Electoral College

[J.Pluta]

<grumble> I do my best to stay out of these way-non-iSeries debates, but since it was in the wrong category, I figured I could move it back to Shooting the Breeze, and that would justify my throwing in a couple of pennies worth: The electoral college forces a candidate to campaign nationwide. If we went entirely by the national popular vote, a candidate could concentrate on a few population centers (NY, LA, Chicago) and sway the election. Instead, those who live in less populated areas still have some say in the electoral process. And lest you say "Oh pshaw, this election is coming down to Florida, a pretty major population center", I would point this out: had Gore won his own state, the very mid-level state of Tennessee, he'd have had 11 more electoral votes and Florida would have been a moot issue. Joe http://www.java400.net http://www.edeployment.com http://www.plutabrothers.com

[nycsusan@hotmail.com]

I have heard this before, I don't understand this reasoning. Places like Montana have 3 electoral votes, while California has 40-something votes (I think). This is why candidates spend more time in California than in Montana. I don't see how the electoral process functions any differently than the House of Representatives. Less populated areas have fewer delegates to send to the electoral college than the more populated areas. The US Senate, where there are 2 representatives from each state regardless of population, is the only poplulation equalizer I can see. How does the electoral college equalize the lesser populated areas with the population centers?

[J.Pluta]

To me, it's very clear: NOBODY would BOTHER to campaign in Oregon or Montana or Idaho or probably in Arkansas or Tennessee or Georgia or Oklahoma (to any great extent) if the election was entirely based on popular vote. Instead, they'd completely and utterly focus on getting the majority of the votes in the primary population centers and wouldn't give a rats patoot about the rest of the country. Urban American values would probably be the primary election plank, and rural and even suburban concerns would be minimized. Personally, I kind of like the fact that the candidates have to hike up their pants cuffs and wallow with the pigs in order to win Illinois. If they didn't, the presidential candidate would hit Chicago, the veep candidate would hit Springfield, and they'd be outta here. It's clear to me how the electoral process forces broadening of the platform and greater inclusion of less populous areas - I can't explain it any better than I have here. Joe

[Guest.Visitor]

Joe Pluta wrote: Instead, those who live in less populated areas still have some say in the electoral process. One arguement (not mine BTW) is that the electoral process skews the vote in favor of those areas with smaller populations. Dave

[nycsusan@hotmail.com]

Joe wrote: "Personally, I kind of like the fact that the candidates have to hike up their pants cuffs and wallow with the pigs in order to win Illinois. If they didn't, the presidential candidate would hit Chicago, the veep candidate would hit Springfield, and they'd be outta here." Okay, so the candidates have to try to appeal to the suburban Illinios votes as well as the Chicagoians (or whatever you call people from Chicago) in order to win the state with its relatively large number of electoral votes. But that doesn't help the people in North or South Dakota, and I can't remember either candidate going there during the campaign. The fact is that the candidates have to prioritize where they "bother" to go and campaign and they do this based largely on the number of electoral votes involved and that is determined by the population of the state. I see your point about rural Illinios benefiting because they are in the same state as a large city like Chicago. However, the less populated states with no large cities, like N. & S. Dakota, Montana, Idaho, etc., are not helped much by the electoral college as far as I can see. And what about the point that David raised ... why should the opinions of 8,000,000 people in a city be watered down to "equal" the opinions of 8,000 people in a rural area? Just playing devils advocate here ...

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

Just look at how many states Bush carried that have "a few" electoral votes. These add up very quickly. If a candidate ignores these states, they run the risk of "giving them" to his opponent who does spend time campaigning there.

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

When a candidate goes to rural Illinois, prime farmland, he/she doesn't take about creating a friendly environment for BIG BUSINESS. When a candidate goes to rural Illinois they talk about issues important to the people standing in from of them. Yes, a candidate, under any system, must prioritize who to make direct and indirect speeches to. They may choose to disregard small population areas or not. That has nothing to do with the electoral college. However, 1000 small communities just might offset a "large" community. You pick your places where you think you can do well. What happens when there are 5 candidates running for president and the candidate who gets the "most" popular vote only gets 38% of the popular vote. Is this sufficient to consider them a winner or should there be a run-off between the 2 highest candidates? I don't know but the electoral college minimizws the possibilityof this situation from happening. The electoral process is also heavily weighted to the "major" parties. There is no right answer to this. There are a multitude of opinions.

[Guest.Visitor]

Chris - If you will allow me to slightly modify your question - "What happens when there are (3) candidates running for president and the candidate who gets the "most" popular vote only gets (48%) of the popular vote. Is this sufficient to consider them a winner or should there be a run-off between the 2 highest candidates?" 48% is enough to win outright (as Mr. Clinton will attest since that's how he got in office). 48% or 49% will be the figure that Gore or Bush will have if and when this whole thing is decided. Steve

[J.Pluta]

Okay, so the candidates have to try to appeal to the suburban Illinios votes as well as the Chicagoians (or whatever you call people from Chicago) in order to win the state with its relatively large number of electoral votes. But that doesn't help the people in North or South Dakota, and I can't remember either candidate going there during the campaign. The fact is that the candidates have to prioritize where they "bother" to go and campaign and they do this based largely on the number of electoral votes involved and that is determined by the population of the state. I see your point about rural Illinios benefiting because they are in the same state as a large city like Chicago. However, the less populated states with no large cities, like N. & S. Dakota, Montana, Idaho, etc., are not helped much by the electoral college as far as I can see. As Chris points out, if you choose to ignore those voters, you take the chance of losing those electoral votes. If Bush finally does win this thing, it will be on the strength of the states such as North and South Dakota. While he may or may not have campaigned there (actually, I'll bet Bush did a mountain states swing, although I can't recall), his platform was certainly geared towards it. Bush wouldn't have dared back a tough anti-gun policy; he'd have stood a chance of losing at least some of those northwestern states. So is Montana helped by Bush being president? Absolutely, because it causes the candidates to at least address the issues which most concern those constituents. And what about the point that David raised ... why should the opinions of 8,000,000 people in a city be watered down to "equal" the opinions of 8,000 people in a rural area? Just playing devils advocate here ... Who is watering anything down? That sentence is just short of offensive, especially given the country we're talking about here. We started out as a small, ragtag bunch of people who didn't particularly like the fact that our voice was drowned out by the "special interests" over in England - taxation without representation being a key rallying cry back then. To take your attitude to the extreme, we ought to still be a British colony. On the other hand, what the electoral college DOES do is to make sure that various areas of the country get an at least proportionate say in the electoral process - their votes don't have the same weight as the larger communities, but they aren't completely ignored, either. Joe By the way, if you were to REALLY ask yourself who deserves the vote, should it be: A) A thriving mass of a million people of whom a disproportionately large percentage are unemployed, in redundant layers of middle management, in the sports or entertainment industries, in various non-productive facets of the legal industry, involved in illegal industries such as drugs or marginally legal industries such as the gaming industry, or otherwise not gainfully employed. or B) A "rural" county of a few thousand voters who actually help to provide food for a nation. Who <u>deserves</u> the vote? I have my opinion.

