target=_top><img src="http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/beliefnet_logo_button.gif" border=0 align="absmiddle" width="75" height="16"></a>

Posted by matty on 11-11-2000 04:22 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
quote:
Originally posted by matty

[QUOTE]they can vote however they like...

This is only true of some states.

quote:
oh, as to the recount in wis and iowa, if gore's such an asshole to demand a hand recount in fla, why is the shrub so quick to threaten a recount in those other states? hypocrite pie, anyone?

He's just playing by the ground rules that Al was so quick to jump to. Those states were quite close as well.

quote:
also, was it you or toby who pointed to nixon and said he did the right thing in '60?

It was me who pointed it out.

quote:
i just want to get this straight: richard nixon is no kind of example to hold up when it comes to election ethics.

Actually, in this case, yeah, he is.

quote:
or does the word watergate mean nothing to you?

So because Clinton was held in contempt of court in Arkansas, you suddenly stopped believing anything he says? Your partisanship is showing.

yeah my partisanship's showing. so's yours -- buchanan right?

ok, i'm not even going to touch the stuff you said about rioting etc. which is why i clipped it...

but aaaaaaaauuuuuuurrrrrrggggghhhhhh!!! when will you guys understand actual valid analogies?

lying about whom one did or did not have (oral) sex with and when is not relevant to how one runs the country. however, lying about election tampering 12 years after a very close election where one wished previous attempts at vote tampering were successful, is germane to one's election ethics. it is quite clear, in fact, to many historians, that nixon didn't force a recount for a few reasons: a) even tho' he thought jfk was guilty via daly of vote tampering in cook co. (specifically chicago - a longtime democratic bastion by the way), nixon himself was probably guilty of tampering in the southern and western parts of the state, and he feared that any investigation would turn up his own malfeisance in addition to that of his opponent. b) illinois wouldn't have been enough electoral votes anywyay. now i'm not saying jfk is free of guilt, here, i'm just saying that when the issue is votes the issue is votes. when the issue is sex, the issue is not how you run the country, i.e.: how you get us out of a big reccession brought on by an aging actor and his head of the cia veep, against the incredible odds of a hateful vitriolic newt in the congress and a fed lawyer who can't get anything real so goes to impeach basically on charges of getting laid (i.e.: the economically successful pres is getting laid) when he (i.e.: the fed lawyer) isn't getting any. historically, the only other pres to be impeached by the by is andy johnson, who was basically impeached because he had been abe lincoln's veep, and didn't have the good sense to reinstitute slavery now that the south had shown how unpopular this damn emancipation proclamation was. in other words, for being a liberal. i note, that in true political debate fashion, by the way, toby, that my question about watergate did not illicit an answer so much as a dig at a guy who won all of his elections fair and square and by landslides.

ok, off my obvious and acknowledged soapbox.

the electors can vote any way they like, from any state, as written in the constitution. tradition, as ably pointed out by gameboy above, does not an ammendment make.

nor does wishful thinking make the recount in fla. al gore's idea. in this case there is an existing law mandating such a count. and look what it's turned up so far, a 1450 vote discrepancy. i welcome a recount in all those other states, but what i don't welcome is the hypocrisy of the shrub's campaign. james baker in a press conference yesterday, on the issue of recounts in nm, wis, and ia, said if things don't go their way in fla, they will be "forced" to explore options "in our personal interests" even though they're not in "the best interests of the country". now if this is not exactly what they are accusing the dems of -- the dems who haven't called for anything outside of existing fla law -- what is?

__________________
exit, pursued by a bear.

Posted by matty on 11-11-2000 04:30 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by VoxDei
[QUOTE]I suggest that the "best interest of the nation" is for everyone to admit that we don't know what the popular vote is and therefore we don't know what the electoral college count is. It seems to me that that approach would be the best was to "honor our democracy" and allow it to function. If anyone is to blame for "setting up" this mess, it is the media for their desire to "be first." The rest of the country, including the two major candidates, got caught up in that absurdity, but have yet to seriously question it and appropriately respond. If we have to wait for a week, or two, or even three, until every state has gone through their own proper process, so be it.

absolutely. by the way, technically we wait til 1/6/2k1 when the electoral votes are unsealed and tallied.

