NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
--Larry Wall in perl.c from the perl source code
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Some Notes (Score:2)
* All the justices have a far more substantial conflict of interest than whose kids work for whom: they are deciding the fate of who will probably select their next colleague, and their next leader (should Rehnquist retire).
* There is absolutely no indication that who these removed people would have voted for. There are definitely problems with it, and it needs to be fixed, but to make it a partisan thing is
Re:Some Notes (Score:2)
Some of the items you mention were addressed in my notes, but the article was going on too long and I tightened it.
I'm at work, so I don't have the book handy, but Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy That Money Can Buy" is well worth reading. I suspect that fraud occurred, but it would be tough to prove without an actual inquiry.
As for the way the voters might have chosen to vote, while you would be correct if you meant that we cannot pinpoint how a particular individual would have voted, I think we can
Re:Some Notes (Score:2)
It depends on what the purpose of those assumptions are. For the purpose of discussion, sure. For making assertions about who "would have been elected," absolutely not.
And again, I know there were problems with the list. But it is something that happens a lot and was only reported because of the closeness of the election. I think the greater problem is the list itself, not who may or may not have gotten votes because of it, because that is guessing.
the most serious media attention given to this has been outside the US
I dunno, I saw an awful lot of coverage of this in the US at the time.
I can't say for certain that anything illegal happened, but this is a hell of a lot more serious than a stain on a dress.
Apples and oranges. There, we had evidence Clinton committed perjury -- Lewinsky saying she had sex with Clinton in a deposition for the Paula Jones case -- and THAT is what caused Janet Reno to order Ken Starr's office to investigate his affair with Lewinsky. I am not saying there should not be an investigation, but there's no direct evidence linking anyone to the kind of wrongdoing you are alledging.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Some Notes (Score:2)
Ugh. That should have read "we can make some *safe* assumptions".
It depends on what the purpose of those assumptions are. For the purpose of discussion, sure. For making assertions about who "would have been elected," absolutely not.
The purpose is exactly what I stated: we could safely make assumptions about the likely trend of voting. I didn't make any claims about who would have been elected because that would have been silly.
As for the media coverage, there was plenty: about pregnant and hang
Re:Some Notes (Score:2)
To what end? That's what I don't see. If you are not trying to say Gore would have won, then what is the point? To say that this is evidence the Republicans did it with malice aforethought? That's quite a stretch.
Still, ask the average American about the voters who were removed from the Florida voter rolls. I think you'll get blank looks.
Perhaps, but I wouldn't attribute that to lack of media co
Re:Some Notes (Score:2)
Our disagreements about issues like this seem pretty entrenched, but this is why I disabled comments on my original journal entry. I find it far too easy to get dragged into a discussion like this, but if I'm going to get into an extended debate with someone, I'd much prefer to do it in my LiveJournal or in the @political forum. On the other hand, if I feel that way, perhaps I shouldn't post the links in the first place :/