[nycsusan@hotmail.com]

Joe wrote: "By the way, if you were to REALLY ask yourself who deserves the vote, should it be: A) A thriving mass of a million people of whom a disproportionately large percentage are unemployed, in redundant layers of middle management, in the sports or entertainment industries, in various non-productive facets of the legal industry, involved in illegal industries such as drugs or marginally legal industries such as the gaming industry, or otherwise not gainfully employed. or B) A "rural" county of a few thousand voters who actually help to provide food for a nation. Who deserves the vote? I have my opinion. " You certainly are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I never said that rural people should not be counted, I simply am asking if it's fair to the city dwellers. My opinion is that EVERY citizen deserves a vote, city AND country, and no single vote should weigh more heavily than another. A CEO's vote should count the same as an 18 year old college student, and a city persons vote should count the same as a rural persons vote. One man, one vote. Is the electoral college FAIR to everyone? That's all I am asking, along with a lot of others apparently.

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

The electoral college dows not give one individuals vote more or less weight thatn anothers. The electoral college does serve a purpose, especially in the days it was first created. We may not all agree that it is still relevant today but <going out on a limb> the mathematics of large numbers does not work the same as for small numbers...meaning that just because the popular vote works for city, county and state elections doesn't mean that it is the best method for national elections </did I make it safely back off my limb> This question of the electoral college deserves a lot of discusiions. IT is not the kind of thing we should jump to remove without a thourough discussion and understanding of the implications of removing the electoral college. </whew, I think I made it back safely>

[J.Pluta]

"You certainly are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I never said that rural people should not be counted, I simply am asking if it's fair to the city dwellers. My opinion is that EVERY citizen deserves a vote, city AND country, and no single vote should weigh more heavily than another. A CEO's vote should count the same as an 18 year old college student, and a city persons vote should count the same as a rural persons vote. EVERYONE One man, one vote. Is the electoral college FAIR to everyone? That's all I am asking, along with a lot of others apparently." Is WHAT fair to the city dwellers? What do you consider unfair? How exactly does the electoral college make a city dweller's vote count less? That's what I don't understand here. Within each of the states, the votes are counted person by person, and that states electors (usually) are then assigned to the winner. That means that a state such as Idaho, with a much lower population than Texas, gets a lower number of electors. The 500,000 Idaho folks represent 4 electoral votes; the 6 million Texans represent 32 electoral votes. There's a discrepancy, sure. Each Idaho voter represents about 1/125,000 of an electoral vote, while each Texan represents 1/200,000. But you're in the same ballpark. And the rural Texans have THE EXACT SAME VOTE as the city Texans. No, the electoral college isn't about city versus country, it's about regional factionalization and making it a requirement that a national candidate actually take into account the entire nation. And in that it's much like everything else in our great democratic experiment: flawed, but better than anything else on the planet. Joe

[Guest.Visitor]

Susan, Having had my choices both won and lost and now sorta-tied by the Electoral College, I still have to side with the Electoral regardless. Not because I think it is the best method, but it is the best method I know of. This keeps the popular vote from determining the outcome. I realise that sounds ludicrous as we are the only country in the world (that I know of) which elects it's supreme leader based on the median vote, but that was how the founding fathers wanted it. No simple majority to keep the large states from ganging up on the smaller ones. By using the Median (or is it Mean), we are able to see what the country wants, not just the people. Close ties, but two seperate arguments. -bret

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

By using the Median (or is it Mean), we are able to see what the country wants, not just the people. Close ties, but two seperate arguments. Bret, This is a very intersting and important disticntion. What the country wants not just the people. I think I understand the difference though it would be difficult to explain to someone else. Either you get it or you don't. We tend to think they are the same but.... This is similar to the forest adn the trees. When you look at the trees you loose the big picture. If you look at the forest as a collective with a life of it's own and its own sense of survival, you could loose site of the trees. Food for thought.

[nycsusan@hotmail.com]

Bret wrote: "This keeps the popular vote from determining the outcome. I realise that sounds ludicrous as we are the only country in the world (that I know of) which elects it's supreme leader based on the median vote, but that was how the founding fathers wanted it. No simple majority to keep the large states from ganging up on the smaller ones." Sure, I am all for the underdog. I just don't see how the electoral college prevents the small states from being ignored. Small states (population wise) have very few electoral votes and the candiates rarely go there. Joe raised a point about rural areas in states with big cities, and I can see that. But the states without a big city or cities to attract attention are not helped by this system. If you want to go down this road, then let the US Senate decide the presidency. Two votes per state, regardless of population. Personally, I like the popular vote, though I don't think it's going to happen. Let's get back to basics, the majority of the time, the popular vote and the electoral college come out to the same result. It's only in this election (most likely) and I believe one other where the popular vote didn't pick the president. Again, I think is good food for thought ..........

[D.Handy]

Chris, <font color=blue>"I think I understand the difference though it would be difficult to explain to someone else."</font> One analogy I saw compared it to the World Series in baseball. You do not necessarily need to have collectively scored the most runs across all the games. But you do need to a broad spectrum of winnings in separate games. Doug

[Guest.Visitor]

Chris, You are not kidding. I made that statement, not lightly, because I'm not sure I understand it. Even we in the computer world who recognise events such as on/off, 1/0, good/bad cannot agree among ourselves what is the best. Heck, sometimes I argue both points because I am not convinced of my decisions. A trick I learned from Piers Anthony's writings a couple of decades ago. It is easy to say, put it down on paper and that's that. Unfortunately, what is right for me is not always right for the next person and vice-versa. Therefore we have to use the median (mean) decision to be fair. Although, fair always means the minority vote feels dumped on. -bret

[nycsusan@hotmail.com]

Doug wrote: "One analogy I saw compared it to the World Series in baseball. You do not necessarily need to have collectively scored the most runs across all the games. But you do need to a broad spectrum of winnings in separate games." Now there's an interesting analogy! I shall think about this while I drive to school tonight. The only thing that pops into my head immediately is the obvious, baseball is a game and the results really don't matter in people's lives, whereas The President does affect everyone. But I shall consider this ... thanks!

