Discussion about usa politics

[nolips71 0]

sorry i seemed to have started this handbag fight (i will accept no liabilty for any comments said by anyone in response to what i said)

[Frisbee 0]

Just an antiquated system,the UK dropped it ages ago.

Put it any way you like,Bush is a president that the majority of the americans wouldn't have wanted.In a normal electioning system he wouldn't have gotten elected.

I wonder how much things might've gone differently.

[Schoeler 0]

Okay, here's what I found out:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">     On the night of the presidential election, November 7, 2000, the Democratic candidate, Vice President Albert Gore, won the national popular vote but was locked in a bitter fight with the Republican candidate, Texas Governor George W. Bush, for Florida's twenty-five electoral votes, which would have put either man over 270 votes, the portion of the 528 votes of the Electoral College required to win.  Based on projections, CNN and other news services initially declared Gore and then Bush the winner, but ultimately concluded the election was too close to call.  The next day the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush had recieved 2,909, 135 votes and Gore 2,907,351 votes, a margin of 1,784 for Bush.  Because the margin was less than one-half of one percent of the votes cast, an automatic machine recount was conducted, as required under Florida law.  The result diminished Bush's lead to 327 votes and Gore then sought manual recounts in three counties--- Volusia, Broward and Miami-Dade---as allowed under Florida's law for protesting election results.  Palm Beach County subsequently announced that it would manually recount all votes and Bush filed suit in federal district court to bar that recounting.  In the meantime, a dispute arose over the deadline for canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Florida Secretary of State for certification.  The secretary's decision declining to waive a Novemeber 14 deadline for certification was challenged in state courts, and the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the manual recounts should be included in the final vote and extended the certification deadline to Novemeber 26.  Attorneys for Bush appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the state supreme court had rewritten state election law.  Before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in that case, the secretary of state certified Bush as the winner of the election by 537 votes and Gore filed suit, as provided under Florida law, contesting elections.

    On Friday, December 1, oral arguments in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), were heard, and for the first time an audio recording of the arguments was made available for public broadcasting immediately after the arguments.  The following Monday, December 4, the Court unanimously vacated and remanded the Florida Supreme Court's decision extending the certification date.  The Court also directed the state supreme court to clarify the basis for its decision--- specifically, whether its ruling violated the due process clause; Section 5 of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which provides a "safe harbor" for electoral votes recieving certification by December 12; and Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature therof may direct" the electors for president and vice president.

    On December 7, the Florida Supreme Court heard ora arguments in Gore's contest of the vote certification and the following day, voting four to three, ordered an immediate manual recount of all votes in the state where no vote for president was machine recorded.  That decision was in turn immediately appealed by Bush attorneys to the U.S. Supreme Court which granted a stay of the statewide vote recount and also granted review and set the date for oral arguments the following Monday, December 11, in Bush v. Gore.  In addition to arguing that the vote recount ran afoul of Article II and Section 5 of the Electoral Count Act, attorneys for Bush contended that the manual recount was standardless and, thus, violated the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause.  By contrast, Gore's lawyers claimed that every vote should be counted.  The following night at 10 P.M., December 12, the Court handed down its decision reversing the state supreme court upon finding that the standardless manual recount violated the equal protection clause but that a remedy--- a remedy providing for a recount of votes based on clear standards--- was impossible given the December 12 deadline.

    The decision of the Court was delivered in a per curiam opinion.  By a vote of seven to two, with Justices Stevens and Ginsburg dissenting, the state supreme court's decision was held to run afoul of the equal protection clause.  By a vote of five to four, the Court held that there was no remedy available.  Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas filed a concurring opinion.  Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer each filed dissenting opinions.<span id='postcolor'>

Source: Constitional Law and Politics Volume One.  David M. O'Brien. 5th Edition.  W.W. Norton Co,  New York.

The 14th Amendment:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Amendment XIV [Ratified July 9, 1868.]

Section 1.  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.<span id='postcolor'>

I think the connection between the Equal Protection Clause and the Florida Supreme Court order to manually recount is thin at best.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S.CT. 525 (2000)

Read the dissents, for further illumination. Also, the fact that the opinion was per curiam indicates that the Court was badly divided on this issue.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ 06 May 2003,07:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know why people don't understand this, it should be common sense.  When you insult our president, whether we voted for him or not, you insult the entire country.  When you say the president is a bumbling fool, you insult the entire country.  If you're not careful you're going to get a lot of knee-jerk reactions.

