Why This Election Stuff Is A Good Thing
Jms at B5
because they shouldn't be occupying the same space at the same time.
With any luck, this will be my last word on this for the time being, because
this group really should be discussing B5 stuff, as many folks have requested.
I've never been a straight-party voter on any side of things. I was more than
happy to vote McCain because I thought he was the best man in the race at that
time. When he fell out, I felt that the best man in the race at that time was
Gore, and voted accordingly.
Somebody asked if I'd accept Bush at the end of all this if the votes go his
way. It was, and is, a silly question. I will accept *whoever* the vote ends
up favoring on either end of the spectrum. (Not that it's up to me to accept
anybody, it's a legal process that has nothing to do with me.) I had serious
reservations about Nixon's performance as president, but I never questioned his
*legitimacy*. I just thought he didn't make a very good president.
As I said elsewhere, I cannot imagine *anyone* on hearing proof positive that
one side or the other engaged in illegal maneuvering, not wanting to take
whatever time was involved to investigate the situation and ensure that those
responsible be dealt with under the law.
And I equally cannot imagine anyone, on hearing proof positive that the
election results were arrived at in a legal and proper way, not accepting as
final and conclusive the results of that election.
If Bush, at the end of the day, is legally the winner of all this, no voter
fraud involved, then one cannot question his legitimacy. That's the way the
system works.
Do I think he will be a *good* president? Honestly, no. But I have always
been willing to give any new president the time and space needed to prove
otherwise.
I would hope that both sides would agree with this sentiment, whatever their
own personal assessment of the individual in question.
That aside...I've been ruminating on this whole situation, and have come to the
conclusion that this is a massively good thing for the country as a whole.
Why?
Several reasons.
In recent years, we have been a fairly uninterested nation as far as politics
and the mechanisms by which politics are carried out are concerned. If you
asked any group of people a few weeks ago to explain the electoral college, few
could've done so. But you cannot now walk into a restaurant or a bar without
hearing people debating the relative merits of the electoral college,
discussing the validity of butterfly ballots, and the role of the judicial
system in the implementation of votes in the executive branch. It is, for the
most part, healthy, productive, energetic and *informed* discussion.
An involved, excited electorate -- even a pissed-off electorate -- is an
*informed* electorate, and that cannot but bode well for the future.
A month ago, a lot of people didn't bother to vote because they didn't think it
would make a difference. Now, with states teetering on going one way or
another by as few as 17 votes, nobody can think that way and a LOT of people
are kicking themselves for not voting. I suspect that in four years, this will
lead to a massive turnout of people determined not to make the same mistake
twice.
This whole situation has brought into clear focus the still-remaining problems
with ballots and the methods of balloting in any number of states, problems
that have never really been dealt with before because until now there was never
a *need* to deal with them. Now that they have been brought to light, this
will almost inevitably lead to reforms and clarifications.
Some people have referred to this as a "constitutional crisis." But it's not.
This IS the system working, using all of the various permutations set in place
at the federal, state and local levels, at the polling place and the court
house. What this says is that WHATEVER the problem, sonuvagun, there are
peaceful and statutory means set up to deal with them.
If the system didn't work, if this were a constitutionsl crisis, there would be
no other option but violence. And that ain't the case here. Either side going
the legal courtroom route isn't going outside the system, the courts are a PART
of the system, part of the chain of checks and balances that keep the whole
together.
Out of this will come precedent and changes that will be useful the next time
something like this happens.
Government and situations like this are part of the process of considering new
contingencies and developing ways of working around them. If you look at the
Constitution, you see a group of bright people who sat down and considered
every possible variation or contingency that could be foreseen at that time,
and who wrote down what to do in this event or the other. Most of those are
still utterly applicable today, and the ones that don't address the problem
directly still set up the parameters by which they can be addressed in other
ways.
The Constitution is a living document, and this current situation is simply one
more opportunity for growth and learning.
At the end of the day, whatever means or methods are used, and whatever one may
think of the person involved on either side, we WILL have a new president. We
will have one with legal validation, and that president will come into office
in a peaceful transfer of power.
That is the very *core* of the Constitution and the system that has grown up
around it. It *is* the process. The process has not broken down.
Whenever there's a situation like this, everybody says not to push things, that
the system can't take it. The system survived Watergate and Vietnam and the
Civil War and the fight for Civil Rights and two world wars and a bunch of
smaller ones. It will survive this quite handily.
Over time, barnacles, moles and pocket fluff accumulate on any system of
government. From time to time, something must occur to shake loose the growths
and dust off the lint. This is such a moment.
It is not a crisis. It is a good thing.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Rob Perkins
> It is not a crisis. It is a good thing.
Bravo. Three cheers.
You're absolutely right.
I was thinking last week in the midst of all this, that if this were any one
of several certain third-world nations, Daley's words alone about the
election would have caused bullets to fly. People who call us a "banana
republic" are way off base.
Now, I've been excersising my own brand of hope in this election, hoping
that the counts and the judges (eventually, this week I hope) will all fall
in favor of my guy, of course. But, as far as I can tell, neither side has
been willing to step outside of the process, by drawing weapons of war
rather than words. I'm very very grateful for that. I know people from
Africa and Romania who were not so lucky.
Most of all, I've been hoping (and praying; I don't share atheistic leanings
with JMS or others here) that integrity will prevail down there in FL. That,
and thereafter, a vigorous debate and solution to all the problems there and
elsewhere. I'm certainly tempted to front more than one Initiative to the
People, here in Washington, AND to, of all things, actually join the
Democratic Party.
And, getting back to SF a little bit, I just finished reading _Podkayne of
Mars_, just one week before the election. I'm reminded of the statement in
there that (paraphrased) "Politics is how we solve problems without sticks
and guns. It's better than the alternative."
Hurray for our system. It's better than the alternative.
Rob
Gharlane of Eddore
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, I'm going to separate out my general opinions from the meat of this,
> because they shouldn't be occupying the same space at the same time.
>
-- lotsa sensible, cogent stuff deleted. ( Good comments.)
You should write for a living.
>
"GRIDLOCK. The paramount goal of the Founding Fathers."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
partisan sig file below
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
for a couple of hilarious, albeit mildly conservative, jokes on the
subject, see:
http://www.davidball.net/toons/duel.html
and then you HAVE to see
http://cartoons.wnd.com/wnd/html/camp2000/ballot.html
Tammy Smith
mattered. I do think that the current situation is a good thing. We
are actually talking about real issues, not the latest silly scandal.
Still, I never thought my Bush-post would bring this newsgroup back to
over 1,000 posts--yikes!
Tammy
Bryan H. Ackler
>
{massive snip}
>
> Over time, barnacles, moles and pocket fluff accumulate on any system of
> government. From time to time, something must occur to shake loose the growths
> and dust off the lint. This is such a moment.
> It is not a crisis. It is a good thing.
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2000 by
> synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> to reprint specifically denied to
> SFX Magazine)
thank you and very nicely put.......
and I take it that that same flexibility was what G'kar was striving for
while writing the Alliance's Statement of Principles?
