🚀 go-pugleaf

Jonathan D'Andries wrote:
> 
> Here is somethings that may help make our country more democratic.  If
> you are interested in keeping things fair, check out the link below.
> 
> Click here to send an email to Florida Governor Jeb Bush asking for a
> re-vote of the Presidential race in Palm Beach County:
> <A HREF="http:www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?Itemld=9237">
> 
> http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ItemId=9237
> </A>

Think of it this way.

3,407 people voted for Buchanan.  According to the latest results,
Bush leads with ~1,700 votes in all of Florida.  At least 50% of the
whole group of Buchanan voters would have to have voted in error for
this to affect the outcome of the recount.  Do you really think over
half of them made an error on a ballot that has  arrows *pointing
exactly* to which circle you are supposed to fill in?

Besides, a Democratic Supervisor *signed off* on the ballot that she
felt it was not misleading or ill-designed.

A revote would be entirely out of the question.

-Stephen
P.S.- we do not live in a democracy.  The US is a constitutional
republic.

> Social Security is good for those people who don't know how to save
> money.  Assuming, of course, there's any left when they're eligible.  ;)
>

WHAT?  I know this isn't a politics newsgroup, but why should the government
decide who knows how to save their own money?

Justin Weaver
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte639n/

I love newsgroups.  Just to clarify matters, the "effect" was intentional for
two reasons.  First, it symbolizes the electronic nature of this form of
democracy (i.e. e-ffect).  Second, it creates unease in those people who
notice the mistake.  I am sorry for the cross post with .announce.  This will
be my last message.

Jonathan

Ryan Thompson wrote:

> In article <3A0A0581.8AAD4A78@prism.gatech.edu>, Jonathan D'Andries wrote:
> >Here is somethings that may help make our country more democratic.  If
> >you are interested in keeping things fair, check out the link below.
>
> First, it's "affect" not "effect." Second, if you're too stupid to follow
> directions or too stubborn to ask for help if you're confused about the
> ballot, then you deserve to have your vote screwed up. (And the Democratic
> party deserves you :)
>
> -R

> >Maybe I have a shitty dictionary ... but I don't see anywhere where
effect
> >is used or defined as a verb.  Could you give a sentence where effect is
> >properly used as a verb?  Or a definition from somewhere or something?
>
> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
>
>   Effect \Ef*fect"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Effected}; p. pr. & vb.
>      n. {Effecting}.]
>      1. To produce, as a cause or agent; to cause to be.
>
>               So great a body such exploits to effect. --Daniel.
>
>      2. To bring to pass; to execute; to enforce; to achieve; to
>         accomplish.
>
>               To effect that which the divine counsels had
>               decreed.                              --Bp. Hurd.
>
>               They sailed away without effecting their purpose.
>                                                     --Jowett (Th.
>                                                     ).
>
>      Syn: To accomplish; fulfill; achieve; complete; execute;
>           perform; attain. See {Accomplish}.

woah... I never knew webster's to be wrong before..

/tim

In git.announce Frank <snow@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
|Follow the arrows!

|This type of ballot is used all the time in Florida (I've voted using
|one).

This type of ballot is _not_ used all the time.  The ballot in Broward
and Dade counties listed the 10 Presidential candidates down the left
page.  Nothing was on the right side.  I have a copy of one right here
if you'd like to see it.

The Palm Beach ballot was diffent from previous years because the wanted
to enhance the readability (larger type, more information, etc.)


The very simple solution would be to hold a special election in
Palm Beach and just cast the votes again.

Alexander Gilman Carver wrote:
> 
> The very simple solution would be to hold a special election in
> Palm Beach and just cast the votes again.

Problem: if you give them the chance to change their vote, and some will, you
have to give the whole country the chance to vote. If the Democrats go ahead
with litigation, the Republicans are sure to go after a few other states where
the votes were very close, Wisonsin being one of them I believe. All that we can
really do is have a recount, and tell people they actually have to use their
brains to think when they're voting.

-- 
Nathan Owens
Georgia Tech, Atlanta
PianoComp81@hotmail.com

Happy Happy Gary wrote:
> 
> In git.announce DJag <gte950e@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> : In git.announce Alexander Gilman Carver <acarver@hog.mirc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> :>The very simple solution would be to hold a special election in
> :>Palm Beach and just cast the votes again.
> 
> : Which would be completely unfair.
> 
> Why?

Take a look at my post. That's why (I'm to lazy to post it again).


-- 
Nathan Owens
Georgia Tech, Atlanta
PianoComp81@hotmail.com

NDee wrote:
> 
> In git.general Ryan Thompson <news@flamtap.org> wrote:
> 
> > First, it's "affect" not "effect." Second, if you're too stupid to follow
> > directions or too stubborn to ask for help if you're confused about the
> > ballot, then you deserve to have your vote screwed up. (And the Democratic
> > party deserves you :)
> 
> I will agree that Affect is a verb, and Effect is a noun.  Webster's is
> either wrong or relying upon some bizarre archaic interpretation.