So, unless you like insulting Americans, stop insulting the president.  Now I know nobody here is going to stop making fun of the president, any type of change is too much to expect.  Just remember that  71% of Americans like the president, so when you prance around calling him a bumbling fool you insult 71% of the United States, and dont be surprised when you get a hostile reaction.<span id='postcolor'>

then you should accept that French ppl are Chirac. Chirac won election by a LANDSLIDE and enjoyed 89% approval ratings, much higher than Bush.

further more, his approval rating was somewhere between 49 and 79 percent. so how relating ratings to whole america is a minomer. relating approval for policy to ratings is the correct way.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Read the dissents, for further illumination. Also, the fact that the opinion was per curiam indicates that the Court was badly divided on this issue.

<span id='postcolor'>

yup. talk about a bad day for Renquist. First he had to goto Senate to hear aobut Clinton during impeachment, and now he is into another presidential fight. regardless of my feelings towards him or not, that gentleman sure lived through one exciting time.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 07 May 2003,08:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are so stupid...<span id='postcolor'>

I don't taste good barbecued, so stop flaming me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"STOP DOING THE THINGS TO OTHERS THAT YOU DON"T WANT TO BE DONE WITH YOU !!!"<span id='postcolor'>

So THATS why he killed thousands of civilians in America and overseas, and oppressed women in Afghanistan. He's a real do-gooder aint he?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">then you should accept that French ppl are Chirac. Chirac won election by a LANDSLIDE and enjoyed 89% approval ratings, much higher than Bush. <span id='postcolor'>

Never said the French people weren't Chirac, what's your point?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">further more, his approval rating was somewhere between 49 and 79 percent. so how relating ratings to whole america is a minomer. relating approval for policy to ratings is the correct way.<span id='postcolor'>

So Chirac has higher approval ratings than Bush, so what? What does that have to do with anything I said?

And it's not like Chirac doesn't have approval ratings for the same reason Bush does.

Chirac - I oppose the war on Iraq.

France - Yaaay! We approve!

Bush - Iraq is our new parking lot.

USA - Yaaay! We approve!

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ 07 May 2003,03:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 07 May 2003,08:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are so stupid...<span id='postcolor'>

I don't taste good barbecued, so stop flaming me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"STOP DOING THE THINGS TO OTHERS THAT YOU DON"T WANT TO BE DONE WITH YOU !!!"<span id='postcolor'>

So THATS why he killed thousands of civilians in America and overseas, and oppressed women in Afghanistan.  He's a real do-gooder aint he?<span id='postcolor'>

what? quoting something i never said? ROFLMAO!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">then you should accept that French ppl are Chirac. Chirac won election by a LANDSLIDE and enjoyed 89% approval ratings, much higher than Bush. <span id='postcolor'>

Never said the French people weren't Chirac, what's your point?<span id='postcolor'>

so becareful if some French thinks you are Bush and give you hardtime. according to your logic, Clinton should not be criticized since Clinton was president for 8 years.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">further more, his approval rating was somewhere between 49 and 79 percent. so how relating ratings to whole america is a minomer. relating approval for policy to ratings is the correct way.<span id='postcolor'>

So Chirac has higher approval ratings than Bush, so what?  What does that have to do with anything I said?

And it's not like Chirac doesn't have approval ratings for the same reason Bush does.

Chirac - I oppose the war on Iraq.

France - Yaaay!  We approve!

Bush - Iraq is our new parking lot.

USA - Yaaay!  We approve!<span id='postcolor'>

you're basically saying that approval ratings mean how much a country is related with its leadership. Chirac got 89% at one point. so does that mean 89% of French were Chiracs? hardly. approval rating is about how a policy is conducted/implemented and how ppl evaluate it. and taking broader assumption about how ppl think about one subject based on single element is a big miss in evalutaion.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">what? quoting something i never said? ROFLMAO!<span id='postcolor'>

ROFLMAO! Since you're a mod here I assume youve been here long enough to know about these things, you'd probably also know about the bug that caused your little mishap. I clicked on the "quote" button so I wouldnt have to lose the stuff on my clipboard by copy/pasting your post because when I click the "quote" button it automatically puts your post in a tidy little box below mine. this also puts that stupid little "poted by ralphwiggum..." tag on the top of my post no matter what I do. so no, i did not misquote you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so becareful if some French thinks you are Bush and give you hardtime. according to your logic, Clinton should not be criticized since Clinton was president for 8 years.<span id='postcolor'>

Dont tell me what my logic is, you're having a hard time understanding it. My point was: people shouldn't make fun of president Bush because he is our president. When you do that, you make fun of our country. When he's no longer the president, he's a private citizen, then you can make fun of him as much as you like because he doesnt represent much of anything.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you're basically saying that approval ratings mean how much a country is related with its leadership.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I didn't say that at all. I said our president represents the country, so when you make fun of the president you make fun of the country. Never said anything about the whole country being Bushes.

