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: Ellen who wrote (1908)	11/22/2000 1:08:34 AM
From: James H	Respond to of 3887

Just been around too long. Regards.

To: Ellen who wrote (1908)	11/22/2000 8:46:41 AM
From: SE	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 3887

I just finished reading the Florida Supreme Court's decision. On its face and given the limited issues it believed was before it, the decision is, and it pains me to say, correct. However, the important issue is not being addressed yet and I can only conjecture the reason is that the important issue must be addressed in a contest. That issue is as follows: How and under what circumstances does a manual recount reflect the proper and just intent and will of the voter? That issue has yet to be addressed. That the SC has held inviolate the will and intent of the voter should be commended. That is correct and no one who thinks on this issue would disagree. The entire disagreement surrounds the issue as I set forth. My issue gets to timeliness and intent. First timliness. As time progresses there is more chance for partisan politics to introduce fraud into the process. I make no bones about it. I don't believe the results for a second. Simple analysis would prove that. If you have a first count that is 55% BUSH and 45% GORE, then a recount might be different, but the percentage change should run about the same 55/45. In many counties it did not. On a third recount the change should be smaller and again reflect the original percentages. Again, they don't. This is evidence, in my opinion, that there are fraudulent acts going on. The longer this process takes the more chance there is for someone or many people to commit a fraudulent act. This could be knowingly doing so, or by mistake. Second, intent. The rules are not laid out as to how to properly count the ballots and the rules are appearing to change before our eyes. The intent of the voter should be measured the same in each county and the rules should be standardized PRIOR to the process of beginning such a manual recount. The rules should also be consistent over time, meaning applied the same way in 1996 as they are today. This has not been the case. The Sec of State erred in announcing on Tues that she would not count the manual recounts and would certify the election. She should have waited, certified the election and let Gore contest it. Now the Republicans have an uphill battle. Gore will win and Bush will have to contest. He likely won't for the good of the American people, but he should. This process is flawed, error prone and outright fraudulent. However, I cannot say the SC made an error based on the limited nature of the issues they addressed. Shit. -Scott PS - That being said, they did leave it open to the Sec of State in the end. "If any returns appear to be irregular or false and the Commission is unable to determine the true vote for a particular office, the Commission certifies that fact and does not include those returns in its canvass." Time for the Republicans to introduce the issue of voter fraud and miscounting to the Sec of State to rais the above issue. Then we see how partisan the Democrats will say the Sec of State really is.....He he....