Maybe Florida doesn't matter at all?

[Cheyenne]

NEW YORK POST
Friday,November 17,2000
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/16294.htm


Is Bob Beckel the only Democratic hired gun who
appears to be looking ahead with malign intent to Dec.
18, when the Electoral College will - presumably -
name the next president of the United States?

Or is he just the only Democratic hired gun willing to
admit it?

Beckel, a sometime TV talking head, managed Walter
Mondale's 1984 attempt to unseat Ronald Reagan. And
he runs an Arlington, Va.-based political strategy
consultancy which largely serves Democrats.

Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that
Beckel also "has begun a quiet intelligence-gathering
operation that could aid a last-ditch [Al] Gore strategy
in the Electoral College."

How so?

Beckel, according to the Journal, "has been checking
into the background of Republican electors, with an eye
toward persuading a handful of them to vote for Mr.
Gore."

The newspaper then quotes Beckel: "It is information
gathering on my part, using my own network . . . I call
on mostly Democrats, but some Republicans, too, and
ask, 'Who are these electors, and what do you know
about them?' I just wanted to know . . ."

But why would he want to know?

He wasn't returning phone calls yesterday.

But one Republican source confirmed that Beckel was
talking publicly about the GOP Florida electors almost
immediately after the political deadlock there
developed.

Again, why?

We're not naive. Negative research - digging up dirt on
opponents - is a reprehensible, but thoroughly common,
practice in American politics.

If you can get something on the other guy, you use it.
And if the election-eve news of George W. Bush's
quarter-century-old DWI arrest comes to mind in this
context, it should.

But digging up dirt on a presidential elector - if that is
what Beckel actually meant by "who are these electors,
and what do you know about them?" - has nothing to do
with politics.

Information of that sort isn't gathered by the idly curious.

It is gathered to induce secretly vulnerable individuals
to do things they might otherwise not do.

Perhaps, as the Journal put it, to "persuade a handful of
[Republican electors] to vote for Mr. Gore."

And if the word "blackmail" comes to mind, that's not
unreasonable either.

Consider this: If Gov. Bush does indeed carry Florida -
and who's to say he won't? - he'll approach the Dec.
18 Electoral College convocation with 271 nominally
pledged electors.

But most aren't legally required to vote for Bush at all.

Thus, as the Journal put it yesterday: "Three GOP
defections could make Mr. Gore president."

Is this such an outlandish notion?

Already, two of South Carolina's eight legally obligated
Bush electors have reported being approached about
actually voting for Gore.

And Beckel's "information gathering" simply cannot be
ignored.

Yesterday, Gore campaign honcho Bill Daley told The
Post's Brian Blomquist he considered Beckel to be
engaged in a "meaningless effort."

Which it obviously is.

Now.

Then Daley refused further comment.

Let's be clear here: There is no evident link between
Beckel's "information gathering" and the Gore
campaign.

But Beckel is a player in Democratic politics - and not
on the periphery, either. His close ties to former
Secretary of State Warren Christopher - now a key
adviser to Gore - are well known.

Because of the extraordinary nature of this election -
and the increasingly desperate, brass-knuckle,
rear-guard action Daley and his colleagues are fighting
in Florida - it is necessary that the essence of what
Beckel told the Journal be addressed directly.

What he implied is beyond ugly. It approaches, in the
classical sense of the word, treason.

And so it is necessary for Al Gore himself to explicitly
repudiate even a hint of an effort to subvert the means
by which America elects a president.

Without delay.

 

[Cheyenne]

And so it is necessary for Al Gore himself to explicitly
repudiate even a hint of an effort to subvert the means
by which America elects a president.

Without delay.

He did it. Good for him. I just listened to Gore speak as I was driving home from work. I heard the man say he would NOT accept any electoral votes that are pledged to Bush. He also supported the electoral college, and rebuked his own people for pointing out that he could win the popular vote and lose the election.

