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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zakrosian who wrote (139)	11/23/2000 12:15:26 PM
From: Bosco	Respond to of 644

<edited><ot>Hi Zak, thanks, you too. And thanks for the links. I thought I gave myself a day off from following too closely with the legal wranglings, so I may be not up to date with the latest and the greatest <not :)> But to answer your hypothetical situation. Yes, I think the court should reverse some of the rejected oversea ballots if they were invalidated by "hypertechnicality." Actually, I ve not shifted my position, as I ve suggested all along they should be counted if the only missing proof is a missing postmark, so long as they are timely. I don't know about signature and/or address situation. Should those be critical in establishing the validity of the voters [not voter's intent?] Of course, what I believe is meaningless :), but I do think the FL SC will uphold this since it seems to be consistent to its ruling as of Tue evening. I also think the Gore camp was wrong in filing suit against the Maimi-Dade county carnvassing board whenn the latter decided to bag the recount. I also think FL SC will hold that view. However, I fear the Gore camp did that as an hedge for further show down. Personally, I think the Gore camp should accept its fate comes Sun, unless there is unaccounted for development like the 4,700 ballot case etc. Personally, I think those 4,700 ballots reflect the "will of the voter," so it is in itself not good case for disqualifications. However, I do not object them as a tit-for-tac device if the Bush camp tries to challenge any reasonable inclusion of non machine readable ballots. By that I mean it is not unreasonable to accept a dangled chad at the Presidential choice if the ballot has shown consistent choice of party affiliation. It may benefit Gov Bush; it may benefit VP Gore; it may even benefit Mr Nader. But it is quite unreasonable to think the voters picked everyone else but left the most important candidate alone. My argument is based on my understanding of the ballot design, or the faultiness thereof. Since we cannot undo this election, I think the court will uphold any reasonable inclusion based on its prime directive, the "will of the voters" is paramount. At this point, I still think there is a greater chance for Gov Bush to move into the WH comes January. So maybe he has a chance to correct his posturing. I don't think attacking the FL SC or allow Sec Baker to incite the legislature is a good way to start the trip. I mean, Gov Jeb Bush re-election may very well to a proxy for further vindication of both sides. So, even if Gov Bush moves into the WH, this may not end by a long shot. <edited addendum> I think this differing opinion of the FL SC action can at least go back to the battle of Judge Bok's appointment. The irony is that the dems was successful in defeating Judge Bok's appointment, who, by most account, a gifted jurist, but only to get Judge Thomas! From this perspective, it really makes the Presidential race so much more important that each camp feels it needs to win at almost any cost, since the appointment of quite a # of SC judges are at stake here. best, Bosco