phlux bboard - Election aftermath. (continuation of who you gonna vote for)

Home : Message Boards : Topics Unrelated to PHLUX : Election aftermath. (continuation of who you gonna vote for)

Election aftermath. (continuation of who you gonna vote for)
The election was the closest in 40 years and as of Nov. 14 there still was not an absolute outcome. What do you all think of the election aftermath? For starters: what are your views on our current (and traditional in terms of US history) system of using an electoral college as opposed to a straight popular vote? Theoretically someone can win the overall popular vote but still lose the electoral vote under our system. One view is that it's a the result of our country being founded on a strong belief in the rights of individual states to the point that those rights are elevated in importance compared to the rights of the nation and the American population as a whole. What do you think of that belief? Good? Bad? Ugly? Is it even important? Just because it's a basic historical tenet of American government is it right?
What else is important in the current election situation? Political parties? Partisan loyalties? Ideologies? Ballot counting/ballot drafting problems? The whole idea of making the election an adversarial process through and through?
posted by Clint Phipps on Nov 15, 2000 11:45AM

Well to answer the question of

Just because it's a basic historical tenet of American government is it right?

I say no.

The founders also had slaves and didn't let women vote - obviously these aren't right either. But people seem to think if it's old it's the way it should be. I think this election shows just how much we need to get rid of the electoral college and the popular vote president gets in otherwise its just saying "okay the people wanted you to be president Bob but YOU Jim are the president. Doesn't make much sense to me. Or if we don't get rid of the system let's modify it greatly.

Or we all can drink a lot of beer til we're so phluxed up we don't give a crap.

posted by Chris Hancock on Nov 15, 2000 11:54AM

O.K. well the electoral college was set up, im not sure when, but to prevent all those politically uneducated farmers, who just wanted to put in a vote, and do it with a flip of their coin, from voting for "the wrong guy." So in that sense, it was a good idea. BUT nowa days, I must say chris has a good idea. Either eliminate the electoral college, or ammend it in some way. WHY? Because as I said in the "who are you gonna vote for" posts, everywhere we turn today mostly due to our beloved publicity, even todays "politically uneducated farmers" can't miss all the talk that goes on. It's around you 360 matter where you turn, you can't help but notice it. Now as for the fact that we still have no decided president, it just goes to show you that people today will sue anybody for anything at the drop of the hat. Now our 2 candidates are in court against each other. In the old days, if this happened, one man would accept and deal, shake the others hand, and step down gracefully to allow the other to proceed forwards, while saving face of the country and our people. But not today....seeing this, it's just gonna make the public disgusted even more than they already are, with our political system. Over these past couple of years, things have just been very un-proffessional in our governmental system, and if our government can't be proffessional and set an example....where is the rest of the nation headed. I mean c'mon, we all know Bush will win, its pretty much a 99% certainty, and on top of that Gore called Bush and gave his concession speach....then, called back, and took it back. Yes it is close, but I think we all know who won (will win). It's just so sad. RAH RAH....GO U.S.
posted by StU aRt on Nov 16, 2000 09:22AM

That's a good point about "politically uneducated farmers." It has an interesting side effect today.

Why should a candidate bother to talk to the issues and desires of a nationally significant group of people, for example, young people? If certain key states aren't heavy in young voters, there's no point in addressing the interests of young people. Don't talk about it; talk about the issues in a few particular states.

The electoral college greatly hinders groups from properly organizing on a national level. In fact, there's only two properly organized groups that can heavily influence on a national scale: the democratic and republican parties. It's a bad idea, and I hope the current election fuckup will give people the impetus to change how it works.

