We live in a Kakistocracy

[Annie]

You do know he meant preconceived, right?

Actually, no. I thought with the 'opening mind' deal, I might perchance be preconvinced or something.

 

[Annie]

but I have given proof in the posts in this thread all day long.

If you ask specific facts I will go get them for you.

But I hope you remember that is more than you were willing to do for me earlier.

I dont mind but please give me the same respect as I am willing to give you.

No silly, I'm not asking you to like me or agree with me or conceded diddlysquat. I'm asking you to do what you asked earlier, post links or clarify what you mean by a link. In this case, bold what you think important on a massive site OR summarize explaining where I can find the information you think important.

 

[Truthmatters]

You do know he meant preconceived, right?

Hey I have been known to creat wordss on the spot but it is never wiht intention or malace.

When Im thinking fast and typing fast it happens.

That is pretty much how all word were created.

 

[Truthmatters]

No silly, I'm not asking you to like me or agree with me or conceded diddlysquat. I'm asking you to do what you asked earlier, post links or clarify what you mean by a link. In this case, bold what you think important on a massive site OR summarize explaining where I can find the information you think important.

I try but so often its all important to the issue.

I just think there is no such thing as too much information.

 

[Annie]

I try but so often its all important to the issue.

I just think there is no such thing as too much information.

Sorry, you really don't want me to throw the entire Constitution at you, while discussing elections. Which btw, would be considerably less than what you were throwing in that link.

See, there is this thing called 'picking out the relevant' in what you are reading. The 'essential ideas'.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm


"DBT Online advised the Division of Elections of the likelihood that a significant number of false positives existed and made recommendations to reduce those numbers, according to Mr. Bruder.[62] He further asserted that DBT Online specifically suggested to state officials that narrow criteria be used in creating the lists, which would lower the false-positive rate, and therefore, minimize errors in the number of names matched.[63] Mr. Bruder testified that the company recommended, for example, that it develop criteria requiring an exact match on the first and middle names. Thus, a Floridian named Deborah Ann would not match with the name Ann Deborah.[64] But the Division of Elections favored more inclusive criteria and chose to “make it go both ways,” as Mr. Bruder recalls it.[65] In addition, he pointed out that state officials set parameters that required a 90 percent match in the last name, rather than an exact match.[66] Mr. Bruder insisted that “the state dictated to us that they wanted to go broader, and we did it in the fashion that they requested.”[67]"

but I did quote it

 

[Annie]

but I did quote it

That was what I was questioning before. Ok, so mistakes were made, we'll make that a 'given.' The solution is proposed. Hopefully acted upon. Just wait for the computer voting.

Personally, I'm all for paper ballots. ID the person with picture ID and give them a pencil. Drop ballot in a locked box. Problems solved.

 

[Truthmatters]

The things that were done wrong were done on purpose.

They tried to use the Felons list again in 2004 after KNOWING it disenfranchised voters in 2000.

The court cases made them drop their usage.

The attorney scandal is about just this kind of thing.

IT was purposeful.

 

[Care4all]

Thank you, good job of locating the Constitution. The time frame, that of choosing the electors, was the problem. Why end it? The counting was not stopping, just going on and on:

that day for electoral votes was weeks away from having to be in washington, your point on the congress picking this date is what k?

 

[no1tovote4]

If that were true then there would not be a means in our constitution to impeach a justice imo?

The means to impeach are not based in decisions but in actions. They can be impeached for breaking the law, not for ruling on a constitutionality issue.

 

[no1tovote4]

that day for electoral votes was weeks away from having to be in washington, your point on the congress picking this date is what k?

The constitutionality issue was based in the equal application of the law. At that time a hand recount with the same specifications must be applied throughout the state. Since they didn't have a system where they could apply the same rules throughout they needed to create them. Because this couldn't happen in the time before the certification, and so the entire state would not be disenfranchised the state realized they must certify with the results they had....

Did you ever read their decision. Even those on your side realized that there were Amendment 14 violations.

 

[no1tovote4]

It was a republican Congress....what else can I say?



Article 2 clearly shows that it is up to the States on federal elections, NOT the Feds...

And as a Florida resident at the time, Florida Law and its supreme court if in dispute, GOVERNED this florida election, NOT the Supreme Court...

This was a States issue and the US Supreme Court had no right to call this election off....period.

Care

However there were equal application problems within the law of the State. Remember Amendments? Read the 14th. Equal Protection laws make it so equal application applies. Since the laws didn't have a strong determining factor as to what votes count in hand recounts they found that the equal protection was not being handled correctly. 7 of 9 felt this way. 5 of 9 felt that a statewide hand recount after the legislation cemented rules that could be equally applied would fix the issue, there wasn't enough time for all of that.

 

[Truthmatters]

If that were true the scotus could overturn the constitution

 

[no1tovote4]

If that were true the scotus could overturn the constitution

And many people believe that poor decisions do exactly that. Imagine Dred Scott being decided today....

