>>>I am curious as to how closely many of you are following the election issue. In your opinion, what issue is more important:
>>>
>>>- The results of the election
>>>- Federalism
>>
>>In those stark terms, I'm in the "sanctity of an individual's vote" camp, so #1.
>
>
>Ironically, the sanctity of an individual's vote could fall into 1 or 2 - right? After all, when you discuss the results of the election - you then bring in federal election law and the constitution. However, you have to balance all of that with the right of a state to govern itself.

When I checked "federalism" in a good dictionary, there were some 8 definitions, so let me specify a little more:

My interpretation here is of "Federalism" (capitalized) is in terms of the founding father's version, where the individual's voting sanctity was minimal: a) few people had the right to vote, and b) representative gov't was the preferred form over popualr vote. In this sense, I go into camp #1, but only so far as the sanctity of individual voting rights - I am not taking sides on who I wanted to win this election, only that I think it's more important to get an election done fairly than any gov't, Constitutional rules of law or politics. This includes having the popular vote winner win the election, most importantly. (and Repubs please note, this may haunt you at some point too, it's not a partisan issue, long-term).

>So, who defines what the vote was? The federal government or the state? i.e., should the state be left to decide whether recounts go on. On one hand, you could argue that no - in this case, it is a fundamental change in law and in violation of federal law. On the other hand, you could argue that every vote should count and that the state should decide.

That's a very tough call, and we've seen how it was made in this case - very controversial, and without a clear answer, though I can see the argument from both sides. We have states' rights, and it's a fine concept, but the presidential election is something of an exception, since it crosses borders - and something askew in one state may affect all the rest of the states and voters.

>With respect to the state, who wins? Is the legislature - as the US constitution says. Or, has the FL legislature ceded a lot of that to the state judiciary?

I think this case provided the answer, whether it was over-ruled or not. The state legislature (and other elected officials) should exercise the authority. But, this was a clear case where the laws were unclear, and at that point the judiciary role is indicated, as "referees," however unpopular both the FSSC & the USSC may have been to each party, that is their task to straighten out, IMO. Ordinarily the judiciary should not be involved, if the state elected officials make reasonable & thorough law.

>An interesting issue to say the least!!

Indeed , the most interesting case of my lifetime.