Bonus question...if liberals are so smart, why was it that no other party had difficulty with the butterfly ballot in Florida?
2007-10-11 04:11:26 · 11 answers · asked by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Allowing illegal immigrants to vote ... Allowing prisoners to vote ... Not showing an ID to vote ...
2007-10-11 04:27:47 · answer #1 · answered by JOE 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am sorry but I cannot let a swipe at Kathleen Harris by one of your responders go unanswered. Ms. Harris was obligated by law to certify that election. Despite all the pressure put on her by the Florida Supreme Court which has absolutely no jurisdiction over elections, she fulfilled her Constitutional duty and certified the election results. Notice, no action was taken against her by the court? That is because they have no JURISDICTION!!!
Elections are strictly the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of government. The rules regarding how the votes will be cast, what makes a vote valid, how they will be counted and how recounts will be done all must be in place before the election and cannot be changed or modified after the election begins. No part of this system involves any part of the judicial or executive branches. NONE!
The rules in Florida in effect at the time specified that recounts would consist of placing the ballots back into the automated counter and that is all. Whatever number the machine displays is the official number. Only the the absentee ballots may be hand counted. Why? Because the ballots with the chads can be mishandled and cause additional chads to pop out invalidating the ballot. Not the case with hand written absentee ballots.
Futhermore, the rules for recount clearly specify that if a recount is requested, ALL ballots cast in the entire state must be recounted. Not only selected areas.
What part of this do you Democrats not understand? I am explaining it quite clearly. No "hanging chads" no "pregnant chads" no sort of, kind of, maybe have a amark on the chad ballots are considered valid votes. Only the ones the machine can read. PERIOD! You cannot change the rules after the voting began. That is what Gore and the Florida Supremes did. It is strictly illegal and unconstitutional.
That is what the Federal Supreme Court explained to them.
.
2007-10-11 04:39:47 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It'll be something and it'll be both interesting and creative.
As to the California initiative, the democrats have done that in a couple of states and it's been very popular with the voters. So yes, gawd forbid that the voters votes go to support their choice at a more popular level. By all means let's dilute the voice of the minority. Wasn't this the reason that the founding fathers formed both the senate and the house the way they did? Why are liberals so afraid of having every vote count?
2007-10-11 04:21:55 · answer #3 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, yet what replaced into stolen from Al Gore replaced into the final to be sure no rely if or no longer he might have gained. i comprehend you mentioned you have already study an impressive variety of books, yet for me the suited one i might study replaced into Vince Bugliosi's. And he quoted this area of the courtroom's opinion: "None are greater unsleeping of the considered necessary limits on judicial authority than are the individuals of this courtroom, and none stand greater in admiration of the form's layout to bypass away the call of the President to the human beings, by using their legislatures, and to the political sphere. whilst contending events invoke the approach of the courts, although, it extremely is going to become our unsought duty to be sure the federal and constitutional subject concerns the judicial equipment has been forced to confront." My reaction to that quote is somewhat diverse than Bugliosi's: I say "Yeah, yeah; and Richard Nixon replaced into no longer a criminal." Justice Kennedy wrote the courtroom's opinion, and that i think of he's the worst author on the courtroom. it particularly is extremely because of the reality that he normally makes use of pretentious and fully hypocritical rhetoric like that.
2016-11-08 00:06:37 · answer #4 · answered by du 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
and they designed the ballot to begin with and everyone say the sample that every voter had an opportunity to see.
In the past three presidential election yearss, it has been shown in studies that democrats commit more voter fraud than republicans. Personally I think one act is too much but at the same time get tired of the pot calling the kettle black especially when it is one dark pot.
2007-10-11 04:18:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
They will come up with some insane reason for Hillary losing. They can't figure out that when people are about to pull the vote lever they have 2 choices. A vote for higher taxes, leniency on terror, homo rights, or more government intrusion. Or less taxes, tough on terror, no special privileges for a destructive lifestyle, and less government..... It's an easy choice for me who deserves my vote....
2007-10-11 04:21:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Violent coup, voter suppression, some other fascist tactic.
Hanging chads weren't the problem, I heard it was actually the Buchanan voters who had the problem with that. It was Choicepoint and Katherine "Stalin" Harris heading the Bush Campaign AND certifying the vote too.
2007-10-11 04:16:26 · answer #7 · answered by ck4829 7 · 2⤊ 7⤋
LOL...Keep drinking that Kool-aid buddy.
2007-10-11 04:22:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
There was a Republican initiative to divide CAs electoral vote. Luckily, it is dead in the water
2007-10-11 04:16:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 6⤋
Liberals have NEVER lost an election. DIEBOLD stole them all apparently:)
2007-10-11 04:16:33 · answer #10 · answered by DANCER 2 · 8⤊ 5⤋