posted by Zach Beane on Nov 16, 2000 10:45AM

Speaking of fuckups in a more general sense, i.e. fuckups in judgment- last week about 1400 absentee votes from military personnel stationed around the globe came in to Florida and were rejected. Denied. Ignored. Not given a snowball's chance.
Why? What is the reasoning? Florida's reasoning was that it is beyond the (apparently arbitrary) deadline for recieving votes. But then, in elections past have absentee ballots continued to come in this far after the actual election took place? And were they always ignored? Perhaps leniency would have been the better reaction here, considering somewhat shaky global mailing systems... and not to mention that it is, in fact, Florida that seems to be the key player in dragging this whole thing out.
posted by Piper -- on Nov 19, 2000 01:48PM

Here's a short article that puts forth some interesting alternative ideas to the electoral college problem. A few may warrant some serious thought. One that I find particularly interesting is the concept of cumulative voting, the theory behind the "porportional representation" system refrenced in the article. Many businesses use this method to elect their board members because it allows some level representation for the shareholders that own significantly less than a majority of the stock. It's kind of a free for all vote where every candidate for any position (provided the positions are equal) is elected at the same time and voters are alloted a certain number of votes to cast. If there's someone that they REALLY want to win, they can can cast all their votes for that one candidate rather than follow our good ole "one vote for only one of the two/three candidates for each position" method. The cumulative method would work well for a situation like the congress or the senate where there are multiple seats that are essentially equal in power, but as for a presidential position, where there's only one position, it seems almost impossible. In that case the idea of the "instant runoff" would probably work better.
ANYWAY, the point is that there ARE other systems out there. And most likely many of those systems would be better in practice than the one we've got. However, we, as stubborn Americans, think our way is automatically the best way and we are somewhat stuck in the past when it comes to government. Sucked in by tradidtion. We would be wise to keep in mind that the Roman Empire wound up being stuck on tradition and their government, the most powerful in the world at the time, crumbled. The leaders in power were all comfy in their high exalted position and were unwilling to risk their power and positions for the betterment of a society outgrowing a government that had originally been sufficient.
posted by Clint Phipps on Nov 19, 2000 06:01PM

One reason that florida didnt accept some of those overseas ballots is because they weren't postmarked by election day. That is the rule in florida. But the military mail system does operate in some funny ways sometimes, which tends to mess things up. Sometimes the votes get postmarked late and get sent late. But, the deadline/law stands, and they cant accept the ballots if they were postmarked after election day. They do this because people might try to vote after they get some idea of what the results look like. Which would throw a whole new spin on how they vote. Personally, i think that gore should conceed and stop draggin this out so long. If Mr. Gore wants to have another chance at the white house in the future, he should give up. By the way, did anyone see the south park parody on the florida situation?
posted by -- on Nov 20, 2000 09:43PM

South Park? Oh, please avoid South Park. The effects can only be detrimental.
posted by Piper -- on Nov 21, 2000 12:02PM

I dont usually watch southpark as a rule, but the election thing was really funny. The only reason i watched it is beacause our government teacher taped it and brought it into class. We have been talking about the election, and this parody was all about it. It was about electing the kindergarten class president. The little kids voted and there was a tie, so on and so forth, just like the real election. It was pretty funny. But i agree, long term exposure to south park might not be a good idea.
posted by -- on Nov 21, 2000 09:06PM

Just an update, as of last night November 26, 2000 at 7:30 pm florida ended their count. The results are final for now. Bush got 2,912,770 votes and Gore got 2,912,553 votes, however they are still going to the supreme court, because Gore and Liberman say it was an inaccurate count. I think that we should just move on. I know that previous years people did not get all of their votes in and we did not all cry about it, we accepted it and move on. The candidates that did not get presidency accepted it and move on. This does not show good sportsmanship on either account. I am terrified on who actually gets office because of the whole election, and how both candidates acted pretty immature. The american government should try something new on the how they go about election day. They tried something new 80 years go when they added in the 19 ammendment for women to be able to vote. It took since 1878 in order for the 19 ammendment to be passed, which was finally passed in 1920. I am very disapointed on how the election turned out. I heard (please correct me if I am wrong)that if this keeps going on and there is no decision by Janurary 1st, 2001 that the vice president becomes president. Again, correct me if I am wrong. Well that is all I have to say for now. I hope everyone had a great holiday.
posted by Latricia Saucier on Nov 27, 2000 07:10AM