[ralphwiggum 6]

ladies and gentlemen, another FSPilot moment

look at my previous post.(and yours too). you said "You are stupid" was quoted from me.

and no, that was not my post, yet you posted it as if were mine. same thing for next one.

back on topic

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont tell me what my logic is, you're having a hard time understanding it. My point was: people shouldn't make fun of president Bush because he is our president. When you do that, you make fun of our country. When he's no longer the president, he's a private citizen, then you can make fun of him as much as you like because he doesnt represent much of anything.p<span id='postcolor'>

sure, so i can make fun of Reagan, Bush Jr. after he leaves teh Office. try telling Republicans that they should have not criticized Clinton during his 8 yrs in office. you'll get a long stare of astonishment.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you're basically saying that approval ratings mean how much a country is related with its leadership. <span id='postcolor'>

No, I didn't say that at all. I said our president represents the country, so when you make fun of the president you make fun of the country. Never said anything about the whole country being Bushes.<span id='postcolor'>

from your old post:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just remember that 71% of Americans like the president, so when you prance around calling him a bumbling fool you insult 71% of the United States, and dont be surprised when you get a hostile reaction.<span id='postcolor'>

[toadeater 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 06 May 2003,14:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the problem is that you believe that Government can, and is supposed to, solve all cultural problems within a country.  I think that often, it is the culture that must solve them itself. Most of the time, government throws money at the problem and hopes it will work itself out.<span id='postcolor'>

The government loves cultural problems. When everyone is busy arguing with each other, or busy being terrified and horrified they don't notice Uncle Bush pickpocketing them all in the name of national security.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tamme @ 06 May 2003,17:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They should really cut the culture and sport budgets and put the money in healthcare and police funding. Laws are no good if there's no one to make sure they are followed.<span id='postcolor'>

Healthcare does not need more funding in Finland. What it needs is a complete overhaul, since most of the funding goes to bureaucracy at the moment. Also, you should get only the minimal healthcare without actually coughing up some money yourself. This is because modern medicine is incredibly expensive and so we cannot possibly provide the best care available for everybody, not even with 100% taxes.

We don't need any sports budget, since sports pretty much pay for themselves and people want to pay to play sports. Culture, well, pop art obviously pays for itself, but maybe we should throw some scraps to classical arts, just to keep the people happy. Science should be funded generously, since science enhances the competitive edge of companies, which in turn make money for the country. Science efficiently pays for itself.

Although I'm not personally a fan of the police, I'd say that the current model of pay-by-results assumes that the level of crime is constant and is therefore ridiculous.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 07 May 2003,03:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">then you should accept that French ppl are Chirac. Chirac won election by a LANDSLIDE and enjoyed 89% approval ratings, much higher than Bush.<span id='postcolor'>

Although to be fair, he was running against a xenophobic quasi-fascist, and those approval ratings reflect more on his ability to not be a complete embarassment to France's reputation as a good liberal/socialist democracy, rather than any of his actual policies (which have led to France's economy becoming nearly as bad as Germany's)

[Guest]

Initially yes, they elected him because the alternative was unimaginable. In recent times however he has been enjoying > 90% popular support because of his opposition against the Iraq war.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

I have a friend from france and he´s damn strange

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 06 May 2003,17:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay, here's what I found out:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">     On the night of the presidential election, November 7, 2000, the Democratic candidate, Vice President Albert Gore, won the national popular vote but was locked in a bitter fight with the Republican candidate, Texas Governor George W. Bush, for Florida's twenty-five electoral votes, which would have put either man over 270 votes, the portion of the 528 votes of the Electoral College required to win.  Based on projections, CNN and other news services initially declared Gore and then Bush the winner, but ultimately concluded the election was too close to call.  The next day the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush had recieved 2,909, 135 votes and Gore 2,907,351 votes, a margin of 1,784 for Bush.  Because the margin was less than one-half of one percent of the votes cast, an automatic machine recount was conducted, as required under Florida law.  The result diminished Bush's lead to 327 votes and Gore then sought manual recounts in three counties--- Volusia, Broward and Miami-Dade---as allowed under Florida's law for protesting election results.  Palm Beach County subsequently announced that it would manually recount all votes and Bush filed suit in federal district court to bar that recounting.  In the meantime, a dispute arose over the deadline for canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Florida Secretary of State for certification.  The secretary's decision declining to waive a Novemeber 14 deadline for certification was challenged in state courts, and the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the manual recounts should be included in the final vote and extended the certification deadline to Novemeber 26.  Attorneys for Bush appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the state supreme court had rewritten state election law.  Before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in that case, the secretary of state certified Bush as the winner of the election by 537 votes and Gore filed suit, as provided under Florida law, contesting elections.

