What politcal party in America was behind the pillaging of our once proud electoral process?

Question

keep in mind the following names before you answer:

Florida
ex President and CIA head George Bush Sr
The Supreme Court of the United States, populated by appointess and friends of the above mentioned person
Florida Governor Jeb Bush
Florida Secretary of State Kathrine Harris, who was in charge of all election processes in the state AND the campaign manager of then presidential candidate George W Bush.

Answer 1

your electoral system is even more flawed than here in Australia. Even when all the machinery and people do the right thing has any us federal government in the last 100 years had a mandate

Answer 2

Che`, you're so incredibly confused. Try and clear your mind and consider this...
Yes, the "race" in Florida was close. But really, how many times have the republicans ever demanded a recount, let alone three, four or five? You missed the last gubernatorial election in the sate of Washington. The Democratic challenger lost by a slim margin. Could she be a good sport and admit the defeat? No, she demanded a recount. And when that one didn't "swing" enough votes her way, she demanded another and then another. Four recounts until the democrats had dug up enough corpses to shift and ultimately steal the election. And THEN, she had the audacity to tell the republicans that they'd lost fair and square and that for the sake of the state, they should just accept it, be good sports and move on.
You also missed Katherine Jennings in the 13th district of Florida in the November elections. A democrat (probably the only one) who lost. And what do you suppose SHE did? Did she accept it like a good sport? Nope! She did the only thing a democrat knows how to do. She threw her sucker in the dirt went crying to mommy and demanded a recount.
So, with all of the republicans who lost in the November elections, how many of them demanded a recount? Hmmm. Kind of suggests that the answer to your lame question is The DNC has been behind the pillaging of the electoral process. But then, you guys have always been in another dimension and paradigm. Reality bites. Doesn't it? Can you say "Ouch!?"

Answer 3

Isn't it time to stop whining?

Keep in mind the following before you answer:

According to recounts sponsored by the NY Times (hardly a bastion of conservative values), had Gore gotten the recount he wanted, he would have lost anyway.

He wanted to recount four heavily Democratic counties, Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Volusia. Had the recount been allowed, and if the standard was that all three recounters had to agree on a hand-counted vote in order for the vote to count, then Bush would have won Florida by 227 votes.

Under different scenarios, Gore would have won. Under still different scenarios, Bush would have won. Either way, one side or the other would have had a legitimate complaint. This illustrates clearly that the "intent of the voter" standard of recounting votes is completely arbitrary. Results change based on the standard, which was never set by the Florida Supreme Court.

You may remember that, even as the Supreme Court deliberated about whether to allow the recount, there were people teaching potential counters how to doctor the punchcards as they handled them. So if a chad was hanging by one or two corners, you could run your finger across the hole and make a full punch-out without being noticed. There was not even a standard of care for the voter cards themselves, or a chain of custody documentation requirement.

The election was not perfect. But to allow a completely arbitrary recount would have been a travesty of justice, no matter who would have won. The machine count was the only count that could remotely be called objective, despite the imperfections. We have had to live with the results, good or bad, but at least the result was the most objective possible under the circumstances.

P.S. If you think the appointees make a difference, note that Stevens and Souter, both of whom dissented from the Supreme Court decision, were Republican appointees.

Answer 4

Someone who only thinks about the past and tries to blame people for what happened is not someone who is willing to try and be proactive enough to change what we have today and make a true difference. If you want things to change, and if you think that someone has made a mistake, stop focusing on what HAS happened and focus all this energy that makes you so BITTER into building something worthwhile that will work better NOW.

You are presenting a biased answer because you want people to tell you what you want to hear. Chances are, we already know that the things you refer to are unfair. But take a minute to sit down and be mature about what is really going on in the world and use the power that you have to make a change. Stop sitting around like a lazy *** who just wants to blame others!

Answer 5

Before throwing rocks at anyone, Check out "The Emergency Banking Act" of March 9th 1933! It is called 48 Stat.1, Public Law 89-719! Then go find them and confront them by changing it!

Answer 6

It relies upon on what form of republican you're, as quickly as you're a "actual" republican indoors the Goldwater mold, then they are ashamed and saddened. as quickly as you're asserting Reagan grew to become THE president of the century, i think of of he would have some opposition from Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy as a strategies by way of actuality the present Bush is frightened, all yet 18% of this u . s . evaluate him to be an abject failure. If it fairly is your degree of fulfillment then your standards are under very final call at a singles bar on a tuesday evening.

Answer 7

Hillary Clinton

Answer 8

Reptapublicans- Icke

Answer 9

Why ask? You're giving your completely biased answer before letting everyone else give their opinion.

You'll just choose whoever bad mouths the right people the best, for the best answer.

Answer 10

I will take Sore Loser of DEMOCRATS for $400.