"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
>"'nuther Bob" <yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote in message news:csenivsbsjjm3ovkf4mu9lt2ufvlja765e@4ax.com...

>> Everyone agreed that the ballot did not meet the FL standard
>> *including* the FL courts. So, somebody who matters did agree.
>> However, the courts held that a second election was not practical
>> and was also rife with Constitutional problems. That doesn't make
>> the ballot legal, it just makes it more difficult to correct.
>>
>Wrong. Here's what the FL Supreme Court had to say:
>
>"In the present case, even accepting appellants' allegations, we conclude as
>a matter of law that the Palm Beach County Ballot does not constitute
>substantial noncompliance with the statutory requirements mandating the
>voiding of the election".
>
>http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/fscfladelldismiss1201.pdf

In my opinion, "does not constitute substantial noncompliance" means there
was some noncompliance. That means that the ballot was "illegal" but that
all other options other than accepting the illegal ballot were worse
choices (because the ballot wasn't too illegal).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:24:03 GMT, 'nuther Bob
><yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote:
>
>>Saddaam was providing money to the families of dead terrorists who
>>were killed while engaged in terrorism in Israel. While I find it
>>repulsive, it was not a threat to the national security of the USA
>
>Nutter bobby, treaties require us to come to the aid of our allies.

Name the one that requires we invade a country that supports (but does not
engage directly) acts that injure countries we have treaties with.

>If not, you would be speaking german right now.

Why? Because we got involved in WWII immediately upon Germany's invasion
of the Rhinelands? Poland? Bombings of England? Invasion of France?

Which invasion of allies did it take for us to get involved?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:17:33 -0400, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You mean the one's that Clinton and Hans Blix said he had?
>
> Hans Blix wanted to finish the inspections to find out if Saddaam
> had any WMD's...

And said that Sadam was obstructing those inspections - not quite the
disclosure that was demanded by the mutliple UN resolutions - and over
how many years?

GWB couldn't wait for some reason. If you think about
> it, the only reason not to wait was because they might _not_ find
> WMD and then GWB had no reason to invade.

Not the only reason. How many years? How many (apparently) meaningless
UN resolutions? Better to not make a resolution than to make it and not
carry it out. If cops gave out nothing but warnings and never a real
ticket for speeding (for about 12 years), do you think people would
think twice about speeding if they thought it was safe?

> >> , Saddaam having any links to Al Queda; has been
> >> disproven.
> >
> >You mean the terrorist training camps and safe havens?
>
> There were a couple areas in Northern Iraq the some of those folks
> were using. They were located in the Kurdish Territory where Saddaam
> did not tread because the Kurds would not let him. There was no
> support from Saddaam for those terrorists. We could easily have
> taken those camps out with a targeted strike.
>
> In all the papers they've found in Iraq, all the gov't buildings
> they've searched, they have yet to find any direct links between
> Saddaam and Al Queda. If they had, you can be sure they'd be waving
> it like a flag at this point.
>
> >Or do you mean
> >the payments to the families of those Islamists who blew themselves up
> >while intentionally murdering innocent people. Which of those have been
> >disproven?
>
> Saddaam was providing money to the families of dead terrorists who
> were killed while engaged in terrorism in Israel...

How noble and how non-supportive of terrorism.

While I find it
> repulsive, it was not a threat to the national security of the USA
> and whether or not it constitutes support of terrorism is debatable...

I would say not debatable at all to any reasonable person. Bush
declared war on terrorism and followed thru with it.

> Certainly the Palestinian supporters would disagree. If we are going
> to invade every country that supports the Palestinians in some way,
> we have another dozen to go.

We're not talking about "supporting the Palestinians in some way" as if
we're talking about someone who sells them bread and soft drinks. We're
talking about paying martyrs for their acts of murder and terrorism
(again, to any reasonable person).

>
> I'll say it again: There is no link between Saddaam and Al Queda.