[Guest.Visitor]

Susan Behrens wrote: "I just don't see how the electoral college prevents the small states from being ignored" Because the will of Montana, West (By God) Virginia, South Dakota, Missouri and Kansas usually don't have the same desires or issues of the larger state such as California, Florida, Texas and so on. Therefore, the politicians have to make an effort at least, to be recognised. The smaller states can impact on the larger Electorate votes by cancelling out their casting or at least impacting it. Therefore, there is a sense of give and take between states even. -bret

[Guest.Visitor]

Nevil Shute wrote a futuristic novel ("In the Wet") that featured a merit-vote system in Australia. A person could have up to seven votes: "There is a universal vote that everyone receives, but subsequent votes have to be earned -- by education, by earning a living outside Australia, by having a successful marriage and family life, by attaining a specified level of income, or by being a member of the clergy. The Seventh Vote, of course, is reserved for the Queen to bestow, as recognition of a particular, unusual achievement." Some of those seem unfair (an extra vote just because of a high income) or impossible to determine (how do you measure a successful family life?), but in general, I think the idea ... well ... has merit. I doubt that any existing government would ever introduce such a system though, even assuming they could agree on what constitutes merit. Barbara

[Guest.Visitor]

The Electoral College vs popular vote issue has been around since before this nation existed. There are valid arguments on both sides (I've changed my mind several times over the years and still don't have the slightest idea which is better.) It's true that it gives a voter in a small state proportionally more say than one in a large state; however, the same applies to a much greater degree in the composition of Congress. However we may feel about it, the discussion is mute. Aboltion of the Electoral College would require yet another amendment to the Constitution (the 14th being the first one dealing with elections) and it's inconceivable that three-fourths of the states would ratify same, as this would be a diminishing af States' Rights. SO - we'll live with what we've got - it *has* worked pretty well for about 200 years, present controversity notwithstandind.

[J.Pluta]

"But the states without a big city or cities to attract attention are not helped by this system." Yes they are! That's EXACTLY the point! And here's why... let's say someone had already locked up 4 million of Texas' votes. They win the electoral vote there, right? Now, with the electoral college, that's all they can win, is those 32 electoral votes, period! Without it, let's say they didn't want to worry about North and South Dakota. With a straight popular vote, they could wipe out both of those states (and Montana and Wyoming besides) SIMPLY BY ROLLING UP A BIGGER MAJORITY IN TEXAS (in fact, by winning the entire vote of some nine states, you win the election). Because of the electoral college, the smaller states have to be considered, they can't just be bumped by getting a larger percentage of the big states. After 51% of a state, it's done. Time to move on to another state. And THAT is the beauty of the electoral college - it forces a spread of candidate's attention, virtually ensuring that every issue that is important in EVERY section of the nation is at least looked at. Joe

[nycsusan@hotmail.com]

I wrote: "But the states without a big city or cities to attract attention are not helped by this system." Joe wrote: " Yes they are! That's EXACTLY the point! And here's why... let's say someone had already locked up 4 million of Texas' votes. They win the electoral vote there, right? Now, with the electoral college, that's all they can win, is those 32 electoral votes, period!" If you look at the map, Gore and Bush were pretty well divided by city and rural boundaries. Generally speaking, Gore won major metropolitan areas while Bush won the sparsely populated rural areas. Geographically, Bush killed Gore, but by people count Gore is winning - slightly. I guess that's why I don't see how it accomplishes what you say ... the popular vote came almost even with the electoral college (presumably). The difference is that this time the votes were so close that they might come out with different outcomes. The vast majority of the time, the popular v. electoral debate is a moot point. Joe wrote: "Without it, let's say they didn't want to worry about North and South Dakota. With a straight popular vote, they could wipe out both of those states (and Montana and Wyoming besides) SIMPLY BY ROLLING UP A BIGGER MAJORITY IN TEXAS (in fact, by winning the entire vote of some nine states, you win the election). Because of the electoral college, the smaller states have to be considered, they can't just be bumped by getting a larger percentage of the big states." My view is that they don't care enough about South Dakota and the other rural states. They schmooze in NYC and the other big cities, but spend very little time on the farms - not enough time on the farms in my book. Joe wrote: "And THAT is the beauty of the electoral college - it forces a spread of candidate's attention, virtually ensuring that every issue that is important in EVERY section of the nation is at least looked at." With only one exception, and probably this election will make the second, the popular vote came out the same as the electoral votes. This is why I don't see why the electoral college matters. Are you saying that the presence of the electoral college ensures (or helps to ensure) that it turns out that way? That could be another interesting angle ... I agree with your goals Joe, I just think now is a good time to see if we (as a country) could figure out if there is a better way to get there. A good plan will stand up to scrutiny.

[J.Pluta]

> My view is that they don't care enough about South Dakota and the other rural states. They schmooze in NYC and the other big cities, but spend very little time on the farms - not enough time on the farms in my book. And without the electoral college, they would care EVEN LESS! >> Joe wrote: "And THAT is the beauty of the electoral college - it forces a spread of candidate's attention, virtually ensuring that every issue that is important in EVERY section of the nation is at least looked at." <blockquote><tt>With only one exception, and probably this election will make the second, the popular vote came out the same as the electoral votes. This is why I don't see why the electoral college matters. Are you saying that the presence of the electoral college ensures (or helps to ensure) that it turns out that way? That could be another interesting angle ... </tt></blockquote> YES YES YES! That's the point! If it weren't for the electoral college, somebody could quite conceivably launch a mass-media marketing campaign targeted entirely at urban folks and win the election without picking up a single less populous state. The electoral college prevents that from happening. Joe

[Guest.Visitor]

Actually, now is a good time to see if we as a country can get along. Even with all it's legal wrangling and wasting of time as some see it, we are dividing our nation. One of the most damaging points I have ever witnessed is the pitting of one class against another and the pitting of one race against another. -bret

[nycsusan@hotmail.com]

I wrote: "With only one exception, and probably this election will make the second, the popular vote came out the same as the electoral votes. This is why I don't see why the electoral college matters. Are you saying that the presence of the electoral college ensures (or helps to ensure) that it turns out that way? That could be another interesting angle ..." Joe responded: "YES YES YES! That's the point! If it weren't for the electoral college, somebody could quite conceivably launch a mass-media marketing campaign targeted entirely at urban folks and win the election without picking up a single less populous state. The electoral college prevents that from happening." Well, Joe, why didn't you just SAY so! :-) Okay, here's my beef. I live in Texas, a state with a LOT of electoral votes, yet neither candidate did much campaigning here relative to the amount of electoral votes at stake. Why? Because this state was presumed to be in Bush's back pocket from the day his name was merely floated as a candidate. So both candidates pretty much ignored this state the way they (presumably) would a state with few electoral votes. It seems my little vote didn't matter to EITHER candidate, even though I was one of those PRIZED "undecided" suburban female voters (they LOVE the demographic that I am in!) because there was little doubt that Bush would win Texas and my vote didn't matter either way. I would have been wooed more as a voter if I had lived in a smaller and more hotly contested state. This is why the popular vote is attractive to me - I feel that the candidates should go after EVERY vote they can, not just shoot for 51% of a state and then move on. Everybody should count. I just question the fact that to get my little vote to count, I need to move to a state that's more evenly divided politicaly or my voice will never be heard. The electoral college seems to shift the "ganging up" (as Bret called it) down from the national level to the state level. It can be difficult for a Republican to win in NY, and it can be difficult for a Democrat to win in TX. Impossible? No. But difficult. And that's fine until it gets to the point where it's a forgone conclusion (like Texas was this election) and then you get the situation which you say the electoral college is supposed to prevent - the candiates don't bother paying attention to the state. I think it's that way in any state where one party tends to dominate - the minority view gets drowned out at the state level instead of at the national level. Is that better? Your theory is interesting, now that I understand the crux of it. Let me ponder it a while. Can you see my point, though?