Ok, my previous reply was pretty pathetic, now that I think of it, but that is all I can think of for now.
posted by Latricia Saucier on Nov 27, 2000 04:31PM

No, the vice-president does not become president if no decision is made by January 1, 2001. That would make Al Gore president. The president is decided by the electoral college, which meets on december 18. There a couple different possible scenarios that could decide the president if a decision cant be made. If there is a tie in the electoral college, then the house decides who will be the president. Each state-from the single-member delegation from delaware to the 52-member delegation from california- would get one vote. So, a candidate would need 26 out of 50 to win. If the house still cant decide on a winner, then the speaker of the house (Speaker Hastert), would be sworn in as president.
posted by -- on Nov 28, 2000 03:29PM

What kind of a president would he make?
posted by Piper -- on Nov 28, 2000 05:26PM

Thank you, Jason for correcting me on this. I was just told by my uncle and father that is what they heard. So thanks again, I was hoping that I was wrong anyway. :)
posted by Latricia Saucier on Nov 28, 2000 06:49PM

I think The Onion has the best post-election coverage.
posted by Zach Beane on Nov 29, 2000 10:39AM

I just feel bad cause the US is basically a joke, now. Anybody stop on a canadian station while flippin' through the channels?
between clinton and this whole election thing, the other countries don't even have to say anything. They just point and laugh.

My personal opinion is that Al Gore needs to accept the fact that he lost, and stop wasting americas time.

posted by Evan Ackley on Nov 29, 2000 12:30PM

I don't think anyone laughs at the United States except Americans. Canadians, perhaps, as well- but lightheartedly. Canada aspires to be America. It's like the puppy that follows the pit bull.
Since the election began, every country in the world has been made aware that the U.S. is on "high alert." Meaning, "don't fuck with us, we're going through some serious shit." Our country is transforming, and the whole world is watching, riveted.
I feel that the United States is the absolute prime example of political and governmental strength. We, as a country, set innumerable standards. I mean, as things stand right now, this country is dealing with an uprooting and turning over of undeniably intrinsic political processes, and we are (in essence) doing it without a real president. We are acting out, with our democratic backdrop setting the stage. This is amazing.
I did not vote, and as yet I do not regret that decision. But when 2004 comes around... I shy away from stating that I WILL vote -I mean, I can't predict a candidate I will feel is worthy of the job- but I at least will look at the opportunity in a completely different light. This entire sequence of events has shown me that we are a people that can come together when we WANT to- and Desire is a force one should feel privileged to be able to act upon.
posted by Piper -- on Nov 29, 2000 03:14PM

I beg to differ...I have many Canadian, Swedish, British, French, and other international friends, and they are indeed laughing their asses off at us. If you don't think so, just read this article. It's pretty hilarious. :-)

As for Canada wanting to be like America, I wouldn't tell a Canadian that, unless I was out of range of a swift kick...

posted by Zach Beane on Nov 29, 2000 03:28PM

Laughing and crying, ya know, it's the same release.
Seriously, though, all of my foreign friends are genuinely INTERESTED. Not mocking or anything, but watching and following. Even the Germans and the Swedes.
I guess we move in different circles. ;)
posted by Piper -- on Nov 29, 2000 08:35PM

I also wanted to say that in the December 4, 2000 issue of the New Yorker there are two articles of moderate length concerning the subject at hand which may be of interest for some. Also try Harper's if you like wit and wisdom.
posted by Piper -- on Nov 29, 2000 08:38PM

Hello all. I just returned from a family visit to England, and they (at least) are deffinately laughing at us. The butt of the jokes on their news channels, in their newspapers, and most, not all (the others just didn't seem to care) the people I met, young and old alike, are laughing at us. In fact a number of people told me they were sorry for us. I dont want any of them feeling sorry for us, let alone laughing...which indeed they are.

