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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Douglas V. Fant who wrote (78619)	11/11/2000 3:47:28 AM
From: upanddown	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

Doug I really think your concern about fraud during recounts is misplaced. On CNN's Town Meeting tonight in Palm Beach, a former head of Florida's election board, a Republican, said that any hand recounts, by law, must take place in a setting where the public can freely observe the process and that representatives of both parties sit at the counting table. Doug, this process has to be allowed to play out. Whoever is sitting in the Oval Office on Jan 21 is going to have a hell of a time getting anything done with this deadlocked Congress. Any hint of illegitimacy in that person's right to hold the office will make that task totally impossible. The winner may eventually envy the loser. People say they want gridlock. Do they want paralyzed government? My only objection to what you were saying is that I thought you were letting your antipathy to Gore obscure a far more important issue than Bush vs Gore.....the absolute sanctity of the election process. John

To: Douglas V. Fant who wrote (78619)	11/11/2000 12:52:02 PM
From: JungleInvestor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

Doug, following Washington Post article shows why Gore may be set on litigating. If the Florida vote is not resolved by December 18th, then Gore wins by having the most electoral votes, excluding Florida. Based on this, I hope that Bush does request recounts in all other close states. Article also goes on to show that if Gore does resort to this dirty trick, there are also dirty tricks the Republicans can use. The very special cornerstone of American freedom, the elections for the President and Congress, is quickly being soiled and debased by the use of lawyers and loopholes. The Clinton/Gore legacy continues. washingtonpost.com Gore Could Win If Fla. Race Is Unresolved by Dec. 18 By Charles Lane Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, November 11, 2000; Page A16 Both Al Gore, who appears to have at least 262 electoral votes, and George W. Bush, who has 246, need to win Florida's 25 electoral votes to attain a 270-vote majority in the 538-vote electoral college. But only Gore could still be elected if the fight for Florida is not resolved by Dec. 18, when members of the electoral college are to meet in the states and the District to cast their votes. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that an incomplete electoral college can produce a valid presidential selection, saying that a candidate needs "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed" to be elected president. Without Florida's 25 votes, that whole number would be 513, and it would take 257 votes, five fewer than Gore's current total, to win. That still-remote possibility is just one of a series of improbable but no longer utterly unthinkable scenarios for political chaos lurking just over the horizon of an already chaotic situation. Those scenarios range from a pitched battle in Congress over the validity of the electoral college votes to, conceivably, the election of a president and a vice president from different parties. To be sure, Florida's state legislature has it within its power to prevent the state's exclusion from the electoral vote. Section 2 of Title 3 of the United States Code says that "whenever any State . . . has failed to make a choice" of electors on Election Day, then the legislature can settle the issue itself "in such a manner" as it chooses. In Florida, says Michael Glennon of the University of California at Davis Law School, the options would include simply enacting a law decreeing that the electors should go to whoever wins the current recount, holding a new election or even designating a slate of electors outright. However, for the Republican-controlled legislature, there would be political risks all around. To appoint a slate of electors committed to Bush would be seen as blatant partisanship, as might a decision to award the electors to the winner of a recount before all of Gore's court challenges have been exhausted. In terms of his legitimacy as president, such a dispensation might hurt Bush more than it would help him. But any other solution, including a new election, would pose the risk that Bush would lose the state--or that the second vote, too, would be contested indefinitely, and Florida would still miss the electoral college vote. A joint session of Congress is scheduled for Jan. 6 to count the votes of the electoral college. If neither candidate wins a majority, the constitution calls for the presidential election to be taken up by the House of Representatives. In theory, if Florida were excluded from the electoral college vote--or if there were continuing controversy over Florida's presidential choice--senators and House members could challenge and possibly invalidate the electoral votes, thus throwing the election into the House. Such challenges could only succeed if a majority in each chamber agrees. The Republicans have won a majority in the newly elected House. But the current Senate tally is 50-49 Republican, with the Washington state race between Republican Sen. Slade Gorton and Democratic challenger Maria Cantwell still undecided. If Cantwell wins, and the Republicans plan to challenge Gore's electors in a straight party-line vote, they would presumably have to try to bar Cantwell from taking office. The Constitution gives each house of Congress full discretion in deciding whether or not to seat senators-elect from the various states, and representatives-elect and senators-elect have been refused admission in the past. In the House, the vote for president would be by state delegation, with each delegation casting a single vote. Republicans appear to control the 26 state delegations needed to win a majority in such a vote. Meanwhile, the nearly evenly divided Senate would have the job of selecting a vice president. Depending on a variety of variables--including whether Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Gore himself, presiding as vice president, would be willing or would be permitted to vote on a matter directly affecting them--the winner could be either Republican Richard B. Cheney or Lieberman.

To: Douglas V. Fant who wrote (78619)	11/12/2000 1:33:01 AM
From: CpsOmis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

<<<And finally would you like me to put in print some of the things that I personally sat in meetings and myself heard DNC officials discuss doing at our agency in the 1980 Presidential election? ABSOLUTELY! Tbe one sided drumbeat from the press is influencing a lot of good minded people. I don't know how well known you still are from the Carter years, but perhaps now is the time to see if some reporters from CNN/whoever will talk with you. What did you think of the earlier contention that the 19000 double punched ballots could easily have been voter fraud by ramming a wire through the gore hole in 50 count stacks of ballots. An investigation could certainly look at the "tear" patterns of the gore holes in the double punched ballots. We do have pretty hi tech crime labs..... Cosmo