Posted on 02/26/2004 4:07:35 AM PST by HankReardon
With the national election approaching, I'd like to be better informed about what happened in Florida 2000. Right now my view is that the Florida Supreme Court in a rogue act agreed to allow the changing of election rules after the election to attempt to enable the Democrats to count as votes improperly cast ballots. The Gore campaign blatantly choose to recount in the most predominately Democrat counties where their chances of manipulation was best. For the U.S. Supreme Court not to have stepped in and overruled the Florida Supremes and stop the goings on would have been neglect of duty. Seems very obvious to me but since many people stubbornly insist the President was "selected not elected" what is the objective, non-bias history of the events of the Florida election 2000.
"Let us assume that it is a month (or day) before the election. The Republicans and Democrats gather in a room and someone makes a proposal.
Assume, we are told, that the election hinges on Florida and the popular vote is very close. The losing candidate asks for a machine recount, but he still loses. Then he asks for a second machine recount, but he still loses. Then he asks for a manual recount that is limited to the counties where he is very popular, but he still loses.
Then he objects (successfully) to counting many ballots that favor his opponent--in this case, mostly military ballots from overseas on the grounds that the absentee ballots have no postmark, even though state regulations state that a postmark is not necessary. He still loses.
Now, should he be able to have a second round of manual recounts, limited only to counties where he is popular, with the people doing the manual recount (mainly members of his political party) counting any ballots as valid based on "what might have been" the voter's intent?
As the Miami-Dade elections supervisor said: "We look at the whole ballot and try to make judgments."
No rational candidate--before the election--would agree to that lopsided and patently unfair procedure. No one would conclude that such a system is more fair or accurate than a machine count or a hand count of all votes using the same standard throughout the state. But that is what Vice President Al Gore sought and what the Florida Supreme Court ordered last week. That was done only after knowing how people voted.
What the Florida Supreme Court has done is change the rules of the election after the votes were cast and after the court knew which method would produce a Gore victory.
To this scenario let me add one other little fact--the Florida statute, which states it is the secretary of state's responsibility to "obtain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation and interpretation of the election laws." The election laws cannot be uniform when special rules apply to certain counties, those that favor one of the candidates. That is why no candidate in his right mind would agree to the procedure that the Florida Supreme Court has mandated.
We might as well have Johnny Carson's "Carnac the Magnificent" decide who the next president shall be.
By Ronald D. Rotunda. University of Illinois law professor. November 26, 2000
------------------
Here's how I like to summarize it:
If 1 month before election, we strike this deal..would you take it?
If I lose the election, I get a recount, if I lose the recount I get another. If I lose again, I get a 3rd recount, this one manual, only in my best counties......with my people counting and my judges interpreting voters intent.
And I get to throw out absentees without a postmark, even though absentee military ballots don't use postmarks. A few other provisions...we'll get the courts to change the rules after the vote....and you or your people can't complain about it.
Fair enough?
Act like you are genuinely happy to hear from them. Tell them you knew that 6 different organizations had examined the ballots in Florida to show that Gore had really won. That you had never heard of Gore coming out on top of any of those recounts, but apparently this person had. Ask him which one it was so you can go print it out and use it the next time someone brings up Bush winning Florida.
Bush v. Gore should never-NEVER-have been heard by the Court.
No need. They ignored the prescribed procedure. What the hell gives?
For those who prefer the word "awarded," all presidents are "awarded" the presidency by the electorate/electoral college.
Bush won.
Gore lost.
Bush didn't lose.
Gore didn't win.
Gore conceded (at least twice).
Bush didn't concede.
The Florida Supreme Court tried to rewrite election law on the fly during the process.
The US Supreme Court kicked their butts and told them to shove it.
Dumbed down Florida Democrats didn't know how to cast ballots.
Dumbed down Florida Democrat voters think Al Gore and Pat Buchanan are the same person.
Democrats designed the ballots.
Chads happen.
Democrats didn't count all the absentee and military votes.
Gore won some of the other states strictly by vote fraud and not counting/disqualifying absentee/military ballots.
If Democrat vote fraud were eliminated and suppressed votes were counted, Bush would have won the popular vote by a landslide.
In fact, I routinely tell the liberals in my office that Al Gore tried to steal the election. I love the look on their faces when I say it.
Clear enough for you?
Hats off to a "Chicago Daley", who worked his tail off to steal the thing, but without the help of Sam "Momo" Giancana and the Cook County Democratic Machine ... he failed.
What gives is (short version):
The country is deeply and bitterly divided between incompatible visions of justice and even of reality.
Politicians all (for the most part) have the best jobs they ever will have, and are terrified of offending anyone lest they lose them.
Judges, who cannot lose their jobs, and who have a self-image of wise guardians, are stepping into the policymaking void with their own vision of justice and reality.
The void that judges occupy is created by an abdication of responsibility by elected officials.
The fear that underlies their abdication of responsibility is a fear of schism, even of civil war-which is probably realistic.
You must be awfully young, recently arrived from mars or totally clueless, to have lived through that period and not know exactly what happened.
You did not even need to seek out the information, it was everywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.