Re: Graphic voting systems
From: David Brown (david_at_no.westcontrol.spam.com)
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 08:57:25 +0200
> >>I think it just damaged the reputation of Florida, whatever that may
> >>have been.
> > I could agree with that if not for the following aspects of it:
> > 1) the governor of Florida being related to one of the contestants
> > 2) said governor not having kept his hands out of the process
> I don't remember exactly how he was involved. Was he? As governor, what
> job was he trying to do?
Wasn't the governer Bush's brother or something? What he did was everything
he could to get the election declared in Bush's favour. I don't know what
he was supposed to be doing as governer, but as I recall from the news at
the time it seemed above and beyond the call of duty.
> > 3) the supreme court getting involved in it, and the way that
> > took place
> The US was in a very dangerous situation, thanks to the unbelievable
> incompetence of some in Florida. It could have been somewhere else, but
> it was Florida.
There was unbelievable incompetence in the voting procedures in many other
states - it was just more obvious in Florida because it was so close.
> The Supreme Court did not want to get involved, as I recall, but they
> kind of had to. Blame those 12 if you do not like the outcome.
> Gore and the formerly respectable Democraps would have counted and
> counted and counted and counted until they got the result they wanted.
There were several rounds of counts, recounts, and court battles, in which
the sides alternated - the winner was the side that managed to stop the
process while they were ahead. Only two facts could be firmly determined -
Gore had more than half the votes in the USA, and Bush won. (I know that in
the USA, like many other countries, the result is not determined by a simple
numerical total - hence the practice of "jerrymandering".)
> > 4) the eventual winner going on lecturing other sovereign nations about
> > democracy
> Oh, come on.
It's a fair comment, as seen from outside the USA.
> > All in all, flipping a coin to determine the result of that election
> > would have made more sense than what actually happened.
The only rational democratic way to deal with the situation would have been
to have a new election in the space of 6 to 12 months (such as is required
in the UK if an election does not produce a clear winner).
> No, Gore might have won, and the Democraps have lately not indicated a
> willingness to kill terrorists until there are none left.
Let's not get too far into that, or the thread will go *really* off-topic...
Bush was once asked in an interview what he would do if he lost the next
election. His reply was "What, you mean like last time?"
I don't know the source of that, but I presume it was a joke :-)