Was it ever possible for authority to pass legitimately in the US's 2000 elections

[KillerMuffin]

I've noticed a general trend by listening around here and on the campus.

Democrats or liberal supporters generally say: "Bush stole the election."

Republicans or conservative supporters generally say: "Gore tried to steal the election."

It's hard to find someone who doesn't think one or the other candidates had some shady dealings in Florida. First there was the ballots. Then there was Jed (Jeb?) at the top of the mess. On the other side of the coin there was a battle to stop counts and recounts on votes in republican dominated counties and on republican dominated absentee ballots. Oddly enough Gore's team only wanted to recount ballots in places like Democrat dominated Dade county.

Neither side behaved with anything remotely approaching ethical conduct in Florida. I would thank everyone to not argue this point because facts are facts. Everyone behaved badly, let's move on.

The interesting part of this is that no matter who won about half of the country would be saying "He stole the election!" The implication is that half of the country does not view the person in the Presidency as a legitimate authority. p_p_man doesn't count because his absentee ballot was rejected.

Legitimacy is one of the cornerstone principles in government. In order for a government to be effective the people it governs must recognize that power to be a legitimate power. US President's don't have the luxury of Castro's Instant Legitimacy Campaign. They have to rely on the American people going along with it.

This election, probably unprecedented, half of the country isn't fully going along with it. No matter which one had gotten in office, half of the country wouldn't have fully gone along with the notion that this particularly presidency was passed along with legitmacy. It's pretty much a no-win situation for the constituency and the presidency. How can either man have done an effective job without full legitimacy?

Thoughts? Discussion?

 

[Purple Haze]

Half of the country didn't vote for either candidate.

 

[kotori]

Half of the country didn't vote for either candidate.

Yeah, but since they declined to express an opinion on Election Day, I don't care about their opinion now.

I think you're right, KM. Either way, 50% of the voters (better now, Haze?) would have felt dissed. That's the problem with a tie. Who you gonna give it to?

I think we're in an unprecedented period, where in spite of who's sitting in the Oval Office, it's the Office of President itself that people have faith in (to what ever extent that may be). Dubya's had his hearing in Court and his trial by fire. If he doesn't try to over-play a really weak hand, he may get out of this okay.

 

[Star At Sunrise]

Excellent Thread

Great thread! Thanks! I find this stuff interesting to read in other boards because of the extreme reactions it provokes. I predict it will be only 3 more posts before someone starts calling names!

Personally, I'm a moderate Democrat, but I think angry Dems need to get over their anger. Channel that energy into something positive. Join a "get out the vote" drive. Picket until they update the voting machines. But endless debate about Florida won't change the result. The President is the one who takes the oath of office. End of debate.

Angry Dems don't seem to remember the constant whining after '92 about how Clinton wasn't a majority President, losing more votes to Bush and Perot. Republicans are strangely silent now, since Gore won the majority of the popular vote in '00.

But even looking at the Florida recount through partisan eyes, (and I even read the book about it that was published by the Miami Herald), I can say that the election mess was just that, a big MESS, and under some scenarios Gore wins, and under others, Bush wins. But Bush ended up winning, and going over the details about who did what isn't going to make anyone feel better, change anyones opinions, or change the fact that Bush is President.

Personally, I'm a little disturbed that the leader of the free world has trouble forming a coherent, complete sentence on his own, but that's another story. (Seeing Jeb at a news conference made me think "OMG, they elected the wrong Bush.")

No one would have won in that situation, and been considered legitimate. You're fooling yourself if you think that the Republicans wouldn't have raised a hue and cry if Gore had ended up with the decision.

The real fact is, the election was screwed up by screwed up mistakes. The ballots were confusing too, but the real problem was simple. Let me tell you A TRUE STORY:

Back in High School, my class was doing a project that required us to punch holes in class papers and put them into 3 ring notebooks. So the teacher got us two of those big table hole punchers that punch all three holes at the same time. It is a heavy tool with a rubber base, and you stick the edge of the paper inside a hinge opening, and press it shut to punch the holes.

Well, both of the hole punchers were old and worked like crap, not tearing through the paper completely. One was so useless, people stopped using it altogether. So people were lined up to take their turn at the only one that worked halfway well. Others decided to make their own holes by punching through the paper with pencils, tearing their paper up, ect.

Now, I'm not the brightest tack in the bunch, but while I was waiting for my turn at the working hole puncher, I examined the non-working one.