[Guest.Visitor]

You wrote: "The 500,000 Idaho folks represent 4 electoral votes; the 6 million Texans represent 32 electoral votes. There's a discrepancy, sure. Each Idaho voter represents about 1/125,000 of an electoral vote, while each Texan represents 1/200,000. But you're in the same ballpark. And the rural Texans have THE EXACT SAME VOTE as the city Texans." I am surprise of your stand. You are yourself demonstrating that the votes of each Idaho citizen is given more weight that the votes of Texas citizen. In fact if we want each vote to mean the same, only the universal ballot does that. But the question is Do we want that? The american system of the big elector is a good compromise, I think. But I would prefer if each candidate got his share of big elector in a state according to the votes he got instead of getting all the votes with 51% of the popular votes. In florida, this would mean 13 big elector for Bush and 12 for Gore. I think that this would be more democratic.

[Guest.Visitor]

But the arithmetic of the Electoral College was and is to insure that what Joe described doesn't prevail. Further there are at least 25-30 states that would never go for a change and it takes only 14 to block a change to the Constitution. It's very simply also the reason the Anti-Gun folks try to Piggley-Wiggley around the Second Amendment instead of having it annulled; they know that at least 16-20 states would never allow it. The Constitution of 1789 is an incredible document. Read it some time: http://www.law.ou.edu bobh

[Guest.Visitor]

Exactly; and it was just the ploy needed to get 9 of the original 13 to sign onto a deal with New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Virginia the latter 4 of which probably had more than 75 % of the people. The unique distribution of the National Legislature and the Electoral College together was pure genious. bobh

[Guest.Visitor]

And be sure to include the 14th amendment in your reading Bill

[Guest.Visitor]

IMO Bob is correct in his assessment of why the electoral college is here to stay. OTOH <u>how</u> the electoral college is applied is up to the individual states. Some states allow electors to vote for anyone. That is how Lloyd Bentsen ended up with a single vote in the 1988 election. Some states impose penalties on anything other than the strictest interpretation of commitment. There are two states that define commitment in chunks. This allows, and may even mandate the splitting of electoral votes within the single state. Considering the call to action that this particular election has generated, I would not be surprised to see more states follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska in future contests. Dave

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

Susan, Do NOT confuse your voting for someone who did not win, with your vote not being herard or making a difference. Every vote counts and speaks loudly by itself.

[Guest.Visitor]

OOPS Jusr reread my post. I can't believe I said "discussion is mute". I must have been off on a tute and stuck my fute in my mouth.

[D.Handy]

Bill, <font color=blue>I can't believe I said "discussion is mute".</font> While I'm sure you meant moot, it could just as well be mute. The chances of getting an amendment ratified are practically nill, even considering the current fiasco. David brings up an interesting scenario though: individual states could decide to take Nebraska and Maine's lead and apportion electoral votes within the state. It would be interesting to know if any past elections would have been altered if all states (plus DC) used this method. Doug

[Guest.Visitor]

Most presidential elections, have been obviously weighted in favor of a one candidate. There were a few, though, where it might have made a difference. Side note: Whatever happens here, I believe that the process, and the nation will be better because of it. The arguements back have forth have been educational, as no one wants to come to this table empty handed. Eventually, there will be a new President, and the country will go on as it always has - - good, bad, or indifferent. On the next go around, there will be some mechanisms in place to improve the process, and how can that be a bad thing? Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

The Maine/Nebraska apportionment of an elector for each congressional district with the two senatorial based electors going to the popular vote winner would have no effect in states with 3 electors (DC, Delaware, the Dakotas...) however its effect may well have influenced previous elections (the Hughes/Wilson 1916 and any with a non-regional serious 3rd party candidate .. especially 1912 (Taft/Wilson/Roosevelt) and 1948 (Truman/Dewey/Thurmond/Wallace). Unfortunately the history books seem to record Presdential results by county rather than Congressional District and hence evaluating this proportional scheme on an historical basis would be rather difficult. What is adventageous though is that apportionment of electors is entirely up to each individual state and hence avoids the 'constitional amendment' difficulties. The US Constitution does not require popularly choosen electors -- just that each state have some means of appointing them -- they could just as well be apportioned by state legislative district or appointed by the Governor.

[Guest.Visitor]

Kind of like writing a program: Code, test, debug..... Code, test, debug..... Code, test, debug..... Code, test, debug..... Code, test, debug..... Code, test, debug..... Code, test, debug..... Code, test, debug.....

[Guest.Visitor]

Yes, except for those who went to college know: Over three attempts to compile the program and you flunk :)

[T.Holt]

There's a good article on the history of the Electoral College at <a > href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=545"> http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=545</a>. One strength of the article is that it points out that the US was intended to be a republic, not a democracy.

[J.Pluta]

Thanks for that point, Ted. It's been awhile since my last polisci class, and I'd forgotten the very important distinction between the two. In fact, we live in a representative democracy, where we instill in our elected officials the power to make decisions, as opposed to a true democracy, where all things are decided by referenda. Until the coming of age of the Internet, there was no real way to have a true democracy, except for very special occasions, like presidential elections. As we've seen, the mechanism of national balloting is fraught with problems. However, a popular theme in SF recently has been the ability to use the Internet to actually achieve a true democracy, where government decisions are based on actual polling of the populace. However, be careful what you ask for. A good example of what happens when a representative vehicle changes to a democratic one can be seen in the stock market. The "voice of the people" is a very changeable thing, and the buffering effect of a layer of representation is lost in a pure democracy. The stock market has become far more unstable since the advent of online trading; it stands to reason that our government might suffer the same effect. Just an observation. Joe

[T.Holt]

<font color=blue>a popular theme in SF recently has been the ability to use the Internet to actually achieve a true democracy, where government decisions are based on actual polling of the populace.</font> From what I've read on the subject, democracies have always led to anarchy, which in turn led to tyranny.

[Guest.Visitor]

So are we a true soveriegn nation divided into states, or rather a semi-tight confederation of very similar entities?(Somewhat like my home of Chicago, which we describe as not a big city but a bunch of small towns right next toeach other.)

