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: tekboy who wrote (7827)	11/9/2000 2:02:13 AM
From: EnricoPalazzo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22706

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. "legally invalid" is not just spin. It's a clear-cut interpretation of florida law. I haven't seen the text of the law (any law students here w/ free lexis?), but the dems have been saying that it requires you to vote on the right of the name. The reps have been saying that this isn't true, it only requires the candidates to be listed in a particular order. Given that Bush was labeled 3, Buchanan 4, and Gore 5 (these numbers also reflecting the vertical order), this doesn't seem to pass the supposed republican test, either. What's unclear, though, is what to do about it. I certainly agree with you that most of the irregularities aren't ground to contest. No one can expect perfection, and random errors occur. Clearly, if irregularities involved overt discrimination against any protected class, that is grounds for a revote (I believe the case law on that is pretty settled). It is incredibly unclear what to do in this case, in which the ballots themselves were invalid. What if the ballots hadn't included Gore's name at all? I hope the judges who ultimately rule on this are very careful to consider the implications of their precedent. And frankly, tek, the fact that reps of the parties bought off of the ballot means f*** all to me. At issue is the right of the citizens to vote in the election (and vote on a legal ballot), not the right of the parties to have their anointed one get the vote. I hope no one loses sight of that.

To: tekboy who wrote (7827)	11/9/2000 2:49:18 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22706

the notion that you have to mark the x "to the right" of the candidate's name. If we're talking about technical legalities, why is the criterion that the mark be to the right more important than that the mark be an X? The particular ballot in question did not involve making an X. Instead, it involved punching a hole. Is a judge really going to call the ballot illegal because a hole is required instead of making an X? If not, is it still going to be invalid because it is made to the left instead of the right? --Mike Buckley