I would rule in favour of the gore platform. The reason the Bush agenda didn't want the recount to proceed is because they were scared of the result, not because of any legitimate legal reason
I would rule in favor of the Gore case. Citizens' rights were violated in not counting every persons vote, and the Court themselves hindered the completion of the Florida recount, by stopping the recount for as long as they did.
The recount must happen. The fact that in virtually every county Gore was gaining votes means that it's very possible he could have won, and for that reason alone the should have been a recount. It's a disgrace that the person who won the popular vote lost election for the President of the United States. I'm not sure of the legality of extending the recount, but I just think the whole situation shines a light on how the electoral college just shouldn't exist in a democracy. When 7% of all elections end up with the man who won the popular vote losing, there is a serious problem. If it was legal, I would have extended the recount.
I would've ruled in favor of the gore platform. The fact that there was no standards, and the Bush campaign went through shady tactics to win, means the Supreme court should have sided with Gore. They were not able to complete the recount because protesters interrupted the count, and forced to stop in fear of being overrun by protesters again. There was clear evidence that the Gore campaign could've won, had the Bush campaign not gone through less than respectable means to win.
I would rule in favor of Gore because our democracy is based upon the principles of democracy, and if every citizen does not get a say, then it is not democracy. And while we do not have a direct democracy, every citizen is entitled to a right to vote, and if they're vote is the counted, that is violating their rights as citizens.
In My case I would rule in favor of Gore. The fact of the matter was that Different counties used different standards for counting the votes even though counties like Palm Beach. The fact of the matter is that there was a voter equality violation and the supreme court ruled that. The votes should have been counted even if it wouldn't change the results at least it wouldn't feel like Bush stole the campaign and instead it would feel like he earned it and Bush would at least have a honeymoon period. But i feel that the supreme court decided the 2000 election.
According to the Equal Protection Clause, a voter should be given equal protection to vote. This could have been interpreted to say that the voters intent was valid- if the Supreme Court can support laws that are vague by clarifying, then supporting dimpled chad(s) could be a form of clarification. The Supreme Court suspended the recount because there was not enough time, even though it was their fault. (This in itself violated the Equal Protection clause by denying Florida the time to recount.) Additionally, the court did not rule on a remedy to the Florida voting system, the electoral system, or any voting system really.
However, if I was in the court, I would have pushed to reform for the future. Then used ex post facto to declare that the illegality of the florida voting system could not be tried, ending the recount, thus Bush would have won. I would not vote to favor Gore because that might have led to a nationwide crisis in which all voting systems would demand to have recounts and/or changes to the laws which would have ruined the 2000's presidency, creating a greater crisis.
This case was very interesting because there is not clear answer, but the Supreme Court should have used their authority through judicial activism to create a better standard for stare decisis rather than using judicial restraint.
I would have ruled in favor of the Gore campaign team because I thought that not counting dimple chads didn't really effect the equal protection clause. I also think it wasn't right that the person who didn't win the popular vote was kind of chosen by one Supreme Court justice, since the ruling was 5-4.
I would rule in favor of Gore. It was the Florida law to recount the votes, and they weren't recounted properly. It was also a violation of rights because many citizens were not allowed to vote.
Katelyn Wolfgang: I would vote to allow the recount. In Texas, Bush signed into law that dimpled chads would be counted while they did not in Florida. If Bush's campaign did not allow them to count it would go against what he had previously decided. Also, all the chads should be hand counted as the machines did not always count the Chad if it was dimpled or did not completely get torn off. However, my biggest reason is that every vote matters. By not doing the recount, it shows the voters that their voice does not matter and that it was a waste of their time to vote.
I would rule in favor of Gore. If given more time those votes could have all been counted and the presidential outcome would have seemed just. I also would have argued for reform within the voting system of the state of Florida. It was obviously unorganized and somewhat corrupt, and this whole situation could have been avoided if the leadership was clearer on the method of original voting. Although I understand the other sides argument, with limited time and differing opinions from the courts and parties it seemed like a tough call and decision to make. However ultimately I believe that the right decision was to recount. -Sofia Ackerman
I would rule in favor of the Gore campaign, simply because it is a basic democratic principle that every vote needs to be counted and every voice needs to be heard. Regardless of the time constraint, which could EASILY have been extended, a recount would be the only way for the true winner of the state of Florida to be correctly identified.
