Subject: Re: Hypocracy? Yes Please
From: Jive Monkey (monkey_jive@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 15:51:03 GMT
sean c says-
"In response the your "sore-loser hypocracy," I think the block of text
above shows why the man deserved it. You are a sore loser when you attempt
to undermine the constitution voting process to have your votes unfairly
counted. It is not the job of voting officials to consider the intent of a
voter. The manual counts, as proven by the Supreme Court decision, were
unconsititutional in many aspects. In my book, when you receive an outcome
and bawl and complain in a vain attempt to get things to turn your way you
are a sore loser. When you seek legal action on the American voting
process, you are a sore loser. When you conceed an election and then take it
back, you are a sore loser."
whoa there fella!! if it isn't the job of voting officials to consider the
intent of a voter, than whose is it? the machines? i have used optical
scanners to read forms, and let me tell you that those machines are far from
infallible. i routinely had to manually input information form the forms
into the computer because the scanner, operating normally and within
specifications, failed to pick up the information on the form or picked up
erroneous information, most often due to no error on the part of the person
filling out the form, but simply because the machine lacked the ability to
reason. human beings are far more qualified to count votes and determine
intent than any machine; we use machines because they are faster, not more
accurate. given enough time, a human would be able to perform a more
accurate vote count than a machine.
whether or not the supreme court "proved" manual recounts to be
unconstitutional is up for debate. they did rule that way, but i find it
hard to believe that it is unconstitutional to perform an accurate vote
count. the fact is that both sides acted like children, gore by wanting to
keep counting until he was satisfied, and bush by wanting to not count
because he was satisfied. however, there is a clear winner in that
argument, and it is the side that wants to count more, not less. as long as
all the votes are counted, in the same fashion (which i will concede was not
occurring in this case), then the count is fair. at no point was fairness
ever achieved, nor was it ever attempted. bush won because gore ran out of
time. not until all the votes in florida are counted, with a single
standard, by the same method, will we really know the truth.
and how can you demand that the votes of serviceman, or others living
overseas, lacking postmarks, witness signatures, or what have you, which by
law are not valid, be counted, while screaming and moaning that "invalid"
votes (i.e., hanging chads, someone marks a candidates name and writes it in
also) should not be counted? who's being a hypocrite there? i can't think
of one good reason why we shouldn't count as many votes as possible, as long
as they were all cast and counted with one standard, except in the case
where your candidate has a slim lead and you don't want it to evaporate.
in that case, stall for time, dish out as much rhetoric and hyperbole as
possible, and hope for the best.
andy
ac
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 18:02:58 GMT