Bryan H. Ackler
Portland, Oregon
J. Potts
OH MY GOD! JMS IS REALLY MARTHA STEWART!!!!!!
Ack! Oh, the horror!
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
Jonathan Biggar
> I would hope that both sides would agree with this sentiment, whatever their
> own personal assessment of the individual in question.
>
> That aside...I've been ruminating on this whole situation, and have come to
> the conclusion that this is a massively good thing for the country as a whole.
Yes, even though we are clearly on the opposite side of the fence, I
wholeheartedly agree with you on this.
--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org
Wally Anglesea
>Okay, I'm going to separate out my general opinions from the meat of this,
>because they shouldn't be occupying the same space at the same time.
>
>With any luck, this will be my last word on this for the time being, because
>this group really should be discussing B5 stuff, as many folks have requested.
<SNIP> Lotta good stuff.
Ok, in the B5 future, how do you see the election of the president
taking place (prior to the events of B5, and after Sheridan)?
>
>It is not a crisis. It is a good thing.
>
> jms
>
>(jms...@aol.com)
>(all message content (c) 2000 by
>synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
>to reprint specifically denied to
>SFX Magazine)
>
>
>
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
Fight spam:
http://www.caube.org.au/
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Dwight Williams
> Jms at B5 wrote:
> >
> {massive snip}
> >
> > government. From time to time, something must occur to shake loose the growths
> > and dust off the lint. This is such a moment.
> > It is not a crisis. It is a good thing.
> > jms
> >
> > (jms...@aol.com)
> > (all message content (c) 2000 by
> > synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> > to reprint specifically denied to
> > SFX Magazine)
>
Agreed.
> and I take it that that same flexibility was what G'kar was striving for
> while writing the Alliance's Statement of Principles?
I suspect so. G'Kar must've put in hundreds of sentient-hours
researching the wording and the legal precedents of dozens of
known-to-Alliance-space worlds to get things just so...
I don't know how/if Narns sweat...but if they do, he did that in spades.
Sure would love to see the text of the Statement one of these decades...
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Maintainer/Founder - DEOList for _Chase_ Fandom
Personal Web Site: http://www.ncf.ca/~ad696/
*I* own my postings on Usenet, *not* any dot-com site!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jms at B5
got passed on to me so I figured I'd pass it on for others for whatever use or
interest it may hold.
jms
=========================
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:49:16 -0500
From: Rich Cowan <rco...@lesley.edu>
13 MYTHS ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE 2000 ELECTION (please forward!!)
Millions of dollars are now being raised for a public relations
war between the Democrats and the Republicans to determine the next
president of the United States. Will the outcome of the election
be determined by ratings in the polls? Will the present standoff
be resolved by escalation and threats? Or will the intention of the
voters on election day and the right of the states to choose their
own electors actually matter?
Our involvement this week is essential in order to uphold the
principles of democracy. Propaganda is flying left and right.
To combat this barrage, we present a point by point analysis of
some key myths in the media today, substantiated with footnotes.
Please read, copy, and forward to friends, relatives and colleagues!
Thanks!
[This draft #4 was prepared by Rich Cowan (rco...@lesley.edu) with
help from Paul Rosenberg, Dan Kohn, Jonathan Prince, Marc Sobel,
subscribers to the Red Rock Eater News Service and the electronic
mail discussion florida-rec...@egroups.com, and the Yale
Law School Student Campaign for a Legal Election, 127 Wall Street
New Haven, CT 06511 -- sp...@pantheon.yale.edu]
1) Myth: Al Gore has a responsibility to concede the election.
Fact: A 330 vote margin out of 6 million votes cast in Florida is
incredibly close! It is roughly equivalent to a 1-vote margin in
a city with 40,000 people and 18,000 voters.
It is extremely rare for an election this close NOT to be
contested for several weeks until a manual recount can take place,
with observers from both sides taking part and inspecting ballots.
This kind of detailed recount has not yet taken place.
According to the US Constitution and the Laws of Florida, it is
the responsibility of officials in Florida to certify the election
results. November 17 is the deadline for absentee ballots sent
from overseas to arrive. Since the election is close enough
in Florida, Oregon, and New Mexico to be affected by absentee
ballots, the results in those states cannot be certified before
that date.
2) Myth: the number of "spoiled ballots" in Palm Beach County was
typical. In a press briefing televised live on all networks
on 11/9/00, Karl Rove of the Bush campaign compared the 14,872
invalidated ballots in the 1996 Presidential race to 19,120
ballots for President that were spoiled in this election.
Fact: the Bush campaign was comparing apples and oranges. There
were actually 29,702 invalidated ballots this year in Palm Beach
County. This is almost twice the number in 1996. "19,120" refers
to only those 2000 ballots which were thrown out for voting for
two Presidential candidates. The remaining 10,582 ballots had no
choice recorded for President
According to the Palm Beach County elections office
(www.pbcelections.org), voters this year were not confused at
all by the rest of the ballot. For example, less than 1% of
U.S. Senate votes were invalidated because of multiple punches,
compared with over 4% in the Presidential contest.
3) Myth: The Palm Beach ballot is definitely illegal due to the
presence of punch holes to the left of some of the candidates.
Fact: According to the Secretary of State's office, there is a
loophole in Florida law that may allow ballots used for voting
machines to deviate from the rules governing paper ballots. This
view has been contested by hundreds of Florida voters. The final
decision on the legality of the ballot is likely to be made in
court, as long as this issue could have an effect on the election.
It is possible that the ballot could be ruled illegal on other
grounds, such as the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act or the Americans With Disabilities Act.
4) Myth: "The more often ballots are recounted, especially by hand,
the more likely it is that human errors, like lost ballots and
other risks, will be introduced. This frustrates the very reason
why we have moved from hand counting to machine counting." --
Former Sec. of State James Baker, speaking on behalf of the
Bush campaign at a press briefing televised by all networks on
11/10/00.
Fact: In 1997, George W. Bush signed into law a bill stating that
hand recounts were the preferred method in a close election in
Texas. The bill, "HB 330", mandated that representatives of all
parties be present to prevent fraud.
Laws establishing rights and procedures for hand recounts also
exist in Florida (see Title IX, Chapter 102). In fact, the
Orlando Sentinel, (orlandosentinel.com) reported that a partial
hand count of Presidential ballots this year was ordered by
Republicans in Seminole County, where Bush led Gore. This count
took place on 11/9 and 11/10, widening Bush's lead by 98 votes.
The Bush campaign did not complain about this hand count; nor
did it complain about the hand count on 11/11/00 which put Bush
slightly ahead of Gore in New Mexico.
There do exist machine voting systems which are fairly accurate,
but antiquated punch card systems are notoriously inaccurate.
They were outlawed in Massachusetts in 1997 by Secretary of State
William Galvin after a Congressional primary that was also "too
close to call". The problem is that if the punched-out pieces
of cardboard are not completely removed from the punch card, they
can obstruct the card reader and the votes will not be counted.
