Warp wrote:
>   What is the alternative? A panel of experts in the field? Or a lone
> judge?


Just the judge. If you want a panel of experts, you get a jury trial and 
bring the panel of experts yourself.

That's why I'm confused - are you talking about experts in 
law/criminology/etc, or experts in the field you're being accused in? 
And what might that field be? What if you disagree over what experts are 
actually applicable?

In my experience of thinking about many of these things, once one says 
"it should be different" (regardless of what large field "it" may 
involve), when one drills down to the next level of detail, it makes 
sense why it works the way it does. Taking (as an example) the 
libertarian platform to the next level reveals that it really doesn't 
make sense as is in the modern world.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I don't think crime is a matter of opinion. (At least not in most cases.)

I think if it's not a matter of opinion, then it wouldn't likely go to a 
trial in the first place.

Here's an example of a case I was almost on, as explained by the judge 
before the jury selection, meaning that nobody was really arguing over 
these facts: Military man gets a ride home with two ladies he met at the 
base. They stop at one lady's house to take care of something, leaving 
him in the car. A few minutes later, he comes in looking for a glass of 
water. Ladies are in bed, invites him to join her, they do their thing, 
go on their way happily, all three together in the same car, drive him 
home, drop him off. Husband comes home six months later to find his wife 
six months pregnant. OK, now she claims she's been raped. Plus, the guy 
came into her house without an invitation, so that's breaking and 
entering plus burglary. Plus, she got pregnant, which is "grave bodily 
harm." Which means he's up for life in prison.  Makes sense yet? 
Technically, if all that's true, he did commit a felony leading to grave 
bodily injury by joining her in bed for her invitation, except she 
didn't bother to report it until a year after it happened.

So, would you want that left up to the judge?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:40:24 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:26:30 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>>   I thought the Constitution (and the comissions created to impose it)
>> exists precisely to stop law-makers (and, in this case, judges) from
>> creating unfair laws.
> 
> Sure, and the Constitution has really reigned in GWB, hasn't it? ;-)
> 
> Jim

Did anyone think a piece of paper would stop him from doing anything?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:13:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> does happen), if the judge doesn't feel that the jury's vote was
>> appropriate (in either direction), the judge can set aside the verdict.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the judge doesn't get to set aside an innocent verdict,
> in the US.

I'm not so sure about that - but if it was possible, it is extremely 
rare.  The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case 
goes to the jury.  Come to think of it, though, I think you're right - 
double jeopardy might enter if he did that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:20:34 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:40:24 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:26:30 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> 
>>>   I thought the Constitution (and the comissions created to impose it)
>>> exists precisely to stop law-makers (and, in this case, judges) from
>>> creating unfair laws.
>> 
>> Sure, and the Constitution has really reigned in GWB, hasn't it? ;-)
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> Did anyone think a piece of paper would stop him from doing anything?

My point exactly.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:53 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   What is the alternative? A panel of experts in the field? Or a lone
> judge?

A lone judge is the alternative.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:57:30 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:01:52 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of
>> >   12
>> > random people. *That* would be absurd.
> 
>> There's every possibility that happened in the last two US presidential
>> elections, and every possibility that will continue in this one.
> 
>   That's not what I meant, and you know it.

Don't presume to tell me what I know and what I don't, please.  I was in 
fact making a point that the current US president was not in fact voted 
for by the people of the US, and look at the numbnut we got.  I think 
that tells you what would happen if we turn the decision over to the 
government.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:59:56 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> A better comparison would be whether you'd more likely see a movie the
>> educated critics say is good and everyone else says is bad or vice
>> versa.
> 
>   I don't think crime is a matter of opinion. (At least not in most
>   cases.)

Crime isn't what's being decided by the jury.  What's being decided by 
the jury is which facts presented are the actual facts of the case - that 
determination is made by normal people in the US who are called up for 
jury duty.

Out of curiosity, have you ever served on a jury?  In Finland (going from 
memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong), what sort of criminal justice 
(and civil justice, for that matter) system is used?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> An even more fundamental problem then in our system, is that "normal" 
>> people
>> with no training in law or politics get to vote on who runs the country 
>> (and
>> hence influence key decisions)!  How absurd is that?
>
>  Less absurd than only 12 people deciding the fate of a suspect.