On another note, personally I voted for Gore. I agreed with more of his views on certain important (to me) topics than Bush, but I truly believe that after all that has transpired over these few weeks, Gore is just a very VERY poor loser. And I think that over all Bush has been handling things rather well. I wish I almost wish I had voted for Bush. As I believe Jason had said earlier, Gore needs to accept defeat if he wants to have any chance at attaining the presidency in the future. His best bet when all of this started was to step down and shake bush's hand, and work on his next campaign, get more people to side with him. When Bush's presidency is over, only time will tell over these next four years if Bush really was the guy for the job. At which point Gore COULD have had alot more under his belt, and have a much better shot. As it stands right now, I truly believe that Bush will be president, so Gore is just fighting the losing battle, but losing so much more than he may realize. Who would want to vote for him after all of this crap has gone on?

posted by StU aRt on Nov 30, 2000 08:59AM

Gimme a break. Gore is doing just what everyone expects him to do. Would you really want a presidential candidate that just gave up when it looked like things werent going his way? That's not the American mentality... oops, guess those Iraqis don't really want us here, better pack up and go home. Yeah right. If Gore turned tail and ran would anyone really have any more respect for him? He's caught in a big catch 22: should he give up and be percieved as weak, or should he continue and be percieved as a poor sportsman. And in my view the media corporations' spin on the story put him in that dilemma.
Also, if Gore were to just give up, what would happen? Nothing. Bush would take the presidency and we'd all plod along, laboring under under the yoke of Republican leadership saying, "Well there sure was something fishy about that election..." or "gee I wonder who those 20,000 votes that weren't counted were for..." If Gore doesn't follow through, we have little chance of any real change (and I'll point out that it seems to be the consensus of everyone on this web page that change is needed) with respect to the election process. Who else would have the legally required standing to make an issue out of it? So what are we saying here, there should be a big change, but the next person that tries to facilitate it is a spoilsport, is that what I'm hearing? I think that Gore may be pursuing a larger goal, working toward what he percieves as the greater good. Sometimes politics must take a back seat to social welfare and that may be one reason Gore is pursuing his LEGAL RIGHT to contest election results (which were undeniably shady) in the face of offhand assertions that it will be political suicide. I'd say this anti-Gore crusade is a media campaign designed to constructively deprive Gore of his legal rights. It's the same idea as constructive censorship. It's not illegal per se, but your reputation will be so damaged that there's really no gain to be had by pursuing it. Do we really want someone to be able to control the law in such an underhanded way?
And to those that say that it will cause disillusionment and distrust in the government among the American people, how many people trust the government as it is? No one has ever trusted the American government. Do you trust Big Brother? A little reality check never hurt anyone.
As for the laughing, I'd say that foreigners are laughing at us because we are laughing at ourselves. The ability to laugh at oneself is a virtue, and face it, it IS pretty damn humorous, what with the "pregnant chads" and all. How many political cartoons about the election do you suppose have run in national and international newspapers and "serious" magazines? And how many have originated in the US? It has always been a tradition in the our fair country to subject the political leaders to firey satirical criticism. But any laughter issuing from foreign countries is surely nervous laughter. Does anyone have any idea how much havoc a US economic or political collapse would play with the world economy? And what about the potential for political instability in the traditionally politically stable (at least in the 20th century) US in light of the nuclear arsenal and the war machinery our government posesses?
posted by Clint Phipps on Nov 30, 2000 12:41PM

A French friend of mine said, "The left-leaning educated classes generally dislike the US and find them both ridiculous and aggressive. Think of Forrest Gump with a machine gun. Generally speaking, many people laugh at the US always claiming to be the most modern country on any subject trying to count punched holes in cards."
posted by Zach Beane on Nov 30, 2000 12:56PM

