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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles R who wrote (128616)	11/16/2000 2:03:44 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570117

Chuck, RE:"And what is that ploy?" Taking the offensive, trying to gain an advantage by extending your hand in front of the cameras while making it appear like it's a fair deal... RE:"300 votes out of 6 million is clearly well within the margin of error for the current counting system. When things are this close Bush would be doing the same if he were in Gore's position. I am of the opinion that anyone using count/recount argument to somehow implicate that Gore is doing something wrong is either highly partisan or lacks basic math skills and does not understand something as basic as margin of error. When Democrats were talking about hand counting select counties that was clearly an attempt to twist the game in their favor. But a uniform count across Florida seems incredibly fair to me (as long as Bush and Gore can agree on the right "chads" to count or not count). I have a strong feeling that this kind of feeling is more representative of the country than either yours or Scumbria's." I think the rejection on the hand count by the SOS is a precusor to having an agreement on the chads, should it come to that. The big problems with the hand count are human interpretation of voter intent and excessive handing/chad fall out. I'd say this results in less accuracy, not more as these ballots were designed for machine counting...I've seen the ballot first hand, I voted it, you have not. I want to see this thing over with ASAP by if there is a statewide hand count, so be it...as long as the parameters are standard. I'm sure Gore will want pregnant amd one corner off chads counted to expand the vote count. This would likely beget hand counts in Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin... I'm really hoping for the absentees to put it out of reach so the markets aren't tortured much longer.

To: Charles R who wrote (128616)	11/16/2000 10:43:30 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570117

Chuck, I am quite amused by all the Republican whining about not wrapping the whole thing up in a week, as Bush campaigner and Florida Secretary of State Harris demands. Here is yet another article on how the Republicans always want to get things cleared up quickly and never, ever whine about close elections. GOP to seat Democrats in disputed races But party leaders still plan to investigate elections of 3. (from Detroit Free Press, Jan. 4, 1995, credited to AP) WASHINGTON _ Republicans aren't giving up on three House races they still think they won in November, but they'll nevertheless allow the Democratic incumbents who are the declared winners to take their seats today. The new majority leaders said Tuesday they will launch committee investigations of the contested races, but don't want to leave the seats vacant in the meantime. The GOP's change of heart, however, seemed more designed to stave off a threatened Democratic protest than to ensure a full House on the first working day for the 104th Congress _ a day they hope will bring a historic string of votes on various governmental reforms. Emerging from a two-hour leadership meeting, GOP officials said Reps. Sam Gejdenson, D-Conn., Charlie Rose, D-N.C., and Jane Harman, D-Calif., would be sworn in along with their colleagues today. But Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., the incoming chairman of the House Administration Committee, said a law dating to the 1960s allows losers of close races to request a committee investigation. In a letter to Rose, Thomas said his panel "has a strong obligation to hold hearings on the subject of fraudulent voter registration, especially to determine how changes in federal law have affected and could affect these and other related fraudulent voting practices." If the committee finds sufficient voter fraud, it could recommend a vote by the full House to declare the election results invalid and unseat the lawmaker in question. It would then be up to the state to hold a special election. Thomas said the House would not, on its own, replace one member with another. Gejdenson, of Connecticut's Second District, defeated Republican Ed Munster by 21 votes. The contest was upheld by a Republican secretary of state and the state Supreme Court. Harman, of California's 36th District, beat Republican Susan Brooks by 812 votes and was certified the winner. Rose, of North Carolina's 7th District, defeated Republican Robert Anderson by 3,821 votes. All three losers allege the declared winners benefited from voter fraud.