[T.Holt]

<font color=blue>So are we a true soveriegn nation divided into states, or rather a semi-tight confederation of very similar entities?</font> I'm not a political "scientist", just a concerned citizen, so I can't speak with authority (you MUST have a Ph.D. in something to be an authority), but I understand that the Constitution defines a federal gov't. (Wow, isn't that great, since that's what we call it!) The idea was that the central gov't would have only certain powers, mainly to keep the states from fighting and bickering with each other, but also to more easily handle affairs with other nations (defence, ambassadors, etc.). The states and the people themselves retained all other powers (see the 9th & 10th amendments to the Constitution.) I also understand the word "state" to mean "nation", but since 1865, the 50 states have been little more than provinces or administrative districts. The only part of the Constitution that still seems to be in effect, according to the news media at least, is the first amendment, and of that, the only part that is enforced is the separation of church & state, which once meant that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (i.e., a limit on what Congress can do), but now means people can't pray at football games (a limit on what citizens can do.)

[J.Pluta]

From what I've read on the subject, democracies have always led to anarchy, which in turn led to tyranny. That seems to be the historical precedent, Ted. There is something stabilizing about having elected officials who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. In fact, some might argue that a certain amount of corruption is required as just that sort of incentive. I'd prefer to think that an enlightened elected body with a good social and moral sense would be able to accomplish the same thing - a general progression from yesterday's society to tomorrow's society, with a correspondingly more enlightened viewpoint on social ills. And up until the middle of the last century, I think we were making good progress. Unfortunately, the concept of entitlement seems to have crept into the fabric of social awareness, and the government and judicial system are being skewed towards giving people what they believe they deserve rather than providing the basic necessities for people to go out and earn those things. But that's a whole DIFFERENT subject. Joe

[Guest.Visitor]

More on the law suits. I just read (on CNN's web page) that the Florida Supreme Court has declared that the manual re-counts can proceed. It did not make any ruling that said the Secretary of State of Florida had to allow the re-counts in her 'certified' numbers. By not ruling, it left her the right (as outlined in the Florida State Constitution) to refuse the new counts. It also allowed for a future ruling. This of course is all moot (mute) if the Federal Supreme Court rules differently. -bret

[Guest.Visitor]

NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE To the citizens of the United States of America, In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The rt. hon. Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect: 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminum". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed". 2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. 3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. 4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. 5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through. 6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005. 7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "sh*t". 8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day". 9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for our own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. 10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy. Thank you for your cooperation

[Guest.Visitor]

Merde! Herb! :) In case you haven't noticed, many of our football players don't have problems playing with the ladies or cocaine or marijuana, or alcohol. No nukes. I have nothing against Quebec, but France....Ka-blooey!!! -Bret "I have a president elect, just don't know who yet" Myrick p.s. Gotta admit it though. The Limeys sure can bar-fight nicely. Beat on them and got beat on by them in 88 while in Belgium. Nice blokes. Black their eye one night and the next night the pints on them. :)

[nycsusan@hotmail.com]

Just heard breaking news that CNN is revisiting the outcome of the CIVIL WAR - it appears that it was too close to call and the South may still have a chance. Documents were found that support the fact that some people joined the wrong side - apparently they weren't aware that their states were part of the South and they were fighting for the North. A recount of all the battles are being simulated with new populations via computer to see who would have actually won. Right now it's just too close to call.

[T.Holt]

Susan said: <font color=blue>Just heard breaking news that CNN is revisiting the outcome of the CIVIL WAR - it appears that it was too close to call and the South may still have a chance.</font> That's the best news this Mississippi boy has heard all day. <IMG > SRC="http://home.earthlink.net/~tmeinen/faces/smile4.gif" ALT="smile" WIDTH="20" HEIGHT="20"> <center><img align="middle" > SRC="http://home.att.net/~rebeltex/Image/GIF/rebel_flagwave.gif" alt="Rebel Flag" width="68" height="50"></center>

[Guest.Visitor]

I guess your referring to an absolute democracy!?! (As opposed to a Democratic republic, or a Democratic constitutional monarchy). Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

Ted Holt wrote: people can't pray at football games BALONEY!!! People have prayed at football games for many years. Particularly if their team is not meeting the point spread! There is also prayer in school. I remember taking a lot of final exams where an occasional prayer was anwered. What you can't have is an organized effort. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

ROFL. Nice graphics Ted, you made my morning. Dave

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

Joe wrote: <font color=blue>Unfortunately, the concept of entitlement seems to have crept into the fabric of social awareness, and the government and judicial system are being skewed towards giving people what they believe they deserve rather than providing the basic necessities for people to go out and earn those things.</font> So Joe, puting the constititional question aside, would you prefer that all of these people who do not have jobs live on the street and beg or simply slink off and die?

[J.Pluta]

So Joe, puting the constititional question aside, would you prefer that all of these people who do not have jobs live on the street and beg or simply slink off and die? Please don't read into my words things that aren't there. The Constitution provides for "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". To that end, I think up through the 1960's we were in the process of making sure that meant every individual had equal access to things like housing, education and medical care. I believe everybody has a right to those things. I also think that there are serious flaws in our distribution of those things to the needy, flaws that help to engender a permanent underclass, but that's yet a DIFFERENT discussion. However, the spate of "idiot lawsuits" in the 70's and beyond have changed that direction, perhaps forever. The recent discussion on discrimination is where we begin to find the concept tipping from access to entitlement; as an employer, I should be able to choose the best qualified candidate. If I can justify that an older person is better fit for a given position than a younger person, than I should be able to choose that way. A scenario might be a sales position for life insurance or geriatric supplies. On the other hand, a younger person might conceivably fit a position better than an older one. If I needed to hire an actor to play Martin Luther King, Jr., I ought to not hear screams of "racism" if I insist on casting an African-American. Yet you know darned well that SOMEONE in our country might make just that kind of claim. These are the same people who sue McDonalds because they spilled hot coffee on themselves. In a recent situation here in Illinois, a family is suing a local police department because they DIDN'T arrest their son for drunk driving, and he went on and killed himself. Well, I don't know about you, but to me the fact that this idiot got behind the wheel after getting smashed is pretty much his own fault. If anybody else should be held responsible, it's his parents, not the police. But they're cetainly not going to take responsibility, they'd rather find someone to sue. And that's where I have a beef in our over-litigious society. How many lawsuits have you found where the basic premise was: "You didn't stop me from being a complete and utter idiot, so I'm going to sue you"? And more and more, people seem to think that's okay - that's one way I see entitlement creeping into our society. By the way, the kid was at double the legal limit in our state, or about .15 BAC. I know for a fact that you can quite easily function on .15 BAC and get out of a ticket, especially if you're a regular drinker. And chances are that if the kid got behind the wheel drunk, this wasn't his first time doing so. Anyway, my comments on entitlement don't have anything to do with people whome life has thrown a curveball. They should have the right to food, shelter and medical care, and the opportunity to avail themselves of education and training so as to become self-sufficient. But once they get to self-sufficiency, it's a competitive world, and you have to decide where you want to be and how you're going to get there. And the answer should be how much you're willing to do, NOT who you're willing to sue. Joe

[Guest.Visitor]

David Abramowitz wrote (regarding prayer in school and football games): "What you can't have is an organized effort." Actually the definition is that you cannot have a teacher or other school official lead or hold the prayer. In Texas a student lost a battle with the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year when she led prayer at a ball game. The Court said no at all. Guess what, the next week and following since, the prayers have still been led, just not by an official. She said she'd go to jail if need be. She's called a radical disenter by many for her statement. As opposed to the FL. electorate who said she would cast for vote for Gore/Liberman regardless of the popular vote or law. Said she'd go to jail before she cast it for Bush/Cheney. She's considered a hero. Go figure. -bret

[T.Holt]

I think you guys missed my point. The Constitution says repeatedly, "Congress shall make no law ...". This is a limitation on gov't. The Constitution does not say, "The people shall not ...", but nowadays the limits are placed on citizens instead.

