Dato: 10. december 2000 16:10 Voter Intent ? ---------------- Now for nearly 5 weeks we have heard the Gore-Lieberman ticket complain about the election result. First it was puch-card problems, then it was counting problems and lately we have also heard about racial intimidation. According to the Gore-Lieberman ticket and campaign chief Daley this has confused the voter intent. Refusing Gore hundreds and hundreds of votes. All in all the margin that would put Al Gore in the White House, according to the "true voter intent" ?! Or at least according to Al Gore and associates. I find it suspicious that the media doesn't object to this line of reasoning ! "Approval-voting" = true voter intent !!! -------------------------------------------- Come monday we should see a solution to the under-vote problem. Here noone clearly registers for president on the ballot - but by reading the "intent" of the vote - the Gore-Lieberman ticket will declare themselves the winner. Simply, it is amazing that anyone could take this to be a valid argument. If the Gore-Lieberman ticket really wanted voter intent, then they should have asked for "approval voting" ! In approval voting (first used by the Venetians in th 13th century) a person cast one vote for every candidate he or she considers qualified for office. The results are added up to determine a winner. With approval voting, voters, who likes a dark horse, can safely vote for this candidate without wasting their vote. The winner is the one most approves off. Giving a true voter intent, instead of a normal plurality vote - where the winner might be genuiely disliked by 60 percent of voters, but in office by a 30 percent plurality, due to a split in the remaining vote. Would approval voting have changed the outcome of this election ? YES ! According to CNN/USA today/Gallup McCain would have won easily. Getting approval votes from both Republicans and Democrats. Voter intent would have made McCain president, not Gore ! Bill Daley and true voter intent. ----------------------------------- Still we see this voter intent = Gore argument repeated again and again by e.g. democrat Bill Daley. Which strikes me as one of the real surprises of this election. Simply, can't the media remember anything ? Surely you shouldn't judge the sons on the doings of their fathers. Still, this one might be just a little to thick. It is more or less common knowledge that Kennedy made a deal with the mob in 1960. Where he got mob election support in return for no genuine FBI investigation on Sam Giancana. The result was massive election fraud in Chicago organized by Bill Daleys father, which along with fraud elsewhere (see Seymour Hersch, "The dark side of Camelot") cost Nixon the election 1960. All in all I, for one, find it kind of improper that Bill Daley is the man to speak about "voter intent". At least not until he has come clean on his fathers association with the mob. Let Congress figure out what the voter intent was. ------------------------------------------------------- It might not be such a bad thing after all, if the whole thing goes to Congress to decide. Basicly, one could start all over and try to figure out what "voter-intent" really was. One thing is for sure - it was not Al Gore. December 10th -Simon For others of my recent posts see : http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/lol/1165/recentposts/mypostindex.html