I would stick with the original ruling in favor of Bush. I think the whole scenario was a series faults on Floridas part and the Supreme Court ruled on the information they could and fulfilled its duty. The decision to stop the recount was justified because there were no grounds to determine what votes counted. The Supreme Court also allowed the states to determine their own standards of vote counting because the Supreme Court would reach too far into states rights.
I would have ruled in favor of the Gore campaign. The bush campaign was using dirty tactics to try and win the election. By not recounting the votes citizens rights were violated. Also the Florida law was not being followed. It was Florida's duty to carry out the recount.
I'd vote for favor in Bush. He won the original vote as well as the original recount. Though the elderly voters voted for the wrong person, you cannot have a re-vote. But, I do sympathize for the Gore campaign because it wasn't fair that the hanging chads were not counted. The bigger issue though is how the rules were different everywhere. I think everyone should have the same rules for recounts in order to avoid future confusion.
To me, the case comes down to the dimpled chads and whether you should follow the rule of law or give the benefit of the doubt. Dimpled chads show intent but I feel that it leaves too much up to personal interpretation to demand that they must be counted in every state in every election from here on out. As the supreme court I would rule in favor of Bush for this specific case to end the recount and ensure peaceful transfer of power and leave it to the states to enforce their own standards as they know their resources for recounts, manual counts, etc. best so that they can reform for the future.
I would vote in favor of Al Gore because I feel the recount deserved and protected under the equal protection clause. I definitely don't agree with the secretary of states actions, as I personally feel she was biased towards Bush; but what I found interesting was how she interpreted the rules for the recount, as they are different based on the state. This certainly added to the confusion of the recount and the ability to make a correct decision, as I feel the one made was incorrect and unfair to the voters.
I would rule in favor of Gore because the intended vote of every citizen counts in this nation. Moreover, everyone's vote deserves to be protected under the equal protection clause rather than simply be disregarded. It is clear that the Bush campaign was trying to protect its win, and I cannot help but wonder what would have happened if Bush had been the one asking for a recount. I understand that by the time the Supreme Court announced its decision, it was too late to recount the rest of the votes, but I think the deadline should have been extended given the certain circumstance in which the Supreme Court suspended the recount. Moreover, Katherine Harris' actions in which she was reluctant to extend the recount show how she did not have pure democratic interests in mind. As a Republican, she most likely may have been more driven to aid her party given her valuable role. Overall, I would have sided with Gore considering the fact that every intended vote counts and shouldn't a party who won in the first place not feel so threatened (Republicans)?
I would rule in favor of Gore because every citizen deserves his/her right to vote in a country founded on the principles of democracy. Under the Equal Protection Clause, each and every vote must be protected, and ignoring this in favor of Bush is an action that goes against our beliefs and policies.
I would rule in favor of Gore. Clearly, there should have been a completed recount because of the Equal Protection Clause. The way the situation was handled could have been improved and the time frame for the recount could have been easily extended; when it comes to our foundation of the voting democracy isn't it necessary to extend the time? Every vote should be counted in every election to ensure there is not future discouragement for voting.
I know nothing about constitutional law, so I am in no position to make the legal argument for or against a recount.
However, I will say that in line with the American political tradition of popular, republican democracy that the right thing to do, perhaps more aptly the democratic thing to do, would have been to do the recount. This is of course is my opinion and is largely derived from my beliefs and political philosophy rooted in strong, democratic values over elitist, tyrannical ones, but we must abide by the rule of law and if the Supreme Court believes otherwise we must follow the law.
I would rule in favor of the Bush campaign. If the voter was incompetent of figuring out how to punch a hole in a ballot, that is them not understanding how to exercise their right to vote. Additionally, dimpled chads, while they could arguably show intent, they have no standard and it would be hard to determine whether to count it or not. Lastly, the electoral college determines who becomes president anyway, the popular vote more or less means nothing anyway, so why waste the time on a recount and just delay what really determines the country's leader. I think the 2000 election incident showed a lot of flaws in the voting process, which should be addressed though.
I would rule in favor of the Gore campaign. With different laws in different counties all over the country, it causes discrepancies when deciding on what would be legal or not in this situation. However, I do find it ironic that Bush signed a bill stating that dimpled chads would be counted and then his campaign went against it in Florida. And because dimpled cards do not get counted a majority of the time, I feel that in a recount they should be counted.
I would rule in favor of the Gore campaign. There is no harm in doing a recount and a time constraint shouldn't be an issue when it comes to who the next president of the United States is. With a recount, each citizen who voted gets their voice heard.