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

Joe, I agree 100%. It's like a lot of things in this country. We see one or two successful suits so now everyone thinks there is "feee and easy" money available and they don't have to take responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately, the ones deciding that this is a good thing are the jurors that feel corporations have all this money and can afford to pay these judgements. Which they usually have and can afford, which is a completely DIFFERENT discussion. My father taught me from a very early age that "There is no such thing as found money" The only way to break this cycle is for people to take responsibility for their actions. The "real" question is "How do we do that?"

[T.Holt]

Chris said: <font color=blue>The only way to break this cycle is for people to take responsibility for their actions. The "real" question is "How do we do that?" </font> You hit the nail on the head, Chris! Well spoken! I don't have the answer, but I have two observations: (1) Freedom & responsibility seem to be two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. So maybe another way to phrase the question is "How do you force people to be free?" (2) The handout method doesn't seem to be working.

[J.Pluta]

Chris said: The only way to break this cycle is for people to take responsibility for their actions. The "real" question is "How do we do that?" <HR> Ted Said: "You hit the nail on the head, Chris! Well spoken! I don't have the answer, but I have two observations: (1) Freedom & responsibility seem to be two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. So maybe another way to phrase the question is "How do you force people to be free?" (2) The handout method doesn't seem to be working." <HR> Interestingly enough, one of the tenets of 12-step programs is an acceptance of responsibility for ones own actions: accepting consequences, no matter how unpleasant, as part of the freedom of making choices. This refusal to blame others for the outcome of ones decisions seems to be the single most powerful agent in the ability for people to recover from various addictions where otherwise they couldn't. It seems that freedom does INDEED have a very close relationship with responsibility. Acknowledging that what happens to me is almost entirely a consequence of my decisions is a very freeing and empowering concept. It's also very frightening because I HAVE NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME. Wow. Just think of the ramifications! I got a ticket not because the cop was trying to fill his quota, but because I WAS SPEEDING. My insurance went up not because the insurance companies are ruthless gougers, but because I GOT TOO MANY TICKETS. I burned myself not because McDonald's didn't warn me that coffee is hot, but because I SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DRIVING AND OPENING HOT COFFEE AT THE SAME TIME. I didn't get hired not because the HR person was biased but because I DON'T HAVE THE REQUISITE SKILLS AT THE MOST AFFORDABLE COST. I got fired because not because the manager had it in for me, but because I DIDN'T DO A GOOD ENOUGH JOB. Looking at things from that standpoint is a very chilling prospect because, in the end, your success or failure depends on how hard you want to succeed or fail. Sure, there are bumps and lumps and unfairness and outright cruelty along the way, but they're everywhere. Nobody said life was fair - not even in the Constitution. Instead, the challenge is in how you rise above those problems, how you move on with your life. If someone else doesn't hit those bumps, be HAPPY for them, applaud their good fortune in avoiding some of life's vicissitudes. Don't try to drag them down to your level just because your life isn't as easy. If you're alive and reading this message, you're already way ahead of the game, so grab it with both hands and exult in your opportunities! Are they as good as EVERYBODY else's? Heck no, but that's the game! If it were a perfectly level playing field, then the race would always go to the swift and the battle to the strong; but life isn't that way. Cherish it! Make your mark! Swin g from the heels, prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and accept whatever falls in between! Um. Sorry. Got carried away for a moment there. And THIS, folks, after having two wisdom teeth extracted on local anaesthetic. Must be the water... Joe

[Guest.Visitor]

Ted Holt asked: How do you force people to be free? I dunno, but I've met a lot of people who were at least 50% off! :-) It's Friday, and that's my excuse. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

We in the UK cannot understand how it is just Florida that has the problem. How come the others are OK ? It is providing good ammunition for the comedians... Our way in the UK is a bit old fashioned - a list of candidates and you get a pencil and put a cross in the box next to your choice. We vote for the local candidate belonging to the party rather than the leader himself. He/her has to win their constituency to lead after the election though !!! The party with the most constituencies wins. Easy...

[Guest.Visitor]

The U.S. form of government is not parliamentary. Here, you vote for the candidate not for the party. The laws that cover balloting, are a province of the individual state government, not the federal government. So, it's possible to have mechanical balloting in New York, Electronic Baloting in New Jersey, Internet Balloting in Arizona, and Punch Card balloting in Texas and Florida. The laws regarding the validity and recounting of ballots also vary from state to state. For instance one state recently enacted laws stating to the effect, that if a machine count was challenged, the ballots must be counted manually, and that hanging, and dimpled chads should be counted. That state is Texas, and the bill was signed into law by Govenor George W. Bush. (Source - USA Today). Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

But does that Texas law apply to Flori-duh; that's where I thought the contention was. bobh

[Guest.Visitor]

Nope. Florida laws are vague in this regard. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

Then should Flori-duh adopt Texas laws? Also, the constitution of 1789 does not require states to have a public selection of electors; The legislature of any state may do so regardless of any sentiment expressed by chad , dimples, holes or endless recounts. I'm contributing to the whole deal by upgrading the Pledge of Allegiance: So far I've got: ....One Nation under CHAD with dimples and recounts for AL. bobh

[D.Handy]

David, <font color=blue>"The laws that cover balloting, are a province of the individual state government, not the federal government. So, it's possible to have mechanical balloting in New York, Electronic Baloting in New Jersey, Internet Balloting in Arizona, and Punch Card balloting in Texas and Florida."</font> And the method can vary by county within a state, if the method is approved by the state. Here in FL, there are four basic types ballot counting: punch card (24 counties), optical mark sensing (41 countines), mechanical voting machine (1 county), and "Manually Tabulated Paper Ballots" (1 county). The punch cards are subdivided into Votomatic (15 counties) and DataVote (9 counties with a 10th using it only for absentee ballots). You can see a summary at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/table.shtml and what individual counties use at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/cvs.shtml I found it interesting to go back to these tables today after reading this on CNN: <font color=red>Gore also sought to explain why he sought recounts only in a few counties. He said those counties where the disputed ballots were cast were more likely to have "old and cheap, outdated machinery" at the polling places. </font> Hmmm. Checking the FL listings given above, there are 12 other counties using the same Votomatic machines, and 9 other counties using other punch ballots. Gee, I wonder why just 3 of the 24 counties were singled out? Doug

