GOP: Bush & Gore Election Drama

[Dengen-Goroth]

Back to the topics:) I am sorry for all who are outside of America on this issue, and offer a different discussion as well. Should the National Government "run" the national elections, or should the states retain control. Especially after Gore v Bush, which in my opinion was a mockery of America, where the outcome was decided on political lines and not by the people.
*The other topic, how far is to far in invasion of privacy. How far should we allow the Police or who so ever will employ advanced technology to look upon us, and where can we "draw the Line"?

[ReadWryt]

The States should controll the Elections. They should be free to make the rules for their region as to how and when people can and do vote. They know best the special needs of the citizens residing there...and if the rules are good enough for State Officials then they should be good enough for Federal. Federal oversight should be implimented, and fast. There should be a minimum requirement that each state must make sure to meet in availability and accuracy, but in the end the states know best. I cringe to think what a "One size fits all" Federal approach would do to the Inuit voters in northern Alaska...

I think though that in light of the last Presidential Race we will finally see an end to the silly "Winner take all" approach to the Electoral College. I think that no state wants to suffer the bad press and scrutiny that Florida was subjected to, nor do they want to have the Supreme Court have to rule that they failed to follow their own State Laws or that the actions of their courts were at odds with the 14th ammendment as happened with Florida in the 7-2 decision that ended the last election.

[Grond]

Dengen, I disagree with your assertion that Bush vs. Gore was a mockery. It may have been but we'll never know. The state of Florida was called by the news media while the polls were still open in the Western half of the State. People in Florida had been waiting in line for up to an hour to vote when the networks made the call. What I would like to know is how many people didn't vote because they didn't want to waste time on a "lost cause". The same thing can be said of the California vote. How many Bush supporters headed for the house or didn't vote at all because once Florida was called, Gore was a shoe in and California didn't matter.

We can not reform the election process alone to correct the Bush versus Gore fiasco. New rules and guidelines must also be put into place to keep the news media from adversely effecting elections by making incompetent and faulty predictions as to winners. The networks declared Gore the Florida winner at 6:00 PM CST first, then reneged and declared it too close to call at 10:00PM, then declared Bush the winner at 1:00AM and then reneged again and declared it too close to call at 3:00AM. I would hope that a new law is placed in effect that will not allow the networks to call any state or district until after every single polling place in the United States is closed. (And that would include Hawaii.)

[daisy]

Edited for continuity --<B>--
I don't know all that much about the American governmental system, although I do know about the Bush-Gore election drama, the two party-system, and the bell-weather states and the primaries etc. but I actually cannot debate on this topic because it is too specified to one country...
So I guess I'm out until there is another general topic. See ya....

[Dengen-Goroth]

Yes, I understand your words well. That is the reason why i placed a second topic. The elections were a very hot topic, and I am interested in the opinions of all. We can make this broader of course, what type of government serves the people the best?

[Gloer]

Edited for continuity --<B>--
2. BUSH vs. GORE
The election ended up as a farce. Gore got the majority of the votes overall but Bush won the electorate. That Florida ballot mess up was a farce. It is important to have a clear outcome from an election and fast. Uncertanity and power vacuum were not very good things to have.
I thought they should have had a total recount of all the votes in Florida or none at all. Supreme court did the only practical solution when they blew the whistle to give USA certanity of the president elect and the next government. Why don't you have a direct vote for the president? Why to have electors? We had that before, but at those times elector were quite free to vote for anyone they chose - and there often was political dealing for the second round electoral votes since we have a multi-party system here and usually several candidates of which only two go to the second round.

(I first thought George Bush shouldn't have won because he is none too bright and Gore got more votes overall. Nevertheless Bush the II has been intelligent enough to acknowledge his incompetences. After a while I thought that actually it was better to have a working team of top people run USA than some high IQ Al Gore dictating every little detail of everything. I was hoping Powell, Cheney and the lot would keep mr.Bush checked, his papers in order and his actions informed enough. Now that Bush the II is popular beyond any understanding, mr. Powell is engaged far away in Asia, mr.Cheney dainted by the Enron-scandal and at the same time Rumsfeld and Ascroft are gathering speed under their give-us-dictatorial-power-to-revange -rhetorics... I am a bit worried.)

3. Coming down to the last topic. It is connected to the above administrative powers. Bush government is granted extensive means to intervane privacy of terrorist suspects. The problem is that terrorism is hard to define and therefore it is easy to abuse the new powers. I really would not like to be a muslim in USA. They just lost their right for privacy and no-one even noticed!

[ReadWryt]

Could someone help me out here and explain to me how Cheney is "Tainted" by the Enron Scandal? It seems to me that had the administration acted out of some feeling of obligation to their contributor then Enron would not have collapsed...I mean, we all know that Clinton would have been out there taking credit for having saved thousands of jobs by bailing Enron out! This administration told them to go pound sand and fix their own screwups, that it is not the job of the federal government to repair damage to corporate entities that were caused by members of that self same entity.

Right now there is a political scandal only because people are being TOLD there is a political scandal. Dozens of "Talking Heads" run from network to network espousing specualtive rhetoric yelling "The sky is falling, the sky is falling", and the G.A.O. is demanding transcripts from the meeting that Cheney had with Energy companies to discuss the future Energy Policy. All of this is being packaged in scary wrapping and sold to everyone through the media as being a "Scandal". Let me tell you, if the Vice President held a meeting with Energy Companies and DIDN'T invite Enron, at the time the 6th largest company of ANY kind in the U.S....THAT would have been a scandal!

If one branch of the government can demand that the Executive Branch turn over all notes from any meeting with industrial leaders simply because they think that one of the attendees may have had influence over the White House Policy then the White House may as well never have such meetings ever again because not a single industry leader will say anything of note at these meetings ever again. There were more then 30 different energy companies at that meeting, and if the media is implying that THEY wanted something different then Enron did in the energy policy then they are sorely mistaken. Anything that made the Free Market more appealing to Enron made it appealing to nearly ALL of the companies attending the meeting, so even if the G.A.O. gets their hands on the notes of the meeting all they are going to find is that Enron suggested the same things that the other companies did, and in many cases what the Conservatives have wanted for many years...they will find no "Special Treatment" for Enron.

"Aha!", the liberal pundits cry, "...but isn't this interesting? So it's allright for a Republican Congress to demand Hillary Clinton's notes from her meetings with the Health Care Industry but it's not ok for the Democrat Congress to do the same in the Enron matter?".

Well actually, it is ok in the former and not ok in the latter. Cheney has the protections given expressly to the Executive Branch...and he is an elected official, and so can be held accountable in the end, i.e. Impeached. Last time I checked the First Lady is just the woman who shares a bedroom with the highest Federal Official in the land and is not accountable, let alone protected by any special laws...she is just the President's main squeeze, and even though the previous administration's web site would have wanted you to think otherwise, there actually IS no Office of the First Lady.