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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (118528)	11/20/2000 6:32:15 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

RE: "However, each Party has an interpretation to this that benefits their own respective Parties, which is as follows: a) Dems believe that the deadline did not apply to amended "late returns of manual counts" because these ballots could not be counted in time to meet the deadline even though they needed to be counted and included due to 102.661's statute requiring them to be counted and not ignored by SOS. b) Reps believe that the Tue Nov 15th deadline did not apply to "late returns of manual counts" because there should be no late returns of manual counts. Basically, the Reps argued that the Dems should allow the certification to happen, and then, after the Election votes are certified and submitted, the Dems could then dispute the Election. In only this scenario, there is no deadline on manual counts as imposed by FL law. At least both Parties seemed to agree on one point. However, it's interesting to note that Harris said the manual counts could have been completed on time (by Tue Nov 15th) and that there was "no evidence" to suggest the other counties could not get their manual counts done in time by Tue,.... The FL Supreme Court's decision will determine whether or not manual counts should continue ------------------------------ Thread, "count" should be "recount" in the above sections. (That was probably obvious). Amy J

To: Amy J who wrote (118528)	11/20/2000 7:51:30 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Amy, re: "or, if Bush's claim that FL Statute allows the election to be disputed post-fact (i.e. let the certification happen, discontinue manual recounts, submit the results from last Tue, declare the winning candidate, and then allow the Dems to dispute it)." I don't understand why they would suspend the manual recounts, even if it was determined that the election should be certified and could later be protested. John

To: Amy J who wrote (118528)	11/20/2000 8:33:01 AM
From: Yaacov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

However, it's interesting to note that Harris said the manual counts could have been completed on " Thanks Amy, great post, clear analysis. Did you consider one crucial point: will either side be willing to accept the Florida Supreme Courts decision as final? ( Both side talk about finality but I doubt if they are really interested.) One last thought, in 2002, the party that controls the White House is likely to loose a load of votes in the congress. Maybe in this election it is better to be a looser than the winner! Kind regards

To: Amy J who wrote (118528)	11/20/2000 9:51:46 AM
From: willcousa	Respond to of 186894

My only disagreement with your post is the point that a smaller county can complete a hand recount more quickly than a larger county. Completing the count by hand is purely a question of resources - primarily bodies. Usually larger counties have more resources than smaller ones.

To: Amy J who wrote (118528)	11/20/2000 12:20:07 PM
From: Windsock	Respond to of 186894

Amy J - Re:"I'll try to list the points without injecting bias - (I'll write my opinion in parenthesis)." You provided a very good summary of the legal issues in the FL Supreme Court Briefs. For others interested see here: flcourts.org Re: "If they select b) [delay the challenge], then there will be a discontinuation of a manual count (which is the original question the court was asked)." You are absolutely correct. The Republican legal strategy is to delay the recount and sit on their lead. SOS Harris has pursiued this strategy relentlessly and has clearly made legal errors. The written standards used to reject the manual recounts were inept, see the Briefs for details. A competent lawyer could easily have written standards that were arguably within the law but could never be met. However, the standards produced directly contradict FL law in a couple respects. The Bush and Harris do not challenge the Dem's contention of these errors. The standards demonstrate are very inept and shoddy work. The arguments before the Florida Supremes will be broadcast live on CNN at 2:00 EST. The CNN website has some pretty good articles on the Bush and Gore strategies. See the links on the right: cnn.com