    On Friday, December 1, oral arguments in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), were heard, and for the first time an audio recording of the arguments was made available for public broadcasting immediately after the arguments.  The following Monday, December 4, the Court unanimously vacated and remanded the Florida Supreme Court's decision extending the certification date.  The Court also directed the state supreme court to clarify the basis for its decision--- specifically, whether its ruling violated the due process clause; Section 5 of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which provides a "safe harbor" for electoral votes recieving certification by December 12; and Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature therof may direct" the electors for president and vice president.

    On December 7, the Florida Supreme Court heard ora arguments in Gore's contest of the vote certification and the following day, voting four to three, ordered an immediate manual recount of all votes in the state where no vote for president was machine recorded.  That decision was in turn immediately appealed by Bush attorneys to the U.S. Supreme Court which granted a stay of the statewide vote recount and also granted review and set the date for oral arguments the following Monday, December 11, in Bush v. Gore.  In addition to arguing that the vote recount ran afoul of Article II and Section 5 of the Electoral Count Act, attorneys for Bush contended that the manual recount was standardless and, thus, violated the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause.  By contrast, Gore's lawyers claimed that every vote should be counted.  The following night at 10 P.M., December 12, the Court handed down its decision reversing the state supreme court upon finding that the standardless manual recount violated the equal protection clause but that a remedy--- a remedy providing for a recount of votes based on clear standards--- was impossible given the December 12 deadline.

    The decision of the Court was delivered in a per curiam opinion.  By a vote of seven to two, with Justices Stevens and Ginsburg dissenting, the state supreme court's decision was held to run afoul of the equal protection clause.  By a vote of five to four, the Court held that there was no remedy available.  Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas filed a concurring opinion.  Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer each filed dissenting opinions.<span id='postcolor'>

Source: Constitional Law and Politics Volume One.  David M. O'Brien. 5th Edition.  W.W. Norton Co,  New York.

The 14th Amendment:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Amendment XIV [Ratified July 9, 1868.]

Section 1.  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.<span id='postcolor'>

I think the connection between the Equal Protection Clause and the Florida Supreme Court order to manually recount is thin at best.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S.CT. 525 (2000)

Read the dissents, for further illumination.  Also, the fact that the opinion was per curiam indicates that the Court was badly divided on this issue.<span id='postcolor'>

I guess they consider hand recounts that ran beyond the deadlines in florida law to be unfair to all other voters.  I was essentially correct in saying that votes counted again beyond the deadlines were essentially illegal. Hand recounts are allowed only when there is a clear-cut case of fraud with a ruling from a case where the fraud was documented and evidence shown.  There was plenty of allegations but no one ever went to court with any evidence. Gore simply choose those counties for recount only because they are democratic strongholds. Once again, it all depends on whether you want to make up election rules on the fly or not.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpeedyDonkey @ 07 May 2003,09:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a friend from france and he´s damn strange<span id='postcolor'>

Christ, just look at Ran!

[Guest]

Talking about US politics, remember every American here swearing that the 'soft money' problem would be solved now.

Well, I guess not

[PitViper 0]

Here's a chronology:

2000 Election Chronology

Tuesday, Nov. 7—Election Day. Pundits have predicted a tight race between Texas governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore, but few expect one of the closest elections in U.S. history. By early evening, it's clear the election hinges on Florida.

Wednesday, Nov. 8—Gore calls Bush at approximately 3 A.M. to concede, but retracts the concession shortly after, because Bush's razor-slim lead prompts an automatic recount. He leads Gore by about 1,210 votes out of nearly 6 million cast in Florida. Meanwhile Gore leads in both the national popular count and the electoral college.

An unusual amount of votes for third-party candidates in Palm Beach County leads to disputes over the county's “butterfly ballots.†A number of ballots in other counties are disqualified because the chad—the small piece of paper punched out of punch-card ballots—did not fully detach from the ballot.