This isn't archaic at all. If Webster's is wrong, then so are many of the other
English dictionaries in the world. If that would be true, English must be wrong.
Since English is not wrong (it's defined by itself), Webster's is not wrong.
Webster's Dictionary is a well-respected dictionary.
 
> Secondly, they showed the ballots on TV, and I can see how the mistake
> would be made.  It was a two page deal, capable of being folded down the
> center.  It looked like...
> 
> _____________________________
> 
>         BUSH      ----------->  X  ________________________________
> 
> _____________________________   X  <---------   BUCHANAN
> 
>         GORE      ----------->  X  ________________________________
> 
> _____________________________   X  <---------   BROWNE
> 
>         NADER     ----------->  X  ________________________________
> ________________________________
> 
> ...where you had to punch a hole through the X.  Since Buchanan and Browne
> were on a separate page, I could see how someone could look at the page,
> see BUSH first with an X, and then see GORE second and mark the second
> X.  Bear in mind that the arrows weren't so big and names weren't so
> small... had party and VP squeezed in there too.

Many may have messed up. It doesn't matter, though. It's the responsibility of
the voter to know _exactly_ who they vote for. The arrow are there for a reason;
USE THEM!! If the voter is to inobservant that he/she doesn't notice the order,
then he/she shouldn't be voting because he/she probably didn't prepare
him/herself well enough. It's the voter's tough luck that he/she screwed
him/herself over. Personally, I can't see how that many voters voted for the
wrong person.

-- 
Nathan Owens
Georgia Tech, Atlanta
PianoComp81@hotmail.com

Follow the arrows!

This type of ballot is used all the time in Florida (I've voted using
one).

Funny quote from cnn.com:
---
I went to the polls for one specific reason, to vote for Gore. I hit
the second hole. I am sure I did. What was going on in my mind was
somehow my right to vote had been taken away from me," said Lillian
Gaines, 67, one of three residents who filed a lawsuit Wednesday in
Palm Beach County Circuit Court seeking a new election. 
----

Taken away from you? Try 'you wasted it' 

How can the elections people be repsonsible for stupidity? Not their
fault your screwed up your one chance.


Frank

> Dat's right, bitch.  See what you get when you step to me?
>
> --
> Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2130 TA | Tiptoe down to the holy places
> Georgia Institute of Technology | Where you going now
> Phone:  (404)206-4210           | Don't turn around
> Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | - My Bloody Valentine

You are very very pathetic and cheesy.  You are also a cs2130 TA.  You must
hate your life.

In git.announce Matt Quigley <gte460p@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> Dat's right, bitch.  See what you get when you step to me?
> You are very very pathetic and cheesy.  You are also a cs2130 TA.  You must
> hate your life.

Did you seriously miss the tongue-in-cheek, or are you just making a sad
attempt at trolling?

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2130 TA | Beware the bottled thoughts of
Georgia Institute of Technology | Of angry young men.  
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | - Jeff Buckley
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | 

Why did NDee say in git.general:
) I will agree that Affect is a verb, and Effect is a noun.  Webster's is
) either wrong or relying upon some bizarre archaic interpretation.

You're kidding, right?  Effect(v) may be a little less common than
effect(n), but it's hardly archaic.  As a mattter of fact, I just came
across it in the book I was reading:

"*No action* is to be taken save on my express orders.  The personnel to
effect these orders will be fitted with a suicide tooth ..."

-gzb
-- 
	Faith is one thing that is hard to deliver.
						-indigo girls

In git.announce Lady Galadriel <elflady@angband.org> wrote:
> Why did NDee say in git.general:
> ) I will agree that Affect is a verb, and Effect is a noun.  Webster's is
> ) either wrong or relying upon some bizarre archaic interpretation.

> You're kidding, right?  Effect(v) may be a little less common than
> effect(n), but it's hardly archaic.  

.nod elf
I kinda figured most people around here would be familiar with effect as
a verb and affect as a noun.  They're uncommon, but still very much in
use.

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2130 TA | Let fall your dress 
Georgia Institute of Technology | I'll play the part
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | I'll open this mouth wide
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | Eat your heart. - PJ Harvey

NDee wrote:
> Secondly, they showed the ballots on TV, and I can see how the mistake
> would be made.  It was a two page deal, capable of being folded down the
> center.  It looked like...

This:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/elections/palmbeachballot.htm

Later,
 Jamil Karim

In git.general Lady Galadriel <elflady@angband.org> wrote:
> Why did NDee say in git.general:
> ) I will agree that Affect is a verb, and Effect is a noun.  Webster's is
> ) either wrong or relying upon some bizarre archaic interpretation.

> You're kidding, right?  Effect(v) may be a little less common than
> effect(n), but it's hardly archaic.  As a mattter of fact, I just came
> across it in the book I was reading:

I have never heard effect used as a verb.  Honestly. :)  Maybe you're
right, but see the post soon to come... 