I am not a Gore supporter. But I will point out when he says something good, just as well as when he says something bad. Now, is it even possible for him to turn down electoral votes if they "belong" to Bush?

 

[Laurel]

That's a good question. I don't think that there's ever been a case when the electors have voted against the votes of their area, but I could be wrong. Daytripper? Weird Harold? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[scylis]

there has..
it didn't matter...

nine times (i think) in the history of the electoral college did an elector go against the people's choice..
nothing happened... didn't change the outcome of anything..

and everytime those electors put an end to their political carreer swiftly and totally... it's about as stupid as promising to raise taxes when running for office!! (something only done TWICE (to my knowledge) in the history of the USA.. Walter Mondale running for president, and this Palachek guy that just ran for Representative here in District 5 of Iowa this year)

[Edited by scylis on 11-21-2000 at 09:39 PM]

 

[Lasher]

It's happened 7 times that an elector has voted for someone other than who he was pledged for. Last time was in 1988 when one of Dukakis' electors cast his vote for Lloyd Bentsen instead. It's also happened as recently as as 1976, when one of Ford's electors voted for Ronald Reagan, and in 1968 one of Nixon's electors voted for McCarthy.

Of course, just because an elector votes, doesn't mean that vote is going to count. The Electoral College vote is approved during a joint session of Congress. The vote of any Elector can be challenged provided that challenge is brought by one member of each house of Congress. If that situation arises, then The House and Senate each vote separately on whether or not to accept the vote of the Elector, and the decision is based on a simple majority vote. However, for an Elector's vote to be rejected, it must be rejected by both Houses, a split between the House and the Senate means the Elector's vote stands as cast.

So, the possibility exists that after umpteen recounts Al Gore could find enough votes to "win" Florida. Come January 6th, Al Gore (as President of the Senate) would start reading off the votes of the various states' Electoral Colleges. He comes to Florida and says "25 For Al Gore... Yay, Me!!".... At that point a Republican Senator and a Republican Representative could stand up and say, "Hey, Al Gore, you're full of shit. There's no way the people of Florida voted for you...". So then your Republican controlled House could vote to reject the Electoral slate from the state of Florida, and possibly what might be a 51-49 Republican Senate could do the same. Uh-oh... Without Florida's 25 Electoral votes, neither candidate would have 270 electoral college votes when the counting is done, and the election would go to the House of Representatives, where the 28 states with Republican majority delegations would more than likely vote for Dubbaya.....

LMAO... This shit could drag on for a long time... And it ain't gonna be over until SOMEONE takes the oath of office.

 

[Daytripper]

So, the possibility exists that after umpteen recounts Al Gore could find enough votes to "win" Florida.

How very bipartisan of you. No matter how many times the GOP cronies try to spin this, Al Gore has asked for one recount and one hand count. Bush has fought every attempt by Gore to recount, even though other Republicans in Senate races have asked for and received handcounts.

Gore has also pledged to accept the results of this handcount. Bush has not - I repeat, not - pledged the same.

Today's court ruling specifically talks about a recount being allowed all over the state and suggests that that would be the best course...but the GOP didn't ask for one now or when offered by Gore earlier.

GW's handlers banked on blustering through with the incorrect machine counts and refused to consider recounting anything, including their counties. I am getting a sense that their legal counsel was not very good.

 

[Lasher]

How very bipartisan of you. No matter how many times the GOP cronies try to spin this, Al Gore has asked for one recount and one hand count. Bush has fought every attempt by Gore to recount, even though other Republicans in Senate races have asked for and received handcounts.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Regardless of which way the vote count goes, neither candidate is going to be able to safely claim a "win" in Florida. Period.

As far as bipartisanship goes... You've displayed a great deal of objectivity here. Well done.

Btw, I didn't vote for either of these Ya Hoos, and every day this drags on I feel better and better about that decision.

