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-----
   From: Jim Burnes [[1]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

References

   1. mailto:jburnes@savvis.net