A manual recount of such cards can clearly reveal the voter's
intentions.
5) Myth: The process is unfair because hand recounts were held only
in liberal areas of Florida, where Gore stands to pick up the most
votes.
Fact: It is true that a statewide recount would be more fair, and
the Bush campaign has every right to request one. According to
Florida law, hand recount requests must come from the campaigns,
not from the state. To fail to request what is commonly referred
to as a "defensive recount" in conservative areas of Florida, they
may be making a tactical blunder that will cost them the election.
It is also true that there were voting irregularities in the
counties where the Gore campaign requested recounts.
6) Myth: "Palm Beach County is a Pat Buchanan stronghold and that's
why Pat Buchanan received 3407 votes there. According to the
Florida Department of State, 16,695 voters in Palm Beach County
are registered to the Independent Party, the Reform Party, or
the American Reform Party, an increase of 110% since the 1996
presidential election" -- Ari Fleischer of the Bush Campaign,
11/9/00. The 2,000 votes received by the Reform party candidate
for Congress indicate that party's strength in Palm Beach County
(James Baker on Meet the Press, 11/12/00).
Fact: Of those 16,695 voters, only 337 (2 percent) are in the
Reform Party according to Florida state records. The Reform
party candidate for Congress, John McGuire, is connected to a
more centrist wing of the Reform Party, predating Buchanan's
involvement. An analysis of his support indicates that it came
largely from reform-minded Ralph Nader voters.
Regarding Buchanan's vote total, the Washington Post reported that
his vote percentage in Palm Beach county was four times as high at
the polls as in absentee voting. Even Buchanan himself admitted
on 11/8/00 on the Today Show that many of his votes actually
"belonged to Al Gore". So did his campaign manager, Bay Buchanan.
7) Myth: If Gore (or Bush) ends up winning the popular vote, he
really should win the election even if he loses Florida and other
states.
Fact: This is not the way the U.S. Constitution is written.
The Electoral College decision, imperfect as it may be, is the
only one that matters. It may be possible to reform or eliminate
the electoral college in the future, so that small states would
no longer receive extra electoral votes out of proportion to
their population. But until this change is made by Constitutional
amendment, the Electoral College is still the law of the land.
8) Myth: The Cook County, Illinois ballot from the home district of
Gore campaign chair Richard Daley is similar to the "butterfly"
ballot used in Palm Beach County (reported by Don Evans, 11/8/00)
Fact: According to the Chicago Daily Herald on 11/10/00, the
ballots in Chicago which had "facing pages" were referendum
questions which only had two punch holes, Yes and No.
9) Myth: The election process in Florida outside of Palm Beach County
was fair.
Fact: Actually, thousands of irregularities in over a half-dozen
categories have already been reported:
-Ballots ran out in certain precincts according to the LA Times
on 11/10/00.
-Carpools of African-American voters were stopped by police,
according to the Los Angeles Times (11/10/00). In some cases,
officers demanded to see a "taxi license".
-Polls closed with people still in line in Tampa, according to
the Associated Press.
-In Osceola County, ballots did not line up properly, possibly
causing Gore voters to have their ballots cast for Harry Browne.
Also, Hispanic voters were required to produce two forms of ID
when only one is required. (source: Associated Press)
-Dozens, and possibly hundreds, of voters in Broward County were
unable to vote because the Supervisor of Elections did not have
enough staff to verify changes of address.
-Voters were mistakenly removed from voter rolls because their
names were similar to those of ex-cons, according to Mother
Jones magazine.
-According to Reuters news service (11/8/00), many voters
received pencils rather than pens when they voted, in violation
of state law.
-According to the Miami Herald, many Haitian-American voters were
turned away from precincts where they were voting for the first
time (11/10/00)
-According to Feed Magazine (www.feedmag.com), the mayoral
candidate whose election in Miami was overturned due to voter
fraud, Xavier Suarez, said he was involved in preparing absentee
ballots for George W. Bush. (11/9/00)
-According to tompaine.com, CBS's Dan Rather reported a possible
computer error in Volusia County, Florida, where James Harris, a
Socialist Workers Party candidate, won 9,888 votes. He won 583
in the rest of the state. [11/9/00] County-level results for
Florida are available at cnn.com.
-Many African-American first-time voters who registered at motor
vehicles offices or in campus voter registration drives did not
appear on the voting rolls, according to a hearing conducted by
the NAACP and televised on C-SPAN on 11/12/00.
10) Myth: "No evidence of vote fraud, either in the original vote or
in the recount, has been presented." -- James Baker, representing
the Bush campaign on 11/10/00, in a Florida briefing.
Fact: The election was held just last week, so of course many
instances of fraud have not yet been substantiated. Even so,
authorities have already uncovered clear evidence of voter fraud
involving absentee ballots.
In Pensacola, Florida, Bush supporter Todd Vinson never received
the absentee ballot he requested. According to the Associated
Press on 11/9/00, it was determined after an investigation that
this ballot was received by a third party, filled out with a
forged signature, and then sent in. Assistant State Attorney
Russell Edgar, when asked if other absentee ballots might had been
intercepted, said, "I agree there may well be many more than just
this one".
Much media attention on the issue of voter fraud has been focused
on Wisconsin where cigarettes were offered to homeless people
who were casting absentee ballots, presumably for Gore. The
Gore campaign claims the cigarettes were not used to "buy" votes.
On Monday 10/13, the London Times reported a suspected pro-Bush
vote fraud operation in Miami involving over 10,000 ballots.
11) Myth: It is highly unusual for judges to intervene after an
election. Since the designer of a disputed ballot in Florida is
a member of the party contesting the election, a legal challenge
is impossible.
Fact: The most fundamental right of a democratic society is
the the right to vote, and to have one's vote correctly counted.
The legal system exists to ensure that people's rights are not
violated. Whether the person committing a violation is a Democrat
or a Republican does not affect how that violation should be
treated.
Elections are ultimately struggles for political power so it
should not be surprising that disputes are often resolved in
court. Of course judges can be biased. That is why they must
explain their decisions and why bad arguments can be overturned
on appeal.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled in 1998, in connection with a
disputed Volusia County election, that if there is "substantial
noncompliance" with election laws and a "reasonable doubt" about
whether election results "expressed the will of the voters" then
a judge must "void the contested election, even in the absence
of fraud or intentional wrongdoing." (source: Wall St. Journal,
10/10/00). The Journal indicated that there was little legal
precedent for a revote in just one area where an election
occurred. It would be more likely for a court to order a new
election or to overturn the result.
These issues have arisen in other states as well. In a
Massachusetts Democratic primary in 1996 for the US House, the
election was so close after recounts that a judge had to make
the final decision after examining some of the ballots that were
incompletely punched, to determine the intention of the voter.
The law clearly dictated that it was the will of the voter that
mattered, and the candidate who was behind, William Delahunt, went
on to win the final election. Call the Capitol Switchboard if you
have any doubts at 202-225-3121.