__________________
exit, pursued by a bear.

Posted by lennonhead on 11-11-2000 11:54 PM:

Re: From Texas

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
James is from Texas. I can tell whose side he is on

Guess GW does threaten Texas state residents with the death penalty

Posted by JHromadka on 11-12-2000 07:05 AM:

TX != Bush

Just because I'm from TX doesn't mean that I'm specifically () for Bush. Truth be told I voted for Nader in the hopes of strengthening 3rd parties. Obviously Bush was going to win his homestate (unlike someone else) so my vote didn't count near as much as FL.

To me the election in FL boilse down to this:

The media engaged in competition instead of reporting, resulting in prematurely declaring the winner in FL (twice).
By FL law if the results are < .5% difference than there is an automatic recount
Because of the current system of electoral college, it is possible for one candidate to receive the majority of the popular vote while another candidate is elected president
The ballot form in Palm Beach sucked. It was, however, approved by both major parties

Firstly, I think that in the spirit of fairness that no election results should be released until all voting precincts are closed (similar to how UK does it). I also think that election day should be a national holliday so more people will vote.

As for the current situation, it is my opinion that once the votes are fully counted, whoever is ahead in FL gets the electoral votes. I'm sure whomever approved that form will soon be handling Clinton's drycleaning, but that's the breaks. Better luck next year.

Any lawsuits would only serve to discredit America even further. How can we call for rulers who have been voted out of power to step down when we can't even do it ourselves?

At this point, I don't care who wins FL. All I want is for it to come to a swift end once that final vote is counted.

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

Posted by matty on 11-12-2000 04:15 PM:

Re: TX != Bush

quote:
Originally posted by JHromadka

As for the current situation, it is my opinion that once the votes are fully counted, whoever is ahead in FL gets the electoral votes. I'm sure whomever approved that form will soon be handling Clinton's drycleaning, but that's the breaks. Better luck next year.

oh, james, you're still implying the shrub will win... keep in mind, it's very unclear, and with a hand recount in gore's strongest counties, it just may turn out that more people voted (unconfusedly) for him (i.e.: gore). and even tho' nm is back in the mix, 25 florida votes still give gore a win.

but! everyone remember! technically, the electors are bound by nothing but their conscience, and they do not vote until mid-december and then the votes don't get read until january 6. we really have a lot more time to wait. and here's a new thing i just learned: if, by some crazy fete they haven't gotten it straightened out by march 4th, the current veep becomes the new president, as if the former president left office prematurely. at least that's how my admittedly unlawschooled eye interprets the constitution (article 2 section 1). plus, from what i can see, ag gets to read the electoral vote, as vice-president, and therefore president of the senate... but i wonder if policy dictates he recuse himself. anyone know?

[Edited by matty on 11-12-2000 at 11:18 AM]

__________________
exit, pursued by a bear.

Posted by ToolkiT on 11-13-2000 01:42 AM:

[comic relief]We, the people of Florida, are holding this election hostage. When
you promise to stop sending us your old people, we will release your
election.
[/comic relief]

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by BudPritchard on 11-13-2000 01:48 AM:

Latest News

Date: 11/12/00 08:45PM
Subject: Latest News

WASHINGTON D.C. - Following an emergency meeting Sunday morning, Congress unanimously voted to excise Florida from the United States of America.

The move was a reaction to the confusion and irregularities in the state's voting numbers that have totally disrupted the 2000 Presidential election.

"This is the last straw," said Utah senator Oriin Hatch. "First Elian Gonzales, now this."

Several congressmen told reporters the decision has been a long time in coming.

"We're all pretty much sick of Florida," said representative Barney Frank.
"They've been a constant embarrassment for too long now."

Added Frank, "They had Dan Marino for a while, but what have they done lately? Oh that's right, screw up our entire democracy. I forgot"

In a speech on the Senate floor, Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy commented that the loss of Florida's sizable elderly population will free up billions of dollars in social security funds.

"These are valuable funds which can now be redirected toward national defense. We can finally rebuild our demoralized, weakened military," said
the Senator to roaring applause.