It is unreasonable to make a mockery of people's mistakes, even if it involved the rather simple process of punching out a hole in a ballot. Even if it involves merely counting. Given that the criteria for what a "vote" actually is has in fact come into question with the emergence of literally indiscernable cast ballots, what would YOU do? How would YOU count them? Would you guess? Sure- that's logical. I, in my f#*cking omniscience, will actually discern the intent of Mr. So and So from Florida. Have you ever screwed up? Have you ever been presented with a particularly difficult decision and not really known what was the RIGHT or even the BEST thing to do? What the hell IS there to laugh about, anyway? It's not funny, it's serious. It's a contest, the winner of which will be handed immense power and respect- YES, I SAID RESPECT- in one swift swearing-in. The people who are laughing are obviously doing so for the lack of a more understanding response, probably due to a basically impartial perspective. Forrest Gump with a machine gun? Jesus. I think most of us regard ourselves- even as a country- in quite a more flattering light.
posted by Piper -- on Nov 30, 2000 03:20PM

Gore "giving up" isn't a question of him being is a question of him being a poor loser. Sure it's been close...the closest in 50 years or something, but after every tally, Bush has been ahead, by a good few hundred votes, sometimes only a couple hundred, sometimes more than 500 hundred. Either way you look at it though, Gore has been behind, and whats he and his party come up with to try and change the vote his way? Counting ballots that appear to be dented, not even half punched or anything (well im sure they'd count those as well, course if you dont know how to punch a hole in a piece of paper do you really belong in the voting booth?). Thats sort of like guess work really, and what a great way to decide a president. Besides, the tallies have shown that over all, on an average, the american people (if even by a very slim difference) chose you want to try and use the "accidents" of one state to turn that slim margin the other way? What about all the "accidents" that have more than likely happened in every other state? I guess we should count those too huh? With any voting system, dealing with the immense number of voters in the U.S. you're not going to be exact, it'll always just be an average, perhaps a very accurate average, but an average none-the-less. With such a large number of people, there will always be some discrepancies. But I think the tallies and the headline numbers have shown, that more of the public choses Bush over Gore. And would people lose faith in him for "turning tail and runnin?" yes, maybe, however thats not what I said his wisest decision would be. But to swallow his pride, not turn tail and run, but work on a stronger campaign for the next upcoming election, well that would demonstrate the signs of a great man. "oops, guess those Iraqis don't really want us here, better pack up and go home." Sure, pack up go home get some better artilliary (whether it be ammo or pursuasive thinking), and hit em harder on the next journey over with little or no opposition.
posted by StU aRt on Nov 30, 2000 04:02PM

Face it folks, our society hasd become a "second chance" society. Have you heard those idiots on TV? They are like "the ballot was too confusing!" "we demand a revote" "oh shit i punched the wrong hole!" I saw a picture of a ballot booth in flordia, and it had a huge picture of an arrow at the top. It was the same kind of arrow that was on the ballot. and it said "follow the arrows." People cry because they arent intelligent enough to vote. They cry "revote!" "second chance". Everytime someone screws up, its always "second chance". Everywhere you go. It always "it messed up, second chance" And you know what the horrible thing is? Most of the time we give them one. Whether it is thieves getting let out of jail early, muderers getting parole, or being pulled over for speeding and being let go, time after time. Our society had taught us, that "its ok, dont worry, you get a second chance." And what is even more horrible is the fact that when someone fucks up, they almost never, never take responsibility for it. Its always "someone else fucked up, second chance." "the machine fucked it up, second chance." How often do you actually hear someone say "its my fault, and i will accept responsibility and the pushishment??? Also, in our society, the second chance always seems to turn into a 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th chance.
The ignorance of the Gore campaign makes me want to secede from the union. First they are like, "those damn machines, they didnt count our votes! Let the responsible canvassing board (people) count them! Don't leave it up to machines, they are prone to error." Then after they are still behind after the hand recounts, the attitude becomes, "Those damn people they cant count! They dont know what they are doing, those crazy idiots!" What Gore should have done, is step down after the automatic recount. The 1st recount was automatic, it didnt require a request from gore, because (under florida law) the votes must be recounted if the margin is less then 1/2 of 1 percent. After losing the first recount, the thing to do would have been to step down. Even if i was a gore supporter (if someone saw me supporting gore, please shoot me!) I would still be for him stepping down. over about 60% of the country thinks he should conceed. Gore is going to ruin his chances of ever running again, by pushing this too far. I know it was his daddys dream for him to become president, but i dont think that his daddy would be very pleased with the crybaby that he raised. Give Gore a raddle, and shove a bottle in his mouth.
posted by -- on Nov 30, 2000 04:24PM