 

[Weird Harold]

Today's court ruling specifically talks about a recount being allowed all over the state and suggests that that would be the best course...but the GOP didn't ask for one now or when offered by Gore earlier.

Could you quote that part of the ruling please? I can't seem to find any such thing in the copy of the complete ruling I downloaded.



[Edited by Weird Harold on 11-21-2000 at 10:47 PM]

 

[Cheyenne]

[BToday's court ruling specifically talks about a recount being allowed all over the state and suggests that that would be the best course...but the GOP didn't ask for one now or when offered by Gore earlier.

Could you quote that part of the ruling please? I can't seem to find any such thing in the copy of the complete ruling I downloaded.

[/B]

Harold, you're assuming the lad can read better than he can hear. You know what happens when you "assume" don't you?

 

[Weird Harold]

Harold, you're assuming the lad can read better than he can hear. You know what happens when you "assume" don't you?

Nope, I'm not assuming anything. I suspect he's blowing smoke out of his ass again, but maybe I missed something. I'm not a lawyer after all, and the thing is 42 pages of legalese.

It is an interesting read though. It details the sequence of events, and how they relate to Florida and Federal laws. They explain at each step the logic behind their decision in such a way that most literate people will be able to follow their logic.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Today's court ruling specifically talks about a recount being allowed all over the state and suggests that that would be the best course...but the GOP didn't ask for one now or when offered by Gore earlier.

I agree that a hand recount of the whole state is the only truly just way that a hand recount could be done. As it is now, however, with only 4 primarily Democratic counties to be recounted, the Democrats can realistically only gain votes in the recount. Depending on how many votes the Democrats pick up, it may prove to be a fatal tactical error on the part of GWB to reject Gore's offer of a statewide hand recount.

At the time it was suggested, however, it was merely a piece of political theater. Gore offered it knowing he had nothing to lose since Bush would never accept the risk of a statewide recount with the assumption that the hand recounts in only the 4 counties could be ignored if they were submitted past the deadline. He stood to gain however, if precisely what happened tonight happened and the hand recounts were allowed to be certified late because he may now declare that he was a statewide recount all along.

The truth is that a statewide hand recount would have almost certainly confirmed Bush's election for the 3rd time. A UNLV statistician recently calculated that given the number of votes cast for President in Florida, that even as slim a victory as Bush won, the mathmatical probability of Gore making up the difference in a recount and winning the election is approximately 43 million to 1.

With odds like that, Bush may be the one doing the "fuzzy math" to try the courts over a statewide hand recount.

Of course, what those probabilities don't consider is the possibility of fraud. Human error will occur as well, of course, but equally for both candidates, negating its impact. Bush may or may not have rightly feared what would happen when partisans start trying to "determine the voter's intent".

It seems to me, though, that the winner of this election, whoever it will be, will have won it on strategy and not on the voters' will. Who can really say what that will truly was now?



[Edited by Oliver Clozoff on 11-21-2000 at 10:56 PM]

 

[Cheyenne]

Nope, I'm not assuming anything. I suspect he's blowing smoke out of his ass again, but maybe I missed something. I'm not a lawyer after all, and the thing is 42 pages of legalese.

My money is on Daytripper never responding with any support-can't you see the smoke tendrils from here?

 

[Daytripper]

[BToday's court ruling specifically talks about a recount being allowed all over the state and suggests that that would be the best course...but the GOP didn't ask for one now or when offered by Gore earlier.

Could you quote that part of the ruling please? I can't seem to find any such thing in the copy of the complete ruling I downloaded.

[/B]

Shit, I'll have to go back and read it again (which will be two more times than Cheyenne has read it. Really, do you ever have anything to say?).

As far as bipartisanship goes... You've displayed a great deal of objectivity here. Well done.

I'm not the one claiming to be bipartisan. I'm a registered Democrat, and proud to be.

