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 (8014)	11/10/2000 3:03:29 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22706

ardethan, By this rationale, the courts couldn't even rule on issues regarding out and out vote fraud, then. I don't know how you come to that conclusion. I don't. If there is a hint that fraud existed, criminal investigations should take place and alleged perpetrators of the fraud should be subject to prosecution. However, the voters in PB should not be granted the priviledge of voting a second time simply because fraud existed. If they were allowd to do so using that as the reason, I should be allowed to vote the day after the election day if I was the victim of a criminal act of any kind that prevented me from voting during the required hours. Aren't courts the ultimate arbiter of the laws, even election laws? Yes. I never indicated that they aren't or shouldn't be. Instead, I maintain that if the court has to make a decision about my vote, I think the legitimacy of my vote and its status as being equal to all other votes is jeopardized. --Mike Buckley