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: Lane3 who wrote (7156)	11/22/2000 1:50:46 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10042

karen, Re: "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." No "mays" about it, this was not intended. It should not have been anticipated, because the law specifically sets the conditions for when a hand-count can happen, and statewide closeness is not a reason offered for it in law. Instead, counties are expected to live with the error rates they get, unless the machine won't count. The law, in effect, warns the counties of this when they decide to employ these machines. Just as all precincts must be hand-counted within a countywide race where only one precinct has a problem, so it would be for ALL counties, had it been considered on a statewide basis from the start- and I submit that this ought be so, merely by following the fundamental principles of fairness that all Americans have come to expect from the voting process. This is not a byproduct of "decentralization--diverse approaches." This is an election process which should honor time honored principles of fairness. This is not a matter of power being redistributed suddenly by legislation- this is to be a fair vote. It is not a Private industry being de-regulated- it is to be a fair vote. Re: "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...." This has nothing to do with the setting of rules for a fair vote karen, and I submit that "creativity" has no place in the counting of votes. The skewing of statewide results that is recognized by 94% of Americans, is exactly that- creativity. Re: ". Don't you think it's ironic that the Reps are finding unfairness in local control?" No. "Local control" should not extend beyond local borders. 94% of Americans recognize hand-counting only these counties would skew the statewide results in favor of areas selected by partisans. A fair election process was not intended to allow this sort of BEYOND-local control by counties, and it ought not be allowed to stand. Re: "Now this is another matter entirely from county shopping" Well, as I said, it(limits on hand-counting machine votes) served to prevent "county shopping." It also served to prevent this situation from being anticipated. Re: "Your arguments are, indeed, reasoned. I only meant to convey that there are a couple of objective standards for fairness, not just one." It is objectively unfair to allow these vote recovery methods to be employed serving partisan countywide interests alone, instead of the interests of the voters of the whole state and the nation. Freedom works, Dan B