In article <3A0A0581.8AAD4A78@prism.gatech.edu>, Jonathan D'Andries wrote:
>Here is somethings that may help make our country more democratic.  If
>you are interested in keeping things fair, check out the link below.

First, it's "affect" not "effect." Second, if you're too stupid to follow
directions or too stubborn to ask for help if you're confused about the
ballot, then you deserve to have your vote screwed up. (And the Democratic
party deserves you :)

-R

In git.announce Ryan Thompson <news@flamtap.org> wrote:
> In article <3A0A0581.8AAD4A78@prism.gatech.edu>, Jonathan D'Andries wrote:
>>Here is somethings that may help make our country more democratic.  If
>>you are interested in keeping things fair, check out the link below.

> First, it's "affect" not "effect." Second, if you're too stupid to follow
> directions or too stubborn to ask for help if you're confused about the
> ballot, then you deserve to have your vote screwed up. (And the Democratic
> party deserves you :)

Nice little editorial on the end there, Ryan.  

Actually, "Effect the Election" is a perfectly valid phrase; I just
don't think it means what D'Andries thinks it does.  

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2130 TA | To snuff out the mind that moves,
Georgia Institute of Technology | Moving with grace the men despise
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | And women have learned to lose.
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | - Jeff Buckley

In article <8ud1di$pf$1@news-int.gatech.edu>, Ze Ninguem wrote:

>> ballot, then you deserve to have your vote screwed up. (And the Democratic
>> party deserves you :)
>
>Nice little editorial on the end there, Ryan.  

Thanks, I stole it from the great Boortz. He used it to describe a caller
who just told him that he preferred Social Security to investing the money
himself because the money was already taken out and he "didn't have to
think about it."

>Actually, "Effect the Election" is a perfectly valid phrase; I just
>don't think it means what D'Andries thinks it does.  

Unless it's a proper noun, it's a verb. "Effect the Election" sounds like
a really bad children's story. :)

 -R

In git.announce Ryan Thompson <news@flamtap.org> wrote:
> In article <8ud1di$pf$1@news-int.gatech.edu>, Ze Ninguem wrote:

>>> ballot, then you deserve to have your vote screwed up. (And the Democratic
>>> party deserves you :)
>>
>>Nice little editorial on the end there, Ryan.  

> Thanks, I stole it from the great Boortz. He used it to describe a caller
> who just told him that he preferred Social Security to investing the money
> himself because the money was already taken out and he "didn't have to
> think about it."

Social Security is good for those people who don't know how to save
money.  Assuming, of course, there's any left when they're eligible.  ;)

>>Actually, "Effect the Election" is a perfectly valid phrase; I just
>>don't think it means what D'Andries thinks it does.  

> Unless it's a proper noun, it's a verb. 

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here.  Effect can be
either a noun or a verb, but usually not a proper noun.

> "Effect the Election" sounds like
> a really bad children's story. :)

Um, what??

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2130 TA | I'm not a leader,  
Georgia Institute of Technology | I'm not a left-wing rhetoric 
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | Mobilizing force of one.
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     |  - Dar Williams

In article <8ud20e$vf$1@news-int.gatech.edu>, Ze Ninguem wrote:
>In git.announce Ryan Thompson <news@flamtap.org> wrote:
>>>Actually, "Effect the Election" is a perfectly valid phrase; I just
>>>don't think it means what D'Andries thinks it does.  
>
>> Unless it's a proper noun, it's a verb. 
>
>I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here.  Effect can be
>either a noun or a verb, but usually not a proper noun.

I screwed it up. Didn't think about what I was saying. What I meant to
write was that Effect is a noun, but in the phrase above it would have to
be a verb (like "shoot the cat") or a proper noun (like "Felix the cat").

>> "Effect the Election" sounds like
>> a really bad children's story. :)
>
>Um, what??

yeah

-R

In git.announce Ryan Thompson <news@flamtap.org> wrote:
> In article <8ud20e$vf$1@news-int.gatech.edu>, Ze Ninguem wrote:
>>In git.announce Ryan Thompson <news@flamtap.org> wrote:
>>>>Actually, "Effect the Election" is a perfectly valid phrase; I just
>>>>don't think it means what D'Andries thinks it does.  
>>
>>> Unless it's a proper noun, it's a verb. 
>>
>>I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here.  Effect can be
>>either a noun or a verb, but usually not a proper noun.

> I screwed it up. Didn't think about what I was saying. What I meant to
> write was that Effect is a noun, but in the phrase above it would have to
> be a verb (like "shoot the cat") or a proper noun (like "Felix the cat").

Effect _is_ a verb.

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2130 TA | When you say "I do" 
Georgia Institute of Technology | Oh, but I don't believe in you
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | I can't forget it, no ...
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | - My Bloody Valentine

In git.announce J. C. Weaver <gte639n@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:

>> Social Security is good for those people who don't know how to save
>> money.  Assuming, of course, there's any left when they're eligible.  ;)
>>

> WHAT?  I know this isn't a politics newsgroup, but why should the government
> decide who knows how to save their own money?

