By 'they' I presume you mean Presidents and Senators. And guess what the Cosntitution contains provisions for them to do exactly that, and for you to challenge it if you see fit. And that sort of thing happens quite frequently.
>2) recounts did not become moot
In that instance they did.
That doesn't even make sense.
I haven't, care to point to some information?
Really, you can't use Google to search for stories about election recounts over the last 12 years? You're just being lazy now. How can you expect me to take you seriously on elections when you obviously don't pay much attention to them?
Here's a story about a recount. Last year. In Florida. The Republican lost. Happy now? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84068.html
I guess "stopped a recount that had been proposed by the all Democrat Florida Supreme Court, which had the effect of awarding Bush a majority of votes in the Electoral College." is over your head.
>Really, you can't use Google to search for stories about election recounts over the last 12 years? You're just being lazy now. How can you expect me to take you seriously on elections when you obviously don't pay much attention to them?
>Here's a story about a recount. Last year. In Florida. The Republican lost. Happy now? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84068.html
Probably because I don't pay attention congressional elections because I don't live in Florida? I'm sure many other citizens wouldn't pay attention to that.
Really, you can't scroll through this thread? Now you're just being lazy now. How can you expect me to take you seriously when you obviously don't read through this thread to look if I stated my participation level in the puppet show on federal reserve note strings we call an election process in its current form? If I can have some of your Kool Aid, I'll be happy.
Probably because I don't pay attention congressional elections because I don't live in Florida?
That didn't stop you knowing about the Florida recount in Bush v Gore, did it? I've never even been to Florida, I just read newspapers and use the internet and pay attention to the makeup of Congress.
If I can have some of your Kool Aid
And I thought you wanted to have a serious conversation. Oh well, more fool me.
I didn't say Bush v Gore had made recounts. You said that.
The recounts were underway before the supreme court stopped them in Bush v Gore.[0]
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is the United States Supreme Court decision that effectively resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election. Only eight days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), and only three days earlier, had preliminarily halted a recount that was occurring.
See the last part: had preliminarily halted a recount that was occurring
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
>And I thought you wanted to have a serious conversation. Oh well, more fool me.
Only as serious as one can converse with a state apologist. ;)
a recount != recounts.
Troll away, but I'm out of this conversation.
And to suggest that just because it only happened once, to mean that it can't happen again is naive (but I guess that is in the nature for apologists of the state).
And as we have seen throughout history, they can grant themselves more power through amendments and executive orders that can go (and have gone in some cases) unchecked once enacted.
>2) recounts did not become moot
In that instance they did. But of course, something like this can never happen again even though it happened once already.
>Surely you've noticed that other elections since then have also involved recounts and nobody has tried to prevent them going ahead on the basis of Bush v Gore.
I haven't, care to point to some information?