O'Connor questions court's decision to take Bush v. Gore

[Cider]

Still whining about Bush, he hasn’t even been in office for 5 years.

 

[oldcelt]

Still whining about Bush, he hasn’t even been in office for 5 years.

There is a major difference between whining and pointing out facts in a discussion of Bush v. Gore. Remember, this thread is about statements by former Justice O’Connor regarding that very case.

 

[livingwordunity]

This video clip about it is hilarious
youtube.com/watch?v=F9pqmW-D14I

 

[Cider]

There is a major difference between whining and pointing out facts in a discussion of Bush v. Gore. Remember, this thread is about statements by former Justice O’Connor regarding that very case.

Just for clarity, I was referring to the article in the OP, not anyones post here. I didn’t even read the replies until today.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

Importantly she questions the decision of the court to accept the case, not her vote with the majority as to the case in chief.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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.

The 500,000 number is meaningless without perspective. It’s actually less than 0.5% of the total vote, likely within the range of error, and a recount would be warranted if challenged.

 

[ProVobis]

The 500,000 number is meaningless without perspective. It’s actually less than 0.5% of the total vote, likely within the range of error, and a recount would be warranted if challenged.

Maybe but 500,000 is fully filling the LA Colosseum five times or Wrigley Field 13 times. That’s a whole lot of people.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Maybe but 500,000 is fully filling the LA Colosseum five times or Wrigley Field 13 times. That’s a whole lot of people.

Not when the number of people that voted is greater that 100,000,000. It’s roughly 1 in 200. If the margin of error is 1%+/-, then we cannot determine with certainty who won that election.

 

[ProVobis]

Not when the number of people that voted is greater that 100,000,000. It’s roughly 1 in 200. If the margin of error is 1%+/-, then we cannot determine with certainty who won that election.

Seems to me the margin of error is significant when polling a portion of the population who will vote. (I think a sample of 10,000 will give you +/- 1%, 40,000 will give you +/- 0.5%) On election day, that IS the number who vote.

If you’re talking recounting the ballots, that’s a different animal, and many other factors come into play. Didn’t California in fact recount their votes because they didn’t think Gore won the popular vote?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

On election day, that IS the number who vote.

There is obviously a margin of error when on election day, otherwise Florida would have never been an issue. Paper ballots get double-punched or not punched at all, machines don’t read ballots properly, votes get lost, people vote twice under different names, etc.

 

[ProVobis]

There is obviously a margin of error when on election day, otherwise Florida would have never been an issue. Paper ballots get double-punched or not punched at all, machines don’t read ballots properly, votes get lost, people vote twice under different names, etc.

In that case, when such ambiguity can result, it seems like the entire vote should be voided. The margin of error would be a lot higher than 1% in those counties. But I doubt if this would have given Bush the popular vote for the entire country.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

In that case, when such ambiguity can result, it seems like the entire vote should be voided. The margin of error would be a lot higher than 1% in those counties. But I doubt if this would have given Bush the popular vote for the entire country.

Probably not, but it would be within the margin of error, and thus it cannot be determined with certainly who actually won. That’s the problem with a popular vote. The only way to solve the problem is that if the vote is within the margin of error, then the margin of error must be ignored. And once the margin of error is ignored, then there is not justification for ever having a recount.

 

[ProVobis]

Probably not, but it would be within the margin of error, and thus it cannot be determined with certainly who actually won. That’s the problem with a popular vote. The only way to solve the problem is that if the vote is within the margin of error, then the margin of error must be ignored. And once the margin of error is ignored, then there is not justification for ever having a recount.

It’s my understanding that anyone who’s willing to pay the cost can have a recount done. It’s only automatic in some cases.

That said, I’m not necessarily an advocate for the popular vote. There would be a big problem with any possible recounts, as you have pointed out. But there would be different campaign strategies involved, voting might be more standardized, and I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for the country.

 

[estesbob]

It’s my understanding that anyone who’s willing to pay the cost can have a recount done. It’s only automatic in some cases.

That said, I’m not necessarily an advocate for the popular vote. There would be a big problem with any possible recounts, as you have pointed out. But there would be different campaign strategies involved, voting might be more standardized, and I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for the country.

Going by popular vote would give unfair advantage to traditionally democrat strongholds in big cites. our founders knew what they were doing when they instated the electoral vote.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Going by popular vote would give unfair advantage to traditionally democrat strongholds in big cites. our founders knew what they were doing when they instated the electoral vote.

This is most definitely true. The vast majority of counties in the U.S. have Republican majorities in terms of voting in presidential elections; approximately a 4:1 margin. However, major cities, which have high populations, typically are Democratic strongholds.

 

[oldcelt]

Going by popular vote would give unfair advantage to traditionally democrat strongholds in big cites. our founders knew what they were doing when they instated the electoral vote.

How can popular vote in a presidential election give anyone an unfair advantage? By the nature of a popular vote, it is irrelevant where the vote is cast…a vote in Pittsburgh counts exactly the same as a vote in Tinytown, Colorado.

As I’ve said before, I am largely content with the electoral college, but in the case of a disputed election like 2000, I do not want the final decision being made by a heavily gerrymandered state legislature…no matter who is in control.

I truly believe that we dodged a bullet in 2000, and with the extremely toxic political environment of today, I’m not at all confident that another similar episode would end so peacefully.

 

[scipio337]

How can popular vote in a presidential election give anyone an unfair advantage? By the nature of a popular vote, it is irrelevant where the vote is cast…a vote in Pittsburgh counts exactly the same as a vote in Tinytown, Colorado…

Maybe because we’re still a federalist system? Perhaps we can change the Senate from 2 per state to population proportionate while we are at it?

 

[oldcelt]

Maybe because we’re still a federalist system? Perhaps we can change the Senate from 2 per state to population proportionate while we are at it?

Changing the senate is an entirely different subject. That was instituted to balance the scales so far as the less populace states and was a very reasonable compromise.
Using popular vote for a presidential election would place no burden on less populace states…a single vote from Wyoming would carry the exact same weight as a single vote from California.

 

[estesbob]

How can popular vote in a presidential election give anyone an unfair advantage? By the nature of a popular vote, it is irrelevant where the vote is cast…a vote in Pittsburgh counts exactly the same as a vote in Tinytown, Colorado.

As I’ve said before, I am largely content with the electoral college, but in the case of a disputed election like 2000, I do not want the final decision being made by a heavily gerrymandered state legislature…no matter who is in control.

I truly believe that we dodged a bullet in 2000, and with the extremely toxic political environment of today, I’m not at all confident that another similar episode would end so peacefully.

The candidates will concentrate only on campaigning in large urban areas and concentrating on issues only important to them. The founders wisely made sure a candidate had to appeal to people all across the country, both urban and rural.

 

[scipio337]

Changing the senate is an entirely different subject. That was instituted to balance the scales so far as the less populace states and was a very reasonable compromise.
Using popular vote for a presidential election would place no burden on less populace states…a single vote from Wyoming would carry the exact same weight as a single vote from California.

A popular vote would give the more populous states more power, and detract from the less populous ones. It’s the same concept as the Senate. All states are equal commonwealths.