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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maverick61 who wrote (41428)	11/15/2000 4:53:03 PM
From: maverick61	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57584

OT > And now in the picture speaks better than a thousand words: newsmax.com pretty amazing. We've all seen state maps - but first time I have seen a county by county breakdown. Really goes to show the great divide between large cities and the rest of the country

To: maverick61 who wrote (41428)	11/15/2000 6:12:23 PM
From: Joe Smith	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 57584

MAV- Once again, a bit of a partisan posting of the "news". First of all, you skipped the whole part about the butterfly ballot actually being confusing. Second of all, given that Gore is behind 300 votes, it is not surprising that most think Bush will win and that that is fair. How could you not right now, unless you were pretty sure that something was going to come up to reverse things? IMO, many people interpret the question with that in mind. If 1000 Gore votes were found in the recount and it seemed that the recount was fair, then I am sure the opinions would change. Once again, let me interject that I believe and hope that there is nothing to overturn the current results. However, I think that you gave a skewed treatment of a Conservative news agency's reporting of a poll. Polls are always open to interpretation and should always be approached critically rather than with open arms, as should anything from Fox or the Washington Times, or the Washington Post on the other side. In this case, I still don't really see what is so wrong with Gore's approach. Why is it interpreted by Baker so cynically? Don't we want to know how people actually voted as opposed to a machine's interpretation? Why is the machine seen as being more fair than a hand recount? Why is it alarming that Gore would feel that way? I do not accuse Bush of trying to cover things up because he does not want a recount. he does not want to take any chances with his hard-won victory. Finally, of course a hand recount of just the four counties is unfair, because recounts seem to tend to increase vote numbers and they would probably increase votes more for Gore than for Bush in these Democratic strongholds. But, if they pushed Gore ahead of Bush would that not be a mandate to count all votes by hand? Why is that so repulsive? There are only 4 million plus votes. Even if they cost ten dollars a piece to recount, that seems like a small price to pay to me to clear this thing up. To use a football analogy, they are just asking the referees to review a last second play in the Super Bowl. Of course, the current winning team does not want to take the chance that their victory will be overturned. But, I think that review is important.