What if Gore hadn't loved our democracy?

[notyoueither]

I think MtG and MZ are telling us that the problems go way beyond what a few observers could spot.

I'm not saying I buy it. I can think of a lot of people screaming about elections in other countries, so I take it with a grain of salt. BUT, neither MtG nor MZ are uncredible sources, so I listen.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
European Union election observers have said they found no significant irregularities in the vote, nye.

And the nonsense continues...

European Union election observers say they found no significant irregularites because they saw none. That's because there were no gunmen stealling ballot boxes, party officials besides the waiting lines giving "tortas" (sandwiches) to those who would vote for them and the normal kind of crap you imagine when you think "third-world elections".

Not that it didn't happen, just not on an alarming scale.

The discrepancies occured after the districts closed and the vote tallies were processed by the electoral institute. Among the irregularities:

1) Statistical inconsistencies in the electoral institute's preliminary and district counts. This was complemented by rumors that a cousin of Calderón who owns various software firms was involved in the programming of the counting processes.

2) A stack of 3 million votes which "disappeared" and later "reappeared" of which half were actually valid and narrowed the lead even more and of which the electoral institute gave a flimsy excuse why they were not tallied at first.

3) Allegations that the electoral institute re-opened hundreds of voting packages before sending them to the electoral tribune for review.

4) Proof that indeed many of the voting packages checked during the partial recount had un-folded voting sheets and other such irregularities which give credence to the suspicion that many packages were "packed" with PAN votes.

5) The fact that the grand majority of irregularities over the course of those weeks benefited the PAN (and PRI), even in the left-wing states.

In any case I'm getting tired of educating you so read for yourself this nice report by an NGO (who also later sent observers) about the pre-electoral conditions in Mexico:

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/mexico/GXmexicoelection.pdf

EDIT: Further eductation for certain ignorant masses since the info available in the foreign media was ATROCIOUS,

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/09/14/14adair_edit.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/09/MNGL4L28FJ1.DTL

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_k_galbraith/2006/09/final_maths_in_mexico.html

Statistical analysis of the election (long read)

http://em.fis.unam.mx/public/mochan/elecciones/paperEnMochan.pdf

[Vanguard]

Hmmm. What if George Bush---- and conservatives generally---- instead of being traitors to democracy, had instead stood by their loudly stated principle of judicial restraint and let the Florida recount proceed until all the votes that could be reasonably counted were tabulated?

What would things be like then? Once Gore had been rightly elected President?

Would the Twin Towers still be standing? Perhaps not---- but you never know.

Would the US debt be spiraling out of control? No. Probably not.

Would the US be generally despised around the world? Very, very unlikely.

Would the US be slowly, but inevitably, losing an unnecessary war in Iraq? Of course not.

Would you be able to go into a hospital and see a doctor within 8 hours? Yeah, I think so.

If only conservatives didn't hate democracy, they would be so much better off in the long run.

[DanS]

had instead stood by their loudly stated principle of judicial restraint and let the Florida recount proceed

IIRC, the recount was being done under the auspices of the Florida courts. So your hypothetical doesn't make any sense.

Your post is beside the point anyway.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Do you even know the meaning of democracy?

Democracy isn't about elections.

Democracy isn't about having a legislature.

Democracy isn't about having institutions.

It necessarily is about those things, but not only about those things. You can't have democracy without respect for the election outcome, f.e.

[DanS]

European Union election observers say they found no significant irregularites because they saw none. That's because there were no gunmen stealling ballot boxes, party officials besides the waiting lines giving "tortas" (sandwiches) to those who would vote for them and the normal kind of crap you imagine when you think "third-world elections".

This is not an accurate description of what monitors do. It's more sophisticated. Not only do they look to see that the obvious bad stuff doesn't go on, but also they examine the processes that have been set up in order to ensure that the vote count is conducted properly.

It was a close vote. And no vote in a democracy is ever perfect. I readily admit that the vote count could have been manipulated a point or whatever -- enough in this case to change the outcome. However, independent random polling verified the broad outlines of the vote count. Given this, Obrador has a choice of whether to try to gain more support from the public for a future election or to revolt. People who love democracy concede the election and don't undermine the institutions that may provide them legitimacy in the future.

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by DanS


IIRC, the recount was being done under the auspices of the Florida courts. So your hypothetical doesn't make any sense.

Your post is beside the point anyway.

It is not beside the point of the spin you attempted to put on your topic title. If you are going to suggest that anyone who challenges stolen elections doesn't love democracy, then I get to call you on.

The recounts in 2000 were ordered in accordance with Florida law. As opposed to the Supreme Court decision, which was done in accordance with no law or legal principle. As is proven by the "limited to present circumstances" language.

Bush v. Gore was simply the Supreme Court injudicially reversing the Florida Supreme Court because some of the Justices allowed themselves to be convinced (by Rehnquist) that the Florida court was acting improperly.

But the Florida Supreme Court was not acting improperly. Their decision was fully in accordance with the plain language and legislative intent of Florida election law. It was also in accordance with common sense and democratic rule.

Basically what really appears to have happened is that certain Republican operatives "got to" Rehnquist and made him believe in a Democratic conspiracy to throw the election into the House. Rehnquist in turn convinced the stupider and more ideologically blinded members of the Court that they must intervene regardless of legal merit.

[C0ckney]

i cannot believe that 6 years on people are STILL bleating and moaning about bush's first election victory.

[Vanguard]

Yes, well, we feel rather strongly about democracy over here in America.

We're in favor of it. (Well, most of us, anyway.)

In England, of course, they are also in favor of democracy---- but only for the English.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Vanguard
If you are going to suggest that anyone who challenges stolen elections doesn't love democracy, then I get to call you on.

To be clear, Obrador is going beyond a legal challenge.

Listen, I've personally been involved in elections closer than the Mexico election. In those elections, some always think that their side was robbed. Do you think Nixon thought he was beat fair and square by Kennedy?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Yes, well, we feel rather strongly about democracy over here in America.

We're in favor of it. (Well, most of us, anyway.)

i just think it's time you joined the rest of humanity and got over it.

In England, of course, they are also in favor of democracy---- but only for the English.

way to make no sense.

[Vanguard]

Nixon did get recounts ---- in 11 states. He just asked the chairman of the Republican party to do it for him. Court challenges continued well into 1961.

i just think it's time you joined the rest of humanity and got over it.

I assure you that I am not the only one who feels this way. There are, in fact, many people in the United States with a sense of honor.

[DanS]

What if Nixon hadn't loved our democracy, Vanguard?

Nixon conceded. As did Gore, eventually. Obrador is doing no such thing. My question is why is there a difference?

[Vanguard]

I see no particular reason to believe that Nixon loved democracy. The enemies list, CREEP and the use of the IRS as an weapon certainly do not argue in favor of this position.

And, in fact, he only conceeded in word, not in deed. He encouraged the Republicans to challenge the results, challenges which continued into 1961.

As for Obrador, well, if an election is fixed, then you have no particualar obligation to respect its results out of a love of "democracy", now do you?

I'm not saying that this election was fixed. I did not observe the results, I have gathered no testimony about them. So how would I know?

But on the other hand, how do you know that it wasn't? The is no presumption of rectitude in Mexican elections. Rather the opposite.

What you are actually suggesting is that Obrador should respect the process of elections. This is a rather different thing than respecting democracy. While we must respect a fair process of elections, respecting an unfair process is not a moral obligation.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DanS


It necessarily is about those things, but not only about those things. You can't have democracy without respect for the election outcome, f.e.

You also can't have democracy without respect for the actual election, why doesn't that fit in your highly-convenient definition?