Pre-reading questions
1) Why did the Supreme Court order the recount to stop and then later say that the recounted votes do not count since the counters did not meet the deadline?
2) What was the number of judges supporting each side (was it an unanimous decision? 5-4? 6-3?)
3) Wouldn't the bias of some judges affect this outcome? Aren't elections supposed to be "fair"?
4) Was what the Supreme Court did constitutional?
5) What were the reasons why the Supreme Court made its decision?
5 facts/details learned
1) Florida has 25 electoral votes.
2) Gore wanted a recount of all "'undervotes' in four heavily Democratic counties."
3) The majority of the court has been criticized for "setting the cutoff date on the twelfth rather than on the eighteenth of December, [but] neither date could realistically have been met."
4) The Florida Supreme Court had six Democrats and one independent.
5) The Florida Supreme Court wanted a flexible "deadline" in order to recount the votes and possibly give Gore "the maximum opportunity to win."
5 post-reading questions
1) Did the voting system in Florida change after this incident?
2) How would changing the state's election law cause "Gore forces" to steal the election? Isn't it simple? Doesn't the candidate who has the most votes win? If Bush really won the election, then he would get more votes, which leads to my next question:
3) How come people did not do a revote? People would have voted for the same person, and they would have known how to vote "correctly."
4) How would the election be "stolen" in Florida if they did a recount?
5) Is our voting system accurate? Should we fully depend on it?
No comments:
Post a Comment