Florida Law Recommends Vertical Arrangement of Names and Requires "X" marked to the RIGHT- Further requires that Repbublicans be listed first, Democra

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Stallion

Diamond Member
May 4, 2000
3,657
0
76
da bastard, me too, I just like to stir the pot a little. I might have gotten a little carried away,........... nah. ;)

I will agree on the fact that all this is going to do is create nothing but hatred and slandering of everone in the country.

While I might not be the most savy person here I do know that this has turned out to be the biggest pain in the @ss for everyone in America and no one is going to benifit from it. :(
 

Steve Guilliot

Senior member
Dec 8, 1999
295
0
0
Juiio,
You keep saying that Gore is only doing this for himself, as if the only people on the planet are Gore, you, and the rest of the Republicans. Unknown to you, apparently, is that Gore represents half of this country. So, go ahead and sit on your sanctimonious perch, looking down at the "losers". How simple-minded and hypocritical (see "Republikans would be doing the same if the shoe.....").
 

juiio

Golden Member
Feb 28, 2000
1,433
4
81
Steve Guilliot: If you actually read what I posted, I said "or Bush if the current situation happens to reverse itself". No matter who is behind after the recount + overseas vote, that person should concede. Its for the good of the country and our democratic system.

By the way, I'm not a Republican.
 

Steve Guilliot

Senior member
Dec 8, 1999
295
0
0
Fine, your not a Republican. And fine, you think the same of Bush. However, my point still stands: This is not just about either's career as you would like to think. There is alot more at stake than any one man, and that is why the fight will continue regardless of which foot the shoe is on.
 

juiio

Golden Member
Feb 28, 2000
1,433
4
81
You're right. There is a lot more at stake than any one man. That is precisely why the loser at the end of the recount+overseas votes needs to to concede gracefully. If, for example, the presidency is decided in court. You've now made a mockery of our entire democratic system. You've now made a mockery of the constitution which outlines our democratic system. For the entire four years that the winner is in office, the people will be constantly questioning whether he should be in office or not. They'll be ignoring anything he might try to do and isntead focus on the fact that the courts gave him the presidency.

Now however, if the loser graciously admits defeat and says that the winner was chosen by the will of the people as defined by the constitution, our system remains entact. The constitution is not made a mockery of. The people, upon seeing that even the losing candidate accepts the winner as president, will be much more accepting. The government might even get something accomplished in the next four years.

The loser (whoever it may be) needs to stop thinking about his career, and think about what is best for the country. The longer this debacle goes on, the more irreparable damage gets done to our democracy.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Ok, I stand corrected on that point as far as the list of candidates.

-- However, that section makes the statute a little ambiguous since the (3)(a) also addresses the listing of candidates and fails to mention what (4) says.

-- Further, the section specifically applies only to written ballots -- the section on electromechanical ballots says that those must merely conform as nearly as practically possible to the written ballot for that county (which "practical" considerations would surely include increasing text point size to increase readability).

-- The part about where to put the mark on the ballot is only applicable to written ballots. Since electromechanical ballots use a machine apparatus to pick the candidate, that's wholly inapplicable.

Their arguments are exceptionally weak, and if anyone thinks that the Presidency will be decided on that tenuous of a position, they are sorely deluded. However, I suppose that includes everyone in the Gore camp.
 

ride525

Golden Member
Oct 14, 1999
1,379
0
0
Edited title for divide_by_zero's post regarding the order that candidates must be listed.



<< 4) The names of the candidates of the party which received the highest number of votes for Governor in the last election in which a Governor was elected shall be placed first under the heading for each office, together with an appropriate abbreviation of party name; the names of the candidates of the party which received the second highest vote for Governor shall be second under the heading for each office, together with an appropriate abbreviation of the party name. >>



It sure looks to me like Dems are listed third (yeah, they are second on the left column, but it takes a punch in the third hole to vote for Gore).

