Originally posted by Moni:
I was strictly speaking of the initial violence that literally stopped the vote counting prior to litigation to determine the outcome...Republicans storming into the rooms where votes were being counted and stopping it from continuing with violence and threatened violence. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I remember the incident. It was started after the Republican and Democratic "moniters" were told they would not be able moniter the vote count any longer. They protested loudly in the hall. The protest in question was about that particular count not being monitered, not the count itself. They stopped counting because they were afraid something might happened, not because the Republicans said they were going to storm the building. The idea of counting "behind closed doors" was thought improper by Republican's when Democratic boards wanted to do it and thought improper by Democrats when Republican boards would do the counting. I'm neither Republican or Democrat and believe it was improper in both cases.
Were all the ballots accounted for by the reporters who counted after the election?
Some said yes, some said no just like everyone else.
It is the voting machines that end up determing what the electoral college is, right?
I don't/haven't disagreed with the voting machine complaints. I was addressing a question on the Electorial College as a completely different issue.
People in the poorer districts have been crying foul (fairly) since they were given the rights to vote..."no one" listened because the subject did not get as much national or international attention until the presidential election of 2000.
Did making the public more aware do anything to get the problems fixed? No.
That's the saddest part of this democracy...the rich run it and "screw what the poor can't do about it".
My point was that being Republican or Democrat, for Bush or for Gore, makes no difference in this argument.
There was violence that ended the initial recounts in counties that could have made a difference in the outcome, had every voter's ballot been processed.
They were processed and reprocessed, but neither side liked what they saw and did what they could to stop or continue based on their "side". Democrats didn't want Republican votes recounted, and Republicans didn't want Democratic votes recounted.
Both sides tried to stop what was not in their favor.
Not unique because it has been going on so long?
Not unique because it has happened before as you mentioned earlier.
If it had been done fairly and without violence, it would have.
*cough* *gag* *Ronn chokes on the assumption*(OH NO! Ronn's out of lozenges

) [img]smile.gif[/img]
Even you have to admit, that the powerful can get awfully ugly in enforcing their point of view, especially when the stakes are that high. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I completely agree!
Political judges can't be impartial. Politically impartial (EDIT: in regard to politically appointed judges) is an oxymoron.
Unfortunately, this is true whether appointed or elected.
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]