Thursday, Nov. 9—Gore's camp requests a hand recount of the approximately 1.8 million ballots cast in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Volusia counties, Democratic strongholds.

Friday, Nov. 10—Florida's automatic recount is completed. The Associated Press reports that Bush has retained his lead but only by 327 votes.

Saturday, Nov. 11—The Bush team, led by former secretary of state James Baker, files suit in federal court to block Gore's request for a hand recount.

Monday, Nov. 13—Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris announces she will not extend the Nov. 14 deadline for the submission of all state results, excluding absentee ballots from overseas.

A federal judge in Miami rejects Bush's efforts to halt manual recounts. Bush appeals the decision.

Tuesday, Nov. 14—Harris postpones certification of the state's votes until Nov. 15, so Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties have time to prepare an explanation of why they should hand count their ballots.

Wednesday, Nov. 15—Harris decides that no county offered adequate evidence to justify further hand recounts.

Florida Supreme Court denies a request from Harris to stop the hand recounts. Certification is again postponed.

Thursday, Nov. 16—Bush's lawyers present written arguments to the U.S. federal appeals court in Atlanta to end the manual recounts. Gore's team files a counter motion.

Friday, Nov. 17—The Florida Supreme Court blocks Harris from certifying election until it rules on the Democrats' motion to include hand recounts.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denies the Republicans' motion to stop manual recounts on constitutional grounds.

Saturday, Nov. 18—With a tally of absentee ballots, uncertified count has Bush ahead of Gore by 930 votes.

Tuesday, Nov. 21—Florida Supreme Court rules that results of hand counts of ballots in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties must be included in the vote tally if the counts are completed by Nov. 26.

Sunday, Nov. 26—Harris certifies Bush as the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes, with a 537-vote lead over Gore. Gore pledges to challenge certification in court. The tally does not include results from Palm Beach County, which finished its hand recount hours after the deadline.

Monday, Nov. 27—Gore contests the Florida results in a circuit court in Tallahassee.

Wednesday, Nov. 29—Leon County Circuit Court judge N. Sanders Sauls orders that all ballots from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties be sent to Tallahassee for a hearing on whether the hand count, which was incomplete at the time of the court-ordered Nov. 26 deadline, should be included in the final vote tally.

Thursday, Nov. 30—Florida lawmakers, voting along party lines, recommend holding a special session to name the state's 25 electors if the election dispute is not resolved by Dec. 12, six days before the electoral college meets.

Friday, Dec. 1—The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on whether the Florida Supreme Court acted properly when it forced the Florida secretary of state to accept manual recounts submitted after the legal deadline.

The Florida Supreme Court denies Gore's appeal to immediately begin recounting ballots and rejects motion filed by some Palm Beach County citizens who questioned the integrity of the “butterfly ballot.â€

Gore requests a count of approximately 14,000 “undervotes†from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties.

Monday, Dec. 4—Judge Sauls rejects Gore’s contest of the election results, saying the vice president failed to prove that hand recounts would have altered the results. Gore appeals to the Florida Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court asks Florida Supreme Court to explain why it ordered Harris to accept results submitted after the Nov. 14 deadline mandated by state law, thus returning the case to Tallahassee.

Thursday, Dec. 7—Gore's legal team appeals Sauls's ruling. Bush's lawyers argue that the decision should stand.

Friday, Dec. 8—The Florida Supreme Court, ruling on Gore's appeal, orders manual recounts in counties with large numbers of undervotes. Bush appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and seeks injunction to stop recounts.

In two separate lawsuits, Leon County Circuit Court judges refuse to throw out absentee ballots from Seminole and Martin counties that had been disputed by Gore.

Saturday, Dec. 9—The U.S. Supreme Court votes 5–4 to halt the hand recounts and sets a hearing for Dec. 11.

Florida Supreme Court hears appeal on whether absentee ballots in Martin and Seminole counties should be counted.

Tuesday, Dec. 12—The U.S. Supreme Court rules 7–2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5–4 along partisan lines about implementing their remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision means that the Supreme Court, not the electorate, has determined the outcome of the presidential election.

Wednesday, Dec. 13—In another decision, Florida Supreme Court decides not to hear an appeal from Gore asking that absentee ballots from Martin and Seminole counties be thrown out.

In televised speeches, Gore concedes, and Bush accepts the presidency.

Monday, Dec. 18—Electoral college representatives meet in state capitals and cast votes to select president.

