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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (85449)	11/14/2000 8:46:41 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Skeeter, I heard Baker say the manual count had potential accuracy and political problems several times, but it seemed to me that it was only part of an overall strategy to avoid it. They were using all sorts of legal ways of avoiding it too. Maybe I just missed a lot of what was said. I think she crumbles. Do you want to bet a nickel? :-) There is another possibility. She opens up the whole state to a manual recount. To me that was the best and most fair solution from the beginning. However, it assumes that manual counts are superior and I don't know that anyone has demonstrated that. Wayne

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (85449)	11/14/2000 9:45:24 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Skeeter, In deciding whether to accept the late manual counts or not, where is the burden? Do the counties have to demonstrate circumstances that should make her accept them? Or Does she have to demonstrate a reason for not accepting them? I am seeing two spins and obviously they are totally related to who is doing the spinning. The Washington Post seems to interpret it as her burden to exclude the manual counts, but several other reports had it the other way around. Wayne