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.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Howe who wrote (53030)	11/9/2000 6:39:18 PM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I just heard that an investigation on how the early call by the media that Florida went to Gore may have effected the outcome. Clearly if the media gave Florida to Gore before the panhandle of Florida had voted, many Bush voters may have simply decided that their vote didn't matter and didn't vote. There was a three hour period that I believed Gore was going to win for sure and that was while the polls on the West Coast were still open. No doubt some west coast Bush voters decided to throw in the towel due to this faulty early call by the media. This entire election controversy might not be an issue if they hadn't called Florida for Gore so early. Dave

To: David Howe who wrote (53030)	11/9/2000 6:41:11 PM
From: Wes Stevens	Respond to of 74651

There is another issue. By law the presidential election has to take place on the 2nd tues on nov. Are we going to wait another year for this???

To: David Howe who wrote (53030)	11/9/2000 9:53:52 PM
From: san_marcos99	Respond to of 74651

Help me out here. This is a work in progress. I'm sure some of the great minds here can come up with something better. Q: What do you call a guy who makes love to his wife's navel? A: A Palm Beach voter.

To: David Howe who wrote (53030)	11/10/2000 2:43:45 PM
From: Nick Kline	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

If they decide to have a revote (which I am against), they should only let the people vote who voted the first time. They always keep track of who voted and who doesn't. Then the people who messed up their ballots would have a second time to try to avoid screwing it up. More importantly, just because some stupid people messed up their ballots doesn't mean they should be able to revote. They had their chance. I think there is a semi-reasonable reason to allow a recount, in that one county with the "flawed" ballot and other places in Florida with similar "flawed" ballots. It doesn't matter really that it was a democrat who created the ballots. There is apparently a state law in Florida that says you have to mark the ballots only to the right of the names. In this case though, the mark is in the middle of the names. That's a reasonable reason to redo the ballot in that county, and I suppose any other counties that have the same kind invalid ballots. But even with this (flimsy?) (legal?) rationale for a revote, its probably a bad idea. Even though Bush is not my man, we should let the original vote stamd, unless there is serious evidence of deliberate fraud. It sets a bad precedent to have revoting. It certainly is amusing that first the Repubs thought they'd win the popular vote and lose the electorial college, so they were saying the popular vote was what should count, and now its the other way, and they are happy with it (and now some democrats are grumbling like the republicans before). -nick