12) Myth: Richard Nixon's party in 1960 did the honorable thing in not
contesting the results of the election.
Fact: According to a column in the Los Angeles Times, 11/10/00,
"on Nov. 11, three days after the election, Thurston B. Morton,
a Kentucky senator and the Republican Party's national chairman,
launched bids for recounts or investigations in not just Illinois
and Texas but also Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.
A few days later, Robert H. Finch and Leonard W. Hall, two
Nixon intimates, sent agents to conduct what they called "field
checks" in eight of those 11 battlegrounds. In New Jersey, local
Republicans obtained court orders for recounts; Texans brought
suit in federal court. Illinois witnessed the most vigorous
crusade. Nixon aide Peter Flanigan encouraged the creation
of a Chicago-area Nixon Recount Committee. As late as Nov. 23,
Republican National Committee general counsel H. Meade Alcorn
Jr. was still predicting Nixon would take Illinois." Recounts
continued into December, but did not succeed in overturning the
result of the election.
13) Myth: "Governor Bush is still the winner, subject only to counting
the overseas ballots, which traditionally have favored the
Republican candidates" -- James Baker, Press Briefing, 11/10/00
Fact: The number of yet-to-be-counted overseas military ballots
is likely to be in the range of 500 to 2000, based on the 1996
election in which there were 2,300 oversees absentee ballots
overall, with roughly 60% of them coming from people enlisted in
the military. According to CNN [11/10/00], the military overseas
ballots that arrived before the election were already counted.
The biggest difference from 1996 is that Clinton -- who avoided
the draft -- was running against Dole, a decorated military
veteran.
In 2000 George W. Bush -- who avoided service in Vietnam and
actually lost flying privileges in the Texas Air National Guard
-- is running against Al Gore, a veteran who served in Vietnam.
It is just as possible that Gore will gain a few hundred votes
from veterans as the other way around. It is also possible that
the Gore ticket will pick up votes from Democratic diplomatic
appointees, or temporary residents and dual citizens of Israel.
PLEASE HELP DISTRIBUTE THIS FLYER! We plan to make it easy for you
to obtain a paper copy for distribution at your workplace, church or
campus. If you post this on the web, please let us know! HTML and
printable (Word, PDF) versions will be available at:
http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/13-myths.html
Internet references sometimes change, so they will be updated at:
http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/myth-references.html
To participate in a student discussion, please send a blank email to:
can-rw-s...@topica.com
Tips on E-Organizing:
www.organizenow.net
Jeanne Marie Rice
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001112234623...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
>
>[snip of really good comments]
> It is not a crisis. It is a good thing.
>
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2000 by
> synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> to reprint specifically denied to
> SFX Magazine)
>
"The Democrats are trying to steal the election" from MY spousal
overunit. He's a retired U.S. Army Sergeant, a Vietnam veteran, and
only has one leg, so I can't in good conscience summon the Narn Bat
Squad to deal with him (though sorely, sorely tempted these past days).
I voted for Bush because of his Pro-Right to Life position and
opposition to abortion (at least so far), and dislike Gore very much,
but I don't think either party is trying to steal the election.
As you said, Great Maker, people are talking about the Electoral
College, and debating what kind of technology could improve voting in
the future--all kinds of things no one cared about in the past. I think
it's great! I'm looking forward to great changes and improvements in the
2004 election process, maybe even 90% participation in the election!
We'll get through this, as we have other calamities in the past. But for
now, I watch Babylon 5 and try to ignore my hubby. I know you are an
atheist, so I hope you do not take this amiss, but God bless you for
Babylon 5, JMS!
--
Jeanne Marie Rice
"If we look back on our past life we shall see that one of its most
usual experiences is that we have been helped by our mistakes and
injured by our most sagacious decisions."
--Winston S. Churchill, 1932
John
I fully agree with this entire post. In fact, I made my first ever
political financial contribution to John McCain. The two current candidates
are, IMO, third rate.
JMarien3
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) on 11/13/00 wrote:
<SNIP>
>Some people have referred to this as a "constitutional crisis." But it's
>not.
>This IS the system working, using all of the various permutations set in
>place
>at the federal, state and local levels, at the polling place and the court
>house. What this says is that WHATEVER the problem, sonuvagun, there are
>peaceful and statutory means set up to deal with them.
>
>If the system didn't work, if this were a constitutionsl crisis, there would
>be
>no other option but violence. And that ain't the case here. Either side
>going
>the legal courtroom route isn't going outside the system, the courts are a
>PART
>of the system, part of the chain of checks and balances that keep the whole
>together.
>
<MORE SNIPPED>
I agree with your assessment on the whole, and arrived at many of the same
conclusions myself. People have been too complacent for too long. Personally, I
get annoyed by people who complain about the system or about a politician who
gets elected---and then you find out that they didn't even bother to vote (or
aren't even registered at all!); that turns me off. The voter turnout in this
country is shameful, and a little cage rattling with this election will
hopefully change that.
You are correct: this is NOT a Constitution crisis. I've heard people say it
is, but it isn't so.
However, as I said in an earlier post, it could turn into one. Despite the fact
that Gore appears to have had the election slip away from him (and not via any
deliberate fraud or illegalities), there's little doubt in my mind that Bush
will officially win Florida. But what if it does not stop there?
So, Bush gets Florida and has 271 electoral votes. What if Gore continues his
battle into the Electoral College, actively trying to get two or more electors
to switch? Or, what of this: 25 states plus DC require by law that the electors
cast their votes for their state winner. Florida is not one of those states.
(And no elector's ever been prosecuted or penalized before when he did switch
his vote.) Suppose two or more electors decide that their conscience requires
them to switch? I can see a big-time Constitutional crisis brewing here.
That scares me.
If that nightmare scenario does happen, I have enough faith that the country
will sort out the mess and pull through. But it will get messy, and could
indeed lead to volience. Right now, the courts are the right battleground and
hopefully everyone concerned will do "the right thing", but there is still
danger ahead. (And, no, I am not usually paranoic!)
'Nuff said.
Wesley Struebing
On 13 Nov 2000 13:10:29 -0700, nav...@lucent.com (J. Potts) wrote:
>In article <20001112234623...@ng-xa1.aol.com>,
>Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>>It is not a crisis. It is a good thing.
>
>
>OH MY GOD! JMS IS REALLY MARTHA STEWART!!!!!!
>
>Ack! Oh, the horror!
Dang! I can't resist (I tried - mightily...)
SAY IT AIN'T SO, JOE!
(I'll go away now<G>)
--
--Take care; faith manages!
--
--Wes Struebing
--
--+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-- str...@americanisp.com
-- ph: 303-343-9006 / FAX: 303-343-9026
-- home page: http://users.americanisp.com/~struebing/
Maia Bernstein
On 13 Nov 2000, Jms at B5 wrote:
> It is not a crisis. It is a good thing.
Bravo! Nicely said.