I pried the rubber base off the bottom of the "broken" hole puncher. Years of packed in chads fell to the ground like snow. TONS of them.

I cleaned out the other hole puncher, and it was like we suddenly had two new hole punchers.

"Chads" may sound funny, but they're real! And it's totally believable that they screw up ballots all the time all over the country. It's not because of some evil plan, it's just that elections use a lot of volunteers, and I'm willing to betcha hardly anyone even THINKS of cleaning chads out of the machine!

 

[jass1960]

Re: Excellent Thread

Great thread! Thanks! I find this stuff interesting to read in other boards because of the extreme reactions it provokes. I predict it will be only 3 more posts before someone starts calling names!

Only 3?

You wanker!!!

 

[Star At Sunrise]

Aggg! You don't know anything about politics!!! All of you are crazed monkeyroosterlovin' election thinkers! Hah! That's right! I called you Election Thinkers! What do you think about that? Hah, take that, you dumb Republicrats! Hah! Books are for stupid people! Hah!

Whew! You found me out. All I wanted to do was get in a flame war here, so I invited my name calling.

Anyway, whatever you think about politics... YOU'RE WRONG!!! WRONG, I SAY!!!

 

[KillerMuffin]

http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/viewnq.cfm?uc_full_date=20020414&uc_comic=nq&uc_daction=X


Star, look for threads started by p_p_man for a really good flame war. Bring something to stick in your hind teeth to keep from grinding them into a nub.



I wonder if the Fiasco of '00 is going to get more people out to vote next time. Or if the news media is going to be allowed to "predict" or "give" states to candidates prior to the final result tallies.

 

[REDWAVE]

No legitimacy to begin with

The U.S. is not a democracy and never has been. It is an oligarchy ruled by the rich. The public only gets to vote on candidates which have been approved by the rich to begin with. Democracy in America is a farce and a sham.

But in the last election, even the pretence of democracy was abandoned. Gore clearly won the election. He won a plurality of the popular vote, and he really won in Florida too. The real story there is the massive disenfranchisement of black voters by Jeb Bush and his cronies, mainly by having their names removed from the voting rolls in advance. The Bush regime has no legitimacy whatsoever.

 

[RawHumor]

Re: No legitimacy to begin with

The Bush regime has no legitimacy whatsoever.

I think you have your real answer right there.

If REDWAVE says it, it must not be true by his very nature.

Therefore, Bush won ligitimately.


How's THAT for logic?

 

[KillerMuffin]

Red, it's a fact of life, if Bush had no legitimate authority whatsoever he wouldn't be in the White House. Unfortunately, whether you recognize him or our system of government as legitimate or not is moot since the majority does recognize its legitimacy and does recognize Bush's legitimacy.

I'm not using legitimate on an individual level.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Re: No legitimacy to begin with

The U.S. is not a democracy and never has been. It is an oligarchy ruled by the rich. The public only gets to vote on candidates which have been approved by the rich to begin with. Democracy in America is a farce and a sham.

Hey! I just realized there's a cock in your av!

 

[REDWAVE]

Power & legitimacy are not the same

I beg to differ, KM. Bush is in the White House because five reactionaries (themselves unelected) on the Supreme Court put him there. He has power, but no legitimacy.

Do most people in this country regard the government as legitimate? That's a good question. I don't know of any scientific polls being done on the subject. Most people don't vote, which could be interpreted as rejecting a system which only offers them a choice of oppressors. And a lot of people regard Bush as illegitimate, despite the halo of glory he's acquired since Sept. 11. Probably not a majority, I concede, but a lot.

 

[LMT]

The result of the last election was not unprecedented. In fact it has happened twice before: in 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes won the presidential election while loosing the popular vote to Samuel Tilden and in 1888 Benjamin Harrison won the presidential election while loosing the popular vote to Grover Cleveland. Other presidential races of note:

1800: Jefferson and Burr were tied in the electoral vote. At this time whoever got the most electoral votes was president and whoever came in second became vice-president. The tie was broken by a vote in the House of Representatives as set out in the constitution article 2. The 12’th was created after the aftermath of this election.

1824: The top two voter getters were John Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson. Neither had a majority of the electoral votes so this election too went to the House of Representatives. John Q. Adams becomes the first president to win the presidency without winning the popular vote or the electoral vote. There was bad blood between Adams and Jackson after this election due to rumors that Adams made a deal to give Henry Clay (who was a member of the House and the third candidate in the presidental race) the Secretary of State (considered more prestigious than the Vice Presidency during that period) in exchange for his votes.

