Reply With Quote
Naturally. They want the will of the people to be taken seriously, unless it is the will of people who don't vote (R) and aren't WASPS
Republicans whining about the "will of the people"....Did you get amnesia and forget these little gems?
1) "I've got the will of the people at my back," he said at the moment of victory. From here on out, bipartisanship means falling in line: "I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals." - Dubya Bush, 2004 after "winning" re-election
2)"I'm the decider and I decide what is best" - Dubya Bush, 2006
3) Year 2000 - George W. Bush, who had received 543,895 fewer popular votes in the presidential election than his opponent, Al Gore, had been installed as president by a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, yet he was rolling over the 50-50 Senate like he'd won a landslide.
Republicans said it was their duty to enact Bush's agenda all through his presidency, even when he had sunk to a 28% approval rating in the polls.
Lolwut?
Naturally. They want the will of the people to be taken seriously, unless it is the will of people who don't vote (R) and aren't WASPS
the fact that gore almost won without winning very many states or counties should of been the problem.
"very many states"
most red states have least people, and also, as the Tea Party shows, the least educated people. The electoral college and the Senate are profoundly undemocratic, because they are not proportional.
Repugs appeal to the lowest comment denominator, red-state and "Christian" dumb s and losers.
"They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests"It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
Stupid Cons ution.
the fact that gore almost won without winning very many states or counties should of been the problem.
It always gets in the way . . . .
That map doesn't mean . Gore WON the Popular vote, and it looks like that because America is still very rural and rural hicks vote Bush.
the fact that gore almost won without winning very many states or counties should of been the problem.
But yes, thank the Courts for handing Bush the electoral college.
electoral vote seemed to work the way it was designed, IMO
Ummm, republicans already got punched in the nuts. That's why democrats have complete control.
Miami Heat would seem to think they still deserve the kick in the nuts.
all cons utional.
The Bush appointment by the SC should not have even been considered if they had recounted all the votes in Florida instead of just select counties before the courts shut down the recount...
How about reading the decision carefully.
The Supreme Court effectively said that Florida had to follow their own election laws rather than favoring Gore.
If the recounts were properly supervised by both party officials, and piles of chads weren't discovered. FTR, Bush won the recount.
No, once they recounted all of Florida, Gore won....we could start a whole new thread on hanging chads, overcounts/undercounts, or the expulsion of many legitimate democratic-leaning supporters from the voter rolls by Jeb Bush and Katharine Harris...
More than three months after Democrat Al Gore conceded the hotly contested 2000 election, an independent hand recount of Florida's ballots released today says he would have lost anyway, even if officials would have allowed the hand count he requested.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/me...count_4-3.htmlIn the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
NO butterfly ballet votes needed..The study showed that if the two limited recounts had not been short-circuited -- the first by Florida county and state election officials and the second by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Bush would have held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard. But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or amore restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.
Washington PostThe study did not credit Gore with the thousands of votes lost as a result of the infamous butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County. Many voters using the ballot became confused by the listing of presidential candidates on two facing pages and punched Gore's name and one of the candidates next to him, nullifying their vote.
An examination of the Senate choices on those ballots indicates the mistakes were made overwhelmingly by Democrats and suggests that Gore lost about 8,000 votes because of the confusion. The Post study did not award those overvotes to Gore because no clear voter intent could be determined on a ballot where two candidates were marked. A similar analysis of the two-page presidential ballot in Duval County showed Gore lost about 7,000 votes, which also could
from the link you posted
In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.
Don't know if you noticed, I said a statewide recount, there was no state recount authorized, nor was there a mechanism for calling for a statewide recount in Florida...
This. Completely.
SC should never, never, never have taken the case.
I've heard it said the en banc judgment was so taken as to avoid setting a precedent, but how it could the SC ever avoid setting the precedent for holding a straight political plebiscite of the Supreme Court in disputed elections, after Bush v Gore?
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-29-2010 at 01:49 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
