be on alert!!!, page-46

re: be on alert!!! grant Fallguy,

In Australia, we count and re-count "valid" votes, not votes with multiple chads (indents, or whatever else others may wish to describe them as). We also do not allow for multiple selections to be made on the ballot paper without having those votes either ruled invalid, or informal.

If, when voting in Australia, we do not place a "1" in our preferred position, above the line (ie: in Senate and Upper House elections), or number every space, below the line, our votes will be ruled invalid.

We also have 2 definitive deadlines within which to finalise voting:
1)
14 days from polling day, to allow for the return of postal votes, but only to the extent that they are post-marked before polling day; and
2)
(generally) 28 days from polling day, for the return of Writs.

Disputed or contested results go then to the Court of Disputed Returns (generally, the Supreme Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns), and then on appeal (if required), to the full Supreme Court, and then to the High Court.

The Court of Disputed Returns can overturn results, order new contests, etc.

In the US, the electoral results must first be certified by the Secretary of State. Then the delegates to the Electoral College must be appointed. The Electoral College must then meet (ie: 12/12/00) to deliberate together, and then vote to elect the President.

In 20 of the States (not including Florida), Electoral College voting is mandatory, meaning that the appointed delegates must pledge their votes in the same way as their State was certified as having voted.

Katherine Harris (a Democrat) certified the results in her capacity as Secretary of State. The Electoral College delegates then were selected and on 12/12/00, they voted 271 to 267 in favour of George Bush, over Al Gore.

In the intervening period before the Electoral College finally voted, the Democrats sought to try to persuade Republican delegates to change their votes. They didn't.

Far from accepting the results, and then getting on with rebuilding the spirit of the Party, the Democrats went into auto-destruct and self recrimination which culminated in the mid-term debacle of last November.

So, far from there being, as you have succinctly put it "(a) count and recount .... until we get the true result", the American system is either as robust as that which exists in Australia, or as fundamentally flawed as the system is here in Australia (ie: where it comes to interpreting the errors /erroneous intentions of others), depending on which interpretation you may prefer.

The Florida situation was a clear one where multiple selections were made by the voters (maybe in error, maybe not) and, instead of returning the spoiled ballots for a fresh one, they then proceeded with voting with their original (and spoiled) ballots.

Now, just how can a County Commissioner, or Supervisor of Elections know just what the voters' intentions were on each and every occasion?

You don't. I don't. And, they most certainly didn't know.

Also, in Florida alone, there were multiple voting methods that were in place which further distorted the situation (each County, each electoral district appeared to have its own voting system in place).

But, if we take at face value the article you have kindly copied, then where the article states:
...
"it confirms that President Bush was “elected” by skilful manipulation of the system, rather than by his people, and that time would prove to be his worst nightmare....George W. Bush’s election to the Presidency of the United States of America was a swindle. The price he will pay for this may well be clearly visible before the year 2004, the time of the next election, if he is still the president by then",
....
can just as easily be applied to the flawed election results of 1960, and to the minority election results of 1992 and in 1996.

In 2000, everybody thought that Gore was going to be the obvious winner and were shocked, not only by the closeness of the final outcome, but also by the extent to which Bush won over many former Democrat strongholds (especially, in the South).

As I stated in the previous posting:
...."No defence of the system, but it didn't suddenly become flawed (for the first time) in 2000".

The vagaries of the USA electoral system has, since WW2, endured 14 Presidential elections, and resulted in 6 minority outcomes, favouring 4 Democratic Presidents (ie: Truman, Kennedy and Clinton, x2) and 2 republican Presidents (ie" Nixon and Bush).

"Even with a results reversal in 2000, 6 Presidents would still have been elected with a minority of the popular vote, except that the minority victor in 2000 would have been Gore, not Bush".

This then would have translated to 5 our of 6 minority supported Presidents since WW2 coming from the Democratic Party.

With Johnson and Carter being the only 2 popularly (ie: >50% majority) elected Democratic Presidents since WW2, and the other 6 being Republicans (ie: Eisenhower-2x, Nixon in '72, Reagan-2x, and Bush in '88), the Democrats were "spitting chips" in 2000 at, yet again, being a failed party.

Future history will still eventually assess Bush on the basis of his Presidential performance, as opposed to what happened in 2000, just as President Kennedy has been assessed by historians on the strength of his Presidential performance, as opposed to the nature of the electoral frauds that ushered in his presidency.