Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Florida:
I'll keep this short since its been run in the ground. The Florida ballot thing is an obvious case of corruption. The whole rant he does on it excludes the facts that tens of thousands of black voters were wrongfully excluded from the voting rolls and that the company that excluded them eventually admitted to as much. Gore, if he got the statewide recount, which is what he fought for in the SCOTUS, would have won the state.
|
For it being run into the ground, I'm surprised you didn't know that the major media statewide recount (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, and Miami Herald) performed by academics showed that Bush would have won in every situation except the most egregious (count even minor indentions) which the Florida Supreme Court, all Democrats, struck down. Of the newspapers, the Washington Post might be called moderate, and the Wall Street Journal definitely conservative. The other three are liberal. More, it was executed by academics, which are overwhelmingly liberal. If anything, the bias here would be liberal.
Voter roll purge? If they had this "felon list" with only last names on it, wouldn't some of those voters purged also be white?
Let's think about numbers here. There are roughly 1.8 million eligible black voters in Florida, according to the 2001 census. This is assuming that blacks have the same age demographics as whites, 22.8% under the age of 18, which they don't (the black population is younger, all those older wealthy retirees are usually white). Florida has a 65% registration rate, so let's say 1.2 million registered black voters. 600k actually voted, so we have 600k left. Using optimistic numbers, you're saying that roughly 1 in 6 registered black voters who didn't vote were purged/turned away/persecuted. Not possible.
Other than Jesse Jackson there is virtually no evidence that "tens of thousands" of black voters were wrongfully excluded. There's about as much evidence there as there is that the western panhandle or military voters would have handed the state to Bush were it not for those "evil dirty" Democrats.
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Also, The republicans say "It doesn't seem to bother them that this principle—the right of the majority to get like-minded representation, regardless of which party wins jurisdiction by jurisdiction—is exactly the principle they deny in Texas.
|
There's a big difference -- the "lines" set down by the Electoral College never change, and the Electoral College itself is mandated by the Constitution. Gerrymandering is technically not illegal (but should be). There's a Supreme Court Case in 1962 (Baker v. Carr?) that could be used to strike it down, however. Ironic, as the most recent gerrymander to that point was the Democrat gerrymandering of 1957 and 1959.
That doesn't make gerrymandering right, however, and I hope once and for all either a federal law sets a consistent standard or that DeLay gets smacked down so hard neither party will even consider the idea of drawing lines on anything other than geography. Both parties look stupid; I don't know which is worse, due to the ridiculous portrait of Democrats hightailing it to Oklahoma or New Mexico and not doing their jobs, or DeLay trying to get Homeland Security to bring them back.
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
California Recall:
|
See Mr. Mojo.
-- Alvin