Washington Times: Courts say NO RE-VOTE Thoughts? (link)

[fdiskboy]

Washington Times Article

Seems fairly cut and dried. Confusion is not a reason to overturn an election.

I think the Democrats are seriously injuring their chances in 4 years if they persist.

But what do YOU think?

 

[KidViciou$]

i think that because of all the mishaps occuring in florida, there should be a revote for florida alone. this is the Do or Die state, and this is the state that will select our next president.

 

[fdiskboy]

*sigh*

KidViscous, it doesn't matter what you THINK--unless you are referring to what you think about the court precedent.

Courts say no--do we ignore the court decisions?

*edited for clarity*

 

[Capn]

Rules and the Law have no meaning to him I guess.

 

[SKiller]

<< unless you are referring to what you think about the court precedent. >>


It can only be the latter becuase that was the ORIGINAL QUESTION ^^^.

IMO the voting process will have to be *seriously* re-thought for the next election if we're to avoid this kind of thing.

 

[Napalm381]

A revote for one state is:
(a) Not fair to the rest of the nation. It's akin to a student flunking a test, complaining that he didn't read the questions carefully, and then getting to take the same test over while the rest of the students don't.
(b) Highly questionable on legal grounds. From the article:

Florida case-law bars state courts from ordering a new election on grounds a ballot was confusing, and federal election law could sidetrack any attempt to change that.
The Constitution assumes a voter's &quot;ability to read and his intelligence to indicate his choice with the degree of care commensurate with the solemnity of the occasion,&quot; says a 1974 ruling by a District Court of Appeals. That ruling in a similar case of ballot confusion stands today as the precedent in such cases. .
Even if state courts reinterpreted the law and ordered a new election, that result would seem to conflict with federal statutes.
Federal law (3 USC Sect. 1) says electors &quot;shall be appointed, in each state, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.&quot;
On Dec. 2, 1997, in the Louisiana case of Foster vs. Love, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal elections must be held on that one national Election Day.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

I think that if Gore did get the courts to go for a re-election he'd probably lose by a larger margin because of the lack of respect for the system.

 

[thebestMAX]

No to a revote by one county. REvote the whole state now that everyone is so upset and lets see who really wins.

It'll NEVER happen, more likely the Supreme court will pick our new president.

Think of the time and logistics of a new election.

 

[AndrewR]

Seems like fairly clear cut precendent, as reported in that article. Not that the facts and the law will stop Gore's campaign.

 

[AndrewR]

Supreme Court has steadfastly refuse to intervene into elections, as well it should. The Court is in place to serve as a check on federal laws, not to decide the elections. It would be a horrible precedent to set for the courts to EVER even remotely decide an election.

 

[thebestMAX]

I agree but it may happen.

 

[Capn]

I want a new digital voting system. And pass a law against exit polls if it's possible. We wait until till all polls are closed and we instantly know the results, no more endless recounts no more whining dems because their constituents can't vote. We could even have absentee balloting over the internet! (but somehow bill gates would end up with votes I bet)

 

[wiin]

Now President Bush should be able to move on. the situation reminds me of Milosevic. But at least Milosevic accepted the outcome of the election. And Gore? well, it is so obvious. I'm not even gonna say it.

 

[DefRef]

&quot;Rule of law&quot; means nothing to this crowd, as the last eight years have shown. They're trying to whip up a &quot;will of the people&quot; frenzy to try and subvert the system.

As I posted elsewhere, the same poor confused senior citizens who couldn't follow an arrow to a hole are the same ones playing bingo on 20 cards at once.

Sorry Al, you lost. It was close, but you came in 2nd. Start fighting Hillary! for 2004.

 

[SJ]

Congress if pissed off, they are investigating the media right now about why they called the election for Gore, before the all polls closed in Florida. Theres a good chance their will be a media blackout during the next election.

 

[fdiskboy]

I think we could learn something from Oregon -- mailed out all of their ballots!

At least no one has called that state yet--exit polling with mail-in ballots is exceedingly difficult.

I think the Florida early call by the media deserves attention as does the voting system in South Florida.

That being said, the time to address those issues was before this election--this isn't the first time they've had problems. This election is over--fix the process so this doesn't happen again.

BTW--anyone keeping up with New Mexico. It is getting serious there as well. A judge was quoted as saying the election may be &quot;compromised&quot; in at least one county.

 

[joshdoe]

And make it required for absentee and overseas ballots to be in on election day. It would be very simple, just they would have to be sent out sooner.

 

[ride525]

<< Sorry Al, you lost >>



Hate to tell you, but not yet...
they are still counting votes in Florida....and will be until sometime next week....

 

[fdiskboy]

Very reasonable, in my opinion.

Still, I don't think we NEED to know who the President-elect is immediately.

End of the week would be fine--end the speculation and focus on ACTUAL, FINAL results. Campaigns last a year, the election returns need some time as well.

Talk about tainted elections--with each recount &quot;change&quot; in voting totals, I think people get a little more cynical about the results. I did notice that Palm Beach county had the highest number of &quot;new&quot; votes in the state. Coincidence?

 

[joshdoe]

Absentee ballots have been traditionally from Republican voters. Bush will pull ahead in Florida, and will win the popular vote in the nation with the 3-4 million absentee ballots.

 

[DefRef]

OK....Sorry, Al. It APPEARS that you've lost. Deal with it.

Interesting article about all this.

 

[thebestMAX]

<<As I posted elsewhere, the same poor confused senior citizens who couldn't follow an arrow to a hole are the same ones playing bingo on 20 cards at once.>>

LMAO at this. How true. Dont know anything about anything or cant remember anything until you start talking stocks or money, then they are as lucid as possible and remember all.

 

[Ferocious]

Florida precedents indicate no clear path for legal disputes

I don't have an opinion on this yet, other than possibly to allow the voters in that county (that already voted) to re-vote....no additional voters. But I'm not sure if I'd even like that.

 

[Raspewtin]

IMO, the wording of law in the article is weak and could easily be subject to interpretation. Some of these laws could easily be considered unconsitutional In Amenment 14, Art 2. It's pretty obviously a case of those who want Bush to win would say the precedent matters, those who support Gore would question the constitutionality of any law that places any restrictions (intellectual or otherwise) on voters where those restrictions were not present in the U.S. Constitution. I personally hope Bush wins, but I would prefer that his election would not be in the face of individuals who were denied a proper vote. That cheapens the whole voting process, and hurts the winning party long-term.

 

[fdiskboy]

Therein lies the problem.

I have yet to hear of a person who was denied a vote. I hear numerous accounts of those who NEGLECTED to vote responsibly.

With every right comes a responsibility. You can't have one without the other.

Huge difference between being denied a vote and denying yourself a correct vote.