Julius wrote:
> I think the voter fraud in this case is self-evident and well->exposed
already, it really represents republicans shooting >themselves in the foot.
Again, the voters' rights are >paramount in my mind.
I'm not sure what you are referring to as the self-evident voting fraud but
I think that whatever it is needs to be brought before a court of law and
properly adjudicated. Adjudicating it in the media, or popular opinion or
the Joni list is not definitive enough for me. Whatever may have occurred
needs to be properly resolved in a real and binding way so there may be a
deterrent to it ever happening again.
> I couldn't agree more, but that's going to take a while to >shake out.
Time the Gore camp doesn't have.
In my opinion, if Gore's legal team would have focused on establishing any
fraud at the outset they would probably have been allowed to recount and
hand count till kingdom come. The law is much more accomodating once fraud
has been proven and it would have resulted most likely in the dates for
final certification being moved to a much more generous deadline.
> If that's decided after the electoral vote in Gore's favor after >Bush is
declared winner, what would be the remedy? They're >not going to remove Bush
from office at that point. No way.
I don't know - I think that if it were legally established that Gore did
ultimately win the electoral vote, I think they would have to remove Bush
from office. It would be a first, but I don't see that it could never
happen
> Agreed. But what about the idea that a govenment official >would let
these people in to set up shop in a government >office to do all that?
That's atrocious.
I say let's wait to hear the evidence and court ruling on the applicable law
before we judge it so quickly.
> Yes, just as there is no clear standard for what represents >a fair ballot
design. What represents a vote is left to the >descretion of the counties
by law. Maybe not the fairest >scenario imaginable, but it's what's lawful
and in place.
I think that a fair ballot design should be agreed upon for future
elections. But I think what represents a vote is at issue here and we may
see a more uniform standard coming down the road from the courts.
> The Bush camp is at liberty to request a recount whereever >they want to.
There was a machine recount. To handcount several Republican-heavy counties
would take forever in reality and would bump up against all the deadlines.
> I think they did initiate a recount push in New Mexico, but >that runs
counter to their strategy of decrying recounts as >unreliable. They painted
themselves into a corner on that. >They figure recounts can only work
against them and would >create an atmosphere of implied tolerance of
recounts as a >way to settle this mess.
The New Mexico situation involves different facts and law. It sounds the
same on the surface, but it is not when you get into the legal and factual
details.
> Seriously, I won't pretend that this news of your voting >history doesn't
please me, Kakki, but I'm quite sure I would >hold you in the highest esteem
and treasure your friendship either way.
Well, I'm glad of that, Julius. I'm afraid I've lost or alienated a number
of my friends here on the list over this. I try to keep my mouth shut on
it, but it's difficult when I perceive that only one side is heard most of
the time, plus seeing things often from a legal standpoint, I feel my
normally low blood pressure go up when I see mistatements or
misunderstanding of the process. In truth, ever since Nov. 8th, a large part
of me has wanted Bush not to win this election because I don't want to
witness the daily gutting and attacks he is going to be subjected to. On the
other hand, what I have perceived as very dangerous legal actions has also
made me want to see the fight through. However, I'm really going to try to
not get involved in these threads in the future. It's a highly charged
situation for everyone.
Kakki