As a result of the Florida screw-up, the House and Senate decreed a new election will take place in early December. This time, ballots in each state will be tabulated by robots.

"It is clear that our human vote-counting system is too inherently flawed," said Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. "The presence of these new, superior robot mast- err, I mean - tabulators will ensure 100%
accuracy."

"Remember," said Hastert, "every vote counts, especially if it's counted by robots."

Dynamiting will begin in Florida next Wednesday, after which the state will be completely geographically separated from the United States.

"After that, they're on their own," said Hastert. "I hope they sink."

Posted by Toby on 11-13-2000 06:39 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by matty
yeah my partisanship's showing. so's yours -- buchanan right?

Nope. Not even close. I'm against either the right or the left mandating my actions as long as they infringe upon no one else.

quote:
ok, i'm not even going to touch the stuff you said about rioting etc. which is why i clipped it...

Since you mentioned it anyway, that would suggest that your not being able to argue with the logic was the reason for not responding.

quote:
but aaaaaaaauuuuuuurrrrrrggggghhhhhh!!! when will you guys understand actual valid analogies?

When will you learn to stop trying to pigeonhole people into easy little ideologies and just argue on the merits of something instead?

quote:
lying about whom one did or did not have (oral) sex with and when is not relevant to how one runs the country.

When one is having said oral sex while conducting the business of the country, yes it is. When testifying before a court of the land whose laws you are sworn to uphold, yes it is. You are foolishly assuming that because I think Nixon did something good in one case, I'm excusing everything he did. You couldn't be more wrong.

quote:
however, lying about election tampering 12 years after a very close election where one wished previous attempts at vote tampering were successful, is germane to one's election ethics.

What previous attempts at vote tampering? Are you suggesting that Nixon tried to rig the 1960 election? Just as an FYI, though, Nixon would likely have won the 1972 election regardless of what happened in McGovern's campaign headquarters, so the break-in was rather stupid.

quote:
it is quite clear, in fact, to many historians,

Name 5.

quote:
that nixon didn't force a recount for a few reasons: a) even tho' he thought jfk was guilty via daly of vote tampering in cook co. (specifically chicago - a longtime democratic bastion by the way), nixon himself was probably guilty of tampering in the southern and western parts of the state, and he feared that any investigation would turn up his own malfeisance in addition to that of his opponent. b) illinois wouldn't have been enough electoral votes anywyay.

B is the more sensible reason. A sounds like pure conjecture by a "historian" with an ax to grind.

quote:
now i'm not saying jfk is free of guilt, here, i'm just saying that when the issue is votes the issue is votes. when the issue is sex, the issue is not how you run the country, i.e.: how you get us out of a big reccession brought on by an aging actor and his head of the cia veep, against the incredible odds of a hateful vitriolic newt in the congress and a fed lawyer who can't get anything real so goes to impeach basically on charges of getting laid (i.e.: the economically successful pres is getting laid) when he (i.e.: the fed lawyer) isn't getting any.

All of this is ironic considering your posturing in a minute about "political debate".

quote:
historically, the only other pres to be impeached by the by is andy johnson, who was basically impeached because he had been abe lincoln's veep, and didn't have the good sense to reinstitute slavery now that the south had shown how unpopular this damn emancipation proclamation was. in other words, for being a liberal.

Do you take this creative view of history on everything or just when you think you can create a "liberal" vs. "conservative" conflict (I'm neither btw, although more liberal in the true sense in general)? He was impeached because he didn't want to go along with the Abolitionist Republicans in enacting sweeping reforms in the South and some other things. He (a War Democrat) vetoed a sweeping civil rights bill which would have ensured that blacks had the same full rights as whites (they overrode the veto anyway). He was anything but liberal in the real sense.

quote:
i note, that in true political debate fashion, by the way, toby, that my question about watergate did not illicit an answer

Your question was peripheral to the issue at hand, so I responded with a comparable question.

quote:
so much as a dig at a guy who won all of his elections fair and square and by landslides.

Since when is 43% or 49% of the vote a landslide?

quote:
ok, off my obvious and acknowledged soapbox.