[Guest.Visitor]

IMO, If any state legislature selects the electors, rather than the voters, they will not be in the state legislature very long.......and they know it. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

There are only two states (Nebraska and Maine) that have opted to follow this formula. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

Doug Handy wrote: I wonder why just 3 of the 24 counties were singled out? In all seriousness, while many counties used the punch card method, only Palm Beach county used the "Butterfly" ballot. It was also demonstrated that some precincts in Dade county had defective holders, that would not allow the chad to break no matter how hard you tried. In other areas, the holder was out of alignment. The complaints did not start after the results. They started at the polling places, and escalated when voters were not given the opportunity to discard the original attempt, and then retry. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

Doug: You were wondering why only 3 of the 24 counties were singled out? Actually it was 4 counties where Gore requested recounts. What has gotten lost in all of the prejudiced rhetoric is that under Florida law, any candidate (within 72 hours) can request a manual recount of 4 counties of their choice. On election night, Broward county had less than a 1/10 of 1% difference that separated the 2 candidates. This triggered an automatic machine recount, which cut the margin even more. Gore requested a manual recount of the whole state, but, by law, was limited to 4 counties of his choice. So of course he chose 4 democratic counties. The manual recount of 3 of those counties has yet to be completed.

[Guest.Visitor]

David: Another interesting twist in Florida: If the legislature chooses the electors, the governor (George Jr's brother who has recused himself) has to sign off on it to make it official.

[D.Handy]

David, <font color=blue>"In all seriousness, while many counties used the punch card method, only Palm Beach county used the "Butterfly" ballot."</font> True, but that really has little to do with the recounts. That has more to do with the number of overvotes or people who claim they unintentionally voted for the wrong candidate. That is a separate issue (and court case) from the recount. The recount does not attempt to consider intent in those cases. The recount is more for the undervotes, where there is a single indentation or hanging chad, etc. In this respect, Palm Beach is like the other counties which used punch ballots. <font color=blue>"It was also demonstrated that some precincts in Dade county had defective holders, that would not allow the chad to break no matter how hard you tried. In other areas, the holder was out of alignment."</font> I'd heard of misaligned printing of ballots in Palm Beach (where the arrows did not align to the holes), but this is the first I've heard of problems with the holders themselves in Dade. I'm not disputing it can be true -- the design of the things is such I find it very plausible. What I am saying is that, to me at least, Gore looks silly saying the counties were chosen because of the outdated equipment when 15 counties use the exact same thing and nine others a very similar method. Had he said it was because of misaligned ballots or holders, or defective holders which resulted in undervotes, he would have come closer to at least appearing to seek an accurate recount. Incidentally, another county which uses the same Votomatic machines is Duval county (Jacksonville) where about 27,000 ballots were ignored for undervotes or overvotes. But then Duval county is heavily Republican, so maybe Gore doesn't care as much about making sure the election isn't over until every vote is counted there. My point is that undervotes are a fact of life with punch ballots, and I haven't seen anything which makes me believe the percentage of them in those counties is higher than other places. So why sue only two or three? I'll agree the butterfly ballot may have caused some confusion and miscast votes or overvotes (although the ballot seems obvious to me). But that has nothing to do with the recount. I also find it disingenious to harp how every vote must count if you can determine the intent of the voter, while at the same time suing to get military votes thrown out for lack of a postmark which is obviously not the fault of the voter. Since military absentee ballots are mailed postage free (and therefore has nothing to cancel with a postmark), I can see why some mail handlers didn't understand the importance of a postmark, especially if they were under time pressure to meet a pickup schedule. Or for that matter, to try to throw out over 10,000 perfectly valid absentee ballots plus another 4,700 absentee ballots where the integrity or intent of the vote is not in question -- just the application. And from what I hear that wasn't even the applicants' fault. Some of the Republican application forms mistakenly asked for the voter's birthdate instead of the registration number. Could it be that their votes of undisputed intention (and especially the other over 10,000 perfectly valid votes) are somehow less important to "democracy" than 10,000 undervotes? Or just less important to a Democratic win? When it comes down to the court cases, it is instructive to remember they are called a "court of law", and NOT a "court of justice". There is an important distinction there, and they are aptly named. Doug

[Guest.Visitor]

<font color=blue>We in the UK cannot understand how it is just Florida that has the problem.</font> I know, I know, you gave us the language, you gave us Benny Hill, you gave us Are You Being Served, you had to do everything first didn't you. Does UK agonize over disqualified overseas ballots lacking postmarks too?

[D.Handy]

Mike, <font color=blue>"Gore requested a manual recount of the whole state,"</font> "Request" is arguably strong; I'd say he "offered to allow" a manual recount of the whole state. But since it wasn't until after the stuatory deadline for requesting recounts, I put it more in the category of PR spin. Neither Gore, Bush, nor even the state has the authority to offer a complete recount. And it is not even clear yet whether the courts would have the authority to mandate a full recount of the entire state. I think Gore made the statement for spin value -- he knew it couldn't happen so it is safe to offer. <font color=blue>"but, by law, was limited to 4 counties of his choice."</font> Thanks; I'll go look that up. That is news to me, especially since Gore's staff claims they would have asked for a recount in Duval county had they known how many under/overvotes there were prior to the 72-hour request deadline. But since the 72 hours were past, I took it as just more rheotoric spin. Doug

[Guest.Visitor]

Doug: On November 8, Gore, under Florida law, asked for a manual recount of the following 4 counties: Broward, Nassau, Palm Beach, and Miami/Dade. He did request the whole state, but learned that Florida law only allowed up to 4 counties. He chose those 4. It had nothing to do with spinning. He would have loved to have the whole state, including Duval county, recounted. Bush (and any other candidate) also had the right to choose 4 counties to recount, but chose not to. Only Nassau county completed the manual recount and it was included in the certified count.