 

[Daytripper]

I found it, Weird Harold:

Footnote #56:
At oral argument, we inquired as to whether the presidential candidates were interested in our consideration of a reopening of the opportunity to request recounts in any additional counties. Neither candidate requested such an opportunity.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Cheyenne]

Really, do you ever have anything to say?

Yes, I do. Your attention span appears to be just a little too short to be able to find and read it though. For political views, again, see Lasher's 8 ball thread. I'm not copying the post for you, Mr. Techie, you'll have to do the work to search for it and read it on your own.

And on that note, I'll leave you to your evening homework reading assignment. It's been fun, but I still have that accounting question to research tomorrow since you haven't come up with an answer for me yet from your superior knowledge on any and all subjects. G'Night, all!

 

[Laurel]

There was some wacko on CNN after the court decision was announced. They left the camera on, and you could hear him yelling in the background about stolen elections and making derogatory statements about black people which I won't post here. Ah, Florida - whatta town!

 

[Daytripper]

[b}
And on that note, I'll leave you to your evening homework reading assignment. It's been fun, but I still have that accounting question to research tomorrow since you haven't come up with an answer for me yet from your superior knowledge on any and all subjects. G'Night, all! [/B]

??

I could give a flying fuck about your accounting problem, my dear. I answered you earlier to keep the joke going but if you really think I'm going to fart around after some lameass accounting problem you're sadly mistaken. I hire people to do that shit. I don't need to know how my Big Mac is made, I just eat it.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all of your intelligent contributions to this political conversation. Without the random insults and the occasional shouts of "what he said!", it wouldn't have been the same.

 

[Weird Harold]

Footnote #56:
At oral argument, we inquired as to whether the presidential candidates were interested in our consideration of a reopening of the opportunity to request recounts in any additional counties. Neither candidate requested such an opportunity.

(emphasis mine)

Today's court ruling specifically talks about a recount being allowed all over the state and suggests that that would be the best course...

So you are saying then that a footnote about whether they were being asked to to consider additional recount after the deadline for a request had passed is a specific reference to a preference for a state-wide recount?

The paragraph that footnote goes with says:
Because of the unique circumstances and extraordinary importance of the present case, wherein the Florida Attorney General and the Florida Secretary of State have issued conflicting advisory opinions concerning the propriety of conducting manual recounts, and because of our reluctance to rewrite the Florida Election Code, we conclude that we must invoke the equitable powers of this Court to fashion a remedy that will allow a fair and expeditious resolution of the questions presented here.56
(emphasis mine)

It seems to me that they are simply noting the fact that neither side asked them to consider additional counties over and above those already involved in the case. Noting that fact in a footnote, makes it clear that they only considered the possiblity of the question arising, not that they "suggests that that would be the best course."

At least you did read the whole thing. Too bad your reading ability isn't up to understanding it as well.

 

[Daytripper]

Oh, you were doing so well up until that last part! Why throw in the random insult? I don't remember calling you names. Is it that much to ask to find someone on the right to discuss this with who can stay on topic without resorting to personal insults?

Actually the very fact that a complete state recount, very much out of the ordinary, was even suggested states a preference. It specifically states our consideration of a reopening of the opportunity to request recounts in any additional counties. It was suggested by the court. That they suggested it as an option speaks volumes, in my mind.

Your boy George and his buddies are attempting to circumvent the will of the people of Florida to win this election. If it were old Al trying to go around state laws, you would be screaming bloody murder, yet now you are strangely silent on the issue. Instead, you choose to nitpick my interpretation of a footnote! That says more than anything you've said thus far, my dear friend. Even the Republicans aren't backing the Republicans. They've gone too far this time. Pity.

You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that the court went very much against Katherine Harris and the other GOP partisans. They stated their reasons for doing so: they were following Florida state law, which values the right to a fair vote over any political expedient.

Jake Tapper stated it much better than I, so I shall quote him:

- - - - - -

- Harris' interpretation that hand recounts can only be acceptable when there is "error in the vote tabulation," which she deemed meant "error in the vote tabulation" system. She said that such a standard "only means a counting error resulting from incorrect election parameters or an error in the vote tabulating software," the court wrote. "We disagree."