And seemingly ill-informed to boot.

quote:
the electors can vote any way they like, from any state, as written in the constitution.

The electors do not all vote the way they like. According to the Constitution, the states set up their own standards for the electors. Do you bother to look any of this up before making such statements?

http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/faq.html#wrong vote

quote:
tradition, as ably pointed out by gameboy above, does not an ammendment make.

Tradition has nothing to do with it.

quote:
nor does wishful thinking make the recount in fla. al gore's idea.

Sure.

quote:
in this case there is an existing law mandating such a count.

The machine recount, yes. The hand recount, there seems to be differing stories.

quote:
and look what it's turned up so far, a 1450 vote discrepancy.

I'd be curious to see what another recount using the same method turned up. I'll bet it would change again.

quote:
i welcome a recount in all those other states, but what i don't welcome is the hypocrisy of the shrub's campaign. james baker in a press conference yesterday, on the issue of recounts in nm, wis, and ia, said if things don't go their way in fla, they will be "forced" to explore options "in our personal interests" even though they're not in "the best interests of the country". now if this is not exactly what they are accusing the dems of -- the dems who haven't called for anything outside of existing fla law -- what is?

I didn't see that press conference, and considering your "accurate" relaying of other related things, I won't comment on it.

Posted by BobbyMike on 11-13-2000 06:58 AM:

Lest you all think that everybody in NY voted for Clinton, many of us country bumpkins, not living in NYC, voted for Lazio. This is a seriously weird state. Most of the state geographically is rural and conservative. And then there is THE CITY.

IMHO I feel that a candidate that openly acknowledges her intention of running for a Congressional seat AND then picks a state is not going to serve her state as a representative in Congress. Campaigning for 16 months does not give anyone a feel for a states needs.

Politics have always been about a few egos butting heads, and many boring people getting things done.

FYI, I'm not a registered Republican, or a Democrat. I feel that the way the two party system has developed in this country greatly limits the actual progress that can occur.
But I still feel that it's the only system that could work here.

We as a people demand spectacle, while decrying the barbarity of the fight. We demand truth and honesty from our candidates, and then we run out to Staples and try to take advantage of a newspaper misprint and buy a product, knowing that the price is $90 bucks too cheap(and probably break the speed limit getting there!).

We as a people get the candidates, and the elections we deserve. (and much to Pat Buchanans' chagrin, millions of people from other countries are literally dying to emigrate here- so we must be doing something right!)

Have a nice day!

BobbyMike

Posted by Hoser_back_home on 11-13-2000 02:21 PM:

on the Monday Night Football game BEFORE the election (when the Redskins and Titans played...) they brought up an interesting bit of information.

Since the early 70's, when the Redskins played their last HOMEGAME before an election Tuesday:

If the redskins WON: the current party was voted back into the white house.

If the redskins LOST: the opposing party was voted in.

They were perfect at predicting this EVERY election back to 1972?

What happened this year? Redskins LOSE to the Titans.

(BUT, the Redskins SUCK so this correlation should just be thrown out anyways! )

Sorry for bring up info which i then continue to discount. But i couldn't pass up the chance to say 1. Redskins SUCK and 2. Ravens beat the Titans at HOME!! (first team to do so!)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled heated debate!

__________________
Ever feel like the train left while you were busy reading the paper?

Stealth-Mod.

Posted by JHromadka on 11-13-2000 02:49 PM:

Re: Re: TX != Bush

quote:
Originally posted by matty
but! everyone remember! technically, the electors are bound by nothing but their conscience, and they do not vote until mid-december and then the votes don't get read until january 6. we really have a lot more time to wait.

I don't care who wins -- I just have more comedic material on Clinton.

Technically, there are some states that require the electoral college to follow the popular vote, even if their conscience says otherwise.

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

Posted by LanMan on 11-13-2000 02:51 PM:

Okay, matty. I'll ask. What's a "shrub", other than a plant or "Bush"? Is "shrub" just implying another name for Bush?

BTW. Bill Clinton wasn't impeached because he had sex in the White House. He was impeached, as I'm sure you know, because he lied (again about having sex or let least attempting to ) while under oath during a trial in which he was the defendant. Write the straight facts when posting!