The SCOTUS ruled a while back that the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence were not a basis for ruling on rights of an individual.

Their decisions are profoundly effecting, hence the difficulty in actually getting the job.

 

[Truthmatters]

If they made a decision which went obviously agianst the constitution what would be the result.

I believe they could be impeached.

 

[no1tovote4]

If they made a decision which went obviously agianst the constitution what would be the result.

I believe they could be impeached.

They could be. However the likelihood of all 9 deciding in such a way or even 5 of 9 is so slim as to be almost impossible. The reality is that some of them vote against almost every decision they make, should they be impeached?

The reality is, if one is impeached for such political reasons, as happened in the past, they would never be convicted.

 

[no1tovote4]

Shoot, if one party had a truly unbreakable super-majority they could simply remove any and all they didn't like by systematically impeaching and removing them from office. But once again such a likelihood is so slim as to make it impossible.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

that day for electoral votes was weeks away from having to be in washington, your point on the congress picking this date is what k?

December 12 is, I believe, the day required to have certified all Electors to the Electoral College. The Supreme Court ruled on December 11, the order by Florida Supreme Court was just a couple days before that. There was NO time to do a manual recount of all ballots in Florida and be done in time for the deadline for certification.

Florida law is clear, a mandatory recount by machine occurs if the election is close, THAT happened. Either party can request certain counties be hand counted, Gore did that and those counties were recounted. Gore lost ALL 3 times, the official vote, the machine recount and the hand recount. He wanted a 3rd recount specifically to count under and over votes. He wanted to dictate what was and was not a vote for him. The "code word" was voter intent. He claimed that since most of one county was democratic it could not have intended to vote for Buchanan. He wanted those votes for himself and his proposal was that the county use a formula from past elections of what percentage voted for an independant candidate.


He wanted any card that had 2 punches for President to count for him if one of those punches was for him. He wanted any dimple, crease or mark on the puch spot for him to count as a vote for him if no other hole was punched, or as above if another hole was punched.

He didn't get what he wanted for the manual recount, the elected democratic officials in those counties refused to count them in the manner he wanted. He went back to court to force a third recount, in an effort to delay certification till past the federal deadline. This would ensure he had the most electoral votes in the college and would cause a crisis for the federal election laws since a specific minimum is required based on ALL states.

Florida law was met. he received his machine recount and he received his hand recount of selected counties. He also tried to shut out Bush on the third recount. Seeing what was happening with absentee ballots Bush wanted a ruling on that , which IF a third recount occurred would be his right.

The Supreme Court of Florida went against the lower court and ignored Florida law. If anyone deserved to be Impeached it was those 7 Democrats. The attempt by Gore to circumvent a federal election amounted to an attempted Coup.

I assure you if that Coup had succeeded we would have had an armed rebellion in this country against an illegal President.

 

[Annie]

that day for electoral votes was weeks away from having to be in washington, your point on the congress picking this date is what k?

No1 has done a very good job explaining SCOTUS and the 'illegality' part, which it was not.

As for the date, please go back to the section of the Constitution you posted, and I later highlighted about Congress being given the job regarding dates. THAT date was set by Congress.

 

[Gunny]

Pat Buhcannon himself estimates that around 8000 of his votes were specifically votes for Gore/ Lieberman...

And Matt, are you implying that because YOU did not have trouble reading the butterfly ballot (which is illegal in most states for a presidential election)
that the ten thousand people in west palm beach that claimed they did have a problem with it are just mentally retarded or LYING?

I disagree with you, the butterfly ballot was most certain NOT CLEAR ENOUGH for tens of thousands of citizens...they were disenfranchised of their vote for Gore due to this ballot layout.... and even if they were retarded, , they are still citizens and should have been given the same opportunity to vote as the other counties that had a single ballot for all presidential candidates instead of one that was split up on two pages....and many of the ones that were confused in the ballot box that checked the spot for pat buhcannon sp? by mistake, wrote Gore's name in the write name of presidential choice box, but those ballots were thrown out all together as a double vote, one for pat and one for gore.... an over vote....

And even though the elections coordinator for Palm Beach County picked this idiotic ballot to use, the Secretary of state, in charge of elections should have denied this ballot when it was sent in to her for approval....but she did not.

Perhaps voters should attempt to prove they have half the intelligence they think they do and read the instructions? Blaming the Secretary of State for a lack of reading and comprehension skills and/or intellectual laziness on the part of voters is a bit lame, IMO.

Regardless what Matt says, I'm more than willing to say that this alleged ten thousand people in West Palm Beach you claim had trouble with something as simple as a butterfly ballot ARE either lying or retarded.

Why do we continually have to make excuses for the intellectually lazy/just plain dumb, and dumb our system down to cater to them? Since you consider this type ballot to difficult, what exactly DO you consider an idiot-proof ballot?