Wednesday, Jan. 5—Congress meets to tally electoral college results.

Saturday, Jan. 20—George W. Bush sworn in as 43rd president of the United States.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ 06 May 2003,17:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Put it any way you like,Bush is a president that the majority of the americans wouldn't have wanted.In a normal electioning system he wouldn't have gotten elected.<span id='postcolor'>

Neither had a majority and there was less than 3% difference between the two. essentially a dead heat.

Final Tally:

Bush: 50,455,156 votes 47.87%

Gore: 50,992,335 votes 48.38%

difference:  2,882,897 votes 2.74%

In a county tally, Bush actually won clearly over Gore.

either way,  there is a definite need for the electoral college otherwise New York and California would essentially choose the winners each year.  It would be pointless to vote anywhere else.  The Electoral College is brilliant in its intentions.  This isn't a mob democracy controlled by LA and NYC.

[Guest]

That's all fine and well but the system becomes entirely pointless when a politically biased Supreme Court makes the final decision.

Don't you find that a bit distrubing? And don't you find it disturbing that your current president and his team did all in their power to prevent the votes of American citizens to be counted?

[Longinius 1]

After reading this site http://legitgov.org/index_hot_April5.html can you still say that Bush won fairly?

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 07 May 2003,08:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's all fine and well but the system becomes entirely pointless when a politically biased Supreme Court makes the final decision.<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently you didn't read a single word of any of my election posts. They didn't "select" anyone.  They told them to stick to the laws on the books.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't you find that a bit distrubing? And don't you find it disturbing that your current president and his team did all in their power to prevent the votes of American citizens to be counted?<span id='postcolor'>

All votes were counted and recounted again.  Gore wanted some counties hand-recounted well after the deadline so that he could try to squeeze out a few improperly voted ballots in a few heavily Democrat-favoring counties.  So you are saying you wanted the votes counted three times instead of twice?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 07 May 2003,15:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 07 May 2003,08:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's all fine and well but the system becomes entirely pointless when a politically biased Supreme Court makes the final decision.<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently you didn't read a single word of any of my election posts. They didn't "select" anyone.  They told them to stick to the laws on the books.<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently you didn't read what you posted:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The justices, however, split 5–4 along partisan lines about implementing their remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision means that the Supreme Court, not the electorate, has determined the outcome of the presidential election. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't you find that a bit distrubing? And don't you find it disturbing that your current president and his team did all in their power to prevent the votes of American citizens to be counted?<span id='postcolor'>

All votes were counted and recounted again. Gore wanted them hand-recounted well after the deadline so that he could try to squeeze out a few votes in a few heavily Democrat-favoring counties. So you are saying you wanted the votes counted three times instead of twice?<span id='postcolor'>

A manual recount since the machines that were counting were not working properly. The machines had a precision of plus minus 10,000 votes and the difference was 375 votes in the automatic recount. The statistical uncertainty was much larger then the difference given. The only way to get a real number was to use a more reliable method of counting the votes.

Incidently when the votes were counted afterwards, it showed that Gore had indeed won the Florida votes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Once again, another European with his hopeless distorted idea of what happened. That seems to be par for the course over there.

<span id='postcolor'>

What is sad is that I really don't give a fuck about your little political games and yet I seem to know more about them than you.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ 07 May 2003,08:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">After reading this site http://legitgov.org/index_hot_April5.html can you still say that Bush won fairly?<span id='postcolor'>

what do you expect from a site run by self-described far-left wing activists?

For a legitimate post election, go to:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 07 May 2003,15:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ 07 May 2003,08:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">After reading this site http://legitgov.org/index_hot_April5.html can you still say that Bush won fairly?<span id='postcolor'>

what do you expect from a site run by self-described far-left wing activists?

For a legitimate post election, go to:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, from the article that you posted:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The newspapers' review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were no different from ballots deemed to be valid.

The papers concluded that Gore would be in the White House today if those ballots had been counted.

<span id='postcolor'>

Regardless of what the outcome would have been, do you realize that your 'elected' president opposed further counting of votes. Forget about the legal technicalities that he used for motivation, the fact remains, he did not want the votes of the American people to be properly counted. Due to your fucked up partisan supreme court system he got away with it, but it is still nothing less than a coup d'etat.

[PitViper 0]

Here's a good article on the messiness of the post election counts done by several newspapers (which all came to different results I might add).

http://www.humanevents.org/articles/11-19-01/carney.html