California Recall Delayed
Mr. Mouse, meet Mr. Link.
What's the rush? If there's a legitimate concern about getting an honest vote, why appeal? Are they afraid that people will begin to realize it's just a farce?
Quote:
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals withheld ordering the immediate implementation of its decision, allowing a week for appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ted Costa, head of the Sacramento-based Peoples' Advocate, one of the groups that put the recall on the ballot, said an appeal is certain.
"Give us 24 hours. We'll get something off to the Supreme Court," he said.
In what was the last of about a dozen legal challenges to the attempt to unseat Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, the three-judge panel said it was not acceptable that six counties would be using punch-card ballots, the type that sparked the "hanging chads" litigation in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals withheld ordering the immediate implementation of its decision, allowing a week for appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ted Costa, head of the Sacramento-based Peoples' Advocate, one of the groups that put the recall on the ballot, said an appeal is certain.
"Give us 24 hours. We'll get something off to the Supreme Court," he said.
In what was the last of about a dozen legal challenges to the attempt to unseat Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, the three-judge panel said it was not acceptable that six counties would be using punch-card ballots, the type that sparked the "hanging chads" litigation in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.
What's the rush? If there's a legitimate concern about getting an honest vote, why appeal? Are they afraid that people will begin to realize it's just a farce?
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Mr. Mouse, meet Mr. Link.
What's the rush? If there's a legitimate concern about getting an honest vote, why appeal? Are they afraid that people will begin to realize it's just a farce?
Absolutely! The polls are slipping for the pro-recall advocates.
Originally posted by Northgate
Absolutely! The polls are slipping for the pro-recall advocates.
This just isn't right then. I mean, if just a few areas need to be upgraded to be equal, then anyone pressing for a quicker vote should be thrown in jail with only two buckets and a T.V. playing that Barney show on an endless loop.
EDIT: I would also give them a gun with one bullet and a promise for a replacement television with surround sound if they waste the one bullet on the screen.
Originally posted by bunge
Mr. Mouse, meet Mr. Link.
What's the rush? If there's a legitimate concern about getting an honest vote, why appeal? Are they afraid that people will begin to realize it's just a farce?
If you are too fvcking stupid to check your ballot to see if you punched it all the way through, you deserve whatever you get.
Originally posted by BR
If you are too fvcking stupid to check your ballot to see if you punched it all the way through, you deserve whatever you get.
Because stupid people deserve disenfranchisement. Right.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PEOPLE'S STUPIDITY.
Maybe if you read the fvcking decision before running your mouth you'd have something truthful to say. It's right here for you to read in PDF format.
How about the fact that punchcard voting systems fail at a rate of 2 1/2 times the failure rate of other voting systems? About 40,000 voters would be disenfranchised by the prescored punchcard voting systems. Counties with such systems have a significantly higher percentage of minorities, causing a disproportionate disenfranchisement of minority voters. They're not stupid, (expletive deleted) . They have an unequal voting system that is significantly more prone to errors (mechanical, software, personal) than other systems.
Who do you sound like now, br? Oh yeah, someone who doesn't know what he's talking about!
*choo choo*
Originally posted by BR
If you are too fvcking stupid to check your ballot to see if you punched it all the way through, you deserve whatever you get.
Plenty of people punch them all through and they still don't count. Besides, it's about having equitable systems, not perfect systems. You can't support an election where different areas of the state vote with methods of different accuracy. Someone who does deserves that Barney treatment I was talking about.
Originally posted by Scott
If it's good enough to elect him it's good enough to vote him out.
It wasn't and it's not.
There's an interesting New York Times article on the knee-jerk reaction of Right-Wing Radio to the news. Apparently, much of the right thinks the only reason the recall was suspended was because the 9th Circuit judges wanted it that way...
Unequal voting systems be damned!
This is about one thing: Liberal Judicial Activism. You have got to be kidding me if you think this is ANYTHING else.
Originally posted by SDW2001
My God.
This is about one thing: Liberal Judicial Activism. You have got to be kidding me if you think this is ANYTHING else.
What's funny is that they use the exact same reasoning, and in fact repeatedly cite, Bush v. Gore. It will be quite amusing if the Supreme Court overrules this one.
Originally posted by BRussell
What's funny is that they use the exact same reasoning, and in fact repeatedly cite, Bush v. Gore. It will be quite amusing if the Supreme Court overrules this one.
It goes to Sandra Day O'Connor first.
