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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Palau who wrote (76678)	11/15/2000 8:00:40 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Respond to of 769670

Good Post Mr Palau. <eom>

To: Mr. Palau who wrote (76678)	11/15/2000 8:56:24 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Thank you for your well-reasoned response. I don't really have a good opinion of the Equal Protection argument, so agree with you there. As for the Due Process argument, you say it is a sign of desperation, and I have to smile a little because both times I've won an appeal on a constitutional issue it has been on a Due Process argument. It can be done. Both times in a state appellate court (once Virginia, once Maryland). But I've lost them, to. The strongest argument is the one against the lack of standards for determining whether a pregnant chad, a dimpled chad, a swinging chad, and the like, is a vote. What Jim Baker is referring to as Carnak the Canvasser. Usually the referee to a competition doesn't care who won. That's why we have professional referees deciding whether a ball was in or out of bounds. When the call is close, we don't let the players call it, and we don't let the coaches and the teammates call it, either. That's why we use machines to count these ballots. Yes, there are genuine votes that the machine can't count because the chad didn't get torn off. That's not what is going on here. That's my opinion, that's what Bush is arguing, I do support Bush, but I think I would agree no matter what. I think we need to get rid of these type of machines for future presidential elections. You cited 3 USC 5, but I would submit that the problem here is that the Florida law is silent on standards for these type of ballots and the judgment is left to the county canvassing board members, who are politically appointed.