If you took my statement as an endorsement of Social Security, you need
to reread it.

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2130 TA | Burning in the corner is
Georgia Institute of Technology | The only one who dreams 
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | He had you with him. 
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | - Jeff Buckley

In git.general Ze Ninguem <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
: Effect _is_ a verb.

Maybe I have a shitty dictionary ... but I don't see anywhere where effect
is used or defined as a verb.  Could you give a sentence where effect is
properly used as a verb?  Or a definition from somewhere or something?

-- 
-jDenver

Am 9 Nov 2000 03:48:00 GMT schrieb jDenver:
>In git.general Ze Ninguem <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
>: Effect _is_ a verb.
>
>Maybe I have a shitty dictionary ... but I don't see anywhere where effect
>is used or defined as a verb.  Could you give a sentence where effect is
>properly used as a verb?  Or a definition from somewhere or something?

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

  Effect \Ef*fect"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Effected}; p. pr. & vb.
     n. {Effecting}.]
     1. To produce, as a cause or agent; to cause to be.
  
              So great a body such exploits to effect. --Daniel.
  
     2. To bring to pass; to execute; to enforce; to achieve; to
        accomplish.
  
              To effect that which the divine counsels had
              decreed.                              --Bp. Hurd.
  
              They sailed away without effecting their purpose.
                                                    --Jowett (Th.
                                                    ).
  
     Syn: To accomplish; fulfill; achieve; complete; execute;
          perform; attain. See {Accomplish}.

-- 
Stevie Strickland - CS 2130 TA       |  sstrickl@angband.org
Official Debian GNU/Linux Developer  |  http://angband.org/~sstrickl
"Ahhh... having Stevie around is better than manpages every day."
  -- Dan Baisley

In git.general Xellos <sstrickl@angband.org> wrote:
: From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
<snip definition of effect as a verb>

So I do just have a shitty dictionary.  Thanks Stevie.

-- 
-jDenver
"A char ** is just like a char *, except it points to 2 characters."
	-David Thompson

In git.announce jDenver <gt0377d@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> In git.general Xellos <sstrickl@angband.org> wrote:
> : From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
> <snip definition of effect as a verb>

> So I do just have a shitty dictionary.  Thanks Stevie.

Dat's right, bitch.  See what you get when you step to me?  

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2130 TA | Tiptoe down to the holy places
Georgia Institute of Technology | Where you going now
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | Don't turn around
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | - My Bloody Valentine 

Jonathan D'Andries <gte498e@prism.gatech.edu> quit lbbs long enough to post:
:Here is somethings that may help make our country more democratic.  If
:you are interested in keeping things fair, check out the link below.

Dear God why?!  This country needs to be more Republic and less Democracy.

MH

-- 
Matt 'Comatose Raspberry' Hufstetler - octane@shaftnet.org

In git.general Ryan Thompson <news@flamtap.org> wrote:

> First, it's "affect" not "effect." Second, if you're too stupid to follow
> directions or too stubborn to ask for help if you're confused about the
> ballot, then you deserve to have your vote screwed up. (And the Democratic
> party deserves you :)

I will agree that Affect is a verb, and Effect is a noun.  Webster's is
either wrong or relying upon some bizarre archaic interpretation.

Secondly, they showed the ballots on TV, and I can see how the mistake
would be made.  It was a two page deal, capable of being folded down the
center.  It looked like...



_____________________________

	BUSH      ----------->  X  ________________________________

_____________________________   X  <---------   BUCHANAN

	GORE      ----------->  X  ________________________________

_____________________________	X  <---------   BROWNE

	NADER     ----------->  X  ________________________________
________________________________


...where you had to punch a hole through the X.  Since Buchanan and Browne
were on a separate page, I could see how someone could look at the page,
see BUSH first with an X, and then see GORE second and mark the second
X.  Bear in mind that the arrows weren't so big and names weren't so
small... had party and VP squeezed in there too.

Alexander Gilman Carver wa hanashite imashita:
>It's true that a lot of people would change their vote.  Even if we were to
>throw out the entire election on a national level and start over, there would
>be vote changes.  However, if you were to throw out all votes everywhere, you
>will have more people voting plus they are going to vote the same way since
>all results have been disqualified.  Granted the minority candidates will most
>likely not receive votes the second time around but there will certainly be
>a show of force as everyone casts for Bush or Gore.  The votes weren't that
>far apart and I don't think they'd drift any farther during a new election.
>People know who they want in office and they're going to vote for that person.

>That would be the fair thing to do.  However, this isn't going to happen
>because we don't live in an ideal nation.

This would not be the fair thing to do. There are always ballots thrown
out in every election for one thing or another; there is no reason to
allow a county full of idiots to revote just because they're
illiterate. 

You are given a chance to vote; if you screw it up and turn your ballot in
anyway, then too bad for you. You can't allow a county to revote for
thrown-out ballots and not others; and they're surely not going to let the
whole nation revote, so it simply won't happen. The best they can do, is
to redesign the ballots for next time.
 
