>>>>
Gore wanted all votes counted.<<<<
This is not true at all. At no point did Al Gore seriously call for a statewide manual recount. It finally took a liberal Court to step in and transform Gore's proposals for selective recounts into a statewide count. In fact, it is truly ironic that Gore is in all likelihood not the President-elect today *because* he did not want to count every vote.
If Al Gore had done the honorable thing, and immediately petitioned for a statewide manual recount, using a definable standard from the beginning, these cases would likely *not* have been overturned by the USSC, and he might very well be the President-elect.
As it is, Gore continually shot himself in the foot. His insistence on having a Court rewrite the "protest" deadline resulted in his "contest" being shortchanged. Additionally, his insistence on selective recounts resulted in numerous Court battles that eventually ran out the clock on him.
>>>>
His lawyers argued all the way to the Florida<<<<
supreme court that he be given the opportunity to hand-count the votes in
3-counties and that those counts truly apply to the results. For purposes of
*equal protection*, *the Florida Supreme Court* ordered that in addition to
the votes in those 3 counties, statewide undervotes be counted, so as not to
exclude Bush counties.
Right...... even you recognize that a Court had to step in to force Gore to accept counting votes in every County.
>>>>
Overvotes were moot, because two votes on the same<<<<
ballot automatically nullifies the vote by state law (and as hard as it is to
get these hanging chads to register, I am pretty sure no one would argue the
double votes were machine error).
Ahhh..... but you are forgetting about the "Optiscan" ballots used in many Republican counties. It is entirely possible for a stray pen mark to have accidentally registered a double vote, when only a single vote was intended.
Additionally, in punch-card counties it is entirely possible that a voter made a clear punch for one candidate, and produced a dimpled chad or hanging chad for a second presidential candidate. In this case, the machine would only record one vote, when in fact, the ballot should have been conuted as a double vote and disqualified.
>>>>
In a seperate lawsuit filed by a group of democrats (without the support of<<<<
Gore)
It became very clear, however, that Gore was supporting it. Indeed, several campaign decisions were based on waiting for the outcome of those suits.
>>>>
an arguement was made that absentee ballots should be thrown out<<<<
because Republicans had *illegally* added information which was excluded on
the application for absentee ballots, information that was *required by
Florida Law* in order for the application to be valid. In this case,
*Bush's* Lawyers argued that *every vote should count, regardless of minor
legal technicalities*, where Bush's Lawyers argued that the undervotes should
not count because of (wait for it) *legal technicalities*.
Apples and oranges.
The Bush team has consistently argued that a "legal vote", is only a vote where the voter follows the plain instructions on the ballot, written in bold type. That is, a "legal vote" is only a vote which can be read by the machine.
Here, there was a dispute about an illegally filled out *application.* At no point did anyone allege that these votes were not cast by voters intending to vote. At no point did anyone allege that there was actual fraud in the votes. Additionally, this was a brand new law, and it is entirely possible that it violatedthe Florida State Constitution, according to the FLSC, by placing an undue burden on the voter.
>>>>
I am of the opinion (an opinion stated in the desents of 2 of the justices),<<<<
that even if the Florida State Supreme Court was wrong in their decision, the
Supreme Court had *no* business intervening in an issue of State Law. (if
you have read the constitution, you should also know that any power not
delegated to the nation by the constitution and laws are the power of the
state and local governments)
I would also know that the 14th Amendment says that "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>>>>
This was an issue of state law, and state<<<<
power, and in such cases, the *State* Supreme Court should be *the final
voice*.
Well, haven't we suddenly become the big-time Federalist?
It was also an issue of Article II of the Constitution, which gave State Legislatures the power to name a State's electors. The interpretation of a State Legislature's powers under Article II of the US Constitution (as well as Amednment 14) is properly the role of the US Supreme Court.
I personally find it amusing that so many liberals can find a right to an abortion within the Constitution, one that even prohibits States from banning partial-birth abortions, but suddenly see unfettered States rights to conduct election counts in whatever way the State Courts see fit. I am sure you liberals see a difference somewhere between the two, but it is certainly beyond me.
>>>>
Another problem with only a 2 party system, not enough impartial votes in<<<<
important legal decisions.
Actually, there is no such thing as an "impartial vote" in my mind. On one side, the liberals wanted to stretch laws to protect voters for not following plain ballot instructions. On the other side, strict constructionalists did not wish to stretch the law at all. Two sides. One coin. We just happened to have five of the four this time around.
>>>>
I particularly love the despicable things Bush is doing with his cabinet<<<<
picks. Asking Democratic *Senators* to join his cabinet "to bridge the party
gap". Ha! He's just doing that to give the Republicans a majority of the
senate again by trying to strip away a Democratic senator and replace him
with a Republican one. It's just partisan politics as usual.
Whatever. Like John Breaux would ever do that.
Besides the Republicans *already* control the Senate. Moreover, by tradition in the Senate, once the Republicans are elected on January 6th to the majority leadership positions, they stay that way, even if someone like Thurmond dies.
Its gonna be a great four years if Bush can get elected.
JDG
_______________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Now is not the Time for Third Chances,
It is a Time for New Beginnings."
- George W. Bush 8/3/00
******************VOTE BUSH / CHENEY 2000 *******************
