Ballot Design Changes US history?

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!
Post Reply
Ian
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
Contact:

Ballot Design Changes US history?

Post by Ian »

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20010511/3311269s.htm

The summary of this article is that if the ballot machines in Florida recorded voter intent with 100% accuracy, Gore would have been the undisputed winner of the presidency. Or put more simply, America intended to elect Gore, not Bush.

The case is often made that "I don't want idiots determining the presidency of the United States of America." That's a superficially appealing argument but so far as I know we are not *supposed* to live in an aristocracy. The other problem is that idiots vote republican (etc) every election, just as they vote democratic, and if stupid voters were EVENLY disenfranchised, we've no reason to believe Gore wouldn't win anyway.

Anyway, we elected the president of the most powerful nation by mistake.

We ought to make our ballots, like our roads, user friendly even for morons because there're a lot of them out there. As George Carlin put it, "Think of how stupid the average American is. Then remember: half of e'm are *dumber than that!*"



[This message has been edited by Ian (edited May 13, 2001).]
STUDD WILSON
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Breckenridge, Colo USA

Ballot Design Changes US history?

Post by STUDD WILSON »

Give it up Ian. GET OVER IT, GORE LOST! HE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. I suggest that maybe you go to Columbia University, maybe he's teaching an intercession class or something. But this harping on the election results is stupid. Gore did NOT win in a landslide as did Reagan vs Carter or Mondale. Gore lost the election mostly because that worthless buffoon couldn't even carry his home state. With Pennsylvania he would'nt have needed florida. What does that say about him? You should be glad he didnt become president because could you imageine the negative blow he'd be getting from everyone on the economic front with the current slump and gas prices being what they are now? Oh I know you and the rest of the Clinton apologists believe that he would have just waved the maghic wand and poof our economy would be surging again right? Well, I'll assume that you're of above average intelligence and that you already know thats a crock. The way I see it, you and the rest of the liberals who whine about fairness(in between giving each other high fives for dissqualifying military votes) can spend the next 4 years beating this dead horse that no one even most democrats give a damn about now, and youll lose the election next time too. So I say keep up the good work!
Ian
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
Contact:

Ballot Design Changes US history?

Post by Ian »

Thanks for your.... well thought-out and ..... lucid reply... not sure what you were replying to, however. Here's why:

"GET OVER IT, GORE LOST! HE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT!"

Yeah, I know, and didn't say otherwise.

You have to count the correctly filled out ballots. I don't think the snafu was handled poorly. I agree Bush should be president. What post were YOU reading?? All I said was that Gore SHOULD HAVE been president because the people meant to elect him. Can you dispute that or are you just going to continue ranting on as if Bush supporters should want their man president by an ends-justifies-the-means philosophy?

"Gore did NOT win in a landslide as did Reagan vs Carter or Mondale."

So what?

"Oh I know you and the rest of the Clinton apologists believe that he would have just waved the maghic wand and poof our economy would be surging again right?"

I'd love it if you can dig up one instance where I "apologized" for a Clinton misdeed. Since when does thinking that the will of the people should play a role in our most important election make me a Clintonite, an apologist or a liberal? And when did I mention the economy or suggest Gore would do a better job with it? Just what the hey are you replying to?

"you and the rest of the liberals who whine about fairness."

That's right. It's WHINING if the people's choice doesn't win the election and you don't have on your happy face. Gimme a break--did people fight and die for the right to vote just to see a person elected president by mistake??

What if the people created and passed a gun-freedoms bill and WHOOPS by computer error a significant gun restriction bill was passed in its stead. Would it be whining THEN to say the one the people desired should have been passed, not the one the people didn't want? Or to suggest more accurate methods in the future? I bet the amendment two supporters would just grin and bear it.

For every reply I get on this forum telling me I'm a fascist because I want to subvert the will of the people (with safe roads, etc), I seem to get one telling me I'm a whiner because I support the will of the people on election day. I'm perplexed.

Maybe you can explain it.

Or maybe you are just a fierce supporter of Bush and a fierce opponent of Gore who's happy to see your man in office whether he deserved to win or not, because getting the "right guy" in your opinion is more important than the will of the people.

If that's the case, fine. I still wish you'd read my posts before replying to them.
Ian
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
Contact:

Ballot Design Changes US history?

Post by Ian »

Didn't know there was any dispute that Gore won the popular vote. But, maintaining the 25k lead they think he'd get in Florida isn't the point, since any losses need not change the elctoral vote. So is there any realistic scenario in which he would have lost that, given a little wiggle here and there?

I hadn't heard of the DNC memo before, and it doesn't sound like a good thing, but I doubt the Republican record is spotless either. I imagine there must be more to the story that the dems insisted on recounts until they won and republicans were silent and the election officials just caved.

Anyway, my point was that we should have accurate machines, not that a democrat should be in office, and I don't want anyone getting confused and thinking that I may be on the "team" that wrote that memo. I'm not. I'm just on the "try-not-to-embarrass-yourself-in-front-of-the-world-again,-supposed-democracy-leader-called-the-USA" team. There's a difference between supporting the people's choice in an election and liking the person they chose.
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Ballot Design Changes US history?