Yes, it would be ironic if she, the 5th vote in Bush v. Gore, changes her mind. I think the evidence is pretty clear here that people are going to be disenfranchised just because of where they live. Voting systems should be uniform at least. The 9th Circuit judges basically threw the Supreme Court's logic in Bush v. Gore back at them! The CW I've read so far is that this decision will be reversed, and if the election is decided by fewer than 40,000 votes (appx. the number of disenfranchised voters using the punchcard system)- then they can wade into Bush. v. Gore territory.
Whatever.
I think all voting systems should be equivalent, though...
Originally posted by Scott
If it's good enough to elect him it's good enough to vote him out.
Was the system unbalanced when he was elected?
Originally posted by Scott
Yea. The court wanted to stop this and someone provided them enough cover to do it.
Well the court isn't stopping anything. At most, it could be delayed for a couple months until the new voting machines are in place - new machines that are now required by the California legislature. This just gives the White House more time to get McClintock out of the race.
Originally posted by bunge
Was the system unbalanced when he was elected?
Polling places have been 'unbalanced' forever. Personally, I've used four different methods in every year I've voted.
2002 - Punchcards
2000 - Pencil in (complete the arrow/line)
1998 - Pencil in (fill-in the oval)
The system is constantly in transition. Even the computerized systems vary by location. Scott's point is completely valid, IMO.
Originally posted by Eugene
Polling places have been 'unbalanced' forever. Personally, I've used four different methods in every year I've voted.
2002 - Punchcards
2000 - Pencil in (complete the arrow/line)
1998 - Pencil in (fill-in the oval)
The system is constantly in transition. Even the computerized systems vary by location. Scott's point is completely valid, IMO.
First off, year by year comparisons don't matter. County by county do. Second, if new machines are required by the California Legislature, what argument is there against waiting?
Originally posted by Eugene
Polling places have been 'unbalanced' forever. Personally, I've used four different methods in every year I've voted.
2002 - Punchcards
2000 - Pencil in (complete the arrow/line)
1998 - Pencil in (fill-in the oval)
The system is constantly in transition. Even the computerized systems vary by location. Scott's point is completely valid, IMO.
Those are equivalent voting systems (except punchcards)
Punchcard voting systems have a significantly higher rate of error (human, mechanical, material) than any other system in use. It's not that every system has to be the same- just that every system should be fairly equal in whom it disenfranchises (assuming all voting systems are inherently subject to errors).
What do you think about that? Should all voting systems be fairly equal or should any voting system suffice, regardless of how disproportionately it disenfranchises voters.
'
Fava beans, anyone?
Originally posted by bunge
First off, year by year comparisons don't matter. County by county do. Second, if new machines are required by the California Legislature, what argument is there against waiting?
Gee, adhering to the procedures laid out in the Constitution of the State of California?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Those are equivalent voting systems (except punchcards)
Punchcard voting systems have a significantly higher rate of error (human, mechanical, material) than any other system in use. It's not that every system has to be the same- just that every system should be fairly equal in whom it disenfranchises (assuming all voting systems are inherently subject to errors).
What do you think about that? Should all voting systems be fairly equal or should any voting system suffice, regardless of how disproportionately it disenfranchises voters.
'
Fava beans, anyone?
You know, if I thought you really gave a damn about those "poor disenfranchised voters," I might feel differently about this. I'm sorry but this is just a thinly veiled attempt to keep a Democrat in office for as long as possible. Republicans pull this kind of garbage and now so do you. Gah I hate all of you.
Originally posted by BR
You know, if I thought you really gave a damn about those "poor disenfranchised voters," I might feel differently about this. I'm sorry but this is just a thinly veiled attempt to keep a Democrat in office for as long as possible. Republicans pull this kind of garbage and now so do you. Gah I hate all of you.
For an nonpartisan person, you sure over-apply your paranoid accusations of partisanship to everyone else's motives. How about the recall itself- which was a successful partisan attempt....a right wing power grab.... to take back Sacramento? Unfortunately, that's part of California's constitution and we have to live with the consequences of it. But we don't have to continue to disproportionately disenfranchise voters just because of where they live. It's as valid an issue now as it will ever be or ever was.
If I wanted to get cynical, I could blindly attribute the motives of those in opposition to delaying the recall to a thinly veiled attempt to profit from disenfranchising a largely minority (and Democratic voting) population. That side of the issue can be brought out as well.
I really don't want to, though. Because I think the merits of the case are strong enough to discuss them on their own terms.