What makes George W. Bush’s presidency legitimate is not what the outcome in Florida was (because they didn’t count “pregnant chads”), but Al Gore's concession of the election.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: No legitimacy to begin with

Originally posted by Star At Sunrise
Angry Dems don't seem to remember the constant whining after '92 about how Clinton wasn't a majority President, losing more votes to Bush and Perot. Republicans are strangely silent now, since Gore won the majority of the popular vote in '00.

While Clinton did not win a majority (more than 50%) of the popular vote, he did win the greatest number of the popular vote which is in part the basis for seletinf electors. While Gore may have won the majority of the popular vote, he did not win the majority of electoral votes which is the basis for selection of the President.

Originally posted by Star At Sunrise
"Chads" may sound funny, but they're real! And it's totally believable that they screw up ballots all the time all over the country. It's not because of some evil plan, it's just that elections use a lot of volunteers, and I'm willing to betcha hardly anyone even THINKS of cleaning chads out of the machine!

While your hole punch story is interesting, it has no parallel in the arena of the voting machines. First, these machines are emptied of chad on a routine basis. That basis depends on several factors not excluding the voting district.

Typically, the machines can be used for several elections without being emptied because of the capacity for storing chad.

The post election debacle brought out several interesting things regarding these devices. One of particular interest was the specious argument the Democrats raised about the inaccuracy of the mechanical counting mechanism.

In response to that claim, a couple of manufacturers were interviewed about this idea. It seems the certification of the machines is done periodically and the requirement for the certification is that the machine count the test ballots to an error rate of less than 1 vote per million votes tallied.

Bottom line: the mechanical vote tally machines are at least as accurate as the newer optical devices.

Originally posted by REDWAVE
The U.S. is not a democracy and never has been.

That you got this right reminds me of the old dage, "Even a blind pig finds an acorn occasionally." Actually, by design America is a republican government (look it up and learn the difference between democratic and republican).

Originally posted by REDWAVE
It is an oligarchy ruled by the rich. The public only gets to vote on candidates which have been approved by the rich to begin with. Democracy in America is a farce and a sham.

And what you state here is a plutocracy, not an oligarchy. And that arose subsequent to the income tax establishment, a tyrant's tool championed by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto. So you can thank the collectivists (Democrats, to make it easy for you) for the plutocracy you disdain.

Originally posted by REDWAVE
But in the last election, even the pretence of democracy was abandoned. Gore clearly won the election. He won a plurality of the popular vote, and he really won in Florida too. The real story there is the massive disenfranchisement of black voters by Jeb Bush and his cronies, mainly by having their names removed from the voting rolls in advance. The Bush regime has no legitimacy whatsoever.

You really should brush up on your American history if you're going to talk about it. Knowing your subject makes you look considerably less foolish while waxing eloquent.

The fact is, the 2000 election was conducted in accordance with the prescribed manner laid out in the U. S. Constitution which is why Bush was elected legitimately.

The electoral college was a very carefully selected means of choosing the President and the reason for this selection had nothing to do with logistics. For reference, try reading the Federalist Papers. You might learn something.

The popular vote does not elect the President. At least twice prior in American history, the majority of electoral votes went to the candidate with a lesser number of popular votes.

It happened in 1876 (Hayes v. Tilden) and again in 1888 (Harrison v. Cleveland). I have been told there were two other occasions but couldn't identify those. Those with regard and respect for the rule of law did not contest the outcome. The fact that the Democrats in 2000 didn't says much of their respect for law and order. Interesting that you choose to champion the dishonest; that in itself conveys some interesting implications of your character.

And you further proclaim your ignorance or malevolence when you continue to spew the lies of the post election debacle orchestrated by the Democrats when in fact they were the people who actively sought to disenfranchise absentee voters, particularly those in the military.

But I do understand; when you follow the Left/Liberal/Democrat/Collectivist/Fascist line, fact is not relevant nor is truth.

And isn't it interesting that the Democrats are so intent on restoring the right to vote of convicted felons! I guess they know, appreciate and understand their constituency better than I do.

Originally posted by REDWAVE
I beg to differ, KM. Bush is in the White House because five reactionaries (themselves unelected) on the Supreme Court put him there. He has power, but no legitimacy.

Your propensity and skill at ignoring and evading reality is genuinely impressive. It was the five partisan activist judges who tried everything they could to steal the election for Gore. It was these judges who tried to make the case that Florida law which stated election results would be tabulated 7 days after the day of election was vague and unclear and more likely meant 17 or 19 days.

