🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:100is9g4nhs5567@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "WitchDr" <Witch--Dr@usa.nojunkmail.net.ru> wrote in message
> news:HiaOb.11043$2L6.376@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Russell Senior" <seniorr@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:86k73rt64z.fsf@coulee.tdb.com...
> > > >>>>> "Lobby" == Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net>
writes:
> > >
> > > Lobby> The votes cast in each state Determine the Electoral Votes.
> > >
> > > Or _should_ determine the Electoral Votes (or however the state
> > > chooses to select them).  In this case, it was a subset of votes cast
> > > in Florida that was used to choose the Electoral Votes.  There was
> > > never even one single offical count of all the legally cast ballots.
> >
> > Gore's strategy was to recount select counties and it didn't fly.
>
> He also asked to recount the entire state - Bush refused.

Gore never filed the paper work for a complete recount. 30 days after the
election, Gore is still in court arguing that he does NOT have to ask for a
full recount. The fact is that Gore said the Judge Saul made an ERROR when
he said that ALL BALLOTS must be recounted.

Transcript of Gore vs Harris, FSC, 12/7/2000:

"Boies: It is, Your Honor, but here the court expressly based its conclusion
on three errors of law:

"First, that you have to do a statewide recount, which we think there is no
support for it in this or any other state."

"Second, that under one 168, it's an abuse of the discretion standard.
Again, we don't think there's any case that says, in terms of what a ballot
means, whether a ballot does or does not reflect the voter's intent, that is
something that, in the judicial proceeding of a contest, discretion resides
in the canvassing board."

"And third, that in order to even look at the ballots, which are already
admitted into evidence in the case, you have to show a reasonable
probability that you will change the election, before you even look at the
ballots. And again, we think that is inconsistent, first, with the standard
in 168, which says "or place in doubt," and is inconsistent with the way a
trial goes, which is that you look at the evidence before you reach that
conclusion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/courttext120700.ht
m

The court record shows that it was BUSH who was advocating a full recount,
not Gore.

From the order, Gore vs. Harris, Florida Supreme Court,
12/8/2000....."Appellees contend that even if a count of the undervotes in
Miami-Dade were appropriate, section 102.168, Florida Statute (2000),
require a count of all votes in Miami-Dade County and the entire state as
opposed to a selected number of votes challenged. However, the plain
language of section 102.168 refutes Appellees' argument."

The Appellees in this case was Katherine Harris. Her argument to the court
was that if you are going to order a recount, it should be of the entire
state. But of course that is not what Gore wanted.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf


> >It sucks
> > that what decided the election was legal tactics but Bush wasn't an
idiot
> > and used his own legal challenge. Bush's strategy prevailed/
> >
> > > I "got over" _that_ it happened.  I have a harder time getting over
> > > that the public doesn't even seem to know what _did_ happen.
> >
> > You seem to think that somehow the stupid American voters doesn't know.
We
> > all know what happened and Gore lost. If Bush is so terrible, he'll be
> > evicted from office come November.
> >
>  You really want the end of democracy and for the US to be run by an
> Oligarchy?
> ------------------
> America as a One-Party State
>
> Today's hard right seeks total dominion. It's packing the courts and
rigging
> the rules. The target is not the Democrats but democracy itself.
>
> In past single-party eras, the majority party earned its preeminence with
> broad popular support. Today the electorate remains closely divided, and
> actually prefers more Democratic policy positions than Republican ones.
Yet
> the drift toward an engineered one-party Republican state has aroused
little
> press scrutiny or widespread popular protest.
>
> We are at risk of becoming an autocracy in three key respects. First,
> Republican parliamentary gimmickry has emasculated legislative opposition
in
> the House of Representatives (the Senate has other problems). House
Majority
> Leader Tom DeLay of Texas has both intimidated moderate Republicans and
> reduced the minority party to window dressing, rather like the token
> opposition parties in Mexico during the six-decade dominance of the PRI.
>
> Second, electoral rules have been rigged to make it increasingly difficult
> for the incumbent party to be ejected by the voters, absent a
> Depression-scale disaster, Watergate-class scandal or Teddy
Roosevelt-style
> ruling party split. After two decades of bipartisan collusion in the
> creation of safe House seats, there are now perhaps just 25 truly
> contestable House seats in any given election year (and that's before the
> recent Republican super gerrymandering). What once was a slender and
> precarious majority -- 229 Republicans to 205 Democrats (including Bernie
> Sanders of Vermont, an independent who votes with Democrats) -- now looks
> like a Republican lock. In the Senate, the dynamics are different but
> equally daunting for Democrats. As the Florida debacle of 2000 showed, the
> Republicans are also able to hold down the number of opposition votes,
with
> complicity from Republican courts. Reform legislation, the 2002 Help
America
> Vote Act (HAVA), may actually facilitate Republican intimidation of
minority
> voters and reduce Democratic turnout. And the latest money-and-politics
> regime, nominally a reform, may give the right more of a financial
advantage
> than ever.
>
> Third, the federal courts, which have slowed some executive-branch efforts
> to destroy liberties, will be a complete rubber stamp if the right wins
one
> more presidential election.
>
> Taken together, these several forces could well enable the Republicans to
> become the permanent party of autocratic government for at least a
> generation. Am I exaggerating? Take a close look at the particulars.
> http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/2/kuttner-r.html
>
>
>