[Edited by LanMan on 11-13-2000 at 09:55 AM]

__________________
<><

Posted by Toby on 11-13-2000 03:08 PM:

Hoser: No heat on this end. I didn't vote for either of them, and AFAIC, they're basically the same. They only disagree slightly on some of the ways the government should run our lives and spend our money.

Posted by matty on 11-13-2000 04:28 PM:

all right, i'm willing to eat a little crow. but not so much as you'd like, toby. without quoting your entire post, in no particular order:

nixon's ethics... i've got three (not 5) historians off the top of my head: kearns, schlesinger2, and greenberg. and i will admit that option b is the easier to stomach. i am not trying to pigeonhole you into being a blindnixonian, either. i'm the first to admit the guy was a great foreign affairs president. all i'm saying is the guy's election ethics are not clean. and you know what, i'll also admit that clinton's personal life is not clean either. but again, the difference remains (and this is whence the argument sprung): one has actually to do with elections, the other, well, doesn't. a political debate, by the way, so far as i know, takes more than one. you and i are more than one, this means i know and knew that i was part of the debate -- see the admitted soapbox line.

minority discontent... jesse jackson, and the naacp are alleging violation of the voter's rights act. nothing has yet gone to court, i wasn't there, i can't prove anything personally... however, as you have realized, i'm admittedly quick to jump on certain political bandwagons, and in this particular case, i'll side with jesse. sue me.

i'll guess again at your affiliation: browne... if i'm wrong, i'm curious, who is it?

electoral choice... i was talking u.s. constitution, not state constitution. admittedly that's the doc i read, not the individual state docs. of course, it looks like you used a bit of your own interpretation in reading the faq from which you posted the url: (bold is mine)

quote:
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States (24 plus DC at last count) require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

again, i'm not saying they will do it, but under federal law, they can vote however they @$!&^%ing well choose. and as far as clinton's landslides: electoral votes are still the ones that count and here're the results:
1992 370 to bush's 168
1996 379 to dole's 159
in my book, more than twice as many votes counts as a landslide.

creative history... hmmm. history is what someone writes down... making it automatically subjective. i'm allowed my subjective views as well as you, or has something changed. i'm pretty sure neither of us was in the chamber at the moment of any presidential impeachment... in any case, i am finding myself, more and more, in what you might term an an oliverstonian world. i think it's closer to orwellian or huxleyan, but you caught me... i don't believe in the single bullet. when i say jonson was impeached for being a democrat, or clinton was impoeached for getting laid, i mean in a broader sense, that there are greater forces at work than those in the legal docket.

machine v. hand recount... by now i'm sure you've realized that a hand recount is a perfectly valid request under fla. law, and the shrub himself signed a bill into law in his very own home state saying that a hand recount is more reliable than a machine one. 'nuff said.

yet another recount will, of course, bring another tally. that's the issue, i believe. hand is subjective, machine is fallible, so where does one draw the line? i don't know.

i heard the baker conference, and that's what he said. simply.

look. as seen on a greater scale over this entire campaign, discussions like this can and will go round and round and nobody clearly wins. i admit fully that my views are skewed wildly to the left. i will find evidence to support my views, as you will yours. what's actually important to me, whether you believe it or not, is that the views get heard... i will believe what i want, as will you, and perhaps, never the twain shall meet (although, i imagine somewhere we do agree), but we're both being heard, and maybe as a result of these posts someone will stop and actually think about something instead of towing some line. before you jump on the ego flame, realize that i've admitted to hearing you. and maybe someone else will read this exchange and agree with you (more likely than agreeing with me, it seems

...) i'm not gonna go round and round anymore. i think it's clear where i stand, and what my views are. i also think it's clear that i don't have fuzzy math as you've implied.

oh, and lanman, the shrub is a term i borrowed from david foster wallace, which he, in turn, borrowed from the techs on the straight talk express when he was following that campaign for rolling stone magazine. its meaning is never explicitly explained, but the way i figure it: a shrub is a little bush.

[Edited by matty on 11-13-2000 at 11:39 AM]

__________________
exit, pursued by a bear.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:01 PM.

Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page