[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
Actually, only a hanging chad would be counted as an overvote in such
cases... dimpled chads were only counted on ballots that were consistantly
dimpled, with no punch-throughs on *any* election race.
>>>>
<excerpt><fontfamily><param>arial</param><smaller>In a seperate lawsuit
filed by a group of democrats (without the support of
Gore)
</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt><<<<<<<<
It became very clear, however, that Gore was supporting it. Indeed,
several campaign decisions were based on waiting for the outcome of those
suits.
I watched this after-ellection pretty closely, and, frankly, I didn't care
which candidate won... (unless you have already forgotten my criticisms of
Gore in pre-election). And I saw no evidence that Gore was even remotely
supportive of the absentee ballot case (the case of which I had spoken in
that quote). I imagine that if he did support it he would want to hide his
support, and if the democrats won the case, I am sure he
probably would not argue with the results, but that doesn't mean he supported
it.
<snip quote>
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.
Ah, but Florida state law *very* clearly states that regardless of the
mistakes made by the voter, a vote is to be counted if the intent of the
voter can be determined. Are you saying the Republicans wanted new law to
evaluate the election?
<excerpt><fontfamily><param>arial</param><smaller>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)
</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt><<<<<<<<
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."
And just who within Florida Jurisdiction was denied equal protection?
>>>>
<excerpt><fontfamily><param>arial</param><smaller>This was an issue of
state law, and state
power, and in such cases, the *State* Supreme Court should be *the final
voice*.
</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt><<<<<<<<
Well, haven't we suddenly become the big-time Federalist?
Whatever made you think I wasn't one to begin with? I may suggest changes in
government rules, but I think that we shouldn't go against the existing rules
until such changes in the rules are made. If we let the government break
it's own rules, than any new rules you want become meaningless if nobody will
respect those rules.
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.
Well, I am pleased to say I am not in that category... I am against partial
birth abortions and abortions in general, though the constitutionality of
normal abortions is debateable (mainly due to ambiguity in the constitution).
In Roe v. Wade it was found that there are circumstances under which
abortions are not only not against the constitution, but the right to one is
guaranteed by the constitution. If you want to make the argument that unborn
embryos are entitled to all the rights that living people are guaranteed by
the constitution, then that will require a constitutional amendment,
guaranteeing embryos the right to life (an unlikely occurence considering the
widespread support of abortion, not to mention the implications this makes
for fertility clinics that fertilize eggs outside the Womb then implant as
many as are needed to create the desired fertility result, then dispose of
the unneeded ones).
And if my being anti-abortion isn't enough of a shocker for you, I am also
not opposed to the death penalty... I find it impractical, as the legal
processes surrounding death penalties cost more than it would cost to house
an inmate for life, but I do not oppose it.
You really shouldn't try to lump everyone into categories of "liberal" and
"conservative", there's far more gray than you think. Heck, if the
Republicans weren't so anti-environment and anti-gay (Not that I have
personal stake in this issue, as I am not a homosexual, but I don't think
it's the government's place to tell people how to live their own lives), I
would probably support them.
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