It's unreasonable to make a mockery of ones mistakes, on some level yes. However, everyone makes a mockery of peoples obviously stupid mistakes, whether it be by a friendly joke, or even a not so friendly one. I mean c'mon we're talking about people who are all over 18 years of age and have learned in nursery school how to cut out shapes and punch holes in paper. I could deffinately understand if one person had to punch a hole in 10,000 pieces of paper that there would inevitably be some mistakes, a hole half punched here and there, perhaps even some dents....but we're talking about one person with one piece of paper. How can you get it wrong? Especially with how important we view a president to be and how important we feel our right to vote is....why wouldn't you make sure it was clear, if not painfully clear who you voted for. Then I suppose you could say that perhaps those who didn't bother to make sure their paper was punched properly, just dont care as much perhaps as another person...their just voting to vote. Well if they dont care enough to punch it right, why are they gonna care if their vote for the pres. was counted properly? Lets just throw those ones into the discard pile. Thats how I would deal with the situation if I were faced with it. You're even allowed to go and get another ballot if you messed up. If you could even consider not fully punching out your hole messing up.
posted by StU aRt on Nov 30, 2000 04:57PM

Real men stay and fight. With dignity of course. It requires great dignity and unfaltering ego to persevere as Gore is doing. (Do not mistake these statements for any kind of dogma- I am simply stating observations.) HOWEVER- given the numbers, he ought to realize that this isn't his time. Is he hoping that in the nth recount the counters will begin casting instead of counting?
posted by Piper -- on Nov 30, 2000 05:06PM

When you're brushing your teeth have you ever lost the grip on your toothbrush and smeared toothpaste all over your face?
I have..
Damn, do I feel like a moron. I even went to kindergarten.

Have you ever misspoken? Spelled a word wrong? Called someone by the wrong name? Hit the wrong key on an instrument?
We are creatures prone to error. We are also prone to something nastier- Preoccupation. The issue here is not the mispunched ballots. It's the fact that since November 7th, Election Day, various rulings have changed and changed again just exactly what it is that should and should not count as a vote. It is the fact that the ballots have become currency. It is the fact that Florida is going to elect the President.
So, Guy Down The Street goes into the booth on November 7th not foreseeing any of the aftereffects of his preoccupied state of mind. He looks at his ballot. He looks at the apparatus he is to use to designate his chosen candidate. He sets his mind to work deciding who to pick. He has second thoughts. He has other thoughts. He thinks about work, school, dinner, sex, and- Oh, yeah- who he's voting for. He casts his vote. He leaves.
Next day he wonders "Oh, shit. Did I completely punch through the ballot? I WISH THERE WERE SOME WAY I COULD CHECK."
Now, in this totally fictitious but reasonable scenario, Guy Down The Street is not a stupid guy. He's just a guy.
It's completely unfair to attribute a mispunched ballot to stupidity. It is an unnecessary and useless theme to dwell on.
The government has been faced with the nearly insurmountable task of accounting for human error. The people don't trust the government. Politics have suddenly become Reality.

posted by Piper -- on Nov 30, 2000 05:28PM

I agree at times that gore should not put up a fuss about the ballots, but if he did not Bush would have. I believe it was Bush that went to the supreme court first, but because it was in his favor, he backed off a bit, but stayed in defense. He wanted to go there before Gore did. I heard that on the CNN News on November 26. I believe that we should have presidents that don't give up. However, I think that maybe they both over did it. I can't say that I wouldn't if I were in their shoes, because I am not in their shoes, therefore it probably would not be a truthful answer. It is not fair to set judgement on them because of what is happening. We all would have to be able to be in their shoes, and mind just to know what they are thinking in order to see if we at that point think their solution is reasonable or whether we would have a better solution.
posted by Latricia Saucier on Nov 30, 2000 07:34PM