>I don't deny that some people simply didn't pay attention when casting their
>votes in Palm Beach.  However, we're neglecting the possibility that some
>of those people really did get confused by the ballot and, thus, their votes
>are not being counted properly.

They should have asked. Obviously, there were arrows pointing to the
correct holes[0], so if they were confused why Gore didn't point to the
second hole when he was the second person listed on the left, they should
have asked someone to clarify. It's no one's fault but their own.

Bottom line is, you can't give to one group and not give to all--All the
people who had ballots thrown out, no matter what county of what
state. That would be completely unfair.

[0] http://a388.g.akamai.net/f/388/21/15m/www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s
tories/11/09/election.president/large.ballot.ap.jpg

-- 
........................................................
ryoko@shaftnet.org
Anime O-tekku Treasurer, cs1311 TA, IRC slut.
"How can I be in such a feminine place SOBER?!" --Tasuki

In git.announce ryoko-chan <ryoko@shaftnet.org> wrote:
|They should have asked. Obviously, there were arrows pointing to the
|correct holes[0], so if they were confused why Gore didn't point to the
|second hole when he was the second person listed on the left, they should
|have asked someone to clarify. It's no one's fault but their own.

So what is your opinion, then, if the ballot is deemed to be illegal
under Florida law?  That was another issue brought up recently.
The law says that the holes should be on the right edge of the page
and the item being voted on should be on the left page.  The right
page should be blank.  This ballot was not that way.

In git.announce Alexander Gilman Carver <acarver@hog.mirc.gatech.edu> wrote:

>The very simple solution would be to hold a special election in
>Palm Beach and just cast the votes again.

Which would be completely unfair.

-- 
"I get 50 bucks an hour...plus expenses!" Shaft |CS Undergrad
DJag                                            |Ex-CS1502 TA
djag@cc.gatech.edu                              |The Blaster Master

In git.announce Pianoman <gte990u@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
|Problem: if you give them the chance to change their vote, and some will, you
|have to give the whole country the chance to vote. If the Democrats go ahead
|with litigation, the Republicans are sure to go after a few other states where
|the votes were very close, Wisonsin being one of them I believe. All that we can
|really do is have a recount, and tell people they actually have to use their
|brains to think when they're voting.

It's true that a lot of people would change their vote.  Even if we were to
throw out the entire election on a national level and start over, there would
be vote changes.  However, if you were to throw out all votes everywhere, you
will have more people voting plus they are going to vote the same way since
all results have been disqualified.  Granted the minority candidates will most
likely not receive votes the second time around but there will certainly be
a show of force as everyone casts for Bush or Gore.  The votes weren't that
far apart and I don't think they'd drift any farther during a new election.
People know who they want in office and they're going to vote for that person.

That would be the fair thing to do.  However, this isn't going to happen
because we don't live in an ideal nation.

I don't deny that some people simply didn't pay attention when casting their
votes in Palm Beach.  However, we're neglecting the possibility that some
of those people really did get confused by the ballot and, thus, their votes
are not being counted properly.

I'm looking over my ballot from Broward County (the county south of Palm
Beach) and it is markedly different from the ballot that was designed
for this election used by the Palm Beach voting districts.  The Broward
ballot has a single page for the Presidential candidates.  It is located
on the left side, numbers on the right edge of the page next to the
punch holes, and nothing is on the right side of the punch holes.  No
interleaving of entries, no ambiguity.  It also follows the ballot
design requirements set forth in State law, the specific point being that
the punch holes are to be located to the right of the ballot entry.
In the case of the Palm Beach ballot (which, yes, was somehow approved
by the election board of Palm Beach), there were punch holes located
to the left of some ballot entries.

Alexander Gilman Carver wrote:
> 
> In git.announce Pianoman <gte990u@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > Problem: if you give them the chance to change their vote, and some will,
> > you have to give the whole country the chance to vote. If the Democrats go
> > ahead with litigation, the Republicans are sure to go after a few other
> > states where the votes were very close, Wisonsin being one of them I
> > believe. All that we can really do is have a recount, and tell people they
> > actually have to use their brains to think when they're voting.
> 
> It's true that a lot of people would change their vote.  Even if we were to
> throw out the entire election on a national level and start over, there would
> be vote changes.  However, if you were to throw out all votes everywhere, you
> will have more people voting plus they are going to vote the same way since
> all results have been disqualified.  Granted the minority candidates will
> most likely not receive votes the second time around but there will certainly
> be a show of force as everyone casts for Bush or Gore.  The votes weren't
> that far apart and I don't think they'd drift any farther during a new
> election. People know who they want in office and they're going to vote for
> that person.

I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of people actually didn't vote that day
and would vote if they had a reelection. They'd come to the reelection voting
for one or the other, and, from what I've heard, that would help Bush. I
wouldn't mind if that actually happened, as I voted for Bush, but I still don't
think it's fair.
 