Scott Johnson
:
: I fully agree with this entire post. In fact, I made my first ever
: political financial contribution to John McCain. The two current candidates
: are, IMO, third rate.
Now there, at least, is something I think a lot of us can agree on! :-)
--
Scott Iekel-Johnson sco...@eecs.umich.edu
Dept. of EECS, Univ. of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~scottdj
(734) 763-5363
Finger for PGP public key.
Mac Breck
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: Why This Election Stuff Is A Good Thing
> Don't know the validity of what folllows, though it seems pretty solid,
but it
> got passed on to me so I figured I'd pass it on for others for whatever
use or
> interest it may hold.
>
> jms
>
> =========================
> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:49:16 -0500
> From: Rich Cowan <rco...@lesley.edu>
>
>
> 13 MYTHS ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE 2000 ELECTION (please forward!!)
>
> 2) Myth: the number of "spoiled ballots" in Palm Beach County was
> typical. In a press briefing televised live on all networks
> on 11/9/00, Karl Rove of the Bush campaign compared the 14,872
> invalidated ballots in the 1996 Presidential race to 19,120
> ballots for President that were spoiled in this election.
>
> Fact: the Bush campaign was comparing apples and oranges. There
> were actually 29,702 invalidated ballots this year in Palm Beach
> County. This is almost twice the number in 1996. "19,120" refers
> to only those 2000 ballots which were thrown out for voting for
> two Presidential candidates. The remaining 10,582 ballots had no
> choice recorded for President
Can't somebody not vote for President, and complete the rest of the ballot,
or is there a "None of the Above" box that must be punched? It's possible
that 10,582 people were so PO'd that they wanted to make a statement that
none of these people would make a good President, isn't it? I heard a lot
of people say something like that.
Mac
Jms at B5
>them to switch? I can see a big-time Constitutional crisis brewing here.
Because the electors in question are appointed by republicans (the winning
party gets to slot in their electors), you would have to imagine a republican
elector changing his/her vote for a democrat, and I think the odds on that are
slim and none. (It would be the same in reverse, I imagine.)
Adam Michaud
Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>Can't somebody not vote for President, and complete the rest of the ballot,
>or is there a "None of the Above" box that must be punched? It's possible
>that 10,582 people were so PO'd that they wanted to make a statement that
>none of these people would make a good President, isn't it? I heard a lot
>of people say something like that.
Yes, it's certainly possible. It's just moderately unlikely, as compared
to the rest of Florida. And given that, it doesn't seem unreasonable to
look at those votes to make sure that that's what they meant to do.
Personally, I think that doing just that -- and *not* recounting the rest
of the votes -- seems like the fairest way to handle this. If someone
punched two holes for President, it's at least reasonable to throw out
their ballot -- that *is* the law, even if it might not be optimally fair
at times (such as those times when the ballot is very confusing, as many
seemed to think the PBC ballot was). But if someone tried to punch *one*
hole, and failed because of physical frailty or whatever other reasons,
but it can be discerned what they were trying to do fairly unambiguously,
isn't it unfair to discard that vote? But then, I'm sure that recounting
just part of a precinct's votes isn't legal, so this couldn't actually be
done.
Adam
The_Doge of St. Louis
(Jms at B5) wrote:
>>Suppose two or more electors decide that their conscience requires
>>them to switch? I can see a big-time Constitutional crisis brewing here.
>
>Because the electors in question are appointed by republicans (the winning
>party gets to slot in their electors), you would have to imagine a republican
>elector changing his/her vote for a democrat, and I think the odds on that are
>slim and none. (It would be the same in reverse, I imagine.)
>
> jms
And it wouldn't be a *Constitutional* crisis in any case becuase, as I
understand it, electors are under no legal, Constitutional obligation to
vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state. Or am I wrong on
that?
--
<*> ObQuote: "Most religions do not make men better, only warier."
-- Elias Canetti
======================================================================
<*>The_Doge of St. Louis
Stage, screen, radio
http://www.pobox.com/~thedoge/
Edward Franks
[Snip]
> Because the electors in question are appointed by republicans (the winning
> party gets to slot in their electors), you would have to imagine a republican
> elector changing his/her vote for a democrat, and I think the odds on that are
> slim and none. (It would be the same in reverse, I imagine.)
Add to that the fact that the new Congress still has to certify
each elector's vote. Supporting a "faithless elector" would be
political suicide.
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
Hidalgo Trading Company: <http://home.kc.rr.com/hidalgo/>
rgcu.* FAQ: <http://home.kc.rr.com/hidalgo/faq/rgcudfaq.html>
JMarien3
>
>In article <20001114182352...@ng-cm1.aol.com>, jms...@aol.com
>(Jms at B5) wrote:
>
>>>Suppose two or more electors decide that their conscience requires
>>>them to switch? I can see a big-time Constitutional crisis brewing here.
>>
>>party gets to slot in their electors), you would have to imagine a
>republican
>>elector changing his/her vote for a democrat, and I think the odds on that
>are
>>slim and none. (It would be the same in reverse, I imagine.)
>>
>
>And it wouldn't be a *Constitutional* crisis in any case becuase, as I
>understand it, electors are under no legal, Constitutional obligation to
>vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state. Or am I wrong on
>that?
>
That's true, but under the scenario I was suggesting (much of it snipped by
this point), if such a thing happened and then Bush in turn took the legal
fight to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the electoral college, it was at
that point that I was saying a Constitutional crisis *could* (key word there)
arise.
Upon further thought, though, I think that's unlikely to happen. It it ever got
that far, I image the Court would refuse to intervene and that would end it.
... or could Congress then refuse to accept the electoral college results and
try to itself vote for the President? Go back to Go, do not collect $200 ...
Wingnut
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 12:56 AM
>Subject: Re: Why This Election Stuff Is A Good Thing
>
>
>> Don't know the validity of what folllows, though it seems pretty solid,
>but it
>> got passed on to me so I figured I'd pass it on for others for whatever
>use or
>> interest it may hold.
>>
>> jms
>>
>> =========================
>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:49:16 -0500
>> From: Rich Cowan <rco...@lesley.edu>
>>
>>
>> 13 MYTHS ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE 2000 ELECTION (please forward!!)
>>
>> 2) Myth: the number of "spoiled ballots" in Palm Beach County was
>> typical. In a press briefing televised live on all networks
>> on 11/9/00, Karl Rove of the Bush campaign compared the 14,872
>> invalidated ballots in the 1996 Presidential race to 19,120
>> ballots for President that were spoiled in this election.
>>
>> Fact: the Bush campaign was comparing apples and oranges. There
>> were actually 29,702 invalidated ballots this year in Palm Beach
>> County. This is almost twice the number in 1996. "19,120" refers
>> to only those 2000 ballots which were thrown out for voting for
>> two Presidential candidates. The remaining 10,582 ballots had no
>> choice recorded for President
>
>Can't somebody not vote for President, and complete the rest of the ballot,
>or is there a "None of the Above" box that must be punched? It's possible
>that 10,582 people were so PO'd that they wanted to make a statement that
>none of these people would make a good President, isn't it? I heard a lot
>of people say something like that.