But as you have pointed out, he did support terrorism by monetarily
rewarding families of terrorists after the fact. I would say that would
be a target in a war that was declared on terrorism.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:2bsnivc3183svuvgqhiruualv0o04c3v4j@4ax.com...
> "David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >"'nuther Bob" <yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote in message
news:csenivsbsjjm3ovkf4mu9lt2ufvlja765e@4ax.com...
>
> >> Everyone agreed that the ballot did not meet the FL standard
> >> *including* the FL courts. So, somebody who matters did agree.
> >> However, the courts held that a second election was not practical
> >> and was also rife with Constitutional problems. That doesn't make
> >> the ballot legal, it just makes it more difficult to correct.
> >>
> >Wrong. Here's what the FL Supreme Court had to say:
> >
> >"In the present case, even accepting appellants' allegations, we conclude
as
> >a matter of law that the Palm Beach County Ballot does not constitute
> >substantial noncompliance with the statutory requirements mandating the
> >voiding of the election".
> >
> >http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/fscfladelldismiss1201.pdf
>
> In my opinion, "does not constitute substantial noncompliance" means there
> was some noncompliance. That means that the ballot was "illegal" but that
> all other options other than accepting the illegal ballot were worse
> choices (because the ballot wasn't too illegal).
>

An illegal ballot that is not illegal enough to void the election. I
wouldn't hang my hat on that one! And if you read the ruling, they're not
saying that at all.

> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

'nuther Bob <yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:54:24 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>
>>"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
>>United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
>>the actual Service of the United States;"
>
>That section of the Constitution on makes the President
>Commander in Chief. It does not discuss National Defense. Other
>sections do, you may want to review them.

Then please quote them. The words "national" does not appear in the
Constitution. "Defence" only appears in the preamble and in the powers of
Congress (to be able to tax to provide for defense). But it never appears
in the powers of the Executive Branch.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:21:01 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:

>>Yes, I know. The issue is that every person on the ballot had the
>>same requirements to determine what to check. So, anyone that voted
>>for the wrong guy due to their stupidity, which is what it was, could
>>have been a republican, democrat, green, blue, purple or any other
>>party.
>>
>>Statistically no one candidate could have been harmed or benefitted
>>from the ballot.
>
>Suppose that 50% wanted Gore, 45% wanted Bush, 2% for the Green Party, 2%
>for the Libertarians, and 1% for the others. If 10% of all voters were to
>select a random party from confusion, then the results would be
>47/42.5/3.8/3.8/2.9 for the percentages.

No.

The way the ballot was laid out, the "check" marks were made in the
middle, while the candidates were listed to either side. So the
entire concept that voters voted wrong is bull****. However, if there
were some way this happened, each voter could have voted either above
or below the correct spot. This means that Bush, at the top,
statistically received 50% LESS votes for him that were intended for
someone else. Gore in the middle received as many erroneous votes as
he lost.

>So, statistically, the voter with the greatest popular support is harmed
>the most.

Which was of course Bush, as he had more votes in Florida by every
count done, including the original one, the recounts by the state and
counties, the recounts by every newspaper, every radio station, every
tv station, every journalist.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 15:02:55 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:24:03 GMT, 'nuther Bob
><yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote:
>
>>Saddaam was providing money to the families of dead terrorists who
>>were killed while engaged in terrorism in Israel. While I find it
>>repulsive, it was not a threat to the national security of the USA
>
>Nutter bobby, treaties require us to come to the aid of our allies.
>If not, you would be speaking german right now.

Which treaty are you referring to ? (Hint: the answer is that there
isn't one).

>
>>and whether or not it constitutes support of terrorism is debatable.
>
>Supporting terrorists is not supporting terrorism. You must be a
>****ing liberal.

I have no idea what you're trying to say... but comments coming from
a guy who thinks the KKK is a liberal organization, I don't think I
really care.

Bob

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 19:47:06 GMT, "David Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:

>An illegal ballot that is not illegal enough to void the election. I
>wouldn't hang my hat on that one! And if you read the ruling, they're not
>saying that at all.

Once again, you miss the point that I stated and Marc restated.
The ballot was illegal under the law. However, the only real
remedy - holding a new election - was deemed to severe. That does
not make the ballot correct, it just means the remedy is
not practical in the view of the court.

Bob

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:07:23 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:

>The way the ballot was laid out, the "check" marks were made in the
>middle, while the candidates were listed to either side.

Either you've never seen that ballot, or you are just arguing
a foolish point in order to prove that Bush has some uncontested
right to the Presidency.

But, since you also posted that the KKK was a liberal organization,
I suppose expecting anything that makes sense from you would in
itself be non-sensical.

Bob

.....
>
>>So, statistically, the voter with the greatest popular support is harmed
>>the most.
>
>
> Which was of course Bush, as he had more votes in Florida by every
> count done, including the original one, the recounts by the state and
> counties, the recounts by every newspaper, every radio station, every
> tv station, every journalist.


What is this dumb obsession with "popular vote"? Do you people go
around saying "well my team got more HITS, they should be the winner"?