Originally posted by LMT
What makes George W. Bush?s presidency legitimate is not what the outcome in Florida was (because they didn?t count ?pregnant chads?), but Al Gore's concetion of the election.

Actually, it was precisely the outcome of the Florida election that legitimately elected G. W. Bush.

 

[Star At Sunrise]

You're wrong! WRONG, I SAY!!!

Flame War!!!!

Just kidding. This is one of the lamest flame wars I've ever seen! What's up with discussing all these FACTS?

Okay, opening salvo:
UncleBill sez:
"While your hole punch story is interesting, it has no parallel in the arena of the voting machines. First, these machines are emptied of chad on a routine basis. That basis depends on several factors not excluding the voting district.

Typically, the machines can be used for several elections without being emptied because of the capacity for storing chad.

The post election debacle brought out several interesting things regarding these devices. One of particular interest was the specious argument the Democrats raised about the inaccuracy of the mechanical counting mechanism.

In response to that claim, a couple of manufacturers were interviewed about this idea. It seems the certification of the machines is done periodically and the requirement for the certification is that the machine count the test ballots to an error rate of less than 1 vote per million votes tallied.

Bottom line: the mechanical vote tally machines are at least as accurate as the newer optical devices."

Uncle Bill, you're funny! Would you entertain at my next birthday party?

Sure you can write like a reporter and crack wit like Dick Cavett, but if I remember correctly from the reports that I read during the recount, chads were indeed a problem in the 2000 Presidential election. If they weren't, why would we even be talking about chad and pregnant chad? I didn't even know chads had a name before the recount. And don't claim it was a "made up" problem. I've seen the pregnant chads, and I even know from personal experience that chads affect machines operated inside government institutions. If you honestly think that every voting machine in every district around the country is maintained to the level that you claim, I think you are mistaken.

But I can see that by refering to the "specious argument the Democrats raised" and how Gore tried to "steal" the election, where you really stand.

American politics has turned into "Red Team vs. the Blue Team" where everything one team does is considered wrong by the other. This is why voters are disenfranchised. Even you. Libertarian!

Where is KillerMuffin?! She is the host of this debate about Plutocracy and Mickeyocracy and Goofyocracy, and I demand she humble us all with her correct opinion, or else I will go masturbate to another thread!



p.s. After seeing "Charlie's Angels" I have difficulty referring to chads as "chad" and keeping a straight face.

 

[LMT]

Re: Re: No legitimacy to begin with

Actually, it was precisely the outcome of the Florida election that legitimately elected G. W. Bush. [/B]

Actually Gore conceded before the Electoral College met. There was still some doubt at the time that Florida would get its vote straightened out before the deadline and even if it did there was speculation that the Democrats in the House would have contested it. If either had come to pass the Presidential election would have been decided in the House, thus it was Gore's concession that was likely the deciding factor. However the Republicans had a substantial majority in the House and Bush would have likely have won anyway.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Was it ever possible for authority to pass legitimately in the US's 2000 elections

This election, probably unprecedented, half of the country isn't fully going along with it. No matter which one had gotten in office, half of the country wouldn't have fully gone along with the notion that this particularly presidency was passed along with legitmacy. It's pretty much a no-win situation for the constituency and the presidency. How can either man have done an effective job without full legitimacy?

I agree that no matter what happened, half of the country wouldn't have been happy. What made this election unprecedented was the counts and recounts and court challenges. That's what sullied the whole process beyond any ability to salvage it. It's also what has damaged any sort of legitimacy for the President.

But the election was part of what I see as a trend that's been growing for perhaps a decade. That trend is toward taking laws that you don't like and litigating them. It's making law by the court instead of by the legislature. Lots of people have learned that if you get the right judge on the right day, you can get any law interpreted any way you want, and that interpretation then becomes the law of the land - regardless of how the original law was written. That kind of business is one of the things that has eroded the public's faith in the lawmaking process. After all, why does it matter what law is passed? The court will just change it later anyhow. There's no confidence in the black and white letter of the law, if in fact such a thin exists anymore.

What bothers me is that this is going to be (well, already has been) made a big issue in the upcoming elections. The fact is that Bush is the President. He won by a legitimate electoral process backed by the full legal authority of the Supreme Court. That makes him as legitimate as any President who wins by a landslide. Had Gore won the challenges, he would be the legitimate President. It's that simple. There's no grey area. Those who refuse to see this mostly have some kind of axe to grind or just hate Bush (or such has been my observation). Hell, I didn't even vote for the guy and I recognize him as the legitimate President.