Yeah, I know, a Dem approved the design.....the point is, the ballot doesn't follow state law for the reasons folks have talked about above. It that enough reason to change the results because a large number of voters were confused and voted improperly, apparently enough to change the WHOLE election results? Well, stay tuned, I'm sure there will be some judges ruling on this soon.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
ride525: Add this to your title -- &quot;...for WRITTEN BALLOTS&quot; That makes it perfectly accurate. As it is, it's not correct. Since the electromechanical ballots can be changed for practical considerations, and the ballot was designed and approved by the Democrats prior to the election, there's no way to challenge this.

Look at it this way: A written ballot can be as long as it needs to be and can therefore have the candidates in a long list on the left hand side without sacrificing typeface size. However, the ballot machine has the holes in an unmovable position -- the ballot MUST conform with those holes, or it will not work properly. Since the holes are close together, the placement of the candidates must be done with the size of the type taken into consideration. The &quot;butterfly&quot; layout, which many, many people were able to use without incident, does allow the ballot to use a larger type, thereby making it more readable to those with poor eyesight (particularly the elderly), while still conforming to the spacing of the machine.

Would you not consider that a practical modification of the ballot? Even if you don't, you really do have to admit that there is no way even a family member of Gore sitting on the bench would overturn the election results based on an abuse of discretion in the design of the ballot. That's just completely unrealistic.

Here are two options:
(1) They the reverse the Reform Party and the Democrats -- then we would have complaints that people had to look to the RIGHT of the holes to see the Democratic ticket, as if it's such a hardship to move your eyes. Or,
(2) They have a ballot with small type, making it difficult to read. This is Florida, mind you, where a significant portion of the population is elderly. Do you think that would not be subject to debate?

Again, I ask without response -- if 269,696 people were able to correctly deduce how to vote for Gore in Palm Beach County, why is there a problem for these other people who seemingly were unable to perform the same simple task?
 

jjm

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,505
0
0
Does anyone care that Dubaya might be elected by mistake? So far, the evidence suggests that is a strong possibility based on voter statements, larger than normal invalid ballots, and the unusual number of Buchanan votes in the county. While not perfect, the evidence is pretty compelling. Businesses and juries make decisions on evidence weaker than this. I guess that's what we deserve!
 

ride525

Golden Member
Oct 14, 1999
1,379
0
0
Andrew just because the ballot was designed by Democrats doesn't mean it wasn't confusing. Just because 269,696 figured out how to vote for Gore, doesn't mean that it wasn't confusing to them, or for THOUSANDS of others.

Here's some excerpts from a news story that came out today from AP that I posted in another thread:

EXPERTS SAY BALLOT CONFUSED VOTERS - One says, 'It's clear that it's not clear'

&quot;They could have predicted that this problem was going to occur if they had taken the time to test it first,&quot; said Carolyn Boccella Bagin of the Center for Clear Communication in Rockville, Md......

&quot;If you had put 20 people in a voting situation and had them actually try to vote, the problem would have surfaced,&quot; added Joseph Kimble, a Professor at Thomas Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.

The article goes on to say that the ballot was posted in public places and newspapers and nobody complained at the time.

But Kimble said that to find out whether a document is easily understood, it is not enough to let someone look at it. &quot;You've got to have them use it,&quot; he said.


 

Steve Guilliot

Senior member
Dec 8, 1999
295
0
0
Juiio,
You're using this whole &quot;preserve the democracy&quot; argument to support your single perspective position. There are other interests involved, and I don't agree with what you've written on top of that.

Would Bush be accepted if Gore concedes as you imply? No. It's not just about being graceful in defeat. Half the country wants Gore to win, and it has nothing to do with his career. They want a supreme court that will uphold Roe V. Wade, and other points that Gore will give them that Bush will not. Gore will fight because half the country wants him to.

As for all this &quot;mockery of the constitution&quot; stuff; a mockery would be a result that did not represent the will of the people. That is exactly the democratic argument; that the current results do NOT represent the will of the people. So don't pretend that your position supports a quick concession. It doesn't.