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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (7126)	11/22/2000 8:39:17 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

... that rules are laid out where-in candidates have the opportunity to employ the chad engendered vote recovery methods in counties of their choice, so long as various county canvassing boards permit it when asked. But I maintain this was never intended as per the law. It may not have been explicitly intended, but it was at least an consequence that could/should have been anticipated. The law is quite clear that the responsibility for requesting recounts lies with the candidate and the decision is up to the locality. What we're dealing with here is one of the natural byproducts of decentralization--diverse approaches. The tug between centralization and decentralization is as old as the hills and institutions tend to swing back and forth. When centralization results in so much central control and standardization that creativity suffers, we swing toward decentralization. Then, when things get too chaotic and too uneven, we call for greater centralization. This theme is one of the most salient distinctions between the Dems and the Reps. There is greater creativity and vitality in decentralization, but there is also more disparity of treatment. We pick our own poison. Don't you think it's ironic that the Reps are finding unfairness in local control? The statewide provisions denying voter error(chads remaining attached, etc.) and demanding only machine error and fraud as reasons for hand-counting, served to limit such activities as we see here from taking place. Now this is another matter entirely from county shopping. I have not studied it closely enough to have an opinion. I don't believe this is a matter of benefit to "my" candidate. My experience is that most of time people say "it's unfair," what they really mean is "there's no advantage in it for me or my side." It's a totally natural thing to do and usually we don't even know we're doing it. We sit back and think how convenient it is that our principles and our interests coincide. I did not intend to suggest that your interests were driving your principles. Your arguments are, indeed, reasoned. I only meant to convey that there are a couple of objective standards for fairness, not just one. Karen