Originally Posted by warren
I know this is beating a dead horse, but I\'ve updated my page (listed in bullet #3) with some graphs and other minutia. If you get around to checking it, please let me know what you think.

http://www.atomic.princeton.edu/~wmg8m/FloridaPrezRace.html

warren

yeah, I tried to vote McCain and accidently punched Gore. Can I please have my vote revoked.

Originally Posted by SuperRob
Idiot. Stupider isn\'t a word. :)

I am quite proud to say that I wrote in McCain. I may not have agreed with him 100%, but the man stuck to his guns and didn\'t play the game like the rest. I respect that.

Well, it came down to the wire, didn't it?

We all knew it was going to be lesser of two evils, or the evil of the two lessers, depending on which side of the fence you sit.

But I'll bet nobody guessed it would come down the The Party of the Stupid versus the Party of the Stupider.

Originally Posted by SMiLEY
#20 I totally agree!! Another great thing about this \"electile dysfunction\" (I love that) is that any reform that gets done is bound to be better for third party candidates!!

Hell, this is BEST thing that could have happened. This will leave whoever takes office crippled and unable to get anything done. Considering that all they ever do in Washington is legislate new and creative ways to screw me, I couldn't be happier.

Originally Posted by SuperRob
[H]ard|OCP said it best ...

http://www.hardocp.com/news_images/2000/nov2k/morons1a.gif

Personally, I think the republican stance on this whole thing is riddiculus.. We all know that if the tables were turned and gore was ahead by 300 votes, Bush's campaign would be doing the same damn thing.

The only thing that this election proves is that neither cantidate was a strong enough leader to get the support of the people of our country.. This split basically confirms the whole "Which idiot do I vote for" problem.

Why can't we get leaders in power?

Well, looks like we got clinton for 4 more years. Because this thing will never get resolved (esp. by inaguration day)

This is #4 again....granted the general election is based on a person's feelings and intuition but those are reached by decisions they've made on how they view the candidate. My point is that the Electoral College was devised during a time when the large majority of the population had no clue as to who was even running for President and now our society is able to make a well informed decision. Plus, I would much rather have my personal feelings and intiution of a candidate help to decide who is elected rather than who a pre-selected elector agreed to vote for regardless of whether they have conflicting feelings or not. Having a system where the majority vote of the people is overruled by a technicality in the Constitution does not lend itself to be called a Democracy.

And to #15, I would not be so eager to get Bush or Gore into office, since either Presidency is going to be crippled immensely in its power given that half of the nation will basically believe that candidate should not be the President. If Gore is granted the Presidency, Republicans will constantly protest to the legitimacy of his administration and vice versa if Bush is put into office. And with the House and Senate so closely divided between the two parties, little to nothing will probably be accomplished for at least the next two years. I definitely do not envy whoever ends up with the Presidency. It will be an extremely difficult position to be in.

On a lighter note, everybody take a look at http://www.mediatrip.com/shows/phone_flash.html for a funny take on the two famous phone calls where Gore conceded and then retracted that statement.

This whole thing is just sad. I've got some connections to the resident politic in Florida and EVERYONE (democrats and republicans) is telling me that Bush has one and the Democrats are starting to do some shady things down in south Florida motivated by anger. Of course, I would expect nothing less from Gore, the man thinks the presidency is his birth right. The though of losing after coming so close must be tearing him apart. There is also a great deal of irony that his campaign manager, Mr Daley, comes from a family steeped in the tradition of electoral fraud.

At any rate, I sleep well at night knowing that Gore is about to make an ass of himself dragging the election into the courts. He should have learned from his Clinton's impeachment that the public can't stand due process!!!! Without strong public opinion supporting a re-vote, no federal judge will order it. Bye-bye Al, maybe Tipper can run for the Senate.

Originally Posted by SMiLEY
#4: We shouldn\'t be calling ourselves a Democracy, that is true. That\'s because we are supposed to be a Democratic Republic.

How can you say the people are educated enough to make a voting decision? Since when? The popular election is based more on people\'s feelings, personal intuitions, and good looks than the major political issues at hand. It\'s also ruled by a ridiculous two-party system that our founding fathers tried to avoid.

On another note, I think that if we stick with the Electoral College, it should be made clear to the citizens that they are voting for an Elector, not the President. Sure, it says it on the ballot, but it\'s like fine print. Most people probably think they cast a vote for a particular Presidential candidate, when they did not.