Electoral votes is how the game is played, and for good reasons. - RM

"'nuther Bob" <yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote in message
news:dlfoiv4pprn4t9gps7o5n3jat8arb6o0m2@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 19:47:06 GMT, "David Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >An illegal ballot that is not illegal enough to void the election. I
> >wouldn't hang my hat on that one! And if you read the ruling, they're
not
> >saying that at all.
>
> Once again, you miss the point that I stated and Marc restated.
> The ballot was illegal under the law. However, the only real
> remedy - holding a new election - was deemed to severe. That does
> not make the ballot correct, it just means the remedy is
> not practical in the view of the court.
>
> Bob

Not at all. The only place I can find a finding of illegality is in this
newsgroup.

Maybe you missed the part where I quoted the FL Supreme Court: "In the
present case, even accepting appelants' allegaitons, we conclude as a matter
of law that the Palm Beach County ballot does not constitute substantial
noncompliance of the statutory requirements mandating the voiding of the
election."

There was no finding that the ballot was an any way illegal. There was no
implication that the ballot was even partially noncompliant. The ruling
refers to the requirement for "substantial noncompliance" to void an
election and then says the butterfly ballot didn't touch that standard EVEN
HAD THE COURT AGREED WITH THE ALLEGATION, i.e., they didn't even have to get
into whether they agreed or not because it didn't matter.

The only logical conclusion one can come away with is that the margin of
error was so small as to make the imperfections of any present voting method
significant, especially if one looks for imperfections in a biased manner.
But all the recounts consisitently favored Bush even with Gore stirring the
pot over and over again in a statistically biased manner.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 02:15:47 GMT, "David Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:


>Maybe you missed the part where I quoted the FL Supreme Court: "In the
>present case, even accepting appelants' allegaitons, we conclude as a matter
>of law that the Palm Beach County ballot does not constitute substantial
>noncompliance of the statutory requirements mandating the voiding of the
>election."

Maybe you don't understand the decision. It says:
"Even accepting appellant's allegation, we conclude as a matter of law
that the Palm Beach County ballot does not constitute substantial
noncompliance"

In other words, they *accept* the allegation that the ballot was
illegal. This was not difficult to determine since the ballot format
was obviously in violation of the law. Even you can read the law
as to how the ballot must be designed, and compare it to the ballot
they used, and determine that it's illegal. Try it. Report back.

The only question was the remedy of calling a new election, which they
did not do because they felt the ballot did not reach the level of
"substantial noncompliance".

>There was no finding that the ballot was an any way illegal.
>There was no
>implication that the ballot was even partially noncompliant.

You don't get it. See above.

> The ruling
>refers to the requirement for "substantial noncompliance" to void an
>election and then says the butterfly ballot didn't touch that standard EVEN
>HAD THE COURT AGREED WITH THE ALLEGATION, i.e., they didn't even have to get
>into whether they agreed or not because it didn't matter.

They did agree. Again, even you can figure it out. Read the FL law.
Look at the ballot. Compare the two. I dare you.

>The only logical conclusion one can come away with is that the margin of
>error was so small as to make the imperfections of any present voting method
>significant, especially if one looks for imperfections in a biased manner.
>But all the recounts consisitently favored Bush even with Gore stirring the
>pot over and over again in a statistically biased manner.

Incorrect. 19000 double punched ballots were discarded. Pat
Buchanan received an incredibly large vote in overwhelmingly
Democratic districts. Statistical analysis by over 20 different
organizations found that there were significantly more errors
in the Gore ballots and that many of the Buchanan votes were in
fact incorrect Gore votes. Bush votes represented a very small
portion of the error as his name appeared first and presented
no difficulty in determining which location to vote. Gore and
Buchanan, OTOH, were further down the ballot where the confusion
started.

But, none of this matters at this point. Whether Bush stole the
election or not, he still sucks as President.

Bob

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:15:07 GMT, RickMerrill
<RickMerrill@comcast.net> wrote:

>Electoral votes is how the game is played, and for good reasons.

I'd be interested in knowing what you think the "good reasons"
for the electoral system are. About the only thing the electoral
college does today is make the votes of some voters worth more
than the votes of other voters. Only the political parties (both
of them) have an interest in preserving this unfair, antiquated,
dinosaur of a voting system.

