Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 16:15:05 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Brett's odd take on the Florida election Message-ID: <3E41A909.1048F9C9@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0302051056020.97117-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20030205171407.A15358@freebie.xs4all.nl> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0302051056020.97117-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20030205161539.028acab0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote: > Sort of like the situation with George Bush and the US Supreme > Court. A predecessor of the same party appointed the judges, who > made Bush president out of partisan loyalty even though he lost > the popular vote and the election results were irreparably tainted > by illegally designed ballots. Florida could have revoted with different ballots. The decision was up to Florida. Neither party wanted that, because then people in Florida would be deciding the election, and there would probably be a significant probability of tampering, as well as a significant amount of people changing their minds, now that their vote actually mattered. For fairness, the would have had to limit participation to registered voters who polling records indicated had previously voted with the old ballots. Even then, it would have been a run-off election, as the Green Party and Socialist Party, and other candidates get zero votes, as everyone picks one of the two horses the rest of the U.S. has indicated must win. Meanwhile, some votes would also change, after seeing what jackasses the candidates political machines made of their candidates. Gee. They'd be in the same position as Hawaii always is, relative to being able to know the outcome everywhere else before voting... As to winning the popular vote, it really depends on which set of votes you choose to decide to exclude, doesn't it? There are the people who filed absentee ballots which were not included in the totals, but who pretty clearly intended to vote, and then there are people who registered and didn't vote, who pretty clearly intended to not vote, and then there are people who voted, who are variously claimed to have voted for a different candidate by mistake, or to have voted for that candidate on purpose. As to who the U.S. Supreme Court picked, by refusing to pick, and leaving it up to the Florida Secretary of State: their appointments are made, in theory, on the basis of judgement, not on the basis of how they will vote once there, and while bias is certainly possible, favor-trading isn't, since justices are appointed for life, specifically to prevent them *needing* favors, and becoming succeptible to trade proposals. The election was what it was. Any vote result is what it is. If you want reform, do it now, while it's not a fire you have to put out. I recommend starting with requiring all polls, everywhere, to open and close at the same time, Eastern Standard Time, so that early returns and exit polling in the East do not effect voter turnout in the West. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E41A909.1048F9C9>