 

[LMT]

The only thing unprecedented in the past election was that the Supreme Court was involved. Recounts and court challenges are nothing new to the American political process. Take a look at the election results from this site for the following elections:

1800: Jefferson / Burr / Adams / Pinckney / Jay
1824: Adams / Jackson / Crawford / Clay
1960: Kennedy / Nixon / Bird

There were several court challenges in the 1960 election. In the end it was Nixon’s concession that likely saved the election from going to the House.

I’m sure that there were others, these are just the ones that come to my mind in terms of messy elections. There were several elections where there were “unfaithful electors” [electoral college votes that were contrary to the popular vote in their respective state]. I didn’t bother to track them all down as in every case (so far) the election was already decided and their vote would not have tipped the election either way.

The past election was certainly in the top 4 or 5 elections in terms of controversy, however I would rate the 1860 [Lincolns first election] election as the most controversial despite his overwhelming legitimacy by winning the most votes in the both the popular vote (39.82%) and the electoral vote (59.4%), due to the secession of the south.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I would guess that an overwhelming majority of people view the United States Government as set out by the Constitution as legitimate authority. The President of the US is a legitimate authority despite the erratic and relatively few beliefs that the office should be overthrown and a communistic dictatorship be put in its place.

The Office is legitimate. While a good portion of the constituency grumble about the shady method of who got the Office, all of them agree that Bush is, in fact, the President of the United States. They may not like it, but they agree that this is fact. This agreement gives Bush the legitimacy to be president.

Perhaps you should take basic political theory, Red, so you can understand the vocabulary beyond antiquated rebellious rhetoric.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: You're wrong! WRONG, I SAY!!!

Originally posted by Star At Sunrise
Sure you can write like a reporter and crack wit like Dick Cavett, but if I remember correctly from the reports that I read during the recount, chads were indeed a problem in the 2000 Presidential election. If they weren't, why would we even be talking about chad and pregnant chad? I didn't even know chads had a name before the recount. And don't claim it was a "made up" problem. I've seen the pregnant chads, and I even know from personal experience that chads affect machines operated inside government institutions. If you honestly think that every voting machine in every district around the country is maintained to the level that you claim, I think you are mistaken.

The campaign by the Democrats stirred up every conceivable idea they could find to try to legitimize their attempt to obviate Florida law. The truth is that the machines work quite well and there was no genuine problem with chad beyond the fact that Gore got too few votes. It was all a tempest in a teapot.

It is also virtually impossible to produce a "pregnant chad", i. e. one that the voter punched but did not detach from the surrounding precut portion of the ballot. If enough pressure is applied to leave a mark on the chad, it is already at least partially detached from the card. The pressure it takes to form an indentation of the surface of the paper is greater than the force required to detach the chad from surrounding material. This is the result of the composition of the paper which must be rigid enough to not wrinkle, fold and bind when inserted into the machines which hold the ballot to be punched or later in the machine to register the vote cast by the ballot.

If the ballot is laid flat on a hard surface, the chad can be indented without detachment. But when inserted into the machine for punching, the ballot has no material behind in the areas designated for voting. These areas are over openings in the face of the machine specifically designed to collect the chad. Thus, it is virtual impossible to indent the ballot surface without detaching the chad.

Voting by absentee ballot, I experimented with this a bit and found that I might end up with "hanging chad" when I punched the ballot after laying it on the soft cushion provided with my ballot for the specific purpose of overlaying the ballot for punching. Even when I had produced the "hanging chad", I had not indented the chad with the pressure I had applied.

So it is from personal experience I call the whole argument specious.

As to the attempt to steal the election, I came to that conclusion based on the actions of the Gore campaign and the actions of the Florida Supreme Court and their attempts to rewrite legislation from the judicial bench by interpreting the number 7 to mean maybe 17 or 19 or whatever arbitrary value might allow them to alter the outcome of the election.

I grant that there are probably some machines that don't receive the ideal maintenance. But I find it even harder to swallow that the vast number of offending machines were all located in the heavily Democratic districts in south Florida where the Gore campaign sought to restrict the recounts. Districts which were in fact controlled by Democrats who not only control custody of and access to the machines but also designed the ballots which were said to be the cause of so many voters punching the wrong name on their ballots.

And then there was the very low profile news story about the Democratic election worker who was stopped and found to have a voting machine and an undisclosed number of ballots in the trunk of his car.