>
Hmm, I think such voters would be more likely to vote for one of the 3rd parties
for president, and there were quite a few third parties on the Florida ballot.
Also, these 10582 ballots were ones that couldn't machine-read a presidential
vote. The hand recount may or may not prove that those voters intended to cast
no vote.
Wingnut
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s-:+ a--- C++ ULS P L+ E---- W+ N++ !o K- w(---) O-- M- V?
PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP- t-- 5+++ X- R tv b DI+ D+ G e>++ h! r--- y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Alyson L. Abramowitz
> >And it wouldn't be a *Constitutional* crisis in any case becuase, as I
> >understand it, electors are under no legal, Constitutional obligation to
> >vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state. Or am I wrong on
> >that?
I don't think so since there isn't a constitutional question yet.
26 states have no requirement that the electors vote in accordance with
the popular vote. 19 states and Washington DC mandate that they vote in
accordance with the popular vote. There is no penalty in any of these
states if an elector fails to do so. Only 5 states have penalties for
deviating from the popular vote. The sanctions in most of the 5 states
are minor. Typically they are small fines. Florida is NOT one of the
states that binds its electors. Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Oregon do.
Only 9 electors out of about 18,000 who have served in USA history have
violated their pledges.
> That's true, but under the scenario I was suggesting (much of it snipped by
> this point), if such a thing happened and then Bush in turn took the legal
> fight to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the electoral college, it was at
> that point that I was saying a Constitutional crisis *could* (key word there)
> arise.
I'm not sure on what grounds this count be contested directly. What
could be contested was the validity of the election of some of the
electors (e.g., Florida's). This isn't a constitutional crisis either.
> Upon further thought, though, I think that's unlikely to happen. It it ever got
> that far, I image the Court would refuse to intervene and that would end it.
>
> ... or could Congress then refuse to accept the electoral college results and
> try to itself vote for the President?
I think the House can only pick if there is a deadlock in the Electoral
College. Otherwise it is probably sent to the court system.
Weirdness that could (but is unlikely to happen) includes if the House
splits 50-50 and the Senate splits 50-50. It is unclear if Gore, as
President of the Senate, could cast the time breaker since the 12th
Amendment calls for a majority of "Senators" and Gore isn't a Senator.
Weirder is apparently the corner case scenario where the Senate breaks
the tie for VP, Lieberman becomes President and could then appoint Gore
VP, subject to congressional confirmation.
Or no one can sort it all out and on January 20 the Speaker of the House
becomes President.
While these are bizarre and unlikely corner cases, in none of them do we
end up in a real constitutional crisis. We just end up with an
unexpected Presidential choice.
Best,
Alyson
Mac Breck
From: "Adam Michaud" <apmi...@midway.uchicago.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Why This Election Stuff Is A Good Thing
> In article <004b01c04e62$263f0640$0ed2...@cobweb.net>,
> Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>
> >Can't somebody not vote for President, and complete the rest of the
ballot,
> >or is there a "None of the Above" box that must be punched? It's
possible
> >that 10,582 people were so PO'd that they wanted to make a statement that
> >none of these people would make a good President, isn't it? I heard a
lot
> >of people say something like that.
>
> Yes, it's certainly possible. It's just moderately unlikely, as compared
> to the rest of Florida. And given that, it doesn't seem unreasonable to
> look at those votes to make sure that that's what they meant to do.
If they punched no holes in the Presidential part of it, how are you going
to look at the ballot and divine what they wanted to do, based on no
evidence. Are we looking for handwritten notes from the electorate now?
e.g. "I wanted to vote for Gore, but didn't know how to do it. Please count
mine as a vote for Gore."
> Personally, I think that doing just that -- and *not* recounting the rest
> of the votes -- seems like the fairest way to handle this. If someone
> punched two holes for President, it's at least reasonable to throw out
> their ballot -- that *is* the law, even if it might not be optimally fair
> at times (such as those times when the ballot is very confusing, as many
> seemed to think the PBC ballot was) But if someone tried to punch *one*
> hole, and failed because of physical frailty or whatever other reasons,
> but it can be discerned what they were trying to do fairly unambiguously,
If there are no holes, there's probably no evidence of which way they
intended to vote.
> isn't it unfair to discard that vote?
It depends on how far out on the limb we want to go. In examining the
10,582 "no-hole" ballots for trace evidence of how the voter "intended" to
vote, I think we're so far out on the limb that we're hanging onto the
leaves.
Mac
Mac Breck
From: "Wingnut" <j...@pinn.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: Why This Election Stuff Is A Good Thing
> On 14 Nov 2000 10:41:52 -0700, "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
> >Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 12:56 AM
> >Subject: Re: Why This Election Stuff Is A Good Thing
> >
> >
> >> Don't know the validity of what folllows, though it seems pretty solid,
> >but it
> >> got passed on to me so I figured I'd pass it on for others for whatever
> >use or
> >> interest it may hold.
> >>
> >> jms
> >>
> >> =========================
> >> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:49:16 -0500
> >> From: Rich Cowan <rco...@lesley.edu>
> >>
> >>
> >> 13 MYTHS ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE 2000 ELECTION (please forward!!)
> >>
> >> 2) Myth: the number of "spoiled ballots" in Palm Beach County was
> >> typical. In a press briefing televised live on all networks
> >> on 11/9/00, Karl Rove of the Bush campaign compared the 14,872
> >> invalidated ballots in the 1996 Presidential race to 19,120
> >> ballots for President that were spoiled in this election.
> >>
> >> Fact: the Bush campaign was comparing apples and oranges. There
> >> were actually 29,702 invalidated ballots this year in Palm Beach
> >> County. This is almost twice the number in 1996. "19,120" refers
> >> to only those 2000 ballots which were thrown out for voting for
> >> two Presidential candidates. The remaining 10,582 ballots had no
> >> choice recorded for President
> >
> >Can't somebody not vote for President, and complete the rest of the
ballot,
> >or is there a "None of the Above" box that must be punched? It's
possible
> >that 10,582 people were so PO'd that they wanted to make a statement that
> >none of these people would make a good President, isn't it? I heard a
lot
> >of people say something like that.
> >
>
> Hmm, I think such voters would be more likely to vote for one of the 3rd
parties
> for president, and there were quite a few third parties on the Florida
ballot.
> Also, these 10582 ballots were ones that couldn't machine-read a
presidential
> vote. The hand recount may or may not prove that those voters intended to
cast
> no vote.
>
If we're talking about, for example, where the punch didn't leave a clean
hole and had a hanging tab, then that's OK and it makes sense to do a hand
verification of the previous count.
Mac
Reid Morris
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001112234623...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
> Over time, barnacles, moles and pocket fluff accumulate on any system of
government. From time to time, something must occur to shake loose the
growths
and dust off the lint. This is such a moment.
