| |||||||||||||
Re: The real major losers are...Re: The real major losers are...Posted Apr 24, 2003 14:06 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065)In reply to: The real major losers are... by KaiRo Parent article: DARPA Cancels OpenBSD Funding Actually, the rules were applied unevenly and were completely unclear about what should be done in such a situation. The Supreme Court decided to step in to avoid a Constitutional crises. I have questions about how they made the decision myself. So, I kind of agree when people say Bush wasn't elected. But I don't agree that it was a takeover or coup.
(Log in to post comments)
Re: Supreme Court didn't step in; election still an embarassment Posted Apr 25, 2003 23:21 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] The Supreme Court decided to step in to avoid a Constitutional crises This is a misstatement. The Supreme Court's decision was not to act. The Court was petitioned to order Florida officials to recount votes. The Court denied the petition, leaving interpretation of election laws up to Florida. I don't see that a Constitutional crisis was ever in the offing. By the way, for those who believe technicalities of vote counting laws shouldn't matter and the person who got the most votes should simply win, I'd like to point out that an army of journalists did finish an accurate count of every single Florida ballot a year later. It showed that by any interpretation of the unclear ballots (hanging chads, etc.), Bush got the most votes. It is true, though, that in the precincts that were in controversy just after the election, Gore won by some counts. If you want to take pokes at the election results, it is much better to look at 1) Ralph Nader certainly split the vote. Asked to choose between Bush and Gore, voters would have chosen Gore by a landslide. 2) It is quite clear that hundreds of voters using the butterfly ballot preferred Gore but marked their ballots otherwise by mistake. 3) Voting by states achieves no desirable purpose these days; had the vote been a simple popular one, Gore would have won by a wide margin.
Re: Supreme Court didn't step in; election still an embarassment Posted May 1, 2003 21:01 UTC (Thu) by ffeirtag (guest, #10976) [Link] >>The Supreme Court decided to step in to avoid a Constitutional crises>This is a misstatement. The Supreme Court's decision was not to act. Even though this thread is off topic, I can't believe this posting, which Far from deciding "not to act," in The majority wrote: Dissenting, Justice Ginsburg wrote: Dissenting, Justice Breyer wrote: From: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-10-recountchrono.htm "Dec. 8: The Florida Supreme Court orders manual recounts to begin in Dec. 9: Counting begins of 43,000 statewide "undervotes" and then halts Dec. 11: U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Bush's appeal of Dec. 12: In late-night, divided opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court rules
|
|||||||||||||