Re: A very brief politcal rant

[Furlong, Steven]

Robert Hettinga wrote:
>...The one person I fear more than Tim May, maybe even
>my Roslindale Attorney, being me dear Mum... :-))

You think you got it bad? _My_ mom is a small-town deputy.
And she drives a pickup. The only saving grace is there isn't
a shotgun rack in the pickup.


Regards,
Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: A very brief politcal rant

[Ernest Hua]

Title: RE: A very brief politcal rant





Ok ... so we are now splitting hairs on language.  Fine.  Have
it your way.


My statement that every voter actually knew was improper.


However, you are just going off on a tangent ...


I am sure that months or years after JFK was assasinated, you
can find someone who didn't even know he was in office.  There
is just no way to deal with this level of cluelessness.


In these days of mass media, Internet, etc ...  If you didn't
know the guy was dead, and his wife was to take his place, you
aren't trying.  I don't care.  It's not my state.  I still had
no choice but to be bombarded with that news.


Sorry.  My point still stands.


Ern


-Original Message-
From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 10:01 AM
To: Ernest Hua; Ernest Hua
Cc: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RE: A very brief politcal rant



As a working journalist writing about politics, I get lots of feedback from 
voters. Many are, sadly, clueless.


But it is a stretch to assert, as you blithely do, that every voter knew 
that the guy was dead. My own experience shows otherwise.


-Declan


At 09:55 11/10/2000 -0800, Ernest Hua wrote:
>To believe your assertions, you would have to assume that the
>voter walked into the booth never picking up on any news and
>never spoke to anyone, and just had no clue who he/she was
>voting for.  This behavior is clearly legal.  But just as Tim
>cannot be concerned about inner city welfare mothers ("maggots"?
>what word did he use?), I simply cannot be concerned about this
>uninformed segment of the electorate.

RE: A very brief politcal rant

[Declan McCullagh]

As a working journalist writing about politics, I get lots of feedback from 
voters. Many are, sadly, clueless.

But it is a stretch to assert, as you blithely do, that every voter knew 
that the guy was dead. My own experience shows otherwise.

-Declan

At 09:55 11/10/2000 -0800, Ernest Hua wrote:
>To believe your assertions, you would have to assume that the
>voter walked into the booth never picking up on any news and
>never spoke to anyone, and just had no clue who he/she was
>voting for.  This behavior is clearly legal.  But just as Tim
>cannot be concerned about inner city welfare mothers ("maggots"?
>what word did he use?), I simply cannot be concerned about this
>uninformed segment of the electorate.

RE: A very brief politcal rant

[Ernest Hua]

Title: RE: A very brief politcal rant





I'm sorry, but we just clearly disagree.  Every voter had enough
opportunity to know that the guy was dead, and that the wife was
to succeed him.  If some voters did not know, I'm sorry to them.
It was all over the news.  Every person has a right to be hermit
or to be generally clueless.  But I cannot help those people.


In the original message, the central issue was whether it was
legal for the governor to appoint the wife.  I spoke to that
issue assuming that the voters had enough opportunity to know
what was going on.


To believe your assertions, you would have to assume that the
voter walked into the booth never picking up on any news and
never spoke to anyone, and just had no clue who he/she was
voting for.  This behavior is clearly legal.  But just as Tim
cannot be concerned about inner city welfare mothers ("maggots"?
what word did he use?), I simply cannot be concerned about this
uninformed segment of the electorate.


Ern


-Original Message-
From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:14 AM
To: Ernest Hua
Cc: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: A very brief politcal rant



On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:51:05AM -0500, Ernest Hua wrote:
> My original point still stands.  The voters should get what they
> want, unless they want something clearly illegal.  That's a clear
> principle in our pseudo-democracy.  Every principle has a point


No, your original point was muddled. It's not clear that every voter
who chose the dead guy knew that his widow would take the slot. Since
the election is so close, that matters.


If you want to make sure the voters are getting what they want, put
the non-dead-guy's name on the ballot.


-Declan

Re: A very brief politcal rant

[Matt Elliott]

>   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.