> That would be the fair thing to do.  However, this isn't going to happen
> because we don't live in an ideal nation.

Wouldn't an ideal country be wonderful? :P
 
> I don't deny that some people simply didn't pay attention when casting their
> votes in Palm Beach.  However, we're neglecting the possibility that some
> of those people really did get confused by the ballot and, thus, their votes
> are not being counted properly.
> 
> I'm looking over my ballot from Broward County (the county south of Palm
> Beach) and it is markedly different from the ballot that was designed
> for this election used by the Palm Beach voting districts.  The Broward
> ballot has a single page for the Presidential candidates.  It is located
> on the left side, numbers on the right edge of the page next to the
> punch holes, and nothing is on the right side of the punch holes.  No
> interleaving of entries, no ambiguity.  It also follows the ballot
> design requirements set forth in State law, the specific point being that
> the punch holes are to be located to the right of the ballot entry.
> In the case of the Palm Beach ballot (which, yes, was somehow approved
> by the election board of Palm Beach), there were punch holes located
> to the left of some ballot entries.

I agree it was stupid for them to put the ballot like that, but that's beside
the point now. We can't change the past. It's not going to help anyone to whine
about it and try to get a revote. I think it'd be even worse to have a revote in
the county than having many voters blow their vote.

-- 
Nathan Owens
Georgia Tech, Atlanta
PianoComp81@hotmail.com

>
> Why?

Because it would be very easy for Nader and Buchannon voters, knowing that
their candidate did not get anywhere near their 5% goals, to vote for Gore
or Bush, skewing the results.  That's why.

Andrew

Alexander Gilman Carver wrote:

> So what is your opinion, then, if the ballot is deemed to be illegal
> under Florida law?  That was another issue brought up recently.
> The law says that the holes should be on the right edge of the page
> and the item being voted on should be on the left page.  The right
> page should be blank.  This ballot was not that way.

check your sources, under what i read of the FL law the boxes on a PAPER
ballot must be to the right of the names.  These ballots are considered
machine ballots since they are counted by machines.  However all this will
probably be left up to the courts to decide.

Samantha Lynn Conway wrote:

> sure) and that many of these people were told that they had 5 minutes to
> vote.

not sure about the rest of your facts, but the 5 minutes thing is part of FL
law.

In git.announce Akash Patel <gte383j@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
|Alexander Gilman Carver wrote:

|> So what is your opinion, then, if the ballot is deemed to be illegal
|> under Florida law?  That was another issue brought up recently.
|> The law says that the holes should be on the right edge of the page
|> and the item being voted on should be on the left page.  The right
|> page should be blank.  This ballot was not that way.

|check your sources, under what i read of the FL law the boxes on a PAPER
|ballot must be to the right of the names.  These ballots are considered
|machine ballots since they are counted by machines.  However all this will
|probably be left up to the courts to decide.

No, these ballots are punch cards not those big lever machines.  The
ballot information is inserted into the pages of the machines.  The
punch holes are supposed to be to the right of the ballot entries.
In the case of a butterfly ballot, the punch holes are located to the
left of some of the entries (specifically, those entries appearing on
the right-hand page).

The source of my information, aside from the written law which was
already posted here is many years of voting in Florida considering
I'm a resident of that state.

In git.general Alexander Gilman Carver <acarver@hog.mirc.gatech.edu> wrote:

> |> So what is your opinion, then, if the ballot is deemed to be illegal
> |> under Florida law?  That was another issue brought up recently.
> |> The law says that the holes should be on the right edge of the page
> |> and the item being voted on should be on the left page.  The right
> |> page should be blank.  This ballot was not that way.

Actually, from what I've heard, that law applies only to written ballots, not
electronic ballots as was the case here.

-- 
Stuart Glenn Adams
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Email: gt3339a@prism.gatech.edu

In article <3A0DC31F.D2FB3A99@prism.gatech.edu>,
Akash Patel  <gte383j@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Alexander Gilman Carver wrote:
>
>> So what is your opinion, then, if the ballot is deemed to be illegal
>> under Florida law?  That was another issue brought up recently.
>> The law says that the holes should be on the right edge of the page
>> and the item being voted on should be on the left page.  The right
>> page should be blank.  This ballot was not that way.
>
>check your sources, under what i read of the FL law the boxes on a PAPER
>ballot must be to the right of the names.  These ballots are considered
>machine ballots since they are counted by machines.  

You need to read more Fla law.  I've already posted URLs, but i'll recap.
On paper ballots, the order must be the 2 major party candidates, followed
by minor candidates.  
( http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/SEC191.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0101->Section%20191 )

Machine ballots must match the written ballot's older as close as possible
( http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/SEC27.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0101->Section%2027 
paragraph 3).  

Now, regardless of whether the holes must be on this side or that side,
the order of the ballot in palm beach was Bush, Buchanan, Gore.  That's
against the law.

