- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I wonder how she pictures what it would have been like had the Supremes declined to rule at all. Would we still be arguing over “hanging chads”? There are those who say a recount would have still resulted in a Bush win. There are those who say it wouldn’t have.
Who, in the end, would have decided the matter if not the Supremes?
Maybe if the Court had not ruled in Bush vs. Gore, the public view of the integrity of the Court would be greater. But I have a feeling its rulings on homosexual marriage and the various rulings it has and will make on Obamacare are likely to greatly divide the public view of the Court anyway.
Who, in the end, would have decided the matter if not the Supremes?
Maybe if the Court had not ruled in Bush vs. Gore, the public view of the integrity of the Court would be greater. But I have a feeling its rulings on homosexual marriage and the various rulings it has and will make on Obamacare are likely to greatly divide the public view of the Court anyway.
meltzerboy
New member
At first I thought you were talking about the music group, the Supremes! And when I saw the name O’Connor, for some reason I thought this was referring to the late John Cardinal O’Connor. My mind is obviously gone…
H
Holly3278
Guest
Don’t feel bad. This morning my computer’s audio wasn’t working and I was going to call tech support until I suddenly realized that the audio cable wasn’t plugged in after a troubleshooter told me to check. I thought my mind had gone!
Anyway, as to the subject I really don’t have much of a comment on it. The Bush vs Gore election was the first one I ever voted in. At the time, I voted Democrat because that is a strong tradition in my family. I was also rather liberal back then. I have since swung to the other side and more often than not I side with the Republicans and other conservatives now. But anyway, we can speculate until the end of the world but we can’t go back and change history so I personally don’t see much point in speculating. That’s just my own opinion though.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
IMHO, the case should have never been in the court system in the first place. Florida (and every other state in the nation) has election laws that dealt with the very problems that arose during the Florida election. The issue for some people was that because of the makeup of the Florida legislature, where this issues was to be resolved by law, the decision would have almost certainly gone to Bush. So the Gore camp brought it to the court hoping for a different outcome.
While most people missed this fact, for me, this is the primary reason Gore should not be president. You can’t have a president (i.e., Chief Executive) whose duty it is to uphold the law, while trying to usurp the law because it doesn’t suit him.
While most people missed this fact, for me, this is the primary reason Gore should not be president. You can’t have a president (i.e., Chief Executive) whose duty it is to uphold the law, while trying to usurp the law because it doesn’t suit him.
O
oldcelt
Guest
The bolded statement is the very essence of the case. We cannot allow a national election to be determined by partisan politics at the state level. How a state handles elections for their representatives is one thing…when you start talking about the presidency it is quite another matter…that position impacts the entire US and is voted upon by the entire US.
Gore was absolutely correct IMO to fight this decision. Florida was, and remains a disaster on the elections front, and no state has the right to sway a national election with either their incompetence or their internal politics.
Thankfully, their continued inability to get their house in order was not a factor in 2012.
M
manualman
Guest
Oldcelt, while you may or may not have a point about Florida election integrity, I wonder if you are remotely worried about the attitude that you seem to have that places greater trust in the notion of central government command and control.
I’d suggest that, on the contrary, our freedoms and rights are far safer in a system of distributed power than when that power is concentrated in one place, even if some of the places it is distributed are wacky. Food for thought.
I’d suggest that, on the contrary, our freedoms and rights are far safer in a system of distributed power than when that power is concentrated in one place, even if some of the places it is distributed are wacky. Food for thought.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, but Gore got the last laugh. He seems to be quite a wealthy man now.
Who in his right mind would want to be the President anyway?
R
RACJ
Guest
Sandra’s nomination was one of Reagan’s worst decisions, as she was always a mushy moderate who often ignored the Constitution. This silly outburst now can be forgiven thanks to advanced age, however. The Fl. Supreme Court ruled against its own state constitution regarding electors. Had GORE had the narrow advantage, they’d have ruled unanimously the other way. Just like all progressives, the means justify the ends to them, and everything is relative.
