> And, John, though we agree on very little politically, I must say I
> respect you tremendously for saying that you see this as a serious
> problem. I'm sure that's a lot more than Jeb Bush will do.
>
> --
> Andrea Leistra
>
Wow, I missed the news reports that had Jeb Bush and his
stormtroopers blocking access to the polling places. I must have been
watching Fox News when that happened. </sarcasm>
Let's see, one of Gore's campaign people, don't know who exactly, is
a high person in the state of Florida, the one who gets to demand a recount.
(Which is fine, it's part of the state law.) And as John has just pointed
out the ballot was approved by both parties. Jeb Bush had nothing to do with
it. Jeb also called for the recount and made sure that he's doing nothing
wrong.
On the other side of the coin, Jesse Jackson said "If the recount is
done and Gore is declared the victor then Bush should accept the recount and
offer congratulations to Gore. (Which Bush has said he will do). If Bush is
declared the winner, there should be investigations into people being
blocked from the polls, voter fraud, and vote tampering." So if Gore wins
then everything is on the up and up, but if Bush wins then there was
obviously something illegal going on, is that what you're saying Jesse? Also
the NAACP wants to sue the state of Florida. That could drag things out for
six months.
I'm sure when this is over someone will do a state by state
breakdown of the votes and show how it would have gone if we used the State,
district system like Maine has. The winner of the state gets two points and
then the winner of each congressional district gets one point. Since the new
districts are going to be drawn up with the new census, PA is losing two, it
will be different for the next election. I think with this election Bush
would win because he carried more states, thus 2 points for them, and more
districts, because the big states that Gore won would have some districts
going to Bush. So Gore would still have the popular vote but the electoral
vote would be even more lopsided towards Bush.
And I like the usual comment that the elections should be
'standardized' nationwide. Not. I've been able to vote three different ways:
paper punch, lever, and electronic. The electronic way was the most clear
and easiest but why should small voting areas have to pay for new equipment
when the old works for them? Just because it's new doesn't make it better.
Kevin