-- 
-R. Adam Moore   Hopeful Romantic   _     "Let me kiss your mind,
 ram@havoc.gtf.org              |\/|_)     bathe your soul..."
                                |  |-\      -Me'Shell N'deg�Ocello
 "You picked the unrequited variety-- bad for the skin" Maxine, BJM

In git.general Alexander Gilman Carver <acarver@hog.mirc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> In git.announce ryoko-chan <ryoko@shaftnet.org> wrote:
> |They should have asked. Obviously, there were arrows pointing to the
> |correct holes[0], so if they were confused why Gore didn't point to the
> |second hole when he was the second person listed on the left, they should
> |have asked someone to clarify. It's no one's fault but their own.
> So what is your opinion, then, if the ballot is deemed to be illegal
> under Florida law?  That was another issue brought up recently.
> The law says that the holes should be on the right edge of the page
> and the item being voted on should be on the left page.  The right
> page should be blank.  This ballot was not that way.

I have also heard that there were not enough people to help those who had
questions (my dad said only the sheriff could do this, but I'm not
sure) and that many of these people were told that they had 5 minutes to
vote. Under those circumstances, I can understand why someone could
misunderstand. (Besides, alternating holes from one side of the page to
another just doesnt make *sense* ;)

(I'm not sure of the accuracy of these facts..think I heard them on the
radio)
-- 
 Samantha L Conway                                sarahzelda@shaftnet.org
    "'Relax', said the nightman,'We are programmed to receive. You can
          check out anytime you like. But you can never leave.'"
                  http://www.shaftnet.org/~sarahzelda/

In article <3A0DC31F.D2FB3A99@prism.gatech.edu>,
Akash Patel  <gte383j@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Alexander Gilman Carver wrote:
>
>> So what is your opinion, then, if the ballot is deemed to be illegal
>> under Florida law?  That was another issue brought up recently.
>> The law says that the holes should be on the right edge of the page
>> and the item being voted on should be on the left page.  The right
>> page should be blank.  This ballot was not that way.
>
>check your sources, under what i read of the FL law the boxes on a PAPER
>ballot must be to the right of the names.  These ballots are considered
>machine ballots since they are counted by machines.  

You need to read more Fla law.  I've already posted URLs, but i'll recap.
On paper ballots, the order must be the 2 major party candidates, followed
by minor candidates.  
( http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/SEC191.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0101->Section%20191 )

Machine ballots must match the written ballot's older as close as possible
( http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/SEC27.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0101->Section%2027 
paragraph 3).  

Now, regardless of whether the holes must be on this side or that side,
the order of the ballot in palm beach was Bush, Gore, Buchanan.  That's
against the law.

-- 
-R. Adam Moore   Hopeful Romantic   _     "Let me kiss your mind,
 ram@havoc.gtf.org              |\/|_)     bathe your soul..."
                                |  |-\      -Me'Shell N'deg�Ocello
 "You picked the unrequited variety-- bad for the skin" Maxine, BJM

Stevie C wrote:
> 
> In article <3A0A0581.8AAD4A78@prism.gatech.edu>, Jonathan D'Andries <gte498e@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >Here is somethings that may help make our country more democratic.  If
> >you are interested in keeping things fair, check out the link below.
> 
> Hey dude, things were fair.
> 
> Gore lost, fair and square.
> 
> Can't help it if you don't like the results and want to
> turn the US into a banana republic.

He hasn't lost yet, officially. I hope he does, but it's still going on. I'm
waiting for the final vote tally for the counties, minus the overseas absentee
ballots as I type. Supposedly, they're going to count the votes in Palm Beach,
anyway, and hope the secretary of state (FL) accepts those votes. I hope she
doesn't. What's even worse, is that my government prof. said that Nader isn't
looking too bad right now. That's a scary thought.

-- 
Nathan Owens
Georgia Tech, Atlanta
PianoComp81@hotmail.com

In article <3A0A0581.8AAD4A78@prism.gatech.edu>, Jonathan D'Andries <gte498e@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Here is somethings that may help make our country more democratic.  If
>you are interested in keeping things fair, check out the link below.

Hey dude, things were fair.

Gore lost, fair and square.

Can't help it if you don't like the results and want to 
turn the US into a banana republic.

Stevie C

In article <3A11D5E6.DB38396B@prism.gatech.edu>, Pianoman <gte990u@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:

>> Gore lost, fair and square.

>He hasn't lost yet, officially. I hope he does, but it's still going on. I'm

What I meant to imply is that the handwriting is on the wall for
anybody who is willing to read it. Gore has lost. The courts aren't
going to over turn it, the recounts aren't going to put him in
the lead, the overseas absentee ballots will extend Bush's
lead, all things point to Bush winning. 

As a mater of point of fact, it isn't official until the Senate opens
the Electorial College vote in December. So....

Stevie C

In git.announce Stevie C <steve.cseplo@facilities.gatech.edu> wrote:
> What I meant to imply is that the handwriting is on the wall for
> anybody who is willing to read it. Gore has lost. The courts aren't
> going to over turn it, the recounts aren't going to put him in

All of this stuff is probably true...

