503
Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%
(news.gallup.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
503 points (92.6% liked)
politics
19086 readers
4457 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
SCOTUS gave the only reasonable answer under the circumstances. The deadline for certifying the election is enforceable and the entire state has to be counted under the same standards, not a separate, different standard for places one candidate wants to challenge. Denying either of those would be a terrible idea for reasons that extend well beyond 2000, and if you accept both of those premises then there's no other real answer, as there wasn't time to recount the entire state under a new standard before the deadline.
The fallout of that same decision is why Trump had to give up on legal challenges against the election when he did in favor of protests and planning that exceedingly poorly thought out attempt at an insurrection.
the circumstances being that they wanted another Republican president, and they owed his dad a favor anyway.
The circumstances being that one candidate wanted to recount parts of the state under different rules than the rest of the state, and wanted to extend that process past when state law said the process had to be finished. The entire SCOTUS decision was built on the idea that state election deadlines are valid and equal protection requires votes be counted under the same standards statewide.
Which of those premises do you disagree with, and would you have been OK with other candidates making full use of it in later elections, even if it might have led to Biden losing to a second term of Trump and still potentially might have left Bush as the winner in 2000?
the Supremes can sing any song they want. I know whose tune they dance to.
you talk about it like precedent matters and they don't just do what they want.
There was nothing reasonable about what they did. They halted the counting, and then said, "oh we don't have time to finish the counting!"... Read the dissent for that opinion, you'll see that all the non-conservatives on the court were outraged.
The decision was based on two things:
Which of those do you disagree with?
Sure, they halted Gore's last recount. But let's consider for a moment the counterfactual where they didn't stop Gore's last recount, but still made the same final ruling. In that case, it wouldn't have mattered because that last recount was only for part of the state and was done under a different standard than the rest of the state and so would not have been valid because accepting it would have violated equal protection unless the entire state was recounted under that standard, and there was no way to recount the rest of the state under the deadline because despite the case being extremely quick for SCOTUS, the ruling was still only released 2 hours before said deadline.
The court could have allowed each county to operate in good faith in choosing any counting method that reflected voter intent, and they could have ruled that both candidates engage transition teams simultaneously so that either candidate would be prepared to take office, and let the count proceed for a couple more weeks without damage to the winner.
That's just one of many solutions that would have allowed the voters to decide the election.
Election procedures are explicitly a matter of state law, unless the state delegates that authority to the counties or even individual towns. Specifically so two people producing identical ballots aren't treated as having different votes depending on which town they are from. You apparently support letting each county make up it's own methods so long as those methods sound reasonable?
You don't seem to understand the timeline here, or else believe that all election deadlines should have been ignored and deemed unenforceable until when? Until no candidate wants to recount any part of any state under any new standard they can come up with? Until a count was arrived at where Gore would win?
Each state has to produce paperwork officially establishing the slate of electors at least 6 days before the meeting of electors (in 2000 this would be 12/12). The meeting of electors is federally mandated to happen on the 1st Monday after the 2nd Wednesday of December (in 2000 this would be 12/18). Electoral votes are required to be in the hands of Congress by the 4th Wednesday of December (in 2000 this would be 12/27). Congress then officially reviews the vote (and also votes if no candidate hits the required number of electoral votes) on Jan 6, and the current President's term ends at noon on Jan 20.
Two weeks from 12/12 (the SCOTUS decision) is literally the day before the electoral votes have to be in the hands of Congress, eight days after the electoral votes was supposed to have already happened, and two weeks after the state government is supposed to produce the official paperwork about who the slate of electors is.
The absolute best case for Florida doing another manual recount in 2000 would be if they could have done a manual recount of all legally cast votes statewide, but there was only a 4 day window to complete that in from the point that the recount Bush requested an injunction against was called for. From Friday to Tuesday to establish what standards are used to evaluate votes, recount everything, have it completed and the results certified by the state. That...wasn't going to happen any way you cut it.
The first round of Florida recounts were entirely in line with both Florida and federal law, aside from running well beyond state deadlines for their completion and the Florida Supreme Court extending those deadlines (which also got vacated by SCOTUS - apparently changing clear deadlines set in law is less "interpreting the law" and more making it up from scratch to serve your agenda).
Bush's injunction and the recount being killed basically saved us from SCOTUS having to answer questions like "what happens if a state fails to approve a slate of electors by the deadline?", "what happens if a state fails to approve a slate of electors before the day the electoral vote happens?" or even "what happens if a state hasn't supplied the electoral votes by the day they are supposed to be in the hands of Congress?" I doubt you would have liked SCOTUS' answers to any of those questions either, because they probably wouldn't have involved Florida's electoral votes counting at all, and probably would have led to the House voting whether it would be Bush, Gore, or whoever Barbara Lett-Simmons (faithless elector for DC, who abstained in protest of DC not having Congressional representation, but might not have in this scenario) might have voted for in this scenario as no candidate would have hit the minimum number of electoral votes if Florida had no slate of electors by the required date (12/12) and federal election deadlines are enforceable at all.