Re: A very brief politcal rant

[Declan McCullagh]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:51:05AM -0500, Ernest Hua wrote:
> My original point still stands.  The voters should get what they
> want, unless they want something clearly illegal.  That's a clear
> principle in our pseudo-democracy.  Every principle has a point

No, your original point was muddled. It's not clear that every voter
who chose the dead guy knew that his widow would take the slot. Since
the election is so close, that matters.

If you want to make sure the voters are getting what they want, put
the non-dead-guy's name on the ballot.

-Declan

RE: A very brief politcal rant

[Bill Stewart]

At 12:51 AM 11/10/00 -0500, Ernest Hua mimed :
My original point still stands.  The voters should get
what they
want, unless they want something clearly illegal. 
That's a clear

Yup.  And they should get it good and hard


(Man, your mailer is broken...)
Thanks! 
Bill
Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

RE: A very brief politcal rant

[Ernest Hua]

Title: RE: A very brief politcal rant





As I said earlier, a court may very well find some Constitutional
issue or something else very serious about the appointment.  But
I would think that, in that event, there will be some other way
found to work around the necessity for an appointment.  Special
bill passed in the state legislature?  Who knows.


My original point still stands.  The voters should get what they
want, unless they want something clearly illegal.  That's a clear
principle in our pseudo-democracy.  Every principle has a point
where it must be compromised to appropriately coexist with other
principles.  But it is clear that if the voters have spoken,
there has to be a strong counter argument before their wishes can
be voided in effect (not just in procedure).


I am quite certain this principle will have a strong impact on
the outcome, should should the issue go to trial.


Ern


-Original Message-
From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 8:18 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: A very brief politcal rant


Well, if it is an unconstitutional election-appointment combination,
then technicalities *do* count, if only to keep some respect for that
tattered document alive.


I don't care much about that election, and it is big of Ashcroft to
step aside, but the law turns on what you dismiss as mere
"technicalities."


-Declan


On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:06:09PM -0500, Ernest Hua 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.
> 
> Ern
> 
> -Original Message-
> X-Loop: openpgp.net
> From: Jim Burnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:13 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: A very brief politcal rant
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/08/00
> >
> >    at 09:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > >If the citizens of Missouri chose to elect a deceased person as Senator,
> > >I think  that's exactly what they should get.  Leave the seat empty for
> > >two years.
> >
> > Someone had brought up the Constitutionality of having a dead man on the
> > ballot. The reasoning was that the deceased are no longer legally citizens
> > and therefore do not meet the Constitutional requirements for office.
> 
> Even more significant is that a dead man cannot take the oath of office.
> 
> If he can't take the oath of office he can't occupy the office.  The
> governor only has the power to replace a senatoratorial position if 
> the current office holder dies.
> 
> Since Carnahan died before he took office, the office remains unfilled.  The
> 
> governor does not have power to appoint senators willy-nilly. The office
> must 
> be held before it can be filled.  The correct solution would be to hold a 
> special election so that the public has a chance to know who they are voting
> into office.  What the democrats are afraid of is that his wife might be
> less fit to hold that office than her husband in some democrat's minds
> (after debates etc).
> 
> Here is a question?  Would it be vote fraud to run one person's name on the
> ballot and replace him with someone else when he won?
> 
> jim
> 
> -- 
> Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of
> himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we
> found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this
> question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
> 

Re: A very brief politcal rant

[Declan McCullagh]

Well, if it is an unconstitutional election-appointment combination,
then technicalities *do* count, if only to keep some respect for that
tattered document alive.

I don't care much about that election, and it is big of Ashcroft to
step aside, but the law turns on what you dismiss as mere
"technicalities."

-Declan


On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:06:09PM -0500, Ernest Hua 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.
> 
> Ern
> 
> -Original Message-
> X-Loop: openpgp.net
> From: Jim Burnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:13 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: A very brief politcal rant
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/08/00
> >
> >at 09:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > >If the citizens of Missouri chose to elect a deceased person as Senator,
> > >I think  that's exactly what they should get.  Leave the seat empty for
> > >two years.
> >
> > Someone had brought up the Constitutionality of having a dead man on the
> > ballot. The reasoning was that the deceased are no longer legally citizens
> > and therefore do not meet the Constitutional requirements for office.
> 
> Even more significant is that a dead man cannot take the oath of office.
> 
> If he can't take the oath of office he can't occupy the office.  The
> governor only has the power to replace a senatoratorial position if 
> the current office holder dies.
> 
> Since Carnahan died before he took office, the office remains unfilled.  The
> 
> governor does not have power to appoint senators willy-nilly. The office
> must 
> be held before it can be filled.  The correct solution would be to hold a 
> special election so that the public has a chance to know who they are voting
> into office.  What the democrats are afraid of is that his wife might be
> less fit to hold that office than her husband in some democrat's minds
> (after debates etc).
> 
> Here is a question?  Would it be vote fraud to run one person's name on the
> ballot and replace him with someone else when he won?
> 
> jim
> 
> -- 
> Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of
> himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we
> found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this
> question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
> 

