Remember the discussion on the level of contremps we can expect on Election 2004? I’ll modestly look down and burnish my nails on my chest, now – here’s Monday’s New York Times:
Mindful of the election problems in Florida four years ago, aides to Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, say his campaign is putting together a far more intricate set of legal safeguards than any presidential candidate before him to monitor the election.
Aides to Mr. Kerry say the campaign is taking the unusual step of setting up a nationwide legal network under its own umbrella, rather than relying, as in the past, on lawyers associated with state Democratic parties. The aides said they were recruiting people based on their skills as litigators and election lawyers, rather than rewarding political connections or big donors.
Lawyers for the campaign are gathering intelligence and preparing litigation over the ballot machines being used and the rules concerning how voters will be registered or their votes disqualified. In some cases, the lawyers are compiling dossiers on the people involved and their track records on enforcing voting rights.
As noted, unless it’s not close (possible, but unlikely), we’re going to be in court for quite a while; imagine if you would, what the court cases will be like if there are major terrorist attacks that have any impact on voting…
Armed Liberal
I don’t think anyone doubted the possibilities of the 2004 election being legally contested or respective parties ramping up for said possibilities. What I would like to know is if any party reviewing and acting on the catalyst.
“CNN 2000 Election Report HTML “:http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:MjYEeJXty5UJ:www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/02/cnn.report/cnn.pdf+CNN+report+election+2000+joan+konner&hl=en
“CNN 2000 Election Report PDF “:http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/02/cnn.report/cnn.pdf
The links provided are an assessment from CNN and the short comings / responsibilities that news reporting organizations seem to have forgotten. None of the fall out would have occurred had it not been ignited by our journalistic community.
BTW: I have not seen any reports produced by any other news organizations concerning the catalyst of events. If any one has links to assessments such as these please provide them.
“On to the Article”:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/politics/campaign/19VOTE.html?hp
Sorry folks – I know you have to register to read the article so I’ve included some of the talking points. My advice is bite the bullet register and judge for yourself.
_”A million African-Americans disenfranchised in the last election,” he said at the N.A.A.C.P. convention in Philadelphia on Thursday. “Well, we’re not just going to sit there and wait for it to happen. On Election Day in your cities, my campaign will provide teams of election observers and lawyers to monitor elections, and we will enforce the law.”_
Is Mr. Kerry advocating vigilante tactics? When did we give lawyers the authority to enforce the law?
_”The lessons of Florida include fairly mundane ones. Democratic lawyers said, for example, that they had such a hard time obtaining office space in Tallahassee, presumably because landlords in the state capital feared antagonizing Gov. Jeb Bush, a Republican and brother of President Bush.”_
I love this piece _”presumably”_ feared Governor Jeb Bush. Please tell me what Jeb intended to do to these fragile souls. Let’s say what we really mean. The problem was caused by President Bush. Blood lines run thick in the family and Jeb Bush is using mafia strong arm tactics to support his brother. Ooops! My bad. Can’t say that because we would have to prove it. So let’s pull a Michael Moore and muddy the waters by attempting to lead the public to the conclusion we really want.
_”Democrats say they learned from the Florida vote, and from the Supreme Court rulings that arose from it, that the most important legal battles are those fought before Election Day, over how election laws are to be carried out, who is allowed to register and who will be allowed to vote.”_
Hmm. One wonders if they will concentrate their efforts on rights for all voters or just those that _want_ to vote for Kerry?
_”Mr. Bauer of the Kerry campaign said: “There’s not much interest in depending on Republican agents to police the polls.”_
Hmm. Republicans don’t want a fair election? The election process must already be tilted heavily in their favor to not want to address the issues.
This alpha male shit has made us the kings of the local universe. It may also be our ruination.
And just for your information: No, we cannot all get along. It is not in our nature.
you gotta worry about someone who thinks more lawyers is the answer. It is usually the problem. One more reason to be totally disgusted with Kerry.
No matter what the issue an opposition will automatically form.
You gotta wonder, Oscar, why a candidate for president cares more about enforcing voting rights and insuring a fair and secure election than acting POTUS himself.
Perhaps because it is a given that the higher the voter turnout, the better it is for Democrats. Given that, you can’t really blame Republicans for trying to “discourage” voting in certain states where the demographics work against them. They’re just doing what we all now know is their primary goal in government: capture and maintain absolute political power.