- Former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker's -- and indeed, the entire Bush camp's -- assertion that machine recounts are preferable to hand recounts, since the latter is subject to "mischief" and "subjectivity." "Although error cannot be completely eliminated in any tabulation of the ballots," the court wrote, "our society has not yet gone so far as to place blind faith in machines. In almost all endeavors, including elections, humans routinely correct the errors of machines. For this very reason Florida law provides a human check."

- Harris' choice of the Florida statute that used the word "shall" when it came to her discretion to reject any recounts, instead of a conflicting statute that said that she "may" reject them. For one, the "may" language is in a more recently drafted statute, which gets preference. Additionally, other "mays" in another statute led the court to lean the "may" way. Ironically, the very overseas absentee ballots that have inflated Bush's lead to (as of 10:45 p.m. EST Tuesday) 930 votes helped Gore in this ruling. "In light of the fact that overseas ballots cannot be counted until after the seven-day deadline has expired," the court ruled that "the permissive language" should rule the dispute.

Most important, however, was the court's adherence to the first line in the state constitution. "All political power is inherent in the people." Harris could ignore this only under two circumstances: if rejecting the recount would have prevented a candidate, party or voter from contesting an election certification, or if somehow it prevented "Florida voters from participating fully in the federal electoral process."

"But to allow the Secretary to summarily disenfranchise innocent electors in an effort to punish dilatory" counties who didn't get their returns in on time "misses the constitutional mark," the court concluded.

 

[Daytripper]

By the way, I am leaving on vacation tomorrow night. I will be back, unless a hot Hawaiian babe pursuades me to stay. Wish I could say I'll miss you!

 

[Cheyenne]

I could give a flying fuck about your accounting problem, my dear. I answered you earlier to keep the joke going but if you really think I'm going to fart around after some lameass accounting problem you're sadly mistaken. I hire people to do that shit. I don't need to know how my Big Mac is made, I just eat it.

Really? Now you've gone from being a techie who administers networks for major corporations to being someone who hires and fires people to do accounting for you? That joke was funny when I used it on you (I eat people like you for lunch, or just edit them out of the budget before I approve it) on the other thread. Recycled, it just doesn't work for you here, dear, since you don't have the job position to make it credible. Just another of your wild claims.

Please be sure I never expected you to actually answer the accounting question, I'm sure you didn't even understand it. And I certainly wouldn't give any answer you'd come up with any serious consideration, I was just toying with you. The point all along was your bragging about your superior knowledge to mine on any subject I could dredge up. I dredged one up for you, and you ran. As always. I didn't even address your boasts in the other thread of being better educated than me or better paid. Just wasn't worth my time or the giving up of the personal information to disprove thoses boasts. It was easier to go after your outlandish knowledge claim with a simple example to prove you wrong.

You make yourself such an easy target, Daytripper. Tone down the boasts and the exaggerations, and you'll be fine. Otherwise, the rest of us will continue to challenge you to prove them every time you do it.

 

[Weird Harold]

Oh, you were doing so well up until that last part! Why throw in the random insult? I don't remember calling you names. Is it that much to ask to find someone on the right to discuss this with who can stay on topic without resorting to personal insults?

It was NOT a random insult. It was a reasoned observation that you obviously read things into a footnote that were not semantically justified.

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically "on the right"? If you paid any attention to the other threads on the election, You would already know that I voted for "nunya bums".

Again you demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension skills by assuming that because I challenged your interpretation of the footnotes of the ruling, I don't agree with the ruling.

In fact, I'm an apolitical moderate who refused to vote for a lesser of two evils. For me, the ideal result would be for the electoral college to vote their consciences and draft some total unknown who doesn't want the job. It will never happen, but I can always live with the thin hope that the electors will all be stricken with a sudden attack of common sense.