How come?  The "wrong" government voted in by normal people (rather than 
experts who are advising otherwise) can cause problems orders of magnitude 
bigger than some wrong decision in a court.

>  Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of 12
> random people. *That* would be absurd.

That's not very absurd at all, unless the elections were really close, 
asking 12 totally random people would probably give the same result as 
asking the whole population.  Raise that number to just 30 or 50 people and 
you'd almost certainly get the same result every time.  If you're good at 
stats you can work out the figures.

Post a reply to this message

>  Personally I would feel uncomfortable having random people who can eg.
> have their judgement clouded by their emotions, and who might eg. convict
> someone "just in case" (ie, better to convict an innocent than having a
> criminal running free) judge me, if I know I am innocent.

It is repeatedly made *very* clear to the jury that they must only give a 
guilty verdict if they are sure beyond all doubt that you are guilty of the 
crime.  They know this too anyway, not many people would like the feeling of 
guilt and responsibility for the rest of their life of having put a person 
in jail for a crime they might not have committed.

But then I guess if you still feel uncomfortable with that system, either a) 
don't get into a situation where you end up in court (might not involve 
breaking the law) or b) move to a country where trial by jury is not 
mandatory.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:57:30 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:01:52 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > 
> >> >   Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of
> >> >   12
> >> > random people. *That* would be absurd.
> > 
> >> There's every possibility that happened in the last two US presidential
> >> elections, and every possibility that will continue in this one.
> > 
> >   That's not what I meant, and you know it.

> Don't presume to tell me what I know and what I don't, please.

  So you really didn't understand what I meant?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of 12
> > random people. *That* would be absurd.

> That's not very absurd at all, unless the elections were really close, 
> asking 12 totally random people would probably give the same result as 
> asking the whole population.  Raise that number to just 30 or 50 people and 
> you'd almost certainly get the same result every time.  If you're good at 
> stats you can work out the figures.

  Why does it seem so damn hard to understand what I am talking about?

  When I say 12 people, I mean 12 people. I don't mean 100 million people
vote one way and 100000012 people vote the other way.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:53 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   What is the alternative? A panel of experts in the field? Or a lone
> > judge?

> A lone judge is the alternative.

  Thus not what I was talking about.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  When I say 12 people, I mean 12 people. 

That's what I meant too.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Out of curiosity, have you ever served on a jury?

  Nope. There's no such thing here.

>  In Finland (going from 
> memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong), what sort of criminal justice 
> (and civil justice, for that matter) system is used?

  If I'm not completely msitaken, usually a judge and a panel of three
so-called lay judges. In more difficult cases the panel may be expanded
with one or two experts.

  The lay judges are elected by the city council (or something like that,
I'm not completely sure) in 4-year terms.

  In very trivial cases simpler setups may be used.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  When I say 12 people, I mean 12 people. 

> That's what I meant too.

  In which country is the total amount of votes 12?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> That's what I meant too.
> 
>  In which country is the total amount of votes 12?

Dunno, you suggested it!

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4816d039@news.povray.org...
> That's not very absurd at all, unless the elections were really close, 
> asking 12 totally random people would probably give the same result as 
> asking the whole population.  Raise that number to just 30 or 50 people 
> and you'd almost certainly get the same result every time.  If you're good 
> at stats you can work out the figures.

Actually no. A sample of 12 people is completely useless for surveying a 
large population (>1000). Typically, for a national population, a minimum 
size is 1000 (confidence interval of 3 and confidence level of 95%), so that 
you're 95% sure that the actual result lies between x-3 and x+3 where x is 
your survey result.  That's already a large interval (47-53 for a close 
election) and you'll need more for a smaller confidence interval (2500 for a 
CI of 2). And that's assuming that your sample is truly random and not 
biaised in some way, which is the big problem here since people aren't lab 
rats.
A sample of 12 would give an confidence interval of 30, i.e. the true answer 
will be between x-30 and x+30. Not very useful... Of course this never 
prevented people from deriving large trends from what their 12-people-large 
circle of acquaintances, including themselves + mom and dad, think or do ;)
Not that rounding up 1000 people for a single jury duty would be much 
practical, and the 12-people jury thing isn't meant to be a survey anyway.

