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: MasonS who wrote (1060)	11/18/2000 4:07:48 PM
From: Ellen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Mason, I'm sorry, but you didn't refute anything as the reason you cited for the Democrats picking the counties they did to be recounted was not correct. They didn't pick them because they were heavily Democratic counties. They picked them because of the anomolies that occurred in these counties. (like the counting of votes for offices on the ballots except for that of President) .Sec Harris's decision was not "arbitrary"...or do you disagree with the court's decision... Yes, it was arbitrary. That's why she changed her mind and decided to accept written statements (by last Wed at 2pm) from the counties that wanted to do a manual recount. Otherwise, everything was over and done with (except for the absentee ballot counting) last Tuesday at 5pm. She was found by the court to not be exercising the discretion that she had. She had stated she had no discretion and the full statute says she does, so the court ruled accordingly. Interestingly, in the decision she had originally submitted stating her Tuesday 5pm cut-off, she had cited only part of the same statute.