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: TheLineMan who wrote (83058)	11/20/2000 11:47:21 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The laws as written are clear enough, and they specify that manual recounts are permitted, but that results must still be submitted within 7 days. Perhaps the legislature should have drafted the laws differently, but they didn't. Harris simply did what the law commanded, which is exactly what she should have done. I don't see any constitutional issues here with regard to how citizens being treated inequitably. All I see is a very limited right to a manual recount in that it must be done quickly. I do not know of any constitutional right to a manual recount, and if the law didn't provide for one, I doubt that one would be available. Thus one is only available to the extent the law provides, and it says that it must be done in 7 days. Carl

To: TheLineMan who wrote (83058)	11/21/2000 12:04:08 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If in Florida the state supreme court wants to have to go into emergency session to decide elections the the 7 day rule may be waived. But after 7 days one can see that several law suits can be filed and these under florida law would be handled by a lower court. But by extending the deadline leaves no reasonable time for lower courts and appeals to be processed in a regular way. At the beginning of the election all precede with an equal understanding of the law. After the election creating late new laws are unfair to those who now have no time to seek the same redress that they would have had if the laws were intact at the start the election. So to change the law after the fact is to deny treating all citizens equitably. There are basic rights and basic rights. In this case follow the law treats all who voted by the published rules equitably. I do not believe that a mark on a chad indicates intent to vote. Maybe it only means intent to vote 9 out of 10 times or maybe 3 our to 7 times. There is no way to be 100% certain. It is unfair to add votes that were not intended. So you follow the laws that give clear direction. To do otherwise is to dilute the will of 99% of those who voted. Tom Watson tosiwmee