I would rule in favor of the Gore campaign. The counties with the voting problems were treated unfairly & each voter deserves their chance to be heard. any problems in the voting process should have led to a recount, especially because of the close race, and the potential for electing the wrong president. Bush' campaign was selfish fighting the recount because they knew their was a chance Gore would receive more votes from the 2 counties.
First of all, if I were the court, I would've intervened much sooner. Judicial activism in this case, should've been considered necessary as it was a matter of national unity. The supreme court in this case could be viewed as a referee in a soccer game; the supreme court let the game get out of control. Also the court is supposed to hear on matters of controversy over federal law. Yes Florida law was in question; but the federal voting rights act was also called into question.
Although it was clever, I think it was unfair for the Bush campaign to push Katherine Harris to stop the recount and not give Gore's campaign enough time to finish the recount in the last two counties. It was also unfair (but again, clever) to postpone the hand recount process. That being said, Bush's campaign should not have delayed Gore's campaign during the hand recount. Though it's understandable that Bush's campaign wanted to win the presidency, they should have at least let Gore's campaign finish the recount because it was an immensely close race; thus, not allowing Gore's campaign finish could be seen as cheating. Also, Gore's campaign attorney (the dyslecsic guy) stated that the vote would count if the voter intended it. Every vote matters, which is why I would vote in favor of Gore.
I do not think a formal recount is necessary for the election results of Florida. George won the states delegates far and square, ironically without the support of the majority of the United States popular vote. The votes that could not be counted simply could not be counted for lack of understanding how to punch a hole in a piece of paper. I believe George won his brother's state fair and square.
I feel as though the Gore campaign deserved a recount. With all the discrepancies between counties, this is clear enough in my mind to call for a recount, especially when dealing with the highest, most powerful position in the free world. Also, Bush had voted to counting dimpled ballots in Texas, but went against that in Florida. This election could have altered the course of the country, and I do think a recount would have helped in determining a fair outcome. Despite the issues with punched ballots, the dimples show a clear sign of intent, and should have been counted to the candidate chosen.
I would rule in favour of the gore platform. The reason the Bush agenda didn't want the recount to proceed is because they were scared of the result, not because of any legitimate legal reason
ReplyDeleteI would rule in favor of the Gore case. Citizens' rights were violated in not counting every persons vote, and the Court themselves hindered the completion of the Florida recount, by stopping the recount for as long as they did.
ReplyDeleteThe recount must happen. The fact that in virtually every county Gore was gaining votes means that it's very possible he could have won, and for that reason alone the should have been a recount. It's a disgrace that the person who won the popular vote lost election for the President of the United States. I'm not sure of the legality of extending the recount, but I just think the whole situation shines a light on how the electoral college just shouldn't exist in a democracy. When 7% of all elections end up with the man who won the popular vote losing, there is a serious problem. If it was legal, I would have extended the recount.
ReplyDeleteI would've ruled in favor of the gore platform. The fact that there was no standards, and the Bush campaign went through shady tactics to win, means the Supreme court should have sided with Gore. They were not able to complete the recount because protesters interrupted the count, and forced to stop in fear of being overrun by protesters again. There was clear evidence that the Gore campaign could've won, had the Bush campaign not gone through less than respectable means to win.
ReplyDeleteI would rule in favor of Gore because our democracy is based upon the principles of democracy, and if every citizen does not get a say, then it is not democracy. And while we do not have a direct democracy, every citizen is entitled to a right to vote, and if they're vote is the counted, that is violating their rights as citizens.
ReplyDeleteIn My case I would rule in favor of Gore. The fact of the matter was that Different counties used different standards for counting the votes even though counties like Palm Beach. The fact of the matter is that there was a voter equality violation and the supreme court ruled that. The votes should have been counted even if it wouldn't change the results at least it wouldn't feel like Bush stole the campaign and instead it would feel like he earned it and Bush would at least have a honeymoon period. But i feel that the supreme court decided the 2000 election.
ReplyDelete-Rishabh Mistry
According to the Equal Protection Clause, a voter should be given equal protection to vote. This could have been interpreted to say that the voters intent was valid- if the Supreme Court can support laws that are vague by clarifying, then supporting dimpled chad(s) could be a form of clarification. The Supreme Court suspended the recount because there was not enough time, even though it was their fault. (This in itself violated the Equal Protection clause by denying Florida the time to recount.) Additionally, the court did not rule on a remedy to the Florida voting system, the electoral system, or any voting system really.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if I was in the court, I would have pushed to reform for the future. Then used ex post facto to declare that the illegality of the florida voting system could not be tried, ending the recount, thus Bush would have won. I would not vote to favor Gore because that might have led to a nationwide crisis in which all voting systems would demand to have recounts and/or changes to the laws which would have ruined the 2000's presidency, creating a greater crisis.