(And since you think lawyers are the problem I suppose Bush and Cheney “lawyering up” for the Plame investigation has also disgusted you, am I correct? Or putting lawyers in charge of defining “torture” rather than looking into their own hearts?)
Doesn’t matter how much smoke your trying to blow either, USMC (“United Smoke and Mirrors Company”?): If the 2000 Florida recount was allowed to continue, your man (evidently) might not be in office right now. And perhaps that was and is too much to risk; after all he is God’s choice.
Oscar,
I strongly suspect there are lawyer brigades at the ready for both sides on this one. Saying “more lawyers aren’t the answer” is kind of like chanting “violence isn’t the answer” – sometimes it is, and those who forget that become victims sooner or later.
I find Kerry’s underlying paranoia a bit distasteful, but on a policy level I can’t fault him for this. He (and Bush) see the same trends A.L. sees, and they’re reacting with logical contingency plans.
How not to register with the NY Times.
Copy the link URL and paste it into the Google search box and have Google search for it. Google will return a clickable link which will work since the NYT doesn’t require registration for browsers referred by Google. Repeat for multi-page articles.
VT –
Since most of the post-2000 accounts I’ve read suggested that the end result of a full recount in FL would have been a Bush victory, your assertion about “If the 2000 Florida recount was allowed to continue, your man (evidently) might not be in office right now.” is interesting…cites?
A.L.
“Evidently,” VT? That was the wrong word to use – because there really is evidence.
There were extensive investigations after the fact by a number of reputable media outlets, plus the National Opinion Research Centre, involving a great deal of time and money. They essentially did the full recount on their own – and established that when it was all tallied up, Bush really was the winner in Florida. It was widely published – “see this CNN link”:http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/11/12/ballots/index.html
You’ve been watching too much Michael Moore fiction, I guess.
overvotes
A.L.;
The issue is not nearly as conclusive as the mainstream media have portrayed.
If the re-count was permitted to continue, it is unclear what rulings would have been made that could have influenced which votes were counted and which were not. In hindsight, this cannot be predicted, but it is certain that rulings would have altered the outcome compared to the post-facto presumption that none would have been rendered.
For a summary of possible directions a more protracted legal dispute may have taken the election, “this”:http://www.issues2000.org/Florida_Recount.htm site has a good run-down.
Which is why I said “might” not be in office right now. From where I sit, the recount was terminated as soon as there was a situation where Bush was ahead to guard against the uncertainty that a lengthy court proceeding would have introduced.
So in essence the issue isn’t “Bush would have won anyway” or not, because that is uncertain, meaningless really. It is “Why was the recount halted”? I cannot think of a single valid reason except the one I stated above, which takes into consideration a Republican-controlled state election board, att’y general, and Right-Wing tilted supreme court.
I guess Democracy is too important to leave in the hands of the people.
Joe;
The “evidently” referred to Bush being USMC’s man, not the recount dispute.
Evidently this wasn’t clear.
And Michael Moore, again??? Get a life, man!
Vesicle Traffiker
While I’m wasting my time with you here’s a little more fat to chew on.
_”Perhaps because it is a given that the higher the voter turnout, the better it is for Democrats.”_
Says who? Democrats who lost the last election.
Well lets see the majority of all voters are down trodden and need us to lead them by the nose to the polls so we can feed them more crap about how bad it is for them. They are suffering from obesity yet the hunger in the US is rampant. They are suffering from the lack of medical insurance yet billions are spent on cosmetic surgery. (Oh the reality shows) Where are all these people that the Democrats so much want to save. Where are all the people that Democrats so much want to protect. Oh I forgot, they are the majority who do not vote because they can’t read, can’t possibly understand the implications or gravity of any decision we make for them, and it’s governments fault that this has occurred BTW: If you‘re smart enough to do these things we don‘t want you to vote but we want to take you‘re hard earned dollars and give it to the half wits. And while we let our government do this to you just remember it’s for you’re own good!
