Re: Election Fraud 2000

"False Document" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
snipped
> The Florida statutes in effect in 2000 provide the circuit court judge
> leeway to fashion any remedy.
>
snipped

You are wrong on that account.  It only allows legal remedies.
    The problem came from the courts trying to rewrite the laws after the
fact.  The sole responsibility of appointing electors to the Electoral
College lies with the state legislatures as stated in the US Constitution.
Alternate methods can be chosen by the state legislatures but any method
must be in effect before the choice is made else the choice falls directly
on the state legislature.  What this boils down to is that there must be
standards in place before an election.  Those standards include deadlines,
wording in statutes, and other things such as what constitutes a valid vote
in an election. All of these standards fall back on the legislature to
decide and not the courts.
    The Florida courts really fouled things up.  They extended deadlines
that they had no authority to extend as the deadlines were set by the
legislature, the sole body authorized by the US Constitution to determine
such deadlines, thus changing the manner the election was conducted after
the start of the election(which in itself invalidates the election and puts
the appointment of the electors for the Electoral College directly in the
hands of the legislature). The courts, by extending the deadline, shortened
the amount of time left for contesting the results of the election, again
changing the rules after the fact.  They reinterpreted words that were
clearly written in statute(in particular that the Secretary of State "may"
accept to "shall" accept).
    You can read the Florida Legislature's view of the matter here
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/election2000-0a.htm by clicking on the
amicus brief of the Florida Senate and House of Representatives in the
second bulleted group.
    I agree the Florida vote was screwed up from the start.  But the only
options were for the legislature to accept the count from the initial
deadline or to merely appoint the electors.  After the courts changed the
deadline the new counts were not legal as a deadline was in place before the
election started and the rules of the election have to be in place before
the start of the election for it to be legitimate.
    The courts, in what appeared to be an attempt to help the Gore camp,
really messed up Gore's only hope of getting a true recount.  Had the
court's let the original deadline stand then there would have been time for
a real recount, but starting recounts here and there and extending the
deadline,which they did not legally have the right to do as that prerogative
lies solely with the legislature and must be done before the election, the
courts nearly invalidated the entire Florida vote.
    It seems pretty clear that since the US Constitution says the state
legislatures will pick or decide how to pick the presidential electors for
their respective states and the Florida Legislature had rules for doing so
in place before the election that the courts should have said to abide by
the rules that are in place. They didn't do that.
    You would think that a presidential candidate would be smart enough not
to screw with the system than might get him elected when screwing with the
system will surely push the odds away from him being elected.  By getting
the courts to change election deadlines the Gore camp gave the Florida
Legislature the option of legally appointing anyone they wanted as the
presidential electors.  The only way they could be held to another slate of
electors is by the vote count taken by the deadlines they had set up in
statutes.  If the Gore camp had waited to the correct time to file for a
recount there would have been time for and could have been a total statewide
recount and he may or may not have won.
    Another problem comes from the recount itself.  Standards must be set
before the election as to what constitutes a valid vote, once again this
lies with the legislature to decide and not with the courts.  If the
legislature doesn't instruct the election boards on how to determine intent
of a voter then it does not fall to the courts to do so.  While some may see
this as a failing of the legislature it is simply a failing of the voter to
make his vote clearly known.  It may be for any of a number of reasons:
unfamiliar with the voting method, inability to read and follow
instructions, a system too complicated for the individual to understand.
Regardless, it is the responsibility of the voter to make every effort to
insure the vote is cast and is for the person intended.  Don't complain
about hanging chads, don't complain about butterfly ballots, and don't
complain about any of the other things that in effect says the voter just
wasn't smart enough to be voting.  Sure, some methods of voting are a real
pain in the neck, but it is the same pain in the neck for everyone voting
that type of ballot.
    The real issue however is something else.  Many people are under the
delusion that the US is a democracy.  It isn't.  It is a republic.  Remember
this,"and to the republic for which it stands."  As far as the presidential
election is concerned a popular vote isn't required or even needed and a
majority of the popular vote doesn't guarantee being elected as there can be
variations in state populations such that even though the number of popular
votes indicate one person, the number of electoral votes as determined by
state elects the other.
    Personally, I'd rather it be a republic than a democracy.  Let a group
of people that are supposed to be looking out for the people of their state
choose the person most likely to do the best job.  They should be immensely
more capable in determining the better person for the presidency than
allowing that decision to be made by popular vote when large numbers of
voters haven't a clue about the policies of either candidate, are voting
party lines, voting like someone told them to, or voting for a person on
looks.  And if you don't like the person your state legislature chooses,
vote them out of office and elect someone that will do your bidding.

Loyd