[Guest.Visitor]

David, The USA Today article is not entirely correct. Dimpled chads are not counted in Texas. As a resident (Democrat) I looked into this a few weeks ago, because I knew that Gov. Bush had signed a law that allows for hand recounts. While the dimpled chad was referenced, it made it clear that unless the chad was missing entirely, it could not be counted by the hand count. If the machine read the dimpled, hanging, swinging, pregnant chad, the count would be honored. The hand count that he signed into law does not follow strictures or precidence as we Dems would believe. What it did was virtually extend the counties the ability to hand count and not have to buy punch machines or other mechanical devices as we all feel that they are obsolete and need to be replaced. I wish someone would print whole truths, not just excerpts from such. -bret

[Guest.Visitor]

Bob Hamilton wrote: "But does that Texas law apply to Flori-duh; that's where I thought the contention was." Exactly Bob. The laws of one state do not always apply to another. A good example of this is (again a Texas issue) that the Texas Board of Medical Advisors does not publish nor punish doctors who move to Texas who have been convicted and stripped of their license from another state. From the Feds, maybe, I don't know. We had a case of a Doctor who 'killed' four patients with wrong prescriptions and/or diagnosis in Oklahoma. He was stripped of his right to practice in Oklahoma because he was found by the review board to be under the influence of Cocaine in all cases. He, over the next year, failed every drug test. He moved to Texas and set up practice after passing the review board here. Guess what? Now he's on trial for 'killing' two more patients while under the influence of Cocaine. Some laws, IMHO MOST LAWS should be universal, but the rights of the states would be lessened by a Federal Law, which the Constitution protects against, as the states are sovreign nations. A republic if you will, not a democracy. -bret

[nycsusan@hotmail.com]

The laws of one state do not always apply to another. I do not believe anyone is saying that they should. The point of bringing up Texas' laws related to hand counting is because "W" himself signed off on it. In other words, Bush thought hand counts were a fair way to resolve things when it comes to his own backyard. I still say they should make this the half time entertainment at the Super Bowl. Let these guys parade around in swimsuits and have a "talent" competition like women do in the Miss America pageant, then the stadium crowd could vote with their applause.

[Guest.Visitor]

What I am saying is that, to me at least, Gore looks silly saying the counties were chosen because of the outdated equipment. What Gore actually said was that every vote should be counted, I am not aware of any reference by Gore to outdated equipment. <hr> Incidentally, another county which uses the same Votomatic machines is Duval county (Jacksonville) where about 27,000 ballots were ignored for undervotes or overvotes. But then Duval county is heavily Republican, so maybe Gore doesn't care as much about making sure the election isn't over until every vote is counted there. Gore has proposed recounting the entire state of Florida, but this has been rejected by the Republicans. Dave

[T.Holt]

Another article in support of the Electoral College, from Charley Reese, of the Orlando Sentinel. <a > href="http://orlandosentinel.com/automagic/columnists/2000-11-28/OPEDreese281128 00.html">http://orlandosentinel.com/automagic/columnists/2000-11-28/OPEDreese281 12800.html</a>

[D.Handy]

Mike, <font color=blue>"He did request the whole state,"</font> Can you point to any documentation of this? The first I heard of any mention of a recount of the whole state was well after the 72-hour period had lapsed. <font color=blue>"but learned that Florida law only allowed up to 4 counties. He chose those 4. It had nothing to do with spinning."</font> I can't find any reference in the FL statues to only alowing up to 4 counties to be requested. Can you tell me where it is? You may want to start here: <font color=red> The 2000 Florida Statutes Title IX ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS Chapter 102 Conducting Elections And Ascertaining The Results View Entire Chapter 102.166 Protest of election returns; procedure.-- (1) Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest. (2) Such protest shall be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 5 days after midnight of the date the election is held, whichever occurs later. (3) Before canvassing the returns of the election, the canvassing board shall: (a) When paper ballots are used, examine the tabulation of the paper ballots cast. (b) When voting machines are used, examine the counters on the machines of nonprinter machines or the printer-pac on printer machines. If there is a discrepancy between the returns and the counters of the machines or the printer-pac, the counters of such machines or the printer-pac shall be presumed correct. (c) When electronic or electromechanical equipment is used, the canvassing board shall examine precinct records and election returns. If there is a clerical error, such error shall be corrected by the county canvassing board. If there is a discrepancy which could affect the outcome of an election, the canvassing board may recount the ballots on the automatic tabulating equipment. (4)(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested. (b) Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 72 hours after midnight of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later. (c) The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. If a manual recount is authorized, the county canvassing board shall make a reasonable effort to notify each candidate whose race is being recounted of the time and place of such recount. (d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts. (5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall: (a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system; (b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or (c) Manually recount all ballots. (6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public. (7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows: (a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team. (b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent. (8) If the county canvassing board determines the need to verify the tabulation software, the county canvassing board shall request in writing that the Department of State verify the software. (9) When the Department of State verifies such software, the department shall: (a) Compare the software used to tabulate the votes with the software filed with the Department of State pursuant to s. 101.5607; and (b) Check the election parameters. (10) The Department of State shall respond to the county canvassing board within 3 working days. </font> Doug

[Guest.Visitor]

Susan Behrens suggested: Let these guys parade around in swimsuits and have a "talent" competition like women do in the Miss America pageant, Standard suits, tights, or thongs? Dave

[D.Handy]

David, <font color=blue>"I am not aware of any reference by Gore to outdated equipment."</font> Here is what Gore said at his new conference yesterday, as transcribed by CNN: <font color=red>"QUESTION: You keep talking about the importance of fairness. How is it fair for you to support a strategy by your lawyers that would result in the counting of undervotes in heavily Democratic Miami-Dade, but not in Republican counties? GORE: Well, we offered to have the hand count take place all over the state, Chip. And one thing to remember is that the old and cheap, outdated machinery is usually found in areas with populations that are of lower income, minorities, seniors on fixed incomes. For example, if you look at Orlando, the voting machines there are new and modern. And if you make a mistake then it'll automatically, I'm told -- I read this in one of the newspapers there -- that it automatically points out your mistake and gives you a new ballot. In the places where these older machines are found, you have that kind of problem."</font> Yet 15 counties use the Votomatic, and 9 more the DataVote punch cards. Incidentally, Orange county (Orlando) uses the ES&S OPTECH III-P Eagle & OPTECH IV-C voting system, which is an optical marksense reader (see http://www.essvote.com/ ). It is one of nine counties using that particular model, and one of 41 counties using optical marksense ballots. Doug

[T.Holt]

Here's another article in favor of the Electoral College, in case anybody's interested. <a > href="http://eagleforum.org/column/2000/nov00/00-11-29.shtml">http://eagleforum. org/column/2000/nov00/00-11-29.shtml</a>

[nycsusan@hotmail.com]

Okay, let's BALANCE this out a bit. For this to be a meaningful discussion, more than one viewpoint needs to be represented, otherwise it's preaching to the choir. Here are some articles for those who are interested in understanding the OTHER perspective. I found an article (in .pdf format) that is fair to BOTH sides of this issue. I found this article under the heading "A Brief History of the Electoral College along with pro's and con's and a selected bibliography" at this URL: http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm Here is an another article that points out the various viewpoints about the Electoral College, rather than just one. I find it noteworthy that this article is dated July 27, 2000, which is well before the Presidential Election. http://www.policy.com/news/dbrief/dbriefarc770.asp Here's a link to Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution U.S House of Representatives On the Direct Election of the President of the United States on September 4, 1997, which is also well before the current controversy began regarding the necessity of the Electoral College in our modern age. While this article does take a specific viewpoint, it presents the side of the debate that has been woefully underrepresented in this forum. http://www.lwv.org/where/promoting/election_bcain_testimony.html