We as a nation are suffering from the highest unemployment rate ever. Forget the fact the plants closed because they couldn’t make a profit. Having to increase their prices for products due to spending all the money on medical insurance for employees, retirement plans, social security payments (an employer must match what a worker puts into the program), wages for hours not worked (medical emergency leave for family / pregnancy etc..) reducing productivity levels, company paid vacations, holidays, wage demands and last but not least government mandates that increase prices due to the publics’ stupidity. (Caution this cup of coffee is HOT sorry McDonalds doesn’t sell cold coffee please go to Star Bucks)
While we are on the subject lets take a look at our governments (executive / judicial / legislative) branches benefits. They don’t pay into social security, they get a retirement plan for serving just one term (not twenty or more years required by the private sector), they get medical benefits well beyond anything the private sector offers. Think we could join their plan (after all, us hard working tax payers pay for it) or should we make them abide by the very laws they enact (election laws as well). Mr. Kerry / Mr. Bush can I have these benefits too! I’ll gladly trade my vote for the one who can guarantee I get it.
My smoke and mirrors as you so call it is not aimed at just one political party. It’s aimed at all the inane stuff our government does regardless of party lines.
Back to the subject of lawyers and the election do you believe Kerry / Bush or any party is going to foot the bill for any litigation that occurs. Not a chance the American tax payer will pay for it with their last red cent if our government has anything to say about it.
Vesicle Trafficker – and you know the acting POTUS does not care because?
As to large turnout versus small, I dont see either as favoring one party more than the other: for instance a large push to get young people who are just coming of voting age MIGHT (don’t know for sure) favor the Reps, as kids seem more conservative than their parents – a rather typical generational swing, BTW.
As to lawyering up after the s— has hit the fan, it makes sense. Getting lawyers out ahead of time smack of ambulance chasing. Better to mobilise supporters, educate them on what to look for (here the lawyers might be helpful) and then go for it.
As to my man losing if “recount was allowed to continue”, the assertion is not proven, and that Scottish verdict will stand for all times. Also, he is not MY man. I can think of several candidates who I would vote for over GWB, but Kerry isn’t one of them. His main platform seems to be “vote for me because I want to be president”
That sort of platform doesn’t set well with me, but that may be because I can’t quite “relate” to the more self-absorbed members of the ME generation.
Joe – have to disagree with on “more lawyers” vs “violence isn’t”. First I think that, unfortunately, violence is the ONLY answer (I suspect the jihadist are one such case, but hope I am wrong). I have no problem with lawyers, but “more lawyers” is seldom as good as “better lawyers and better planning.
Vesicle Trafficker – and you know the acting POTUS does not care because?
Because actions (or inactions) speak louder than words.
The “your man” comment was directed at USMC, who has informed me Bush is not in fact “his man”. My apologies.
But since you raised the issue, you (actually, neither one of you) don’t seem to have tried very hard (or at all) to find a reason to vote for Kerry or not, past some simple-minded Repub talking points. Why not?
Your alleged open-mindendness would be more credible if you at least gave the impression you had actually considered what he says he will do if elected, not just what the Republicans say about him. That surely is a closed-minded way of going about an important decision. Trying to guess Kerry’s motivations is as futile as figuring out Bush’s, so why bother? I don’t care why Bush governs as he does, I only know that I don’t like it. A vote for Bush would be a validation of his policies. If you don’t like them, you shouldn’t vote for him; it’s really not so hard if you believe in standing on your principles. Would the nation collapse under a Kerry Presidency? Would “terrorists” win? I don’t know but I seriously doubt it.
Vesicle Traffiker
“DNC Platform”:http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
Pick an issue. I’m open to debate.
Vesicle Trafficker:
Why was the counting stopped? Because the law dictates a certain given amount of time to count the votes. This was exceeded. End of counting.
These were the rules that were in place at the time of the election. If you think this is unfair, then lobby for new rules for the next election. Then we call all play by them.
We call all benefit with better vote counting rules (like defining rules to deal with overvoting, etc, etc.)
–Fred
Keep in mind folks, that lawyers are also trying to keep people from voting, as much as they are about getting people included.
Evidence? In FLA they tried to discourage the counting of military absentee ballets (cause they were late).
Fred
It’s not because they were late. That’s the smoke screen. It’s because the media has led everyone to believe that if you’re military you must have republican views. Ergo votes for Bush. Also consider the fact it’s a possibility of being a double whammy plus. Married troops have wives that vote as well. Married troops have kids who could be 18 at the time of election. Making the vote a possibile triple. Given the number of twins in the US alone and medical technology that greatly enhances the chances of twins or more home runs would have been devastating. Not good in the pro-democratic camp.