Re: A very brief politcal rant

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 2:05 PM -0500 on 11/9/00, Jim Burnes wrote:


> I've seen first hand the intent and demeanor of St. Louis
> politics and its not pretty.

Agreed. I don't know if it still is, but, say, 23 years ago, St. Louis was
a great place to be *from*.

:-).

Cheers,
RAH
-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

RE: A very brief politcal rant

[Ernest Hua]

Title: RE: A very brief politcal rant





> From: Jim Burnes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]


> 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.


Hmm ... I'm thinking on an empty stomach (no lunch
yet), so I am not quite sure, but my gut feeling (no
pun intended) is that you have a point ...


> > 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.


I can sympathize with that viewpoint, but I assert that
it is just one viewpoint among many legitimate ones.  I
do not believe this was actually written into the law,
but if someone proves conclusively to the courts that
the intent was already in the law, I have no problems
with that.


> 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.


Um ... actually no.  I assert that the bulk of the
people voted for his wife, because they were assured
that she would take the seat.


If someone else was appointed instead of her, I would
say that there was bait and switch, and no matter how
popular that person might be (perhaps even more popular
than she was in the election), this change would fraud
for sure.


> 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 agree with your statement here except that I did not
make that specific claim of the generic vote for
Democrats.


Ern

Re: A very brief politcal rant

[Jim Burnes]

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.
>

Re: A very brief politcal rant

[Jim Burnes]

On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/08/00
>
>at 09:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> >If the citizens of Missouri chose to elect a deceased person as Senator,
> >I think  that's exactly what they should get.  Leave the seat empty for
> >two years.
>
> Someone had brought up the Constitutionality of having a dead man on the
> ballot. The reasoning was that the deceased are no longer legally citizens
> and therefore do not meet the Constitutional requirements for office.

Even more significant is that a dead man cannot take the oath of office.

If he can't take the oath of office he can't occupy the office.  The
governor only has the power to replace a senatoratorial position if 
the current office holder dies.

Since Carnahan died before he took office, the office remains unfilled.  The 
governor does not have power to appoint senators willy-nilly. The office must 
be held before it can be filled.  The correct solution would be to hold a 
special election so that the public has a chance to know who they are voting
into office.  What the democrats are afraid of is that his wife might be
less fit to hold that office than her husband in some democrat's minds
(after debates etc).

Here is a question?  Would it be vote fraud to run one person's name on the
ballot and replace him with someone else when he won?

jim

-- 
Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of
himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we
found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this
question.   -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural

Re: A very brief politcal rant

[David Honig]

At 05:47 PM 11/8/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>If the citizens of Missouri chose to elect a deceased person as Senator, I
think 
>that's exactly what they should get.  Leave the seat empty for two years.

Maybe she and Bono ("tree, get out out my way, I'm a congressman")'s ho can
form a congressional dead-man
running club...

Re: A very brief politcal rant

[William H. Geiger III]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/08/00 
   at 09:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:


>If the citizens of Missouri chose to elect a deceased person as Senator,
>I think  that's exactly what they should get.  Leave the seat empty for
>two years.

Someone had brought up the Constitutionality of having a dead man on the
ballot. The reasoning was that the deceased are no longer legally citizens
and therefore do not meet the Constitutional requirements for office.

-- 
---
William H. Geiger III  http://www.openpgp.net  
Geiger Consulting

Data Security & Cryptology Consulting
Programming, Networking, Analysis
 
PGP for OS/2:   http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html
E-Secure:   http://www.openpgp.net/esecure.html
---