This case was very interesting because there is not clear answer, but the Supreme Court should have used their authority through judicial activism to create a better standard for stare decisis rather than using judicial restraint.
I would have ruled in favor of the Gore campaign team because I thought that not counting dimple chads didn't really effect the equal protection clause. I also think it wasn't right that the person who didn't win the popular vote was kind of chosen by one Supreme Court justice, since the ruling was 5-4.
ReplyDelete-Justin Ceresa
I would rule in favor of Gore. It was the Florida law to recount the votes, and they weren't recounted properly. It was also a violation of rights because many citizens were not allowed to vote.
ReplyDeleteKatelyn Wolfgang: I would vote to allow the recount. In Texas, Bush signed into law that dimpled chads would be counted while they did not in Florida. If Bush's campaign did not allow them to count it would go against what he had previously decided. Also, all the chads should be hand counted as the machines did not always count the Chad if it was dimpled or did not completely get torn off. However, my biggest reason is that every vote matters. By not doing the recount, it shows the voters that their voice does not matter and that it was a waste of their time to vote.
ReplyDeleteI would rule in favor of Gore. If given more time those votes could have all been counted and the presidential outcome would have seemed just. I also would have argued for reform within the voting system of the state of Florida. It was obviously unorganized and somewhat corrupt, and this whole situation could have been avoided if the leadership was clearer on the method of original voting.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I understand the other sides argument, with limited time and differing opinions from the courts and parties it seemed like a tough call and decision to make. However ultimately I believe that the right decision was to recount.
-Sofia Ackerman
I would rule in favor of the Gore campaign, simply because it is a basic democratic principle that every vote needs to be counted and every voice needs to be heard. Regardless of the time constraint, which could EASILY have been extended, a recount would be the only way for the true winner of the state of Florida to be correctly identified.
ReplyDeleteI would stick with the original ruling in favor of Bush. I think the whole scenario was a series faults on Floridas part and the Supreme Court ruled on the information they could and fulfilled its duty. The decision to stop the recount was justified because there were no grounds to determine what votes counted. The Supreme Court also allowed the states to determine their own standards of vote counting because the Supreme Court would reach too far into states rights.
ReplyDeleteI would have ruled in favor of the Gore campaign. The bush campaign was using dirty tactics to try and win the election. By not recounting the votes citizens rights were violated. Also the Florida law was not being followed. It was Florida's duty to carry out the recount.
ReplyDeleteI'd vote for favor in Bush. He won the original vote as well as the original recount. Though the elderly voters voted for the wrong person, you cannot have a re-vote. But, I do sympathize for the Gore campaign because it wasn't fair that the hanging chads were not counted. The bigger issue though is how the rules were different everywhere. I think everyone should have the same rules for recounts in order to avoid future confusion.
ReplyDelete-Nick Pignetti
To me, the case comes down to the dimpled chads and whether you should follow the rule of law or give the benefit of the doubt. Dimpled chads show intent but I feel that it leaves too much up to personal interpretation to demand that they must be counted in every state in every election from here on out. As the supreme court I would rule in favor of Bush for this specific case to end the recount and ensure peaceful transfer of power and leave it to the states to enforce their own standards as they know their resources for recounts, manual counts, etc. best so that they can reform for the future.
ReplyDeleteI would vote in favor of Al Gore because I feel the recount deserved and protected under the equal protection clause. I definitely don't agree with the secretary of states actions, as I personally feel she was biased towards Bush; but what I found interesting was how she interpreted the rules for the recount, as they are different based on the state. This certainly added to the confusion of the recount and the ability to make a correct decision, as I feel the one made was incorrect and unfair to the voters.
ReplyDeleteI would rule in favor of Gore because the intended vote of every citizen counts in this nation. Moreover, everyone's vote deserves to be protected under the equal protection clause rather than simply be disregarded. It is clear that the Bush campaign was trying to protect its win, and I cannot help but wonder what would have happened if Bush had been the one asking for a recount. I understand that by the time the Supreme Court announced its decision, it was too late to recount the rest of the votes, but I think the deadline should have been extended given the certain circumstance in which the Supreme Court suspended the recount. Moreover, Katherine Harris' actions in which she was reluctant to extend the recount show how she did not have pure democratic interests in mind. As a Republican, she most likely may have been more driven to aid her party given her valuable role. Overall, I would have sided with Gore considering the fact that every intended vote counts and shouldn't a party who won in the first place not feel so threatened (Republicans)?
