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: pezz who wrote (5995)	11/14/2000 11:45:37 AM
From: Dr. Id	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

This of course is the only fair way to proceed but Baker just rejected it..... Baker rejected it because he fears that GW will lose a statewide hand recount. Neither side is interested in being "fair", only in winning. Dr.Id@therearenoheroshere.com

To: pezz who wrote (5995)	11/14/2000 11:50:04 AM
From: AmericanVoter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Mr. Baker rejected the hand count because it allows for the canvassing board to interpret and determine the intent of the voter... if 120k ballots were disqualified in IL, what's the problem here ? best regards amein

To: pezz who wrote (5995)	11/14/2000 3:20:06 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

I said this was another objection, not MY objection. However, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the hand-count chaos argument. Elsewhere, as I understand it, recounting of punchcards is limited by statute to ONCE only, due to the fact that the "chads" tend to fall out all over the place the more they are handled. Many issues. At any rate, despite all the oversight in the world, there is some potential credibility in saying that hand-counting these little bastard hanging chads could easily become a great mess. Particular if it goes statewide and Gore issues challanges to the way they count them somewhere, good lord. Very glad to see agreement that a state-wide hand-count would be fair in comparison to hand-counts in places picked by only one candidate or the other. While state-wide is fair, IMO, it isn't the only fair way. The state-wide recount we already have is fair by the rules laid down to date, and it doesn't involve an after the fact bolstering of the results for one candidate or the other. Dan B