Zeev's Turnips Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Carl R. who wrote (303)	12/9/2000 11:03:17 AM
From: SBHX	Read Replies (1) of 644

Carl, The key of the recount question is the counting function (or the rules) for voter intent. If you heard Judge Burton of Palm Beach talk on CNN, it's not that Palm Beach did not wish to use the same standard as Broward. Initially they both used what is finally known as the PalmBeach rule : A. dimple with perforated hole=vote B. dimple with other dimples in other races = vote C. single dimple only with holes in other races=novote Inexplicably, after they both were well into the counting process, Broward changed their rules to count ALL dimples which changed the picture completely. I believe this was also when the GOP went from mumbling about thieves to outright screams of outrage. Palm Beach, continued on with their original agreed to rule. I noticed that Michigan had these color coded sleeves which allowed the counter to put each ballot into the sleeves to see which color they get. This seems a very fast and efficient process, but is a stricter rule than PalmBeach and will favour Bush more than Gore. ---- Comments about the FSC. There was a report that said that the original decision was 4-3 in favour of supporting Sauls' decision, but when the offer to count all 67 counties came, one switched sides. There was one interesting observation here : * Even when the counting was limited to just 3 counties, 3 of the FSC judges actually was willing to overturn Sauls. This I think speaks well about the level of impartiality in 3 of the sitting judges. Which really begs the question. Is it permissible for judges to be proactive and allow their own wish to the results of the political outcome bias their judgment? IE: in their minds, is the judiciary co-equal or superior to the legislative branch of govt? Or was this a "Go Ahead Make My Day" kind of move to the USSC? SbH

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next