Bob

DTJ wrote:

> >So, statistically, the voter with the greatest popular support is harmed
> >the most.
>
> Which was of course Bush, as he had more votes in Florida by every
> count done, including the original one, the recounts by the state and
> counties, the recounts by every newspaper, every radio station, every
> tv station, every journalist.

Now wait a minute, DTJ - Let's be accurate here. I think of the 16
different ways the votes were counted, Gore did win in one of those, and
Bush won in the other 15. So *OBVIOUSLY* Gore won the election. What
were you thinking!? 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

RickMerrill wrote:
>
> ....
> >
> >>So, statistically, the voter with the greatest popular support is harmed
> >>the most.
> >
> >
> > Which was of course Bush, as he had more votes in Florida by every
> > count done, including the original one, the recounts by the state and
> > counties, the recounts by every newspaper, every radio station, every
> > tv station, every journalist.
>
> What is this dumb obsession with "popular vote"? Do you people go
> around saying "well my team got more HITS, they should be the winner"?
>
> Electoral votes is how the game is played, and for good reasons. - RM

No Rick - didn't you know that the Republicans went back in a time
machine to set up the electoral system just so Bush could win in 2000.
That's how it was rigged. 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> ...But, none of this matters at this point. Whether Bush stole the
> election or not, he still sucks as President.
>
> Bob

Can we take a vote on that? 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:15:07 GMT, RickMerrill
> <RickMerrill@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Electoral votes is how the game is played, and for good reasons.
>
> I'd be interested in knowing what you think the "good reasons"
> for the electoral system are. About the only thing the electoral
> college does today is make the votes of some voters worth more
> than the votes of other voters. Only the political parties (both
> of them) have an interest in preserving this unfair, antiquated,
> dinosaur of a voting system.
>
> Bob

That may be true or may not be true (it can be argued that there are
practical reasons that other, more "fair" ways, would not be do-able -
and arguably, in your favor, some of those practical reasons may no
longer apply in the modern world). *BUT*, right or wrong, it was the
rules of the game (which no one was violently disputing before that
election and the bizarre situations that occurred) at the time of that
particular election.

It's kind of like football rules - some may be stupid (and even change
over time), but as long as they are applied to both teams equally during
any given game (election), and not pre-meditated to give one team
(candidate or party) an unfair advantage, it's disingenuous to argue to
change the results of the game after the fact when serious objections
weren't raised ahead of time. Maybe the rules will be changed - but
only for future "games".

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"'nuther Bob" <yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote in message
news:0lsoivg4g7h3t7oqltevmn71s6jmkb8pi6@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 02:15:47 GMT, "David Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Maybe you missed the part where I quoted the FL Supreme Court: "In the
> >present case, even accepting appelants' allegaitons, we conclude as a
matter
> >of law that the Palm Beach County ballot does not constitute substantial
> >noncompliance of the statutory requirements mandating the voiding of the
> >election."
>
> Maybe you don't understand the decision. It says:
> "Even accepting appellant's allegation, we conclude as a matter of law
> that the Palm Beach County ballot does not constitute substantial
> noncompliance"
>
> In other words, they *accept* the allegation that the ballot was
> illegal. This was not difficult to determine since the ballot format
> was obviously in violation of the law. Even you can read the law
> as to how the ballot must be designed, and compare it to the ballot
> they used, and determine that it's illegal. Try it. Report back.
>

Maybe I'm using the wrong search engine, but I can't find any ruling
indicating the butterfly ballot is illegal.

To conclude that the FSC accepts the allegations of the appelants requires
one to read the ruling in a particular way. Clearly though, the legality of
the ballot was irrelevant to the ruling. So my reading of those words lead
me to understand that "even accepting" is not declarative, i.e., "even
though we accept", but conditional, i.e., "even if we accept".

I don't have FL's election law in front of me, but let me guess that the
certainty you have of the ballots illegality is based on the fact that
candidates names are on either side of the punch holes and the law says the
candidates names must be on the left side of the punch holes. If that's it,
then no wonder the circuit court and the supreme court ruled as they did.

The standard of illegality is only significant if the design prevents the
voter from voting properly. The butterfly didn't. 400,000 people voted
properly with it in Palm Beach County. To vote properly with it only
requires the voter to give the ballot due consideration for it's design. To
not give the ballot due consideration leads one to vote improperly without
even realizing it. Even with due consideration, confusion would lead the
reasonable person to seek assistance, not to punch ad hoc, or twice or not
at all. The courts can't remedy voter error or voter carelessness.