I just want to know why is it there is no requirement that I show proof of identity to cast a vote. It’s fair to assume that the registrar has determined that “John T Smith” is a citizen and eligible to vote. But in order for me to cast a vote as Smith, I should be forced to provide proof that this is me.
h0mi
People are not required to show ID for vote because once the vote is cast the name is removed from the roster. Thereby eliminating the chance of you casting a vote again. You’re name is added to the roster during the registration process at which time depending on state laws you must provide some sort of ID for validation. Driver’s license, birth certificate what ever.
Rosters only contain the names of those people registered within the precinct. They do not contain the names of voters through out the entire state. You must go to the precinct you are registered at to vote (hence absentee ballots).
If by chance some one casts a vote in your stead and you happen to try to vote but can’t because the voting officials say you already voted. Raise holy hell with the state election board. You’re vote counts just as much as anyone else.
Gee, Frank, I don’t see anything in the “Dec. 12 Supreme Court Ruling”:http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/09/president.election/ that says anything at all about the “certain amount of time” being “exceeded”, do you?
They instead made the very self-serving argument that a fair recount would be predicted to exceed the deadline, not that it had. It was a judicial example of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption, I suppose.
Also, you seem to have forgetten that the Florida Supreme court did in fact issue an “extension”:http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm, which was contested by Bush.
So given the controversy, the courts could have extended the deadline but did not. Once again, I ask “why not”?
There was no legal precedent to terminate, this was being decided on at the time.
And what about the rush to “certify” the votes by Jebbie and Ms. Harris, in light of potential voting irregularities? Perhaps they were more concerned about getting a number down in the records that would be harder to undo? Where’s the concern for the voter’s rights?
h0mi
I might add such a problem qualifies not only for a recount time permiting (voting laws), all votes may be invalidated (voting laws) or a new vote will be taken (again voting laws). The reason being is their is no mechanism in place to tie you’re vote to you personally.
Gee, Fred, that is.
And I love your example of “just following the law”: Gotta stop that election, times run out for a re-count, but it’s OK to count late overseas absentee ballots, ’cause they’re predominantly military folk and that would be discriminating against our good men and women in uniform.
Geez you wingnuts are a barrel of monkeys.
VT
I wonder where this date comes from.
_”The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.”_
USMC;
Thanks, that proves my point. There was even more time to recount than everyone is being led to believe.
Elections: Nov. 4
Halted by USSC: Dec. 12
Approx. 38 days.
If allowed to continue from this point to next “constitutional deadline”:
Dec. 12 to Jan. 20.
Approx. 38 days.
Could have let the recount go until that date, see where they were, right? Would you have objected to this?
VT
Let’s get away from news reports and lets go to the horse’s mouth.
“Supreme Court”:http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/00-949.pdf
Hey, VT –
Two points: 1) please don’t call people names on my threads. I’ve been gone for a while, so you may have forgotten my ‘style’; make arguments, dispute like mad, but please stay out of the gutter. 2) On Jan 20, the new president is sworn in. That means that at 12:01, they have the keys. Normally, there is a period of ‘transition’ in which briefings are held, jobs offered and accepted, etc. It would be more than disruptive to run the court cases out to, say midnight Jan 19, and then decide who was going to get the office.As I recall from the comtemporary media, this was a big concern to the SC and others in reviewing the case.
A.L.
There’s other things that have to happen before Jan 20th. The electors have to meet at the prescribed data and their votes must be forwarded for consideration by the US Senate on Jan 6th I believe. The first date is likely set by state law and the later is set by the Constitution or federal Law. Neither date can be ignored or set aside. So, the time frame for any recount is much tighter than VT has presumed.
The Democrats were trying to get a recount with methods that swung their way, and the Republicans were trying to defend a count that came out for them. Statistically, there’s NO way to know who absolutely won in a Platonic sense. It is impossible to ever know.
The real question is: were the rules followed to managed the vote and the challenge. That is the only valid argument available, because in truth there is no way to know who really won.
And to say that this is a travesty is stupid. Only around 500 voters are going to be disappointed either way. And the same number are going to be disappointed no matter how the votes get counted. This is a very small percentage of error. It is the best that we can ever hope for.