G.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:02:35 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:53 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   What is the alternative? A panel of experts in the field? Or a lone
>> > judge?
> 
>> A lone judge is the alternative.
> 
>   Thus not what I was talking about.

Well, in the US, that's the choice - a jury, or you can leave it up to 
the judge, who will apply his expertise in law and combine that with 
expertise from experts called to testify.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:00:26 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:57:30 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:01:52 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> > 
>> >> >   Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote
>> >> >   of 12
>> >> > random people. *That* would be absurd.
>> > 
>> >> There's every possibility that happened in the last two US
>> >> presidential elections, and every possibility that will continue in
>> >> this one.
>> > 
>> >   That's not what I meant, and you know it.
> 
>> Don't presume to tell me what I know and what I don't, please.
> 
>   So you really didn't understand what I meant?

Did you read the rest of what I wrote?  As I said, I was making a point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:26:14 -0400, Warp wrote:

> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> >  When I say 12 people, I mean 12 people.
> 
>> That's what I meant too.
> 
>   In which country is the total amount of votes 12?

For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people who 
decided - the supreme court of the US halted the recount of ballots in 
Florida which likely would have changed the outcome of the election.

Now, it's not 12, but I think you can see the parallels.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:18:41 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, have you ever served on a jury?
> 
>   Nope. There's no such thing here.

OK.

>>  In Finland (going from
>> memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong), what sort of criminal
>> justice (and civil justice, for that matter) system is used?
> 
>   If I'm not completely msitaken, usually a judge and a panel of three
> so-called lay judges. In more difficult cases the panel may be expanded
> with one or two experts.
> 
>   The lay judges are elected by the city council (or something like
>   that,
> I'm not completely sure) in 4-year terms.
> 
>   In very trivial cases simpler setups may be used.

OK - this makes some sense to me, assuming you trust your government to 
do the right thing.  In talking about the US courts system, you have to 
keep in mind that when the country was founded, one of the principles was 
that the founders didn't trust the English government, so the power of 
the three branches of government was put into the hands of "the 
people" (historically, though, this was not all people - women couldn't 
vote, slaves couldn't vote, people who didn't own property couldn't vote 
- all initially, and all have changed now).  The founding principles were 
essentially that a government is needed, but that it shouldn't be trusted.

I can honestly say that I would rather have a jury than not if I were 
accused of something serious, because experts, judges, etc *may* have an 
axe to grind on a particular issue.  Over here, case law history sets a 
precedent that can trump legislative processes, so even if I'm innocent, 
an "activist judge" may see the case as an opportunity to push his agenda 
if a guilty verdict is entered, and I'm just "collateral damage" in that 
process.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case 
> goes to the jury. 

I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're 
allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of the 
prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the entire 
jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)

> Come to think of it, though, I think you're right - 
> double jeopardy might enter if he did that.

I believe that's correct, yes. Indeed, the judge isn't even allowed to 
ask the jury *why* they decided the way they did. There was an old case 
where the judge threatened to lock up the jury until they decided the 
suspect was guilty, from which a lot of the current system flows.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case goes
>> to the jury.
> 
> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of the
> prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the entire
> jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)

I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do could 
mislead the jury.  It's gotta be a tough job, presenting your side of the 
case from a factual standpoint but being persuasive that your view of the 
facts is the correct view.

There are days where I think that if I had had the motivation, I could've 
gone into law.  I've been told by more than a few people who do practice 
law that I've got good instincts and a great attention to detail that 
would serve me well in the profession.

Part of the reason, I think, was that in dealing with a difficult person 
(the one who filed the suit), I maintained my objectivity in 
communications - something a lot of people have a difficult time doing 
when confronted with a person who is arrogant.

>> Come to think of it, though, I think you're right - double jeopardy
>> might enter if he did that.
> 
> I believe that's correct, yes. Indeed, the judge isn't even allowed to
> ask the jury *why* they decided the way they did. 