ReplyDeleteI would rule in favor of Gore because every citizen deserves his/her right to vote in a country founded on the principles of democracy. Under the Equal Protection Clause, each and every vote must be protected, and ignoring this in favor of Bush is an action that goes against our beliefs and policies.
ReplyDeleteI would rule in favor of Gore. Clearly, there should have been a completed recount because of the Equal Protection Clause. The way the situation was handled could have been improved and the time frame for the recount could have been easily extended; when it comes to our foundation of the voting democracy isn't it necessary to extend the time? Every vote should be counted in every election to ensure there is not future discouragement for voting.
ReplyDeleteI know nothing about constitutional law, so I am in no position to make the legal argument for or against a recount.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I will say that in line with the American political tradition of popular, republican democracy that the right thing to do, perhaps more aptly the democratic thing to do, would have been to do the recount. This is of course is my opinion and is largely derived from my beliefs and political philosophy rooted in strong, democratic values over elitist, tyrannical ones, but we must abide by the rule of law and if the Supreme Court believes otherwise we must follow the law.
I would rule in favor of the Bush campaign. If the voter was incompetent of figuring out how to punch a hole in a ballot, that is them not understanding how to exercise their right to vote. Additionally, dimpled chads, while they could arguably show intent, they have no standard and it would be hard to determine whether to count it or not. Lastly, the electoral college determines who becomes president anyway, the popular vote more or less means nothing anyway, so why waste the time on a recount and just delay what really determines the country's leader. I think the 2000 election incident showed a lot of flaws in the voting process, which should be addressed though.
ReplyDeleteI would rule in favor of the Gore campaign. With different laws in different counties all over the country, it causes discrepancies when deciding on what would be legal or not in this situation. However, I do find it ironic that Bush signed a bill stating that dimpled chads would be counted and then his campaign went against it in Florida. And because dimpled cards do not get counted a majority of the time, I feel that in a recount they should be counted.
ReplyDeleteI would rule in favor of the Gore campaign. There is no harm in doing a recount and a time constraint shouldn't be an issue when it comes to who the next president of the United States is. With a recount, each citizen who voted gets their voice heard.
ReplyDeleteI would rule in favor of the Gore campaign. The counties with the voting problems were treated unfairly & each voter deserves their chance to be heard. any problems in the voting process should have led to a recount, especially because of the close race, and the potential for electing the wrong president. Bush' campaign was selfish fighting the recount because they knew their was a chance Gore would receive more votes from the 2 counties.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, if I were the court, I would've intervened much sooner. Judicial activism in this case, should've been considered necessary as it was a matter of national unity. The supreme court in this case could be viewed as a referee in a soccer game; the supreme court let the game get out of control. Also the court is supposed to hear on matters of controversy over federal law. Yes Florida law was in question; but the federal voting rights act was also called into question.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was clever, I think it was unfair for the Bush campaign to push Katherine Harris to stop the recount and not give Gore's campaign enough time to finish the recount in the last two counties. It was also unfair (but again, clever) to postpone the hand recount process. That being said, Bush's campaign should not have delayed Gore's campaign during the hand recount. Though it's understandable that Bush's campaign wanted to win the presidency, they should have at least let Gore's campaign finish the recount because it was an immensely close race; thus, not allowing Gore's campaign finish could be seen as cheating. Also, Gore's campaign attorney (the dyslecsic guy) stated that the vote would count if the voter intended it. Every vote matters, which is why I would vote in favor of Gore.
ReplyDeleteGerald Bonsu
I do not think a formal recount is necessary for the election results of Florida. George won the states delegates far and square, ironically without the support of the majority of the United States popular vote. The votes that could not be counted simply could not be counted for lack of understanding how to punch a hole in a piece of paper. I believe George won his brother's state fair and square.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though the Gore campaign deserved a recount. With all the discrepancies between counties, this is clear enough in my mind to call for a recount, especially when dealing with the highest, most powerful position in the free world. Also, Bush had voted to counting dimpled ballots in Texas, but went against that in Florida. This election could have altered the course of the country, and I do think a recount would have helped in determining a fair outcome. Despite the issues with punched ballots, the dimples show a clear sign of intent, and should have been counted to the candidate chosen.
ReplyDeleteJoey Burcham