The only people still angry about this do not understand statistics or gauge studies (ballets in this case). I voted for Gore, and I’m not mad. Let’s move on.
AL;
No problem, as long as you vigorously enforce the issue for both sides of the aisle. I somehow only see admonitions arise when a Lefty plays loose with the language, even when in a feeble effort to be humorous (it was to me anyway).
Second, you’re dodging my points, twice now. Even with your time squeeze point, it is still utterly unconvincing that the Supes thought it necessary to step in on Dec. 12, with still pleeeeeeenty of time for the transition, etc. And like I asked, if it were a matter of disenfranchised voting (perhaps our most sacred right), don’t you think it might have been ok to delay the transition? Surely the framers didn’t think the deadline should supercede efforts to ensure a legal, proper and valid election?
After all, now we are hearing about the Repubs laying plans to do just that in case of a terrorist attack, which in some senses if we are as prepared as we should be might not be as serious a disruption as “hanging chads”.
We can argue the finer points like gentlemen, but let’s not lapse into poorly thought-out comments like “Bush would have won anyway if the recount were allowed” or “there was no time to do it, anyhoo.” This issue is not settled, it is not going away, so I don’t think it wise to try to dismiss the whole issue as settled. It ain’t.
VT – Thanks, and yes I do try and yank neckties on both sides; if you think I’m not, speak right up.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether less than 30 days is enough to do a Presidential transition; since neither of us is in that business, we’ll just call it a difference of opinion.
And, as noted, I’m still open to seeing anything solidly fact-based that would overturn or even substantially challenge the NORC study. It’s possibly true that some combination of local lawsuits and differing counting methodologies would havew resulted in a Gore victory; it’s equally possible (and hence useless) that a similarly arbitrary set of differing counting methodologies would have resulted in a Bush win.
A.L.
“Even with your time squeeze point, it is still utterly unconvincing that the Supes thought it necessary to step in on Dec. 12, with still pleeeeeeenty of time for the transition”
with the electoral college meeting on December 18th I am at a loss as how there was plenty of time. Even if Florida was allowed to wait to the last minute consider this. The Florida SC still had to draw up uniform rules by which to recount the votes. IOW, how do you count dimpled chads, over votes ect. They then would have had to count the votes. Considering how long the hand counts took, previous to the USSC’s decision, who really believes it was even physically possible to do in less then 6 days?
A.L.:
It appears that I’m persona no grata because I oppose gay marriage (although lesbian marriage would be OK, I guess) but a statistical tie is a tie. If the margin of uncertainty is larger than the margin of victory, it’s a goddamn tie. And the fairest way to resolve the thing is with a game of chance. Actually, in NM they resolve it with a game of stud poker, but it might as well be a coin toss or chinese checkers.
As for cable, I got SAT-TV not for the sake of the election, but because I couldn’t tolerate watching the Tour de France on the internet at 100 kbs again. Ugh.
By the way, I thought you were going to post your thoughts on LeMonde’s spat with Armstrong over doping? Personally, I can’t imagine that he’s doping now, but can easily imagine that he was doping prior to his cancer. If there are shushings going on I think they’re probably related to that ancient history, and the potential impact on current controversies.
Again, I think 2000 was a tie. Unless the candidates were wimps they should’ve had a shoot out to decide the winner… which, of course, they did.
–Scott (from a long line of eastern Washington high-desert cowpokes)
Scott,
You are conflating two things which are unlike–polling by random sample, and holding an election. In a random sample, there is a statistical measure called a margin of error, which tells you how accurate your results are expected to be compared to an actual poll of the entire population.
By statistical definition, an election has _no margin of error_. This is because the population involved is the totality of all votes received. You end up with a margin of error of 0% and a level of confidence of 100%, because you actually used the entire population as your sample space.
Therefore, there’s no such thing as a “statistical tie” in an election. There can be an _actual_ tie, but that is a matter of an actual count, not a statistical estimation.
Let’s see. George Bush sends a bunch of Republican staffers down to intimidate vote counters, successfully stopping the count. His campaign manager, in her day job as the chief elections official, does everything possible to stop recounts—suing, in fact, to stop any recounts in progress. The Bush campaign comes up with a legal theory of recounts so novel that when it prevails (to some conservatives’ surprise), it invalidates over thirty states’ election codes.
And then somehow, golly-gee, the recount runs out of time.
