Not true, Congress was obligated to be involved.
The Florida legislature had those rights, but it had made it's choice on how the electors were to be selected. That failed, and there is nothing that automatically gives them the right to change their minds afterwards, unless they had clarified the matter before hand that if the election was a failure, they reserved the right to select delegates by some other means. If they did, then they should have. As for the Florida courts, they had a role to play, but it was only as an umpire to legitimately count readable votes, or as a judge to disqualify votes that could be proved to be gotten under some illegal circumstance. They had no legal option to recreate the counting system, or to tamper with the election results. Since merely recounting those lame chad things tampers with the count, they actually had no right to even consider doing that. The election failed. Period. Now, the ball had to go to the House, and the House, by meams of the Constitition, had the right to do what it wanted to do. It could have called the election for either party, it could have accepted a panel of delegates from the Florida legislature even if the legislature had been dumb enough to give away that right. But no one else had that right, either implicitly or constructively.
unless, again, the Florida legislature had given itself the right before the election in the case that the election failed. But that would be a situation that could be challenged in the courts anyways, as it is the responsibility of the government to see that the elections are valid, fair and interpretable. Florida's results were not, and any state that uses a voting system with a 2 or 3 percent margin error is in the same boat. I note that the new touch screen systems have a higher degree of error than those crappy chad systems, yet many states are switching over to them in a hurry. Something stinks, and we both assuredly know what it is, even if only one of us would ever admit it. It laid down the rules as to how votes were to be counted and the FSC UNconstitutionally stuck its snout into the mess which the USSC removed by returning the authority to the rules constitutionally laid down by the Florida legislature.
Utter crap. there is only one way to count votes, and a first grader could tell you. Where the elections results are tighter then the mechanical margins of error, there is no election, only a fraud, a sham of one, and a disgrace to our way of life. That we can send a man to the moon and yet not get a countable and accurate vote is a joke of the worst sort.
re NEVER was a problem in the first place until the RATS ginned up one. The same EXACT method of voting has been used FOR YEARS up here in RAT central, Cook County. Funny that OUR error rate was HIGHER than that of Florida yet no challenges were ever raised. WONDER WHY? </>
Good point. As a nation we have come to accept bullshit as a standard.
There is no question who won the state. EVERY SINGLE COUNT SHOWED BUSH THE WINNER. Only the terminally gullible, corrupt RATS or the utterly uninformed thought there was a problem there.
A patent falsehood. The machines can't produce an accurate result close enough to determine who won that election, and never will be able to. Floridians should be out with tar and feathers, but they don't care, and so one of our greatest traditions and principles sinks into the mud to never be seen again.
In no way did the government of Florida abrogate its responsibility. In fact, the controversy resulted from the RAT'S desire to PREVENT the governments rules from being followed.
NO, the govenrment of Florida had the responsibility ot hold a valid election. It did not, and the voters and the nation were ripped off, whether or not the winner was bush or gore. It's like marrying a virgin and having every guy in town come to give her a Fremch kiss at the wedding.
It is true that Congress could have gotten involved had the USSC not properly settled it but that was not necessary since the STATE had already certified the results as it was bound to do BY LAW.
If htat legal obligaition was valid, then so was the legal obligation to insure a clear and valid election process. You can't call it just for the things you want and not for the thinks you don't like, or we live in farce.