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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TraderGreg who wrote (1596)	11/10/2000 5:07:47 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 6710

Proof they were Liberal Democrats.

To: TraderGreg who wrote (1596)	11/10/2000 5:27:51 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

The problem with court action is that the courts cannot adjudicate what are essentially political questions. Under the separation of powers set up by the Constitution, Congress makes the laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them. Election laws exist to provide orderly procedures for conducting elections but they cannot decide the results of those elections. Election results are quintessentially political decisions and the courts are justifiably loath to interject themselves into such matters except in extreme cases where obvious election fraud is involved. All voting is an exercise in statistical sampling and there is no such thing as a "perfect" vote or count. All courts and politicians know this, which is why asking a judge to decide the outcome of an election dishonors both the candidates and the democratic process itself. In a close election such as this it is ultimately a political question as to who will yield. If the official Florida recount confirms a Bush win, no matter how slender, then Al Gore has to decide to either abide by the rules or to challenge them in an effort to overturn the election. Such an endeavor, even if nominally successful, would damage both his resulting presidency as well as the democratic process. This, ultimately, is why Nixon chose not to contest the 1960 result and why Gore should show similar circumspection in this election. Gore is still a relatively young man and can well afford to withdraw with honor and return with renewed vigor in 2004 against a weakly-elected incumbent. By contrast, Bush cannot concede an election he nominally won (albeit by the slimmest of margins) and retain any shred of political legitimacy within his party or on the national stage. No court can resolve this to the satisfaction of both parties and the voting public. I therefore fully expect the political question will be resolved by the candidates themselves, with possible help from Bill Clinton.

To: TraderGreg who wrote (1596)	11/10/2000 6:10:34 PM
From: David Howe	Respond to of 6710

<< How is it a crime to pursue a matter through the Courts? >> It's a crime in my opinion when it's so obviously an invalid claim and when it results in irreparable harm to our country. See the article below. The 'confusing ballot' is not a legitimate issue. Pursuing this beyond the re-count is an extreme violation of Gore's authority. He should do everything in his power to protect the interests of the US, not his own. -------------------------------------- The Palm Beach Legal Precedent No cause for Dem squawking. By Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute nationalreview.com According to some Florida Democrats, the particular layout of ballots in Palm Beach was confusing to voters, and resulted in mistaken votes for Buchanan which were actually intended for Gore. The Florida judiciary has already addressed the issue of post-election claims about ballot confusion, and the precedent is unfavorable to those who want the election overturned. In the September 10, 1974, Republican primary in Pinellas County, several losing candidates brought a post-election suit against county election officials. (Pinellas sits on the Gulf Coast, and includes St. Petersburg.) At issue was the longest ballot in Pinellas County history. To save space so that every candidate and issue could fit on the voting machine, the election officials had created a ballot on which the list of candidates for some offices appeared on two lines. In a particular race, for example, the first three candidates, listed alphabetically, appeared on one line, and the last two candidates, alphabetically, appeared on the next line. A lawsuit demanding a new election was filed by candidates who appeared on the lower line and lost. The Florida trial court agreed. But on October 15, 1974, the Second District Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the trial judge, and let the original election stand. (Nelson v. Robinson, 301 So.2d 508, Fla. Ct. App. 2d Dist., 1974.) The Court of Appeal explained: Keeping in mind that we are talking about a claim made after an election, and not one which may have been enforceable before, if a candidate appears on the ballot in such a position that he can be found by the voters upon a responsible study of the ballot, then such voters have been afforded a full, free and open opportunity to make their choice for or against that particular candidate; and the candidate himself has no constitutional right to a particular spot on the ballot which might make the voters' choice easier. His constitutional rights in the matter end when his name is placed on the ballot. Thereafter, the right is in the voters to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to find it; and as to this, it has been observed that the constitution intended that a voter search for the name of the candidate of his choice and to express his of the candidate of his choice without regard to others on the ballot. Furthermore, it assumes his ability to read and his intelligence to indicate his choice with the degree of care commensurate with the solemnity of the occasion. The Court of Appeal also cited a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the high Court explicitly and unanimously affirmed a Pennsylvania federal court which had ruled that an unfavorable location on the ballot was not a form of unconstitutional discrimination against a candidate. (Gilhool v. Chairman & Com'rs., Philadelphia Co. Bd. of Elec., 306 F.Supp. 1202 (E.D.Pa.1969), aff'd 397 U.S. 147 (1970).) In Palm Beach this year, the ballot form was approved beforehand by Democratic Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore. This fact relates directly to the Florida Court of Appeal's point that "it has often been held that one who does not avail himself of the opportunity to object to irregularities in the ballot prior to the election may not object to them after."