Where I come from, we call that “The Fix was In.”
[Oh, VT, you beat me to Fred and his curious inconsistency towards election deadlines.]
Sam & Scott,
Statistical errors in the case of elections isn’t due to sampling or sample size. It is due to the gauge (ballets & voting machines) used to count the votes. In a perfect world, you can perfectly count all the votes and know perfectly who won the election even if it was only by a single vote.
In the real world, no gauge (ballets & voting machines in this case) is perfect. So, we are also left to deal with uncertainties in the measurement (election in this case). If the signal we are measuring (margin of victory in this case) is less than the precision of the gauge, then the signal cannot be measured. Engineers call this signal as being below the noise level.
The gauge will give you a measurement, but even if the measurement (counting the ballots) is made again – in exactly the same way – the result can be different. This is because the precision of the gauge is not adequate to distinguish the difference. In fact, if you recounted many times(100? 1000?), you’d likely get a Bell curve showing a probably distribution somewhere within which the true result might be.
The problem in the Florida election is that the distribution includes both possible outcomes, and the gauge doesn’t provide enough confidence to say with certainty which outcome is correct.
So, yes. Even with a 100% sample size, you can still have a statistical tie. The election was just to close to call. And the data suggests that only 500 people (out of 2.5 million?) either way would have their votes ‘ignored’. This is likely to be the best performance that any human system could achieve. Any number of recounts wouldn’t change this number.
AJL,
Given the closeness of the election and the knowledge that we can’t know with certainty who really won – no matter how the votes were counted – there’s really no way to say that any recount is better than the orginal results, or better than any other recount. So, it’s hard for me to maintain my indignation over the results.
The real question is has the system been improved and the rules clarified for the next election? E.g., no conflist of interest with the Florida Secretary of State, recount rules clarrified, etc.
This is still a Democracy. There’s another election this Novemeber.
Scott – what in the wide, wide world of sports would give you the idea that you’re persona non grata?
Sam – actually, what I think was meant was the margin of error in measurement – the level of precision with which we can measure the vote count. The fact is that there will always be some imprecision in vote counting – we just want it to me minimal, neutral, and unintentional.
Andrew – and I’ll trade the R behavior for the mendacious (there’s really no other word) efforts to stack the vote count by the D’s. There was no moral high ground for anyone to occupy in Florida in 2000.
A.L.
You, in turn, seem unaware that they had not the remotest authority to do any such thing.
Sorry to be OT on this (since the topic seems to have morphed to the LAST election), but what about the upcoming one?
Lurker brings up the excellent question:
“has the system been improved and the rules clarified for the next election?”
To which the answer seems, regretably, to be NO. Also, his disucssion of guage statistics in the election brings up a good question: what guage is enforced by the various electronic only voting machines used in various parts of the country? Certainly a recount will always be the same, but how does one verify the ACCURACY? I would assume that this is defined by some probablility range, which defines the guage for that type of machine and thus for all precincts using that type of machine.
Can anyone point to a good way to handle this uncertainty which has been agreed on here in the US? Certainly, have a paper trail generated by each machine could work, but I have seen nothing concrete on this.
Kirk:
On that point I would have to disagree. The arguments presented for Gore on behalf of the democratic party to the Supreme Court clearly showed previous cases in Fla. where the Fla Supreme Court had indeed intervened on several occasions. Their arguments however could not clearly show which branch of Fla government had the right to create laws concerning Fla election standards and processes. Fla Courts vs Legislative branch seemed to indicate the role could be served by either branch.
The Supreme Court decision was based mainly on the fact that they would be intervening in Fla law and setting the standards for the state which would have major implications on all states. Another reason for the decision for the Supreme Court to back out of Fla’s business was that if they did rule there would have been suits filed based on Article II of the constitution regardless of the declared winner. In their judgment the Article II claims would have been very well justified by either party. A no win situation for Floridians regardless.
Was the Supreme Court justified in its’ decision. Personally I think so. The sad part here is all Floridians are the losers. As the Supreme Court noted that this was not the first time litigation of this sort was brought before the Fla courts. Why Floridians never demanded that their legislative branch close and correct the problems is beyond me. Fla constitution gives it’s legislative branch the authority to enact laws and the Fla Supreme Court the authority to enforce them.