Rob
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
If the federal government wants to change the way election laws for the president are handled at the state level, then the U.S. Congress can do so. Given that they haven’t since this case, it apparently is not that important. In the meantime, presidential candidates in a race should not be suing because they don’t like the way the state chooses it electors.
People were up in arms about hanging chads and other uncertain votes. However, people also forget we don’t live in a democracy, but rather a representative republic. As a result, the votes only matter to a point, and when it is uncertain, the selection of electors is put in the hands of the representatives of the people.
O
oldcelt
Guest
I am far more concerned about the actions of regional groups that threaten the integrity of the overall system. We seem to disagree regarding which system is safer…states rights as an absolute has been gone for a very long time. That has been decided on the battlefield and in the courts and legislatures.
As I said…the states can conduct the elections for their officials any way they want, so long as the do not influence the outcome of a national election or violate the voting rights of any of their citizens.
Then that becomes my (our) problem.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Sorry, but I will never be comfortable with the representatives of ANY state deciding a presidential election when it was that state that botched the election. That is a recipe for fraud on an epic level.
This is why I support a switch from representative to straight popular vote for national elections. It is far harder to steal enough votes nationwide to change an outcome…less difficult on a state level.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
For a second, I thought someone must have resurrected a thread from 12 years ago. But then I realized CAF wasn’t around then.
It is interesting to me that she picks this as the most controversial case from her tenure. I think the Court already had a “less-than-perfect reputation” before this case, so that strikes me as a bit of an odd comment.
It is interesting to me that she picks this as the most controversial case from her tenure. I think the Court already had a “less-than-perfect reputation” before this case, so that strikes me as a bit of an odd comment.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
It’s been that way for 237 years, and is unlikely to change anytime soon.
But the Florida example is exactly why there needs to be a backup plan. The problem with the votes in question is that they are uncertain, and how do you decide uncertain votes with certainty? Simple…you don’t.
The more that time goes on, the greater our understanding of how smart our Founding Fathers really were.
J
JimG
Guest
That’s just the point though. The U.S. does not have a national election for U.S. president.
We have 50 state elections to vote for electors who cast votes for president.
Can you imagine what a nationwide recount for a national election would look like?
(And at one time, it was state legislatures, not the general population, which voted for and selected U.S. Senators, while the House members were voted on by the general public. Not sure that that might not have been a better system. Gerrymandering has ruined the representational effect of general elections.)
P
ProVobis
Guest
Maybe she does have a point. The Constitution already has been written to cover disputes of this nature.
O
oldcelt
Guest
And has ruined any logic in having a single gerrymandered state legislature essentially decide a presidential election.
Our founders were bright guys, but they could never have envisioned a nation this large or politically complex. It may be time to revisit some of their work regarding elections rather than doing crisis control.
In all honesty, the restraint of the American people in 2000 amazed me. Things have become much more hostile politically since then. I’d hate to see anything close to that in today’s environment.
The presidential elections have generally not been very close from a popular standpoint. I don’t think that recounts would be a major issue under a popular vote system
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
Actually, the system they designed works much better than a democracy as the population increases. There are only a few instances where true democracy has been implemented, and they are basically isolated to small tribes, or city states that are much smaller than anything we deal with today.
O
oldcelt
Guest
I don’t see how a convoluted system can be said to work better. If thus and such happens then so and so occurs except in the case of X…
I guess that in the modern age I refuse to believe that we can’t count votes correctly if we really try. I’m not talking about direct democracy for every issue like they do in some small towns…just the election of national officials. I elect my senators and representatives by popular vote.
By going to straight popular vote for president you eliminate everything but the most unlikely scenarios and the every 4 to 8 years of complaining about the electoral college… depending on how people feel about the outcome.
We have not had a presidential election in a very long time, if ever, that any reasonable case could be made for a recount of the popular vote nationwide. In 2000, if I recall correctly, Gore won the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes nationwide. I can’t imagine what could have been claimed to prompt a recount in that election if a popular vote model had been in place.
Instead, we had a bitterly divisive battle over votes in a few Florida counties. We got through that one…I’m not so confident that we would do so well were it to happen again.
- Status