{Crack mode on}
Ok so Bush and Gore should duke it out in a boxing match. Victor takes
the Presidency!
Then in the next term Hillary can move from the Senate back to the White
House with Bill as the 1st Man.
Then as Ivanova would say "Boooom!"
Don't say I didn't warn you.
{Crack mode off}
Crap what was I saying??
Reidm
just~pat
jmar...@aol.com (JMarien3) wrote:
The only method for doing this would be to campaign for it, convincing
them by rhetoric to vote against their state and party mandates. This
would be no different from his attempts over the last 18 months to get
people to vote for him...
> Or, what of this: 25 states plus DC require by law that the electors
> cast their votes for their state winner. Florida is not one of those
states.
> (And no elector's ever been prosecuted or penalized before when he
did switch
> his vote.) Suppose two or more electors decide that their conscience
requires
> them to switch?
Then we'll have a different president than we otherwise would have.
If Bush wins Florida (which it looks like he probably will) and the
Florida electors vote for Gore instead, then Gore will be president.
If Gore wins in a re-count and a couple of the Florida electors don't
like the idea of the recount and vote for Bush, then Bush will be
president.
This is not a loophole in the system, it's the way the system was
designed to work - otherwise, we'd just vote for the president
directly, and the popular vote would decide things.
> I can see a big-time Constitutional crisis brewing here.
>
> That scares me.
>
> If that nightmare scenario does happen, I have enough faith that the
country
> will sort out the mess and pull through. But it will get messy, and
could
> indeed lead to volience.
Why would it lead to violence? It just means that a lot of people
don't think the president we end up with is the one we should have
had - we're already in that situation, no matter who wins.
> Right now, the courts are the right battleground and
> hopefully everyone concerned will do "the right thing", but there is
still
> danger ahead. (And, no, I am not usually paranoic!)
>
> 'Nuff said.
--
Pat Luther --- http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~pluther
"...and, when all men are hastening to become either tyrants or slaves,
that is when we make Liberalism the prime bogey."
- Screwtape (C.S. Lewis)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Adam Michaud
Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it's certainly possible. It's just moderately unlikely, as compared
>> to the rest of Florida. And given that, it doesn't seem unreasonable to
>> look at those votes to make sure that that's what they meant to do.
>
>If they punched no holes in the Presidential part of it, how are you going
>to look at the ballot and divine what they wanted to do, based on no
>evidence. Are we looking for handwritten notes from the electorate now?
I'm sure you've been watching the news the last week or so. Many of the
votes that were discovered in the first recount were punch-card votes
where the "chad" only partially dislodged in the first place, and so
blocked the light sensors in the counting machines, and thus didn't get
counted. In the manual recounts, even more of these have been found.
Those are the only votes I'm talking about; it's pretty clear what these
people were trying to do. It's a fault of the technology, not the voter.
You can't necessarily say that of double-punched votes. (You might be
able to if a ballot were out-and-out *misleading*, but I'm not convinced
any of the ballots involved in this fracas were so.) And since these
votes *can* clearly be counted correctly by a person -- though not by a
machine -- we ought to count them.
>It depends on how far out on the limb we want to go. In examining the
>10,582 "no-hole" ballots for trace evidence of how the voter "intended" to
>vote, I think we're so far out on the limb that we're hanging onto the
>leaves.
Except that some of them don't actually have no hole; they were just
unreadable *by the counting machinery*. I think we're all aware that
computers are frequently not very tolerant of input that isn't just what
it's expecting...
Adam
Adam Michaud
Alyson L. Abramowitz <a...@best.com> wrote:
>
>Or no one can sort it all out and on January 20 the Speaker of the House
>becomes President.
Or the even stranger case where the House can't decide on a Speaker (and
since we're already talking about the House splitting 50-50, that's not
*that* unlikely) by January 20, and the president pro tem of the Senate
becomes President.
That would be Strom Thurmond, at the moment. Now *that* would be a
crisis, if not a Constitutional one.
Adam
Scott Johnson
: If they punched no holes in the Presidential part of it, how are you going
: to look at the ballot and divine what they wanted to do, based on no
: evidence. Are we looking for handwritten notes from the electorate now?
: e.g. "I wanted to vote for Gore, but didn't know how to do it. Please count
: mine as a vote for Gore."
If there are no holes punched, and no other markings, they would discard
the ballot. However, there have been a few cases of someone marking their
vote in pencil or circling the candidate's name. In those cases I believe
they have counted the vote for the candidate so marked, which seems fair
and accurate to me.
Paul McElligott
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
> Because the electors in question are appointed by republicans (the
winning
> party gets to slot in their electors), you would have to imagine a
republican
> elector changing his/her vote for a democrat, and I think the odds on
that are
> slim and none. (It would be the same in reverse, I imagine.)
>
No doubt this is true. Of course, I do know some registered
republicans who voted for Gore. I get the feeling that a lot of
Republicans aren't all that impressed with Bush. There might be some
bitter McCain supporters in there. Who nows?
I think the chance of someone switching sides is a remote possibility,
but by no means impossible.
--
Paul McElligott
http://www.terrafed.com
Note: No toads were strangled in the posting of this message.
Terry Rubenstein
Scott Johnson wrote:
> Mac Breck (macb...@access995.com) wrote:
> : If they punched no holes in the Presidential part of it, how are you going
> : to look at the ballot and divine what they wanted to do, based on no
> : evidence. Are we looking for handwritten notes from the electorate now?
> :
> : e.g. "I wanted to vote for Gore, but didn't know how to do it. Please count
> : mine as a vote for Gore."
>
> If there are no holes punched, and no other markings, they would discard
> the ballot. However, there have been a few cases of someone marking their
> vote in pencil or circling the candidate's name. In those cases I believe
> they have counted the vote for the candidate so marked, which seems fair
> and accurate to me.
I disagree. If the ballot says "make an X to the right of the name" and a person
puts a smiley face to the left of a name on the ballot - how do we know if that
was an attempt to vote for the guy next to the smile or an indication they thought
him/her a fool. Only properly marked balots should be accepted. ANYTHING else
should be rejected.
Scott Johnson
: I disagree. If the ballot says "make an X to the right of the name" and a person
: puts a smiley face to the left of a name on the ballot - how do we know if that
: was an attempt to vote for the guy next to the smile or an indication they thought
: him/her a fool. Only properly marked balots should be accepted. ANYTHING else
: should be rejected.
In the example you give I agree that it is not necessarily obvious what
the voter's intent was. But if they circled a candidates name, what other
intent could there be but to vote for the circled candidate?
Mac Breck
From: "Adam Michaud" <apmi...@midway.uchicago.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: Why This Election Stuff Is A Good Thing
> In article <003201c04f08$37ad2280$29d2...@cobweb.net>,
> Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, it's certainly possible. It's just moderately unlikely, as
compared
> >> to the rest of Florida. And given that, it doesn't seem unreasonable
to
> >> look at those votes to make sure that that's what they meant to do.
