Your Vote as Proxy: November 8, 2000 Three tenths, of one tenth, of one hundredth, of the total votes has put the state of Florida under an international microscope. Will the brother of the candidate "deliver the state" as he promised? Will the "automatic recount" function of computerized election over-ride a vote-by-vote count by a human being? What other alternative speculations have come into play? Out there is the spoiler, Ralph Nader. There is also the punch-out ballot issue; that alone may throw the entire state election out the window. There is an endless combination of possibilities looming in the wings. Will this lead to anarchy? Or is revolution right around the corner? Or what will become of this? How will Wall Street react? Hey...maybe the fix is in. Consider this: Is it apparent that the same mechanisms that cost Jimmy Carter the presidency maybe again doing their dirty work? The father of the candidate, Ronald Regan's vice president, is Mr.-President-New-World-Order-Guy who stopped an International War a few clicks short of Baghdad, any reasonable warriors goal. Why? What logic there? Remember: The candidate's brother is the governor of the state that is key to the entire national election. Oregon and Wisconsin go to Gore, but they are, in sum, superfluous. This is unprecedented in fact and in law. Gore gains the popular vote total, but Bush hangs onto the slimmest lead in Electoral College. A candidate's brother is the governor of the state that is key to the entire national election. If America were a ball player, it should be warned that it is about to step on its own dick. The Electoral College, as a devise, is the mechanism of the convenient. It was born of an era when time and travel demanded more than simple majority. Rural areas wanted direct input into the election of the President. It began small and immediately fowled the election of Thomas Jefferson, the third man to hold the office. Now, the very notion of A Nation of Laws is given lip service. The candidate's brother is the governor of the state that is key to the entire national election. The election of 1824, when John Quincy Adams prevailed over Andrew Jackson, making the country a basket case; nothing in four years getting done because the popular vote and Electoral College (finalized in the House of Representatives) went to different men. Seems now that has again happened, and the Congress is closer in count than ever in memory. And... The candidate's brother is the governor of the state that is key to the entire national election. Get a lawyer. It will take a brigade of them to sort this one out. The nation's history has never had the amount of money spent on achieving office; the choice between two elite class candidates provided seed to the Green Party (third party) movement that clouded the political waters. People have at last created "political pollution"; an entire movement without more than matching fund motivation. Odds are better than fifty to one that a candidate's brother would be the governor of the state that is key to the entire national election. Or is this part of The Plan? So, what if... In the morning, we awaken to a legal morass. Around the country, states are bombarded with suits to recount the votes in states where the final count is under ten per cent of the total. The Florida Situation goes on for weeks, then a month. Christmas comes, then January...and, still, no resolution. No Inauguration happens. Premature certifications are challenged and thrown out. The Congress passes an emergency resolution extending the administration of Bill Clinton until the election and its legal maneuverings are exhausted. Ten years later, Slick Willy is still in office (and, somehow, the world goes on). Yeah, shure. Just a thought...If this were Israel, Gore would broker Nader for the number of votes (plus one) that it would take to carry the election and formulate an government. (I think their Parliamentarian form works like that.) It would certainly easily resolve this situation. Broker votes? Hmmm. Open up this can of worms and you could be looking at cash in hand for voters. That, under certain circumstance, could make any tax rebates created by the tax surplus look like chump change. Michael Corzine in New Jersey is said to have spent over 50 million bucks to get elected. A woman in Washington State spent more than ten million dollars unseating old foggie Slade Gordon. What does that come to on a dollar-per-vote scale? Look nationally.... One hundred million votes, one billion dollars spent. Ten bucks a vote, right? In key situations, does this fact call for a sliding scale? This blog has been delayed a bit by technical problems. I have solved those glitches. Wish that the same could be said for Florida. Everyday, the situation seems to deterioriate.