Post by Panther »

Studd Wilson, welcome to the "tough Issues" forum. Thanks for contributing. I must warn you and anyone else reading to keep it "nice" and cordial. (And I'm just as guilty of making inflammatory comments as anyone else... so it's a good reminder to myself sometimes as well.)

Ian, you're perplexed about the different positions because they aren't coming from the same person... Image

My only comment on the USA-Today article is that it only focuses on Florida. If we wanted to go back and re-examine the questionable areas nationwide, there is no gurantee that Gore would have sustained the supposed 25k votes they believe he would have picked up in Florida. Regardless, there is a DNC memo that came out during the Florida recounts which outlines exactly how to "win" an election as they attempted to do in Florida. In fact, there was a situation in Massachusetts (which is referred to in that memo) where a fairly narrow defeat was turned into an even narrower "victory" using the "techniques" outlined in that memo. After that election, (It was Delahunt's first time, IIRC) Massachusetts made changes to the process and eliminated certain types of voting machines. BTW, there was absolutely no excuses that the ballot was confusing in that case. It was simply a close race and a recount was demanded... over and over and over again until the desired outcome was achieved.
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Ballot Design Changes US history?

Post by Panther »

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ian:

I hadn't heard of the DNC memo before, and it doesn't sound like a good thing, but I doubt the Republican record is spotless either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, it isn't a good thing. Specifically with the fact that Daly (infamous son of the late Chicago mayor and sent to FL to "supervise" the Democratic court case for additional recounts) was involved with the memo. Never said nor meant to imply that the Republicrats record was spotless...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Anyway, my point was that we should have accurate machines, not that a democrat should be in office
Valid point and one which I agree with whole-heartedly...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
I'm just on the "try-not-to-embarrass-yourself-in-front-of-the-world-again,-supposed-democracy-leader-called-the-USA" team.

Time to "pick a nit"... It's a Constitutional Republic (even though in many ways it's being perverted into Marx's desired "Democracy"... which according to the Communist Manifesto leads directly to Communist Socialism. Image )

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
There's a difference between supporting the people's choice in an election and liking the person they chose.
Absolutely. That's why I don't like the "He's not my President" bumperstickers... (Before with Clinton and now with "W") You may not like him, you might think he's an idiot or a sleazeball, but he is your President... unless, of course, you're willing to renounce your citizenship. In which case, I kindly request you get the heck out of our country! Image
Yosselle
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts commonwealth uSA
Contact:

Ballot Design Changes US history?

Post by Yosselle »

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Originally posted by Ian: Didn't know there was any dispute that Gore won the popular vote.
There isn't. But the so-called popular vote numbers are a function of the fact that we have an electoral college system. For example, many people who leaned toward Gore in states that were solidly for Bush felt "safe" in voting for Nader. Likewise, many people who leaned toward Bush in states that were solidly for Gore felt "safe" in voting for Harry Browne. Also, many people simply didn't vote at all because "their" candidate didn't have a chance in "their" state.

Finally, the fact that a president can be elected while losing the "popular vote" is a healthy sign that the electoral college system is working as designed, not that it should be abondoned. When presidential elections turn out this way (regardless of who wins), we should celebrate the genious of the founders, not (like Ms. Clinton) propose that our Constitution be further dismantled.

In any case, the term "popular vote" has acedemic significance at best, and is a disingenous propoganda tool to bludgeon the unthinking masses at worst.

Yosselle
Ian
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
Contact:

Ballot Design Changes US history?

Post by Ian »

The quote in full:

"Didn't know there was any dispute that Gore won the popular vote. But, maintaining the 25k lead they think he'd get in Florida isn't the point, since any losses need not change the electoral vote. So is there any realistic scenario in which he would have lost that, given a little wiggle here and there?"

The full quote reveals I was responding to comments from others and redirected the conversation toward the importance of the electoral vote.

That said, "propaganda tool to bludegeon the unthinking masses" is a little harsh. The popular vote is a measure of overall support for the winner (not perfect, for the reasons you mentioned, but, like taking a temperature). One can have a 100% - 0% electoral vote given a 50.1%-49.9% popular vote split. That's a significant finding.

I am, further, all for constitution worship. The point is that people with special interests related to their state will be courted as a state because they'll vote en bloc, making the result of the en bloc vote more important than a bunch of little ones and encouraging candidates to focus on their needs more.

Discover ran a ppiece a few years back that compared the college to a world series in which one team clearly had more total runs and lost because they scored all their runs in a few games and lost more games overall. It went on to deliver a proof that a persons vote has more chance of changing an election result under the college than in a general election.

That's good.

But at times (as with primaries) excess focus on a few issues pertinent to a few voters is bad for the country. Candidates end up supporting positions that may be good for the few instead of for the many because of the way votes are arranged.

There has to be balance between sensible national policy and making sure people don't get ignored because it isn't convenient for the nation to pay attention. So overall, I support the system, but don't think it's perfect, or imagine that opponents are doing Satan's work by supporting the popular vote.
Post Reply

Return to “Realist Training”