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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (5585)	11/12/2000 12:31:38 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 10042

One potential problem with the chad theory. The reported numbers of uncounted votes in Palm Co. included ballots turned in by voters for new ballots. Thus an untold number of themm represent votes ALREADY cast. This was reported by a poll worker on CNN earlier this evening. If they don't have such ballots separated out, no court will risk double counting and the handcount will be ruled invalid. If they do have 'em sorted out(one would think), then the numbers to draw from for Gore are far smaller, as I gather. Also, ballots have been run through twice already, and it is said that the chads tend to fall off by the second run through, thus many Gore chads of the first run may have already been counted in the original recount. Still, it would appear that Gore can move ahead in this handcount, IMO. He had picked up a net 11 votes in the first half of the first handcounted precinct according to an official on the CNN program I was watching earlier(which would translate to thoushands for Gore for the county)...but then they switched to a method allowing fewer chads to count as a vote..to the chagrin of one poll worker interviewed in a CNN clip. So again, Gores pick-ups may be smaller than I know right now, but I do suspect he can pick up enough anyway. However, its more than possible that the federal court, or the state later, will recognize that recovering machine rejected votes only from counties that are largely Democratic, by reason of an anomaly that has not yet been ruled to be the result of an illegal ballot, is inherently unfair. A full state hand count would take months. Should Gore win temporily, he'll beg Bush to get himself a statewide handcount and say that's just fine if he can(possible indeed- despite the 72hr deadline passed by Republicans). Gore won't concede. Al Gore may think that's worth it. Republicans turned from that path once. Now their motion to the federal court stays that path as it would seek to create a vote without the handcount bias for either party- and thus fairly, I believe, get this over quickly with a victory for their man. While that sounds fair to me, I doubt they'll get the ruling they'd like. IMO, presuming Gore takes the lead soon via this unbalanced act of recovering machine rejected votes in Democrat leaning counties only, Bush will likely concede soon, because he may not want to drag this on for months. However, fact is, the hand counting of only these counties results in an injustice, and the courts or the state may soon be recognizing that fact for numerous reasons. Of the two possible solutions to this, past common practice of simply rejecting questionable ballots is the simpler by far. Barring this appropriate outcome, I suspect Bush will concede...though if he's got a real chance of recovering his lead by handcounting the state, I hope he doesn't. Freedom works, Dan B