Seriously,, Is it a good day in America when...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 27, 2004, 5:31 pm

all of our election results have to be filtered through armies of lawyers?

Who let them in on this process?

In general it's saddening that we have to litigate even this.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 27, 2004, 5:35 pm

hey even better, is to have 60 THOUSAND ballets lost already in florida in one county alone. All thanks to Glenda Hood, who was personally appointed by Jeb Bush. Hey lets even go back to her being Mayor of Orlando, and now though charges, comes to find out her Campaign Cheif at the time, is now facing charges of fraud and various voter fraud by discarding Voters Reg. Cards.

Florida is so fucking Shady.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 27, 2004, 5:38 pm

Raistin wrote:hey even better, is to have 60 THOUSAND ballets lost already in florida in one county alone. All thanks to Glenda Hood, who was personally appointed by Jeb Bush. Hey lets even go back to her being Mayor of Orlando, and now though charges, comes to find out her Campaign Cheif at the time, is now facing charges of fraud and various voter fraud by discarding Voters Reg. Cards.

Florida is so fucking Shady.

That bitch was at my brothers wedding, and all i can remember of Glenda Hood was the fact that she was an egotistical stuck up bitch.

I remember her wanting to put some sort of monorail threw international drive, which would have driven out half of the small business there

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 27, 2004, 5:39 pm

Well Adex, had the American people not been robbed of a fair election in 2000 this election would not be like this. If you're looking for someone to blame, look to the inadequecies of the system and how both parties manipulate this to their advantage by disenfranchising voters, destroying ballots, and generally shitting on the great democracy that our founding fathers envisioned.

I agree that it is sad that the most powerful most technologically advanced nation to ever exist in the history of the world cannot competently run a true democracy as it was meant to be. I think it is good that we have these lawyers, because I think their main purpose is to protect the voters. The last thing we need is another court appointed president.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 27, 2004, 5:42 pm

I thought after the dust settled and 3rd parties were able to count, all recounts showed Bush winning.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 27, 2004, 5:46 pm

My point is the fact that there needed to be a recount in the first place proves that the system is faulty.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 27, 2004, 6:14 pm

I thought after the dust settled and 3rd parties were able to count, all recounts showed Bush winning.

No one won. The counts and recounts, no matter what "independant" sorce you take:

1. all resulted in vote count differences between the two major candidates that were well inside the margin of error, making any definitive answer impossible merely by recounting.

2. the vote count differences were dwarfed by the alleged issues. That is, the vote count difference was in the hundreds. The illegally discounting of "felony" voters that were not, in fact, comitters of a felony was in the thousands. That example is only one of various contested issues in FLA last election. (That particular issue, btw, thanks to the "army of lawyers" is being corrected this year.)

Unless you want to continue being a party hack (and frankly, that is where ost people prefer to be), the best thing you can say about FLA last election is that it was too close to call and no one really knows what the result *should* have been.

As for your first two questions:

all of our election results have to be filtered through armies of lawyers?

Most certainly this is a good thing. A better thing would be UN (or other neutral 3rd party) observers, but an "army of lawyers" is not too bad when it comes to making sure the process is fair.

Who let them in on this process?

Hard to say, but the most reasonable answer is Bush. That said, had FLA gone the other way (e.g. too close ot call but with the nominal victory going to Gore), and had FLA been a largely Democratic executive trying to close down all recounts and investigations, then I doubt Gore would have acted any differently (though maybe he would have, who knows). Basically, though, FLA was a huge pool of corruption - percieved if not actual. Bush's brother was the Govenor and Bush's campaign cordinator was the Secretary of State (the person in charge of certifying the vote count) in a State where Bush "won" by a slim slim majority based on the count that ended up being certified. The executive of that State government with all those Bush ties did everything it could to block any investigation or recount, in spite of the clear directive of the State's highest court. Under those conditions, no reasonable person can possibly discount the spectre of corruption, bias and it should not be at all suprising that people think the election was "stolen." In fact, it was very clearly stolen, its just that we don't know what the result would have been if it were not.

The process is terrible, unreliable and rife with avenues of potential corruption. The "army of lawyers" is what will be used to help ensure that corruption is kept to a minimum. You shouldn't fear them or be discouraged by their presence - unless, of course, like the Republican Congressman from Michigan - you oppose the likely result of a free and fair election.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 27, 2004, 6:58 pm

In everything we buy or do, there is an added price because of fear of lawsuits, or insurance against malpractice. Inserted on top of all of these processes seem to be lawyers.

From the 60,000ft view overhead, they seem to jump into the middle of everything, and take resources, while providing in return little.

Eventually this added load transfers to higher prices and taxes, and eventually ends up being removed from my wallet.

Now lawyers have found reason to insert themselves into the voting process.

Perhaps we could abstract their presense and the added money they cost one level and say they are there to protect against dishonesty. If so, Our own personal selfish actions through this route come around as a tax on all of us.

So, given that chain, can we say that immoral or corrupt actions lead to higher taxes?

maybe

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 27, 2004, 7:31 pm

I wish folks would stop trying to act as if all the cheating is by one party or another exclusively, or even majorly. Both camps have supporters that are willing to cheat to win. It's embarassing the system is still so easy to game after the last election. I guess you can blame that on the President too right?

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 27, 2004, 7:34 pm

No I blame the people who make the decisions. It just happens to be the Pres. Brother.

Now make voteing open for 2 weeks before elections. Ok cool. We couldnt get 1 day right, and we think we can get 2 1/2 weeks right? rofl yea ok

Neost · Post by **Neost** » October 27, 2004, 7:40 pm

A better thing would be UN (or other neutral 3rd party) observers

No such thing. You'd probably have to discover a long lost tribe somewhere in the jungles of Borneo that haven't ever had contact with the outside world to find someone that didn't have some type of bias towards the United States one way or the other.