What’s worse is recent news seems to indicate Fla is headed for “another disaster”:http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Florida+2004+election because the same issues still have not been resolved. Will the election process stop because Floridians can’t get their acts together. Not a chance the constitution makes it clear what states must do to participate in the election. A lesson Fla should have learned from the last go round. It would be total waste of electoral votes if they don’t comply. Will it cause a civil war with in the US? Doubtful in my opinion but I’m sure some Floridians will be highly upset. This maybe the straw that breaks the camels back and causes the Fla government to enact laws to solve their issues.
Oscar,
In theory electronic voting will be much more accurate. If the “electronic” part of electronic voting actually works, then most variation will be due to how voters understand and control the voting apparatus. (still need good ballet design!)
With E-Voting it’s much more an issue of transparency, i.e. how can we trust that our vote was truly counted correctly. Think about it, how hard would it be to hack an E-voting machine? Can we trust the software in them? Since physical access is the easiest why to ‘hack’ a computer, can we trust the precinct monitors? Are the E-voting machines networked together to quickly report results? If so, how vulnerable is this network to hackers?
These issues have be discussed on WoC before. My opinion is that a paper verification form must be printed so the voter can verify his votes. Then the verification form must be handled the same way as ballets are now. The electronic result should then be verified with a comprehensive audit plan after each election.
This isn’t to double check that the electronic results for errors(possible but unlikely), but to make sure they are not being manipulated. Could you imagine a E-voting machine Trojan horse or virus?
A.L.:
I’m just paranoid. Long story.
Sam:
The appropriate concept is “error,” and since it exists in elections (due to mechanical, electronic, or human mistakes) there’s always uncertainty. If the margin of victory is smaller than the margin of uncertainty about the actual vote (which is, presumably unambiguous but probably unknown) then the election is a tie.
Within the power of resolution or precision available to us for determining the outcome of the Florida vote in 2000 it was a tie. That ought to have been obvious to everyone, but I don’t think anyone ever mentioned it.
I think Lurker has it about right.
The problem is that, for the sake of the “social legitimacy” of elections (a concept that Republicans aren’t even sure exists) one must resolve a tie fairly. One might be inclined to look upon the decision of the USSC as being unfair, because they stopped the election recount at a point where the result was known. It’s as though a wheel of fortune were spun, and someone reached out and stopped the wheel when it arrived at the point favored by the spinner.
I expect that Republicans would have been pretty unhappy with a coin toss, under the circumstances. But if we’re truly concerned about “next time,” then it ought to be possible to pre-arrange a resolution to something like this. In fact the resolution need not even be random or unbiased, as long as it’s known and agreed to beforehand. I imagine some people are better at stud poker than others, but that test is far enough removed from the election contest that the results would be acceptable. If people know it’s coming, and can see that it’s “fair,” they’d me more inclined to accept it and get on with things. But perhaps I’m being naive.
The issue of what to do in the face of massive uncertainty about the vote (in the case of a general failure of the voting system) or a terrorist attack in the midst of the election, is a lot tougher problem. But it would still be a good idea to pre-arrange the resolution.
The truth is, there’s usually not that much difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates in terms of ideology, at least in relation to the ideological differences that are common in Europe, for instance. H.G. Wells once observed that both American political parties could probably fit comfortably inside the the British Liberal Party with very little selvage.
Scott:
_”One might be inclined to look upon the decision of the USSC as being unfair, because they stopped the election recount at a point where the result was known. It’s as though a wheel of fortune were spun, and someone reached out and stopped the wheel when it arrived at the point favored by the spinner.”_
Let’s not foget it was the spinners who requested the intervention. I think it’s also relevant to note there was more than just one decision rendered by the USCC. The links below give the oral arguments and decisions.
00-836
“2000 Election Bush v Palm Beach No. 00-836”:http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/00-836.pdf
“2000 Florida Election Per Curiam 00-836”:http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-836_dec04.fdf
00-949
“2000 Election No. 00-949”:http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/00-949.pdf
“2000 Florida Election Per Curiam 00-949”:http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf
This link provides the most comprehensive set of documentation provided by the USCC.
“2000 Florida Election Cases”:http://www.supremecourtus.gov/florida.html
This link provides the basis for requesting USCC intervention.
“2000 Florida Election Joint Appendix”:http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/ja.fdf