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: Uncle Frank who wrote (7974)	11/9/2000 11:34:31 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 22706

Tekboy, do you think we're headed for a constitutional crisis? depends on how you define crisis. all the outcomes from here on in suck, IMO, because given what we now know both candidates can make a legitimate case that they deserve the election--and thus can legitimately feel that the elevation of the other guy is illegitimate. So we'll either get a quick illegitimate outcome, or a protracted one. Here's my hunch (no more) about what happens: 1. The official recount in FL, including the absentee ballots, leaves Bush ahead but by an excruciatingly narrow margin. 2. The Bush camp claims victory, Florida's electors are empanelled by the Republicans and go off to vote in December along with the other states', and Bush wins in the electoral college. 3. Meanwhile, individual Democrats in FL contest the election in the courts on various grounds (including the legality of the PB ballots, the confusion of the PB voters, etc.). The Gore camp supports them, perhaps explicitly. 4. Eventually the cases get heard in the FL courts, where at some point along the way they get dismissed or rejected. 5. Higher courts, including the Supreme Court, refuse to overturn the verdict or even to hear challenges, on the grounds that this is ultimately a political rather than a legal matter. 6. Gore grumpily concedes some point along the way. 7. Bush comes into office in January, but a sizable number of people in the country consider his election illegitimate, and spend the next four years waiting for a retrial while trying to frustrate his every move (e.g., a replay of what happened with Clinton). ctb/A@hopeI'mwrong.com

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (7974)	11/9/2000 11:53:39 PM
From: kumar	Respond to of 22706

goes back to my earlier post.. flip a coin, 1's the prez, the other is the veep. cant ask for better 'bi-partisan support' can we ? -ckr@sic.pov

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (7974)	11/9/2000 11:56:36 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 22706

Tekboy, do you think we're headed for a constitutional crisis? For the record, I'm --Mike Buckley, not tekboy. :) I don't know about a constitutional crisis but I have some related thoughts if the courts become involved in the resolution in any way beyond a hearing that disallows court action. For the people who used to think their vote doesn't really matter, having the courts decide which votes should be counted, disallowed, or cast again will forever put into question whether a vote really matters. Court action will result in the thought that "my vote matters only if the court says it matters and I won't know that until possibly months after I vote." The greatest irony is that in recent years I made all my presidential election decisions based on who might be appointed to the Supreme Court. Yet it might be the Supreme Court itself that determines if my vote matters or if others get to vote a second time when I only get to vote once. Having the priviledge of voting a second time just because someone lives in a particular section of Florida puts my vote in Virgina on an unequal basis. That may not be a Constitutional crisis, Frank, but it sure is a major issue for me if my vote becomes unequal from other votes in any way whatsoever. --Mike Buckley