Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : G&K Investing for Curmudgeons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EnricoPalazzo who wrote (7824)	11/9/2000 1:47:01 AM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22706

the issue in south florida isn't just confused voters (which would be tragic, but probably not legally significant), but the fact that the ballot was in fact legally invalid. If there have ever been clear grounds for a revote (in that precinct), this must qualify. well...the "legally invalid" part is some democrats' spin, and it seems to rest on the notion that you have to mark the x "to the right" of the candidate's name. But since the ballots were approved for use by representatives of both parties, that may give them some real legality even though they were technically in an improper format. As for "grounds for a revote," there has almost never been that remedy, so I don't see how this becomes a Gore win. (The late western poll openings is an interesting twist that I hadn't heard....) ctb/A