> >
> >If they punched no holes in the Presidential part of it, how are you
going
> >to look at the ballot and divine what they wanted to do, based on no
> >evidence. Are we looking for handwritten notes from the electorate now?
>
> I'm sure you've been watching the news the last week or so. Many of the
> votes that were discovered in the first recount were punch-card votes
> where the "chad" only partially dislodged in the first place, and so
> blocked the light sensors in the counting machines, and thus didn't get
> counted. In the manual recounts, even more of these have been found.
In the news today (while at the dentist getting drilled) I saw somebody on
TV say they wanted to count card dimples (i.e. where the card was not "cut"
at all).
If the card is cut, but the tab is hanging on, and no other Presidential
candidate also has a punch, that's OK to count, but this dimple thing is
ridiculous.
> Those are the only votes I'm talking about; it's pretty clear what these
> people were trying to do. It's a fault of the technology, not the voter.
> You can't necessarily say that of double-punched votes. (You might be
> able to if a ballot were out-and-out *misleading*, but I'm not convinced
> any of the ballots involved in this fracas were so.) And since these
> votes *can* clearly be counted correctly by a person -- though not by a
> machine -- we ought to count them.
>
> >It depends on how far out on the limb we want to go. In examining the
> >10,582 "no-hole" ballots for trace evidence of how the voter "intended"
to
> >vote, I think we're so far out on the limb that we're hanging onto the
> >leaves.
>
> Except that some of them don't actually have no hole; they were just
> unreadable *by the counting machinery*. I think we're all aware that
> computers are frequently not very tolerant of input that isn't just what
> it's expecting...
Like I said, that's fine, but when you get down to counting dimples, it
really gets *subjective*. Which dimple is deeper? Are they going to
measure? It goes on and on.
What we need is a good *objective* count where rules are clearly stated and
followed by all the counters. Whenever you introduce humans into the
equation, it gets harder and harder to adhere to the rules, the more people
you bring in to do the job.
Mac
Wingnut
>
>> On 14 Nov 2000 10:41:52 -0700, "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>> >Can't somebody not vote for President, and complete the rest of the
>ballot,
>> >or is there a "None of the Above" box that must be punched? It's
>possible
>> >that 10,582 people were so PO'd that they wanted to make a statement that
>> >none of these people would make a good President, isn't it? I heard a
>lot
>> >of people say something like that.
>> >
>>
>> Hmm, I think such voters would be more likely to vote for one of the 3rd
>parties
>> for president, and there were quite a few third parties on the Florida
>ballot.
>> Also, these 10582 ballots were ones that couldn't machine-read a
>presidential
>> vote. The hand recount may or may not prove that those voters intended to
>cast
>> no vote.
>>
>
>If we're talking about, for example, where the punch didn't leave a clean
>hole and had a hanging tab, then that's OK and it makes sense to do a hand
>verification of the previous count.
>
This is exactly what we're talking about. Those hanging tabs are often referred
to as "chad" by the way.
Adam Michaud
Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>Like I said, that's fine, but when you get down to counting dimples, it
>really gets *subjective*. Which dimple is deeper? Are they going to
>measure? It goes on and on.
Oh, I agree. Even though it would probably benefit my preferred
candidate, I think counting dimples opens up a great big can of worms
that, well, we just don't want to go anywhere near. Just silly, even if
there's only one dimple. I certainly don't mind drawing the line
*somewhere*, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to require that the voter
actually puncture the ballot in *some* manner to register their vote.
>What we need is a good *objective* count where rules are clearly stated and
>followed by all the counters. Whenever you introduce humans into the
>equation, it gets harder and harder to adhere to the rules, the more people
>you bring in to do the job.
I agree with this too, for values of objective that allow for hand
recounts. I think they should certainly all be following the same rules,
at least on a statewide basis, and those rules should have been spelled
out ahead of time.
Unfortunately, the law as it's presently constituted gives discretion on
this to every individual county, so like with all the other things at
issue here, we're stuck with it. I'd be very happy if there was a
movement to standardize such things at at least a state level in the
future, though...
Adam
Catherine Anne Foulston
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>Don't know the validity of what folllows, though it seems pretty solid, but it
>From: Rich Cowan <rco...@lesley.edu>
>13 MYTHS ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE 2000 ELECTION (please forward!!)
> It is possible that the ballot could be ruled illegal on other
> grounds, such as the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
> Handicapped Act or the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Which would be ironic, given that the whole reason they made the
ballot that way was to improve readability. If they'd scrunched
all the candidates onto one page, they'd have had to use print so
small that it might have been a problem for people with limited
vision. At least that's what county officials have said.
I don't know the right answer -- given a fixed page size, I don't
know how else they could have done this except to continue onto
another page. And that would be even MORE confusing, at least
for people who are easily confused. "Vote for one on this page OR
one on the next page"? Bad idea.
I wonder what was done in other Florida counties? Did they (as we
did here in Texas) have fewer candidates listed, or different page
sizes (or totally different voting systems), or did they just use
tiny print?
--
Catherine Foulston cathyf @ rice.edu
Rice University Networking & Telecommunications
LK
On 13 Nov 2000 13:08:19 -0700, gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) wrote:
>This is the first time in almost 20 years of voting that I felt my vote
>mattered. I do think that the current situation is a good thing. We
>are actually talking about real issues, not the latest silly scandal.
>
>Still, I never thought my Bush-post would bring this newsgroup back to
>over 1,000 posts--yikes!
>
>Tammy
>
If it wasn't you, then it would have been some one else.
JMS has often expressed that he's impressed by the thoughtful
discussion on the NG, so since so much of B5 story was about politics
and politicking...why not?
Nightwatch posters were patterned after historical ones. Power-mad
people range among kings and queens, papal decisions, ethic purges,
holy wars," judgements" from gods in the form of disease, military
coups, free speech denied, puppet governments, banana republics...
I think it's great place. What was so easy on B5, to us viewers--and
even then we learn the good guys and bad aren't what they seemed,
hence Delenn lying and Vorlon noble cause threads--it isn't so easy
when you're in the middle. We're sort of Zacks now. And no side or
viewpoint is so homogenus that some fanatic won't threaten or commit
violence to redress a percieved wrong. Nor is there a sizable group
that doesn't have it's blind followers the believing in the purity of
that group's ideology and actions, no matter what.
We are a part of making the future, making the changes that determine
direction of history. One of B5's themes is individual making
decisions and enduring consequences. That we're not just bystanders.
And we don't always know if we're doing things for someone's/one's
whim or an importment time. (Think of Season 5 episode of the Minbari
trainee not wanting to waste his health or life in climbing to attain
a flower for others.)
Whenever I hear a commentator say the words "enlightened
self-interest" I think of G'Kar. And the Human curse "May you live
in intersting times." And Mac 'n' Bo's talk of growing bigger
shoulders.
Your pebble wasn't the sole cause of the avalance. (Comfort or
unhappiness in that fact is up to you :-)
LK