This is not what the Framers had in mind.

The nation-wide election of 2000 is historical. Most significantly, it exposed the reality of U.S. election systems. Also, the debacle in Florida revealed harsh realities of our judicial system. Now most of us know that despite hyperbole to the contrary, the court system is just as political as the other branches of government. Americans learned one other thing: judges are no smarter than the rest of us. They have become expert through education and training just as training and experience qualifies a brick mason or a physicist.

A look at history proves the political nature of the judiciary. In the Dred Scott decision of 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled that no black -- free or slave -- could claim citizenship in the U.S. You can't get more racist than that. But the decision was also political. In 1896, thirty years after blacks had been granted citizenship SCOTUS reached another purely political decision. It ruled in "Plessy v. Ferguson" that it was OK to "legally" create a sub-class of humans by establishing "separate but equal" public facilities. Neither of those decisions can be supported by any language found in the Constitution but in both cases, there is ample language prohibiting exactly what SCOTUS granted.

In recent years the public has become more apathetic toward both state and federal courts because most rulings don't have immediate and tangible effect on our daily lives.

NOW COMES THE ELECTION OF 2000 and the whole nation is confused.

Some Jesse Jackson supporters have even confused the federal voting rights laws with miscounts, recounts, dimples, and chads that cropped up in Florida. The reality is that the two are separate and distinct. First consider the election for federal offices. That must be conducted as a state election under state law. If there's any question about the second part, federal voting rights (i.e., violation of civil rights), that must be challenged under federal voting rights acts in federal court, not state voting laws in state courts.

But there they were in state court, claiming U.S. constitutional rights had been denied because the butterfly ballot was illegal. Even the Florida Supreme court couldn’t dream up a new law to bridge that gap. The ballot was illegal but the complainants went into the wrong court. [After this article was first published the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the ballot WAS legal notwithstanding the fact that Florida law specifies the order that candidates MUST appear on the ballot and the "butterfly ballot" did not conform to the law. Go figure!] If the complainants had gone into federal court, they could have claimed their rights for equal access to the ballot had been denied.

The reason the situation seems so complicated is that the Florida courts are playing a game in the wrong ball park, i.e., as though the presidential part of the election is the same as the one for sheriff. In approaching it from that perspective they end up using the same practices as with a local sheriff's race. -- With a sheriff's races in Florida they count the vote, see where their candidate stands and how many votes are needed, and then just keep counting until they hit the right number. -- Because they went into the state court system for this Presidential race it looks screwy when it’s done on such a large scale.

Gore's man on the scene, Bill Daly, and Daly's goons really became confused because this was the first time they ever saw anyone challenge their Chicago system. Ergo, we have chaos.

The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789. Article II, Section 1, (second clause) confers upon the legislatures of the states the right and responsibility -- without limitation -- of determining the method for selection of Presidential Electors (the people who cast the votes for the election of the President).

In the election of 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes ran against Samuel Tilden and several states made changes to the process after the votes were cast. Consequently, congress passed Title 3 United States Code (U.S.C.). Section 5 says that no changes to the process can be made after votes have been cast. Title 3 does not say that an election must be held to select the President. It says that no changes can be made after votes have been cast. If a state legislature opts to name the electors themselves (without a popular election) they may do so, and Title 3 (re: voter eligibility) would not apply. Why didn't congress specify that an election MUST be held? Congress cannot say that because Article II of the constitution says that it's up to the state legislatures to decide the METHOD for selection of electors.

Since the Constitution was ratified, congress has passed many federal election laws. Also, several amendments to the constitution have been ratified. However, none of those laws or amendments has modified the process and responsibilities of state legislatures. For example constitutional amendments have been made to guarantee blacks, women, and 18 years old the right to vote but none of those amendments have altered Article II, Sec I, Cl 2. The amendments give the right to vote IF the state holds an election. The amendments do not say that states MUST hold elections and the amendments do not say that states MUST adhere to election results. States could opt to hold elections but treat the results as advisory only, BUT, because of Title 3, that would have to be on the books BEFORE the election is conducted.

