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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Kearney who wrote (86999)	11/10/2000 7:16:23 PM
From: 16yearcycle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tom, they have gingriched it already. Check out some of the polls on different websites. Granted these are republicans probably 60/40 but the polls are running about 9 to 1 that Gore has overdone this. The sad thing is that if Gore had come out and said "it is very close and I will not concede until every vote is counted, and I will have a team overesee that process," I think that is well within reason. But with Daley's son out front talking about "exhausting legal processes" they are way out of bounds. "Political processes" and "legal processes" shouldn't be used interchangeably. Meanwhile, Gore looks like he is going to lose NM, cnn.com but he may hang on to Wi, Or, and Ia. If he blows a couple of those states as the votes roll in, I really think his career will be over, at least as an elected candidate. He is going to look like a real bozo.I am aware from my involvement here that these guys never go away entirely....he can pop up as an ambassador to China, and probably will down the line. Funny how things work....if qcom can get over 90, investing in it this year isn't going to look too stupid

To: Tom Kearney who wrote (86999)	11/10/2000 9:50:17 PM
From: David E. Taylor	Respond to of 152472

Tom: OT: According to the snippets of the constitution cited in the NYT article, 270 electoral votes aren't required, just "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed." From the NYT article: Some commentators have suggested that the election would be thrown to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives if neither Vice President Al Gore nor Gov. George W. Bush of Texas gets a majority of the 538 electors for whom Americans voted on Tuesday. But the Constitution requires only that a winning candidate have the votes of "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed." If Florida's votes are not resolved by then, or if a legal restraining order bars Gov. Jeb Bush from filing a certificate listing Florida's electors, then Mr. Gore has enough votes from other states, if current vote totals stand and if his electors keep their pledges, to reach a majority of the 513 electors actually appointed. In either of those cases, or if either Mr. Gore or Mr. Bush gets Florida's votes, the House of Representatives would have no role in choosing a president... Walter Dellinger, professor of law at Duke University, said the reason the Constitution requires the votes of only a majority of those electors actually appointed to elect a President was that in the earliest days of the Union a state might neglect to appoint electors, and there was no reason for the process to be held hostage by that omission. The rules for electors and the role of the House were spelled out in the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804. The House has a role only if the ceremonial counting presided over by the vice president shows that no one had a majority of the electoral vote. That could happen either because of a tie between two candidates or a split among three So it's not exactly cut and dried. FWIW. David T. NYT Article: nytimes.com