I also think it\'s silly for the EC to cast all of it\'s votes the same way in a state, but that is a state decision, not the Federal government.

indeego:

This is the same gerbil (my name is Kevin by the way). I thought you meant that the electors could change their votes AFTER the electors had already voted "on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment" (taken from Title 3 Chapter 1 Section 7 of the United States Code).

I agree with you that the electors in 26 states (not including DC) could vote for someone other then who the people in that state wanted the electors to vote for. That wasn't my question.

Of course, read Title 3 Chapter 1 Section 15 of the USC and you will see that it is possible for electoral votes to be challenged:

"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received."

It is slightly buried in the section but towards the beginning. A good place to find things in the massive USC is:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

There you can go to specific titles and sections.

Kevin

that and the below was from your link:

http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/faq.html

Are electors required to vote for the candidate who won his or her State's popular vote?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States (24 plus DC at last count) require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

Gerrbil:

It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely.

Thanks for the link. I was looking for some links.

Rarely in my book qualifies as possible, even viable.

indeego:

Were, exactly is that in the United States Code? As it is not in the Constitution.

Here is a really good site with lots of information regarding the electoral system:

http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/index.html

And they also have a very good FAQ:

http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/faq.html

Member of the electoral college can petition to change their votes as well. If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will

It's not simply a matter of the Electoral College "making their choice". The way the electors of each state vote (except for two states, don't remember which) depends on which candidate wins the election. That candidate then gets all of the electoral votes of that state. The parties of the winning candidate select the electors who will vote and attempt to pick people who they can rely on to vote for the winning candidate. Therefore, they need to know the results of the election and when something is as close as this is, there is absolutely no reason to rush through it. Even though this means we will be hearing more about it and more from the candidates for at least several more weeks, being exactly sure who is the victor is more important in my opinion than getting it over with. The worst thing that could happen is if this process is rushed anymore than it already is.

Originally Posted by AdamLongWalker
I agree with Ryu Conner.

Hey, I didn't know Rush Linbaugh wrote for this site...

Seriously though, Buchanan supporters wouldn't be trying to help Gore, a
200,000 popular vote may decrease, but it won't evaporate, the
Republicans are demogauging just as hard as the Democrats (which is
another way of saying, they're trying to get the vote count right!), and the
Electoral College not only can elect a winner who gets less than (potentially
much less than!) a majority of votes, but can in fact vote however it wants
(imagine if THAT happens!).

I just wish the "rules" were sufficient to play the game without getting
thousands of players confused, dropped, or ignored :)

You also have to realize that the Armed Forces votes will be in next Friday. You would be dumb to think that those votes would be anything but (predomanetly <sp>) for Bush.

The Electoral College is outdated and no longer necessary in this modern, highly educated (compared to the late 18th century) society. The EC was devised as a compromise when our founding fathers could not decide whether to elect the President via a general election of the populous or via an election held by the representatives of the legislature. Thus, the EC was devised mainly out of concerns of the wealthy white man leaving the election up to the common citizen who was not considered to be educated enough to cast a vote. This would protect the country from being run by an unqualified candidate that was able to win over the citizens.

Today however it is outdated and the general populous should have the last word on who is President of the US. Our society in general is well-enough informed about the candidates/parties to make a decision based on who they agree with. How can we truly call ourselves a democracy if the voice of the general population speaks in support of one man (even though it may be only by a small margin) but another man who received fewer votes took over the Presidency. In a society where voter turnout is so low and apathy is so high among voters, having the voice of the people overrun by an outdated rule in the Constitution will only cause more people to lose faith and become apathetic. The Constitution was designed to be adapted to changes in society and as a result of numerous changes with respect to the education of our society and the voting rights of all citizens since 1781, the Electoral College should be eliminated.

I would go the other way. Winning this election is the kiss of death.

Originally Posted by drevil
Electile Dysfunction.

Huh-huh.

Now that\'s a band name.

You know, many have been heralding this situation as the very reason that we need to abandon the Electoral College. In thinking about it though, it would actually seem to be the opposite.

This election is so close and has now become such a circus that it makes me think that perhaps the founding fathers are still right. Perhaps we the people still aren't ready to choose the person who will fill the Presidential position. All these ballot screw-ups only seems to further the point that the average person has a bit further to go.

In fact, I am of the mind now that the Electoral College simply needs to make their choice, so that we can all get on with our life.