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: Mike Buckley who wrote (8021)	11/10/2000 3:17:52 AM
From: EnricoPalazzo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22706

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. Fair enough. Two things: 1) Courts routinely throw out elections based on vote fraud. For instance, the democratic mayor of miami's re-election was revoked after a suspicious number of dead absentees voted for him. I'm not arguing that the PB issue constitutes vote fraud, but that it is equally 'political'. 2) One difference between the current situation and the one you describe is that the current situation involves wrongdoing on the part of the electoral officials, not a random stranger. Here, an individual citizen isn't accused of violating the voters' rights, the state is, and the state can redress it. To be fair, one might further question whether individuals wrongfully detained by the police should have the right to revote. I would say not, primarily because we need to weigh the potential advantages of increased fairness with the strong disadvantage of gridlock and numerous spurious claims. This is different, though, because the potential advantage of fairness is staggering, and the cost to the state of undergoing a judicial review isn't that significant. I think Bill Kovich (CNN pundit) said that the problem with investigating this issue is that we must look at every case of alleged improprieties. My response is, "well, duh." (eloquent, huh?) Of course alleged improprieties need to be investigated if they have a reasonable chance of a) being non-spurious claims and b) having a material effect on the election. This would screen out the vast majority of such claims. I should note once again that people were screaming about this loud enough to get on CNN before the networks took FL out of the Gore column.