Well, I think that depends on the court - in the drug case I sat on the 
jury for, the judge and I discussed the case once it was done (I had a 
question about the procedure and documents we were given - and it was 
hard to discuss that without discussing the verdict because it had to do 
with the definitions of the crime we were given).

> There was an old case
> where the judge threatened to lock up the jury until they decided the
> suspect was guilty, from which a lot of the current system flows.

That doesn't surprise me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote

>   I have been thinking: In the US and a few other countries trials by
> jury are quite common. What I don't understand is how that makes any
> sense.

It makes sense for those distrustful of authority and the "educated class",
almost to the point of paranoia. US fits the bill, more or less.

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder wrote:
> Having served on a few juries here in the U.S., my experiences tend to confirm
> most of Warp's concerns as valid.  The problem with the alternative is that
> judges are either directly elected or appointed by elected officials who are
> voted into office with even less reasoning and objective scrutiny than one
> finds in a jury trial. 

Strangely those are not the only two options. In the netherlands the 
judges are appointed but not by elected officials. Although some judges 
may be member of a political party, it is considered very bad if that 
would show in one way or another in their judgments. If that would 
happen i think they would loose the job very soon, but I don't know of 
any case. Active judges should be and are above any political party 
struggles. I assume some or most Americans won't believe this could 
work, but it does. You might also assume that this opens up the door for 
corruption, but it doesn't. The judges and prosecutors are a group that 
is not in any way connected to the group that passes laws nor are they 
related to the industry. Trial by jury may have a useful place in a 
system where these groups are linked and judges and politicians both 
have to find money to campaign to be elected, in our system there is no 
place for it. (Which does not stop some politicians that don't 
understand the system to propose it every now and then as a cheap way to 
get votes)

> Suspicions that those in power are not acting with the
> interests of justice as their primary motivating force are often well founded.
> Panels of knowledgeable individuals seeking to act genuinely in the interests of
> justice would indeed be a vast improvement over the current system, but that's
> NOT what would happen were the right to a jury trial to be abolished. The U.S.
> is a fragmented society in which religious, ethnic, racial and class bigotry
> abound (middle-aged white male of above average income speaking). For all of
> its flaws, the jury system is a very necessary check against the unlimited
> exploitation of ordinary people by the privileged classes.
> 
In our system the judges appear to be on average slightly to the left 
(i.e thinking more about the lower classes than favoring companies and 
wealthier people) with respect to the general population. So there is 
some sort of natural balance, because the latter group can speak for 
themselves. I can see your point that only abolishing the jury, without 
a thorough reform of the whole system, might not be a good idea in the US.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>  Is this how you would like yourself to be judged? Or would you prefer
>> being judged by impartial trained and experienced professionals
> 
> Good luck finding one of them :-)
> 
In the US that might be a problem, but here I don't see the problem 
(meaning that I met quite a few).

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case goes
>>> to the jury.
>> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
>> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of the
>> prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the entire
>> jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)
> 
> I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do could 
> mislead the jury. 

Yeah. But then the lawyers could intentionally break the rules if they 
think they're losing, and get another chance. If the courtroom 
prosecution lawyer can't handle the rules, the suspect should go free, 
not stand trial again.

Maybe I wasn't clear. :-)

> Well, I think that depends on the court - in the drug case I sat on the 
> jury for, the judge and I discussed the case once it was done 

That's different. You brought it up. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:32:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case
>>>> goes to the jury.
>>> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
>>> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of
>>> the prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the
>>> entire jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)
>> 
>> I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do
>> could mislead the jury.
> 
> Yeah. But then the lawyers could intentionally break the rules if they
> think they're losing, and get another chance. If the courtroom
> prosecution lawyer can't handle the rules, the suspect should go free,
> not stand trial again.
> 
> Maybe I wasn't clear. :-)
> 

Deliberate misconduct could get the case dismissed with prejudice. Beyond 
that, if it was a well covered case, the prosecutor could face charges of 
misconduct or contempt of court, and maybe even disbarment.