I'll opt for the army of lawyers....

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 27, 2004, 7:45 pm

Neutral 3rd party? That must be Sweden! No, I'm pretty sure it's Sweden.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 27, 2004, 10:29 pm

There are no neutral third parties. In fact, if we depended on other coutnires to determine our elections for us, not only would that say so little of us as a nation, it would also allow for additional corruption within the election process from 3rd party interests that would be better served by having President A or President B taking the seat of power.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 28, 2004, 3:13 am

No wonder you all love Bush so much. You speak his language.

Observers != "determine our elections for us"

Some Canadians can correct me if I have this wrong, but I believe that Canada and most (all?) of Europe use UN observers for their elections. (It might not be the UN, but I am pretty certain some multinational cooperative organization monitors the elections). Those countries are still most certainly free democracies and don't feel afraid that observers "say so little of [them] as nation~~" nor, I am certain, do they feel such observers would ADD to the corruption.~~

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 28, 2004, 5:17 am

I dont like the idea of the UN controling any part of our election procedures. We need to show that we can run our own elections without help.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 28, 2004, 5:21 am

Sionistic wrote:I dont like the idea of the UN controling any part of our election procedures. We need to show that we can run our own elections without help.

It all becomes clear to me now; ya'll don't understand the difference between observing something and participating in it (outside quantum physics).

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 28, 2004, 5:23 am

What I mean to say by that is that I dont like any kind of control (political, influence, direct, etc.). Im not trying to say they are going to pick our next president.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 28, 2004, 9:35 am

There is no control....they are just standing over the peoples shoulder's and making sure they do it right....NO control...NO influence...just looking.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 28, 2004, 9:51 am

Except for if they claim there is wrongdoing where there isn't any.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » October 28, 2004, 1:47 pm

Except for if they claim there is wrongdoing where there isn't any.

Then the onus is on them to prove or at least explain why they are claiming something is wrong, which can be argued and settled in YOUR courts.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 28, 2004, 2:05 pm

...and further destabalize the process when people are looking for ghosts that don't exist. Or, the observers could find ways to directly influnece the voting tabulators, ect.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 28, 2004, 2:18 pm

They would just be observing. What are you afraid of? Do you know something for certain that many of us merely suspect? Something along the lines of what Michigan Rep. John Pappageorge has suggested?

I'll assume you are either paranoid and think that UN observers would intentionally lie about voter fraud they observed or you are worried that the observers might make the outcome more fair and you are concerned about what that would mean for Bush.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 28, 2004, 2:18 pm

Akaran_D wrote:...and further destabalize the process when people are looking for ghosts that don't exist. Or, the observers could find ways to directly influnece the voting tabulators, ect.

So you prefer a potentially corrupt election system over having non-partisan, 3rd party observers help ensure the system's integrity?

A lot of your comments lately have eschewed an extreme isolationist viewpoint, Akaran. I find that interesting.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » October 28, 2004, 3:14 pm

Sionistic wrote:I dont like the idea of the UN controling any part of our election procedures. We need to show that we can run our own elections without help.

Unfortunately, we've shown the complete opposite. And are in the process of doing it again.

A country that can't even run its own elections; and we're supposed to be insuring that Iraq is setup properly for elections? Please..

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 28, 2004, 3:46 pm

What I'm afraid of is if we can't show, in the model country for democracy, that we can hold an election properly it sets a very bad precedent and frankly, there's no excuse for our system to be this messy. We can fix this one on our own, thanks.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 28, 2004, 5:00 pm

Exactly, first off if we cant show we can run our elections properly, how are we going to do it abroad?
Second, yes, I think the UN (or at least a few units) could intentionaly lie, especially if Bush wins fair and square. Imagine if the UN is allowed to observe every single aspect of the election. Then Bush wins in a very close race. One word of even slight corruption in the process could send half the country in an uproar. Call me paranoid, but it would not give me a huge suprise.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 28, 2004, 5:25 pm

So you prefer a potentially corrupt election system over having non-partisan, 3rd party observers help ensure the system's integrity?

Given the choice between keeping the election under our own controll, yes. Given the choice of THIS election system and a revamp of it, I'd take the revamp in a heartbeat.

A lot of your comments lately have eschewed an extreme isolationist viewpoint, Akaran. I find that interesting.

Isolationism is not entirely a bad thing. If the rest of the world (read: countries that disagree with our current actions) thinks so little of us as they say you do, then perhaphs cutting our losses and concentrating on internal matters could make things better both local and abroad. I'm not saying we should become total isolationists, but scaling things back probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

Then again, I'm also pro-american imperalism and would have no moral issues directly taking controll of foreign nationalities that pose a direct threat to us. Nothing was ever solved by a comittie..

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 28, 2004, 5:54 pm

If the US feels so strong about giving democracies to other countries, then they should be willing to show the world how an election is suppose to be done the right way. (Unless they are corrupt, which I think they are)

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 28, 2004, 5:58 pm

What Akaran is demonstrating isn't really isolationism. It's unilateralism. It's basically Bush doctrine: We must be willing to assert our own freedom of action. We must continue to work to strengthen our power. Rather than be constrained by treaties and agreements, we must deploy our power to achieve certain global ends.

Incidentally, I don't disagree with this viewpoint.

Edit: That may not be entirely what Akaran means. Just my interpretation.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 28, 2004, 6:53 pm

Gore blew it in three ways

1. He was a shitty candidate and he ran from Bill Clinton rather than hugging him
2. His wife is a book burning whore
3. He only wanted recounts where he was sure it would benefit him, and refused to back a recall of the entire state, as such the supreme court rejected the case.