Title 3, U.S.C. contains a provision that if the process, as delegated by the state legislature, does not produce a clear, settled slate of electors by December 12 [2000], a date generally referred to as a "safe harbor," the legislature may depart from the "no change" provision and may name their own slate, notwithstanding the fact that state election laws were in place prior to the date of the election.

It's sad that, in the United States, the constitution is not taught as a civics lesson. Students graduate from college without a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution or the Electoral College.

The United States was founded and has existed for more than 200 years as a REPUBLIC. We are not a DEMOCRACY.

As a republic we SELECT senators, presidents, representatives, etc., to run the central government for a fix period of time. ALL decisions by those elected officials must be carried out within a framework of laws enacted under our constitution. The states hold DEMOCRATIC elections to select those who will govern BUT the federal system is a REPUBLIC.

Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, and many other third world countries have DEMOCRACIES. Those who think the Electoral College should be eliminated should study democratic countries. Under most democracies the people end up with a direct say-so in ALL matters if they so choose. They can vote on anything at virtually anytime. Major decisions are made through referendum just as within each of the 50 states. In democracies, when the government wants to do something and there's a public outcry, the politicians punt. The issue is placed on the ballot, like we see in the states for school bonds. In democracies, issues like gun control, abortion, budget, size of the military, flag burning, death penalty, etc., could all be put on ballots concurrent with necessary changes to constitutions. Results are seldom satisfactory because, after tempers and passions subside, the public is left with less than a reasoned outcome.

Elimination of the Electoral College is a baby step away from the adoption of a plebiscite system whereby national issues are placed on ballots just as they are now within each state. The U.S. Constitution now requires three-fourths of all the state legislatures to amend it. With direct national elections why not just stick purposed changes on the national ballot? For example, congress could place a proposed amendment to eliminate the death penalty or gun control on a national ballot.

In the U.S. there are fifty democracies (states) which use the ballot box in state elections to let politicians off the hook. Any issue which becomes controversial is simply placed on the ballot (lotteries are a good example) and the politician can relax. The politician wins and the public loses. An example is funding for schools. A state determines it needs a zillion dollars for schools but politicians are afraid to make a decision... The question is placed on the ballot and the public, who doesn't have a clue as to the real need, votes "yes" because we must not deny the children. With a blank check now signed by the public, the politicians can flush a zillion dollars down the toilet without any consequences. This has been happening in all the states for many years. Why would anyone want to convert a beautiful federal republic to an apathetic democracy?

Today [December 8, 2000], just one month after this mess started, the Florida Supreme Court issued its second clearly unconstitutional decision. The first time the court changed the rules for counting ballots. SCOTUS vacated that decision and remanded the case back to the Florida Supreme Court with a strong warning to correct the error. Today, four of the ultra liberal Democrats on the Florida court decided it was most important (for them) to make a good political decision, and changed the rules again.

Now we return to either SCOTUS where five moderate-to-conservative Republican justices will overrule the Florida Democrats or the Florida Republican legislature will take the bull by the horns and do their Constitutional duty. If the Florida legislature backs out, SCOTUS may well decide if Florida doesn't care why should SCOTUS join the fray? -- Gore wins and that will be that.

If two or three different slates of electors (original; court ordered; state legislature) end up to be counted and congress cannot agree on which one to honor (the Senate is deadlocked 50-50, Gore votes for himself 51-50 but the House votes to approve a Bush slate), the slate which has the signature of the state's chief executive wins. That provides an opportunity for Jeb Bush to have the last word in the selection of his brother as President.

Whatever... On January 20, 2001, we will have a new POLITICALLY selected President, whether it's by court decision or by Florida legislative action. Either result will make a big chunk of the public very unhappy. If they are unhappy enough, some may get off their duff to vote during the next election and keep the courts out of it.

One thing for sure: There's no Constitutional crisis; we're witnessing a Constitutional process. Democracy is beautiful, but a tie is ugly.

We hope God doesn't start striking down hypocrites or there'll be no one left to serve. That would be a crisis.

If Gore is going to win, the mess needs to end soon or he'll be too fat to fit into the Oval Office. [Gore has noticeably gained weight over the past months.]

Most popular bumper sticker in Florida: "Don't blame me; I voted for both of them."