I hate the fact that Gore is making people count and work on the holidays without a break, because of the outcomes of the election. I am not just against Gore, I know that if Gore won the election that Bush would probably do the same thing, since he was the one that went to the supreme court first. I just care about those folks that should not have to vote and spend their days without breaks to make the "so called vice president happy". I am just sick of the whole thing and wish that people could move on, I mean I could see if Gore thought that he was trying to save our lives from Bush. It is not having bush as president is going to end the world, it could but most of us probably thought that of previous presidents. We manage to make it for quite a few years with presidents that some of us thought were pretty shitty. Apparently they weren't as bad as we thought they could have been. I think we over do it on second chances sometimes, but I believe that most people deserve one. There are many people who are slow in life, disabled. If your saying that you don't deserve a second chance than how do people succeed in life. Sometimes it takes more chances than one to succeed. It is not fair to say well you missed that shot, sorry you can't stay on the team. Part of going through life, means you are going to fall, and you are going to need to pick yourself up again. If you are not given a second chance than how do you expect to just better your self on the things you need to. No one is perfect. How many times does it take you to get that shot better, or the song perfect to your liking. If you like me and love to perform, than how many times does it take you to get the beat just right, or the lyrics as smooth as you want them to be. I love to sing, and it takes me more than one chance to get a song perfect so that I can sing it for the people I love. You can't expect to be successful without experiencing a few fall/messups along the way. If you have never experienced screw ups than how can you say you have experienced life to it fullest.
posted by Patricia Saucier on Nov 30, 2000 08:11PM

I am not saying that if you make one mistake, that its all over. You are exactly right, mistakes are a valuable part of learning. You wont learn anything if you dont learn from the mistakes that you make. But its that we give out so many second chances in our society, that nobody has the desire to try and do better the next time. Why try and fix your mistakes and better your ways, if you know that you will always and fovever get a second chance. The motivation for correcting mistakes and learning from them, and trying not to do them again, comes from the punishment of failure. But if you are ALWAYS saved from failure via a second chance, then you lose your motivation to stive harder to avoid failure. Basically, we have eliminated failure and the hurt that comes with it, by saving someone everytime they screw up.

And if you arent smart enough to read and then punch all the way through a piece of paper, then its simply a mistake, a really REALLY dumb one, but its still an honest mistake. What makes someone a COMPLETE IDIOT, is if they arent smart enough to read and punch all the way through a piece of paper to vote, and then go and CRY about how their right to vote was "DISENFRANCHISED". That my friends is a perfect example of COMPLETE STUPIDITY. To make a mistake is one thing, but to go and try to blame it on someone else, is just horribly ignorant. It all goes back to what i was saying in my last post about how people almost never accept responsiblity for their mistakes. They dont ever say, "Its my fault, i messed up, i will accept the consequences." What you hear instead is, "NO, no, its not my fault its his fault, or her fault, or its fault. I WANT A SECOND CHANCE!!" This is exactly what is happening with many florida voters. They made a mistake, which is dumb. Now they are crying about how their right to vote was denied, which is really dumb. And now, they want a *inset whinny crybaby voice here* "A SECOND CHANCE" These people should do what miss saucier said in the last post, they should learn from their mistakes. They should accept responsibilty for them, and not go and cry about it.