> the lead, the overseas absentee ballots will extend Bush's
> lead, all things point to Bush winning. 

...until this.  Until ALL of the absentee ballots are in (up until the 
17th?), the vote count is not yet complete.

And it would be irresponsible for either side to concede until every 
legit vote has been counted ONCE.

 - Pizza
-- 
Solomon Peachy                                    pizzaATfucktheusers.org
I ain't broke, but I'm badly bent.                           ICQ# 1318344
Patience comes to those who wait.
    ...It's not "Beanbag Love", it's a "Transanimate Relationship"...

> As a mater of point of fact, it isn't official until the Senate opens
> the Electorial College vote in December. So....

hell, at the rate we're going, our election won't be over by then!

/tim

Timothy Faircloth wrote:
> 
> > As a mater of point of fact, it isn't official until the Senate opens
> > the Electorial College vote in December. So....
> 
> hell, at the rate we're going, our election won't be over by then!

It will. Most people privy to the exact workings of the Bush and Gore
campaigns, and others (like Constitutional scholars and such) believe that
Florida will certify its vote by Dec. 18. If not, it doesn't matter,
anyway. The electoral college votes without the Florida electors, and the
majority of all the electors there is the next president. It's been said
that there could possibly be a tie if this would happen, though. No matter
what, the electoral college will vote on Dec. 18.

-- 
Nathan Owens
Georgia Tech, Atlanta
PianoComp81@hotmail.com

Pianoman wrote:

> It will. Most people privy to the exact workings of the Bush and Gore
> campaigns, and others (like Constitutional scholars and such) believe that
> Florida will certify its vote by Dec. 18. If not, it doesn't matter,
> anyway. The electoral college votes without the Florida electors, and the
> majority of all the electors there is the next president. It's been said
> that there could possibly be a tie if this would happen, though. No matter
> what, the electoral college will vote on Dec. 18.

That's not entirely true.  IIRC, whether or not Florida's votes are in,
a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the election.  I'm pretty
sure that if they don't get that, they do that business with the House
of Representatives voting.  I could be wrong.

I know for certain, though, that they don't look at the electoral votes
until the beginning of January, where the new House and Senate convene
to certify the election.  And if any one person objects, and both houses
convene separetely, and by majority in each house, the election could be
declared void.  I've got no idea what happens then.  Anyone know?

-- 
-=Matt Brown=-  GaTech cs/phys undergrad    | 
web: http://thehangedman.digitaldriveway.com| "Every Day is a Good Day" 
email: thehangedman@death-star.com          |  -Zen Proverb
AIM: THM42 ICQ: 10933909                    |

the hanged man wrote:

> That's not entirely true.  IIRC, whether or not Florida's votes are in,
> a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the election.  I'm pretty
> sure that if they don't get that, they do that business with the House
> of Representatives voting.  I could be wrong.
>

they need a majority of the left over votes not the 270

>
> I know for certain, though, that they don't look at the electoral votes
> until the beginning of January, where the new House and Senate convene
> to certify the election.  And if any one person objects, and both houses
> convene separetely, and by majority in each house, the election could be
> declared void.  I've got no idea what happens then.  Anyone know?

I believe you need one person in the house and one in the senate.  They vote on
the validity of electoral votes (ie those of FL).  If they can't decide by
inauguration then the Speaker of the House can resign his position and
congressional seat and be President, if he chooses not to it goes to the
President Pro Temp of Senate, I'm assuming it continues down the list. (this
info came from an article i read on abcnews.com or cnn.com, dont remember which)
This is all from a law that passed in 1887 (?) as a result of the Hayes fiasco.
Also the 20th ammendment  has a provision where the Congress can appoint someone
to be President while they try to figure out who the President is.

Akash Patel wrote:
> 
> the hanged man wrote:
> 
> > That's not entirely true.  IIRC, whether or not Florida's votes are in,
> > a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the election.  I'm pretty
> > sure that if they don't get that, they do that business with the House
> > of Representatives voting.  I could be wrong.
> >
> 
> they need a majority of the left over votes not the 270

I think that the majority of the states have to be represented there, too.
It may be that there needs to be a majority of all the electors present in
order to vote, though. (it won't get this far, though)


>> I know for certain, though, that they don't look at the electoral votes
>> until the beginning of January, where the new House and Senate convene
>> to certify the election.  And if any one person objects, and both houses
>> convene separetely, and by majority in each house, the election could be
>> declared void.  I've got no idea what happens then.  Anyone know?
> 
> I believe you need one person in the house and one in the senate. They
> vote on the validity of electoral votes (ie those of FL). If they can't
> decide by inauguration then the Speaker of the House can resign his
> position and congressional seat and be President, if he chooses not to it
> goes to the President Pro Temp of Senate, I'm assuming it continues down
> the list. 

I heard on CNN that the current Speaker doesn't want it. They say it
probably won't get that far though (God, I hope not).


-- 
Nathan Owens
Georgia Tech, Atlanta
PianoComp81@hotmail.com