🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:40:53 -0600, MWSmith <mws@wt.net> wrote:

>On 20 Nov 2000 18:44:14 GMT, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> wrote:
>
>>Professor Vonroach (vonroach@popd.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>>: Why does he not stand tall beside Swartzkopf and protest loudly and
>>: publicly about the nation disgrace of allowing the votes of Americans
>>: in the service of their country overseas being rejected by some petty
>>: political hacks in south Florida?
>>
>>     To quote sombody or other: the rules for military ballots were
>>published and approved.  The time to object to them as difficult or
>>unworkable was then, not after the election.
>>     And BTW all military units have "election officers" whose job 
>>is to instruct and counsel service people on how to mark and send
>>the ballots, including how to meet the requirement that, having 
>>not been met, is causing most of the disqualifications: the need
>>to get a dated postmark.

Words, not action at this point.

>>     Very few Palm Beach County retirement homes have "election
>>officers" to instruct the residents about butterfly ballots.
>
>What I just heard on TV is the Florida Attorney General will be
>allowing those ballots, provided that they are dated and signed and
>witnessed. There does not have to be a postmark, due to the fact that
>there are places where our military is deployed that do not postmark
>the mail.
>
>BTW, why is it ONLY the dumbasses, errrr... democrats had problems
>with the "butterfly" ballot. The Republicans figured it out, 1st
>graders figured it out, anyone with an IQ above dirt figured it out.
>What happened? The shuttle buses used to transport the seniors to the
>voting booths kept telling the seniors to vote #2, so they did. The
>shuttle bus drivers should have studied the ballot closer.
>
>Mike Smith