posted by -- on Nov 30, 2000 09:58PM

You brush your teeth 2-3 times a day. On an average in your lifetime, your gonna brush your teeth 47,450 times. So yes you'll make a mistake here and there. But how often does it really happen....yes I acknowledge that it happens (i have done it myself once or twice), but really when was the last time you can honestly remember brushing your cheek rather than your mouth? On the same average lifetime, if you choose to, you'll vote between 11 and 12 times for president. Something that you do once every four years after most of us have already graduated highschool, with explicit instructions (I mean c'mon, I know how to vote, and I didn't need the instructions. Just looking at the ballot it was pretty damn self explanitory, but I read most of the instructions anyways. And if you dont know how to vote, and you read the instructions....if you don't know then, go back to kindergarten) how can you really fuck it up? If Joe Shmoe has so much on his mind that he can't clear it enough for five minutes to punch a couple damn little holes properly, does he really care that much about it all to begin with? If it's important enough to "Joe" then for 2 seconds after he's done punching his holes he would check and make sure it was done properly, or he didn't miss something, or he was happy with his decisions, etc, etc, etc. Perhaps even all of those, which might take a minute if you stretch it. It is simple stupidity, not even anything complex...just simple stupity that should just be MOCKED TO HELL!!!!
posted by StU aRt on Dec 01, 2000 03:49PM

You know they're bringing in statisticians as witnesses? We could have a theoretical president. I listened to this guy talk for a while, while he was on the stand, and it struck me that maybe they ought to just flip a goddamn coin or something. Cuz ya know, statistically...
posted by Piper -- on Dec 07, 2000 04:18PM

No no no. No coin... Never has worked in the past!! Why not two presidents??? Two is better than none!!!
posted by Paul Baker on Dec 07, 2000 10:39PM

No, no, no....I agree with the coin. The coin has always worked....wanna know why? Because the coin won't land on it's "side (?)." BUT I must say that I agree even more with 2 presidents....I think two would be better than one....but then thats cause for alot of time to be devoted to changing the way things work over all, and not just in the voting process!
posted by StU aRt on Dec 13, 2000 10:09AM

Well, we only have one. And he has beady eyes.
posted by Piper -- on Dec 17, 2000 09:28PM

posted by StU aRt on Dec 18, 2000 08:55AM

posted by -- on Dec 18, 2000 10:48PM

posted by StU aRt on Dec 19, 2000 09:34AM

Correction, Jason: You mean to say "And that Bush is president!!!!" I heard that he actually lost the popular vote. And the electoral vote hasn't happened yet.
posted by Clint Phipps on Dec 19, 2000 05:27PM

Good point Clint, but actually I didn't mean to say "Bush is president." Because he hasnt been inaugurated yet. What I really meant to say was, "Bush is president-elect."
posted by -- on Dec 20, 2000 03:50PM

Oh geez....technicalities...technicalities!
posted by StU aRt on Dec 21, 2000 09:24AM

"Let me say this, I'm friends with George Bush. He calls to wish me happy birthday. But I've got lots of friends that call to wish me happy birthday who I wouldn't want to see become president."
(Merle Haggard)
posted by Bert Phipps on Dec 21, 2000 09:32AM

I agree with you Bert. Hope everyone had great hollidays. I definetly would not want some of my friends to become president. Some however, I would not mind. I could get very far with some of my friends in breaking a few rules, so having them as president could be cool. I could do anything and still be considered the presidents number one gal. heheheheh ;)
Once again, happy hollidays, I did not get to be kissed under the mistle toe, what is up with that? Well hope all of you did. ;)
posted by Latricia Saucier on Dec 31, 2000 10:17AM

"Last week some newspapers were still referring to the election of 2000 as the closest in American history. It wasn't. It wasn't even the closest since Gore and George W. Bush were in junior high school, it was the third closest. Gore's plurality (539,000 votes ahead of Bush and counting) is nearly five times the size of John F. Kennedy's over Richard Nixon, in 1960, and thirty thousand votes bigger than Nixon's over Hubert Humphrey, in 1968. What is likely is that the independent counts will demonstrate that, no matter what standard is used, Florida, and therefore the Presidency, was unjustly awarded."
(Hendrik Hertzberg)
posted by Bert Phipps on Jan 10, 2001 03:29PM