CDR: RE: A very brief politcal rant
Are you arguing that there were people who did not know that they were voting for someone who was dead? Yes. I agree that the appointment may or may not be considered legal, depending upon how the law is interpreted. However, what is abundantly clear to me is that most, if not all, of the electorate know that the guy is dead. It was in the news for weeks. If anyone is suggesting that there is some bait and switch going on, let's see the evidence. Was there a news black out? Where the news papers destroyed? Radio stations cut off? TV frequencies jammed? Please note that it is not clear yet whether this particular corner case of the law is well-defined. The courts will decide that. The courts may very well be required to void this appointment for some important Constitutional reason. Who knows? My original point is that even if the courts find that the law is technically being violated, it may not necessarily void the appointment because the court may find that the violation is not serious enough to tell voters they cannot have what they want. Your statement about letting the voters have anything they want is clearly extreme and irrelevant in this case. This case is decided on subtleties of the law and the exceptional circumstances, not the extremes you are alluding to. Ern -----Original Message----- X-Loop: openpgp.net From: Jim Burnes [mailto:jburnes@savvis.net] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:05 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: A very brief politcal rant On Thu, 09 Nov 2000, you wrote:
Um ... this is a good technical argument, but it does not address the basic premise that what the voters wants is what the voters should get. There is no question what the voter wants. They knew ahead of time that they would be voting for a dead man's wife. The appointment may be technically flawed, but for a judge to throw this out would require finding a serious problem. Technicality is probably not a serious enough problem to go against the electorate.
Let me re-state what you have just said. The 'people' should get what the 'people' want irregardless of the law. Unfortunately what the people want is unclear here. If the people wanted the dead governors wife for senate they should have put her on the ballot. Playing the bait and switch game distorts the election outcome. What the people are getting is what the governor wants. Welcome to the people's paradise of Misery. If the people really want her, a special election should clear that up very quickly. It would be above board and not more Jefferson City scamming and corruption. I've seen first hand the intent and demeanor of St. Louis politics and its not pretty. This probably had much to do with his election. jim
On Thu, 09 Nov 2000, Ernest Hua wrote:
Are you arguing that there were people who did not know that they were voting for someone who was dead?
Yes. I agree that the appointment may or may not be considered legal, depending upon how the law is interpreted.
However, what is abundantly clear to me is that most, if not all, of the electorate know that the guy is dead. It was in the news for weeks.
If anyone is suggesting that there is some bait and switch going on, let's see the evidence. Was there a news black out? Where the news papers destroyed? Radio stations cut off? TV frequencies jammed?
Bait and switch is probably not the right term. Let me think of a better term. How about fraud. Promising voters special favors if he is elected. But thats the Hatch Act violation and I digress.
Please note that it is not clear yet whether this particular corner case of the law is well-defined. The courts will decide that. The courts may very well be required to void this appointment for some important Constitutional reason.
Who knows?
I would say, 'case law be damned'. A guy who doesn't exist can't take office. If he doesn't take office, he can't be replaced. You are assuming that the bulk of the people who voted for Carnahan actually voted for anyone who is a Democrat -- and that might well be so. But I doubt the Federal Election Commision will think much of a ballot where 'you vote Democratic -- we'll fill in the blank' is a legitimate vote. I would say the same for any 'candidate', but they Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Dead.
My original point is that even if the courts find that the law is technically being violated, it may not necessarily void the appointment because the court may find that the violation is not serious enough to tell voters they cannot have what they want.
Your statement about letting the voters have anything they want is clearly extreme and irrelevant in this case. This case is decided on subtleties of the law and the exceptional circumstances, not the extremes you are alluding to.
a Democrat -- and that might well be so. But I doubt the Federal Election Commision will think much of a ballot where 'you vote Democratic -- we'll fill in the blank' is a legitimate vote.
I would say the same for any 'candidate', but they Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Dead.
It's called "Straight Party", and IIRC it is a box on the Missouri ballots. I *know* it was on the Illinois ballots. Saves dead people time you understand, they only have a limited amount of time. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
At 11:56 PM 11/9/00 -0800, petro wrote:
a Democrat -- and that might well be so. But I doubt the Federal Election Commision will think much of a ballot where 'you vote Democratic -- we'll fill in the blank' is a legitimate vote.
I would say the same for any 'candidate', but they Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Dead.
It's called "Straight Party", and IIRC it is a box on the Missouri ballots. I *know* it was on the Illinois ballots. Saves dead people time you understand, they only have a limited amount of time.
Here in San Francisco, having the Straight Party on the ballot would be pretty controversial.
"Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Voting for the Dead, on the other one's hand, is just fine. Currently, however, it's still Nobody for President. (If New Jersey election laws didn't require the candidate to sign ballot petitions, I was seriously tempted a few years back to put Frank Zappa on the ballot for President. He'd declined somebody's offer because he had cancer, but it only requires 1000 signatures, which would be an afternoon or two at Rutgers :-) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
It's called "Straight Party", and IIRC it is a box on the Missouri ballots. I *know* it was on the Illinois ballots. Saves dead people time you understand, they only have a limited amount of time.
They removed it from the Illinois ballots 4 years ago. It now takes me 10 times longer to vote.
It's called "Straight Party", and IIRC it is a box on the Missouri ballots. I *know* it was on the Illinois ballots. Saves dead people time you understand, they only have a limited amount of time.
They removed it from the Illinois ballots 4 years ago. It now takes me 10 times longer to vote.
I voted in Illinois 4 years ago, and I remember seeing it. Then again, I only noticed it in passing, because if you voted straight party libertarian, you didn't get to vote against the incumbents in the races where there was no libertarian. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
participants (5)
-
Bill Stewart -
Ernest Hua -
Jim Burnes -
Matt Elliott -
petro