> The only question was the remedy of calling a new election, which they
> did not do because they felt the ballot did not reach the level of
> "substantial noncompliance".
>
> >There was no finding that the ballot was an any way illegal.
> >There was no
> >implication that the ballot was even partially noncompliant.
>
> You don't get it. See above.
>

No, I do get it. I read that sentence consistent with the irrelevance of
the allegations.

> > The ruling
> >refers to the requirement for "substantial noncompliance" to void an
> >election and then says the butterfly ballot didn't touch that standard
EVEN
> >HAD THE COURT AGREED WITH THE ALLEGATION, i.e., they didn't even have to
get
> >into whether they agreed or not because it didn't matter.
>
> They did agree. Again, even you can figure it out. Read the FL law.
> Look at the ballot. Compare the two. I dare you.
>
> >The only logical conclusion one can come away with is that the margin of
> >error was so small as to make the imperfections of any present voting
method
> >significant, especially if one looks for imperfections in a biased
manner.
> >But all the recounts consisitently favored Bush even with Gore stirring
the
> >pot over and over again in a statistically biased manner.
>
> Incorrect. 19000 double punched ballots were discarded.

Double punched ballots are invalid.

> Pat Buchanan received an incredibly large vote in overwhelmingly
> Democratic districts.

He actually received fewer votes than he did 4 yrs earlier in the primaries
in Palm Beach.

Statistical analysis by over 20 different
> organizations found that there were significantly more errors
> in the Gore ballots and that many of the Buchanan votes were in
> fact incorrect Gore votes. Bush votes represented a very small
> portion of the error as his name appeared first and presented
> no difficulty in determining which location to vote. Gore and
> Buchanan, OTOH, were further down the ballot where the confusion
> started.
>
> But, none of this matters at this point. Whether Bush stole the
> election or not, he still sucks as President.
>

I suppose if you're a liberal Democrat it would seem so. From my point of
view, Bush won a close election and Gore tried to steal it. Heck, my
conservatism and other values lead me to believe Clinton was the biggest
shipwreck of a presidency in modern history. I'm quite certain you believe
otherwise.

I'm refreshed by Bush's principled and disciplined approach to governing.
No finger to the wind, no flip flopping. He's quite predictable. I think
he's great.

> Bob
>

"Bill Putney" <peva@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F2C8FA1.7E4E2F9A@kinez.net...
> 'nuther Bob wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:15:07 GMT, RickMerrill
> > <RickMerrill@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Electoral votes is how the game is played, and for good reasons.
> >
> > I'd be interested in knowing what you think the "good reasons"
> > for the electoral system are. About the only thing the electoral
> > college does today is make the votes of some voters worth more
> > than the votes of other voters. Only the political parties (both
> > of them) have an interest in preserving this unfair, antiquated,
> > dinosaur of a voting system.
> >
> > Bob
>
> That may be true or may not be true (it can be argued that there are
> practical reasons that other, more "fair" ways, would not be do-able -
> and arguably, in your favor, some of those practical reasons may no
> longer apply in the modern world). *BUT*, right or wrong, it was the
> rules of the game (which no one was violently disputing before that
> election and the bizarre situations that occurred) at the time of that
> particular election.
>
> It's kind of like football rules - some may be stupid (and even change
> over time), but as long as they are applied to both teams equally during
> any given game (election), and not pre-meditated to give one team
> (candidate or party) an unfair advantage, it's disingenuous to argue to
> change the results of the game after the fact when serious objections
> weren't raised ahead of time. Maybe the rules will be changed - but
> only for future "games".
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>

I wouldn't call the electoral college stupid. It recognizes the interest of
states. If the election was strictly a national popular vote, large
metropolitan cities would always determine the presidency. That's where
campaigns would focus and their interests catered to. Note how the
campaigns of the electoral method focus on "battleground states". These
states were not necessarily CA or NY or FL. The smaller states of the time
clearly saw the advantage of the electoral system so they wouldn't get shut
out and the interests of their populations become irrelevent. Perhaps a
better sports analogy is golf.

The mere mention of the words "popular vote" is deceptive. There is no
popular election, so there's no popular vote. Tabulating the aggregate of
individual state elections is NOT indicitive of a honest to goodness
national popular vote.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:54:33 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:07:23 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>The way the ballot was laid out, the "check" marks were made in the
>>middle, while the candidates were listed to either side.
>
>Either you've never seen that ballot, or you are just arguing

al bore made sure everyone saw the ballot. It was even on the news in
China.

He lost, get ****ing over it.