It seems that every little detail the Gore campaign raised as part of their smokescreen, when the digging was done, there seemed to be another Democrat uncovered (sorta' like the Enron investigations have shown). The ballot confusion crisis turned out to be trumped up by a Texas PR Firm under contract by the Gore campaign. And the bottom line here is, were the Democrat voters too stupid to read a ballot and follow simple directions?

And look at the PR campaign waged against Katherin Harris, the Florida Secretary of State by the Gore campaign. She was maliciously attacked and slandered because she simply followed existing state law.

For all the cries about disenfranchising voters, the only real proof of any such attempts were those of the Gore campaign to invalidate absentee ballots. So for these reasons and others, I say the whole argument was specious and a cover for the Democrats' efforts to steal the presidency.

So you're certainly entitled to your opinion that I'm wrong. I'm sure there are many who agree with you. But my opinion is based on fact, reason and intellect so I'll stay with it.

Originally posted by Star At LMT
Actually Gore conceded before the Electoral College met

I'm not arguing that; that is blatantly obvious to anyone who paid a moderate degree of attention. In fact, I believe Gore first conceded before the full election night tally was completed. Was it not that only after the results were found to be as close as they were that Gore withdrew his concession?

However, it is not that Gore conceded that made the selection of Bush legitimate. What made Bush the legitimate winner was the outcome of the voting which gave him the plurality of the electoral votes.

Originally posted by Star At LMT
There were several court challenges in the 1960 election. In the end it was Nixon?s concession that likely saved the election from going to the House.

This very eloquently illustrates the difference between a man with some personal honor and a genuine concern for the best interest of his nation and one whose sole concern is himself.

 

[miles]

redwave vs. unclebill

...is like watching the NY Yankees playing against a Little League team.

 

[LMT]

Re: Re: You're wrong! WRONG, I SAY!!!

What made Bush the legitimate winner was the outcome of the voting which gave him the plurality of the electoral votes.

Unclebill, I'm not saying that Gore won in Florida. My arguement was an attempt to avoid the whole Florida issue all togeather.

I would say that the point is moot. Wether or not one thinks Gore might have won if the recounts were allowed to continue, Gore conceeded. The end result is same, G. W. Bush is the legitamate president.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Re: Re: You're wrong! WRONG, I SAY!!!

Unclebill, I'm not saying that Gore won in Florida. My arguement was an attempt to avoid the whole Florida issue all togeather.

I would say that the point is moot. Wether or not one thinks Gore might have won if the recounts were allowed to continue, Gore conceeded. The end result is same, G. W. Bush is the legitamate president.

I'm not trying to imply that you're offering that Gore somehow won. And why attempt to avoid the Florida issue? It was completely specious from the outset. Call it what it is, an attempt to steal the Presidency by a candidate and party that have no respect for the rule of law, no integrity, no honor or dignity, no respect for people and are concerned not with the best interests of the nation and its citizenry, but solely with political power and influence.

But in fact, the recount was done after the fact by the media. And the results were published albeit in a very subdued and hushed manner because the results still showed that Bush had won. Even the media couldn't recount the ballots to come out the way they wanted. Hence, my contention that the concession had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the election. Had it been honored as originally proffered, it could have bestowed on Gore some semblance of dignity but it was not.

 

[Lost Cause]

Jeeeezzzzuuuuuzzzzzzzkkkkkeeeeeerrrrrriiiiiissssssstttttttttt!!!!!!!!! Give this fucking issue a rest! Wah on one side, wah on the other. So we already know politicians are crude, things don't run as they should, and the system needs evaluation. What are you, dear Literotarians, gonna do about it? The election cycles start this year...got it? What issue(s) are you gonna get behind? Who are you looking at that you will support? You registered to vote? Or in the end, are we gonna see another thread stating the system doesn't work..blah..blah? (This is not aimed at KM who provocatively brought on this issue)
** About thirty percent of the population supported the Revolution in 1776, so far, that percentage of political participation hasn't changed!**

 

[LMT]

I personally believe that in most debates both sides are right to some extent from their own point of view. When debating I try to avoid using personal opinion as the basis of my arguments.

There are people in Florida the feel the ballot was misleading. Others feel that the ballots of black voters were disproportionally invalidated. Some that feel that the chads should have all been counted, and others feel that the Supreme Court wasn't an "honest broker" in their decision to stop the recount (as they see it).

The one fact that is indisputable is that Gore conceded. Whether you consider the "take back" fair or not is opinion and not really debatable. But it does make fun reading.