Chances are, a single prosecutor would only get away with that once.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:32:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case
>>>> goes to the jury.
>>> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
>>> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of
>>> the prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the
>>> entire jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)
>> 
>> I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do
>> could mislead the jury.
> 
> Yeah. But then the lawyers could intentionally break the rules if they
> think they're losing, and get another chance. If the courtroom
> prosecution lawyer can't handle the rules, the suspect should go free,
> not stand trial again.
> 
> Maybe I wasn't clear. :-)

Oh, no, you were clear - the judge's job in part is to make sure that 
both sides play by the rules and prevent this sort of stuff from going on.

>> Well, I think that depends on the court - in the drug case I sat on the
>> jury for, the judge and I discussed the case once it was done
> 
> That's different. You brought it up. :-)

True, I did.  In watching the video of the verdict in the Hans Reiser 
case, I noted that the judge also indicated to the jury that the lawyers 
may want to talk with them, and that he'd be around to talk with them 
until around 5 PM.  The judge I talked with didn't say anything about 
that to us, but when we went to the jury room to gather our belongings, 
the defense lawyer was there to ask questions.  We got some very 
interesting additional insights into the case at that point - like the 
fact that the defendant was in fact guilty, but that the warrant being 
served was for meth production and distribution, and the cops didn't find 
that.  During the case, we never knew what the warrant was for.

It would be interesting, I think, if the jury got to ask questions along 
the way about the facts, kinda like is depicted in TV Grand Jury 
proceedings (now there's something I would be interested in participating 
in to see how it really works).

I know none of that is related to the point about the judge asking the 
jury about the deliberations or the verdict, just seemed a good point to 
throw that in. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people who 
> decided

  No it wasn't. Millions of people voted.

  Just because approximately half of the people voted for and the other
half against doesn't mean that the votes were null, void and ignored.
It was still an election with millions of voters.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Deliberate misconduct could get the case dismissed with prejudice.

Thanks. I wasn't sure just how that worked out.  I'd also add "if he got 
caught" to that. :-) I guess it's pretty hard to be sneaky about such, tho.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:59:10 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people who
>> decided
> 
>   No it wasn't. Millions of people voted.

And the votes didn't matter.  The race was close enough that voting 
irregularities in Florida (and in the later election in Ohio) needed to 
be dealt with, but instead, 9 people decided GWB was the one for us and 
disenfranchised those millions of people who voted by stopping the 
recount, crowning GWB our king.

>   Just because approximately half of the people voted for and the other
> half against doesn't mean that the votes were null, void and ignored. It
> was still an election with millions of voters.

Ah, so all you have to do is pretend to hold a vote and then it's OK?

How closely did you follow the 2000 election?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:59:10 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people who
> >> decided
> > 
> >   No it wasn't. Millions of people voted.

> And the votes didn't matter.

  The president was not elected by 9 people. He was elected by millions
of people. Millions of people voted for him. Without those millions of
votes he would not be a president.

  Of course the votes matter.

>  The race was close

  Which wouldn't have happened without the millions of votes. Hence the
votes mattered.

  Or are you telling me that if nobody had voted for Bush he would have
been elected by those 9 people anyways? Don't be ridiculous.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:43:04 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:59:10 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people
>> >> who decided
>> > 
>> >   No it wasn't. Millions of people voted.
> 
>> And the votes didn't matter.
> 
>   The president was not elected by 9 people. He was elected by millions
> of people. Millions of people voted for him. Without those millions of
> votes he would not be a president.
> 
>   Of course the votes matter.
> 
>>  The race was close
> 
>   Which wouldn't have happened without the millions of votes. Hence the
> votes mattered.
> 
>   Or are you telling me that if nobody had voted for Bush he would have
> been elected by those 9 people anyways? Don't be ridiculous.

You seem to be avoiding my point.  Those 9 people ultimately decided to 
overrule the process.  By doing so, they crowned King George, and the 
"will of the people" be damned.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> You seem to be avoiding my point.

  No, it's you who is avoiding my point. You don't even want to aknowledge
that you understand what I'm saying (regardless of whether you agree with
it or not).

  Bush was elected because millions of people voted for him. If those
millions of people hadn't voted for him, he wouldn't have elected. Thus
all the millions of votes counted.

  Your argument is simply ridiculous.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

<sigh>

Round and round we go, where we stop, *I* know.

Right here. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message