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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bwanadon who wrote (68000)	11/10/2000 8:39:49 AM
From: bwanadon	Respond to of 769670

<The court made clear that the Constitution assumes the voters' "intelligence to indicate his choice with a degree of care commensurate with the solemnity of the occasion." Applying this standard to the ballots in Palm, it is somewhat difficult to fathom that residents of Florida who commonly juggle 10 bingo cards without missing a beat could not follow the large bold arrows on the Palm ballots, which were published before the election.> Leaves the argument for Dems that their folk are vastly more stupid than republicans and independents. Hmmmm, they could win this argument quite easily... I think the Bush camp better start worrying.

To: bwanadon who wrote (68000)	11/10/2000 8:49:09 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 769670

An interesting argument as presented in The National Review. However, in the instance of Palm Beach County, there exists a warning letter that was distributed at the respective polling stations, acknowledging the faulty ballot. This warning letter came into existence precisely due to complaints during the day of, in the process of the election and not after it. Sure, more complaints arose the following day. But it;s the complaints registered in process that I think will become the determining factor. And the court will make notice of this in rendering its decision. nationalreview.com "More telling, however, is that it is well-settled that a candidate may not object to a ballot irregularity after an election if he has the opportunity to object beforehand. Indeed, some courts have held that a candidate is barred from bringing such a claim at all. The reason for this rule is clear: Before the election, the risk of candidate self-dealing is lower (since he is uncertain of the results), and the cost for remedying the situation is not as high. After the fact, a candidate is likely seeking his own political advantage based on the particular results; and the costs of the fix — a new election or otherwise altering the tally — are very high. Because these concerns certainly exist in Palm, and because Gore election officials not only saw the ballot beforehand, but signed off on it, they should be precluded from challenging it now."