Karen, I have no particular quarrel with the things you say, but the actuality was not as you painted it. There was not an "impasse".
The Florida Supremes broke the law. The US Supreme Court chided them - suggested they "rethink" but they took no notice. The Florida Supremes broke the law the second time even though their Chief Justice broke ranks with them -arguing angrily that they are setting up a constitutional problem of great magnitude. The US Supreme Court this time would have no more of this outright illegality. That's all. The first time I recall this herding the cattle to the polls was in Nixon's gubernatorial race in California. The Demos spent a half million dollars on polling day getting people out to vote. This led to the famous "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more." Nothing illegal about it. In fact, my mother in the UK in times long past used to call the Conservative HQ on election day for a car. The car would arrive and take her to the polling station. There, she would always vote Labor, before being driven home. On the other hand, we used to say that if you put up a broomstick for a labor candidate and a cabbage for a conservative candidate, it wouldn't affect the voting. People would still vote Labor or Conservative. Two things happened at the last election that disturbed me a little. Through the mail came a leaflet obviously addressed to senior citizens. It said that if I wanted to save social security, the slate on the leaflet should be voted for. There was nothing on the leaflet to indicate these were all democrats. More serious was the 'phone call we got from a longtime friend - someone in the 80's. Bush had won. The lady was worried and it all came out. A speaker had come around to the old folk's home. He had told them that if Bush were elected, their social security would be ended and the old people would have to go out to work. She was frantic and fearful. Is this the direction of modern democracy? But, back to Florida. I said that close of play 7 days after the election determined who had won the election. Do you disagree with that? I also said the Florida Supremes did not have the legal power to change the law with regard to the elections - not once but twice! Do you disagree with this? Harry ____________________________________ Karen wrote: >Harry, I am sorry but I can't let you have the last word on this. >Obviously, many of us will continue to argue about the Florida Fiasco >personally, but in addition, legal and history books will also debate the >2000 election for some time to come. In my mind, the US Supreme Court >intervened when there was a Congressional option, provided by the >Constitution for a House of Representatives vote to resolve just such an >impasse and an Electoral College vote. The fear of the unknown won in 2000, >not the voters. It was a chilling moment in our history, regardless of what >one thinks of the outcome, when lawyers had the final say, not the voters. >I also must disagree about Dubya's need for legitimacy. He is a firstborn >son with a classic inferiority complex under a famous father. He was a >mostly failed businessman in his father's field, by his own account >stumbling through the first 20 years of his adult life. He responded >positively to a wife's "ultimatum" to change his life. I think these things >in the private psyche of this man are just as relevant as any other >historical figures' background, education, training and experience. You >better believe Dubya really, really wants to be elected cleanly, and lose >this burden of insecurity under his father's shadow once and for all. > >The silver lining to 2000 is that the public became aware of just how >fragile voting integrity can be. We should still be much humbled to learn >that we are indeed such a closely divided nation dependent upon a host of >people doing their jobs right, dependent upon a system of machines and >tabulations that can malfunction, with more diversity than consistency in >the process, and worse, a lack of knowledge of what it really took to >accomplish this great act. I was much impressed to learn what Canada does >during their elections, and what they can accomplish in a few hours with a >hand recount. Maybe we will be better organized, if not mechanized, next >time around. > >I have served as a Poll watcher, supported the League of Women Voters, >talked to many young people and shamed a couple of slackers related to me. >I prefer that voters have a basic knowledge of the issues and the policy >differences between the two major parties when they vote. I am at least >hopeful that in the cobbled CFR the increase in funds to the state parties >will bring a revved up voter education effort in communities. But >highlighting just the less educated voters or the incompetent officials >appointed because they made contributions, only adds to the pessimistic >attitude about voting. It doesn't solve any problems. God supposedly takes >all sinners, regardless, and democracy takes all voters, regardless of their >knowledge or level of interest. We can't disenfranchise the disorganized at >home anymore than we can disenfranchise active duty military overseas. > >Let me tell you about Oregon's vote-by-mail system. I received a special >election County ballot yesterday and a booklet detailing the issue, produced >by the Secretary of State's office, earlier this week. The vote concerns >Measure 19, a rainy day fund for schools and Measure 20, raising the >cigarette tax. I will mark my ballot here at home with a #2 pencil, place >it in the privacy envelope that I must sign so they can match my signature >to the one on file when I registered, and then place it in a slightly larger >envelope addressed to the Director of Elections and mail it. If I don't >mail it before Election Day, then I can drop it off at an official drop site >or the main office that day. Vote by mail has increased voter participation >significantly not just for the convenience against bad weather and people >who can't get to the polls for several reasons, but by making it easier to >research the issues in the privacy of the home, by reading editorials, >printed material pro and con, and talking with trusted friends/family. So >far, instances of fraud from duplicate registrations are negligible. Vote >by mail is cheaper than manning poll stations, and seems to minimize >absentee ballots, which proved to be a significant problem in 2000. > >To me, the polarization demonstrated by those who voted successfully and >those who felt their vote was lost in 2000 and its aftermath only reinforces >that we must do a better job of learning to disagree with each other without >criminalizing, killing, polarizing or ridiculing each other. If we pay more >attention to the policy a political party professes to promote, and less >attention to the personality at the top of the ticket, we might get better >government, because we'd have more attuned and realistic voters. > >That's my more than two cents worth. Karen > >Harry wrote: >I doubt that Dubya has a need for popular election. He was elected >according to the rules of the country. That's enough. He does have a need >to be re-elected, as do all politicians. As soon as they are elected, they >think about re-election. > >Also, he wasn't elected by the US Supreme Court. He was elected by the >people of 50 states according to law. In Florida, he became the President 7 >days after Election Day. > >The Florida Supreme Court stopped this and gave extra time for hand vote >counting. This was completely illegal. The Supreme Courts may not make law >- that's the job of the legislative body. > >They illegally made a new law extending the time. They then made another >law extending the time for manual counting. At this second illegal >decision, the Democratically selected Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme >Court broke ranks at the bare-faced effrontery of the second illegal >extension. Then, they through out an "evidence rich" court case about the >voting procedures. > >Supremes never do this to a full court case with witnesses and the rest. > >They did. > >After the first illegal extension, the US Supreme Court smacked the wrists >of the Florida Supremes, suggesting further reflection of their decision. >However, politics were at work which meant that the only way to sneak Gore >in was to ignore the US Supremes. > >Which they did. > >By now, the whole thing had become a classic Keystone Cops comedy. But, the >US Supremes were not going to let the local Supremes to continue to break >the law - so all but two of them said "Enough, already". > >And Bush won - including the Presidency. > >The mistake the Democrats made was to drag to the polls their less than >enthusiastic supporters - but not to give them a pamphlet or something >explaining exactly what they should do when they get there. > >In California, they are trying to get a law passed that will allow people >to register to vote - as they vote. > >It's part of the campaign to get disinterested and politically ignorant >people to mark the ballot "correctly" without need to understand what they >are doing. > >It's a shame that the political process is thus contaminated. > >Harry > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- > > > > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002 ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
