If things turn out like 2000, and we aren't sure who has won the election, should the candidate with the lower numbers concede, or should they take the election to court?
Which is better for America? Concession or fighting it in the courts?
Kerry or Bush should concede.
Kerry or Bush should take things to court
If things turn out like 2000, and we aren't sure who has won the election, should the candidate with the lower numbers concede, or should they take the election to court?
Which is better for America? Concession or fighting it in the courts?
Also, am I the only person that thinks we may not know who the President is for several weeks like last time? Am I the only person that thinks that's a very bad thing for our country to go through, election after election?
Yes, as much as I dislike him, I would rather Kerry win than for our country to be further damaged by another series of 2000-like events.
"The security around the hotel was ridiculous. This chick was pounding and screaming at my door until four or five in the morning....finally I said fuck it, and let her out of the room"
That depends. Will the prematurely proclaimed winner have lost the popular vote like last time?Originally posted by Dr. Love
If things turn out like 2000, and we aren't sure who has won the election, should the candidate with the lower numbers concede, or should they take the election to court?
Which is better for America? Concession or fighting it in the courts?
If there are numerous and substantiated claims of voter fraud or vote suppression, it is the people's duty to throw out this corrupt Gov't. At least that was the philosophy of the founding fathers.
I'm not talking popular vote. You know very well that doesn't matter.
I'm talking about electoral college votes. If Bush or Kerry is below the count needed and they start recounting, I think they should concede.
There's always going to be charges of voter intimidation. There are political fanatics on both sides of the aisle. But there is a bigger picture (though I doubt everyone will agree).
Also, are you suggesting revolution as a viable option to dealing with substantiated voter fraud claims?
The popular vote SHOULD matter in a closely contested election. If things are fucked up and begin to enter the disaster that is litigation, clearly there should be some run-off mechanism like most other democracies have to decide a close election, or the popular vote should be used to decide the president by default. The whole reason for this threat of litigation is that our election system is outdated and very flawed. That is my point! Down with the Electoral College and up with participatory democracy!
Well, man, we have to deal with the reality of the situation. Things that 'should' be don't practically matter as far as tomorrow because of the way our system is set up. You know that, I'm sure.
Whichever candidate has more electors, wins. If they're tied, the House elects the President and the Senate elects the Vice-President (assuming I remember my polysci class correctly).
True-But we had four years to fix-it. Why wasn't it fixed?
depends...
certain circumstances SHOULD be challenged.
but, nothing in 2000 should've been.
gore challenged florida solely on the basis that it was a close race. he didn't initially claim any fraud, etc. now, it was his right to ask for a manual count at that point under florida law, though florida need not have given it to him, based just on a close race.
there were a lot of close races. they all shouldn't be challenged simply because they're close.
if you don't have substantive proof of fraud or wrongdoing (or gross negligence) then accept the verdict, close as it may be.
I totally agree, KB...
I believe this one's gonna be settled in regulation time
But for sake of argument, lets say the bullshit starts up again.
Hell, I'll take a chance on the Supreme Court.
Rehnquist is on sick leave getting chemo treatments (and I'm praying for his continued recovery - at least until January 20)
O'Connor and Kennedy have shown some resistance to the BCE agenda, and no doubt regret their role in the Florida Coup.
Which leaves Fat Tony Scalia and Clarabelle the Clown Thomas backing up the BCE party line.
Let em take it to court
Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992
I thought any race where the margin of victory was less than 1% was an automatic recount?? And the difference was 537 votes, according to Cruella Harris' premature "certification"Originally posted by knuckleboner
depends...
certain circumstances SHOULD be challenged.
but, nothing in 2000 should've been.
gore challenged florida solely on the basis that it was a close race. he didn't initially claim any fraud, etc. now, it was his right to ask for a manual count at that point under florida law, though florida need not have given it to him, based just on a close race.
there were a lot of close races. they all shouldn't be challenged simply because they're close.
if you don't have substantive proof of fraud or wrongdoing (or gross negligence) then accept the verdict, close as it may be.
Which would mean the recount would take place whether Gore asked for it or not.
you're right, my bad. i skipped a step. (owing to monday stupidity...)
that close called for an automated recount; but gore lost that intital recount and then challenged for a manual one in the 4 (tilted democratic) counties.
but i think the automatic recount wasn't a "manual count" like the subsequent ones.
DAVID LEE ROTH FOR PRESIDENT!
NUTHIN' BUT YEAH!
LMMFAOBT
"He doesn't need to sell millions of records, he doesn't need to fill arenas, he doesn't need to be popular, he doesn't need your money, AND HE DOESN'T NEED YOU!"
Blackflag on DLR
After 4 years of crying and twisting the facts about the 2000 election, you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt before this one is even decided?Originally posted by FORD
I believe this one's gonna be settled in regulation time
But for sake of argument, lets say the bullshit starts up again.
Hell, I'll take a chance on the Supreme Court.
Rehnquist is on sick leave getting chemo treatments (and I'm praying for his continued recovery - at least until January 20)
O'Connor and Kennedy have shown some resistance to the BCE agenda, and no doubt regret their role in the Florida Coup.
Which leaves Fat Tony Scalia and Clarabelle the Clown Thomas backing up the BCE party line.
Let em take it to court
I knew you couldn't even really believe all that stuff you wrote.
This one might be a reference point for months, hell even years to come!
Just making a predicition based on the recent trends of Justices Kennedy & O' Connor. I'm not saying an election should be settled by the courts, but Junior is the one who made that a precedent. Therefore **IF** it comes down to that being the resolution this time, which I doubt very much, then it's only poetic justice that the Court removes Junior
So you are willing to say it would be the correct decision if Bush is awarded a victory as well from these same justices?
Meet us in the future, not the pasture
No, there's no poetic justice in Junior getting 2 unelected terms.
Not like that's going to happen. And if it did, there would be civil war.
I doubt there'd be a civil war... but if the country continued to do that for many more elections, more people will be alienated and angered by it, and ultimately I think it would result in a lot of civil unrest.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote