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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (414)	11/14/2000 7:37:01 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Yes, it is unfortunate. I was just explaining to my wife this morning how members of a legislative or administrative body sometimes act. A member will often vote on an issue because he/she truly believes it to be the correct decision. However, in many other cases, irrespective of the outcome of a board vote, he/she will vote a certain way just to appease his/her constituency, regardless of the merits of the issue before the board. The latter situation I describe is a cause for great concern when the DISCRETION that is vested with each of these local canvassing boards to which the Democrats have submitted requests for a manual recount of the vote. When a board votes on whether or not to conduct a manual recount it is IMPOSSIBLE for these board members to remain objective. Forget about their personal preference to see either Bush or Gore in the White House. Look to their constituency, the voters who put them in their position, either directly in the case of elected office, or indirectly in the case of an appointment. Given the tremendous Democratic leaning political makeup of Palm Beach, Broward, & Volusia counties, and to a lesser extent Miami-Dade County, it is inconceivable to think that these canvassing board officials can remain thoroughly & completely objective on such manners that calls upon them to exercise their DISCRETION. We now hear the cries of Democrats about the political leaning of Ms. Harris, the Florida Secretary of State, who must also exercise her DISCRETION. While it is apparently OK for the Democrats to go into largely Democratic counties and seek a manual count of the vote, it appears NOT OK for the Secretary of State to exercise her DISCRETION in upholding today's election result deadline. Neither side is right; neither side can be completely objective. The Democrats did not go into largely Democratic counties solely because of the statistical results that a manual count was likely to generate, they also went into these counties because of the political pressures that would surround these boards officials that would cause them to act in a manner more sympathetic to Democratic interests when they were called upon to exercise their DISCRETION. The Republican argument here has always been -- lets remove DISCRETION from the process because if the DISCRETION is flawed, the process is flawed. Granted, the argument has been made, and it is agreed, that the original machine count is flawed as well. But the mandatory recount improved upon its reliability, making less-flawed. Now with a manual recount, the argument goes that whatever improved reliability resulted from a machine recount is now lost due the increased UNreliability of any manual recount because of the circumstances surrounding these local officials as I just described. Just as it is within the DISCRETION of these local canvassing boards to hold a manual recount of the vote, it is also within the DISCRETION of the Secretary of State to accept or reject the DISCRETION of the local canvassing boards, regardless of the result of the manual count. If an appellate court is to void the DISCRETION of the Secretary of State, it is likely that it will void as well the DISCRETION of these non-objective, politically leaning local canvassing boards. Perhaps this is the Republican strategy; I dunno. We shall see in the coming weeks. Need I say "stay tuned?"