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: Mr. Whist who wrote (87793)	11/26/2000 2:16:44 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

What I'm driving at is that we can't employ a vote counting system that allows one candidate to gain an unfair advantage. Gore simply can't point to a vote total that includes hand-counts from only his counties, and call it fair, if he has a brain in his head and he understands the intelligence of the American people, IMO. The Supreme Court is unlikely to let any of us walk away believing such a skewed count is fair, no matter how it comes about. I have no problem with hand-counting all applicable chadded counties; what Bush thinks regarding hand-counting and subjectivity is a mere aside as regards my point. He may be right or wrong and it wouldn't change the fact that ya just can't do it in only partisan counties and call it fair. You may be sure Gore would win if all counties were counted, and you may even feel this is your ace argument, but my argument here isn't concerned with which guy wins, just what's fair. So, my advice is just don't bet the Supreme Court will call this skewed total count Gore's requests have created fair. A system that would allow a plainly skewed result at the behest of one candidate(Al Gore) cannot be constitutional. Re: "I think the answer to your question as to why Gore did not request all applicable counties be counted "equitably" is that each county's election commission calls the shots, not the Bush campaign nor the Gore campaign." That doesn't explain at all. Either candidate could have asked the county election commissions. Bush asked none, Gore asked only his own...either could have asked for all Chadded counties to count. Neither did, and that includes Gore, you see? So again, if he really recognizes counting all counties is fair, why didn't he ask them all directly himself? Let some commissions turn him down if that's to be the case, so what? The only thing to realize here is that the system in Fla. apparently(if you believe a partisan, Gore) allows someone to gain a counting advantage, when that is clearly an unconstitutional concept from the get go. Gore had another chance with the Supreme Court of Fla., and again, he continued to seek vote-recovery from only his territory, which would skew the results of the state popular vote in an unconstitutional fashion. Sorry to ramble, but since you were having trouble seeing my point, which I suspect is very foreign to your partisan thoughts to date, I figure a little repetition might help it sink in. Dan B

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (87793)	11/26/2000 2:24:04 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

flapjack I can go along with 1 and not 2 or 3 as they are clear violations of the law. This I can live with. ToM Watson tosiwmee

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (87793)	11/26/2000 7:54:08 AM
From: Don Pueblo	Respond to of 769670

Do you drive a car? When you drive, do you stop at intersections? Why? The law? Do you stop at stop signs in the middle of the night with no other cars around? Why? If you follow that law, I fail to fully understand how you propose to rewrite Florida law. For that matter, I fail to understand how Boise and Gore propose to rewrite Florida law exactly. I see that Gore wants to rewrite Florida law, recount the entire state after the legal time limit for allowing same has expired - and then offer his new bypass-the-law legislation to Bush in a humble gesture of harmony, and I see Gore explaining on TV how we need to get along just before a mutation from New Jersey says he sees a hint of fascism down there in Florida, and I see that I'm a simpleton for not assuming that a Republican threw a brick through a window when you are a thousand miles away, and a bunch of AFL-CIO boys are standing guard over the window, and I see you want to count some chads and not count dimples in the Florida election, but here's what I'm missing: I was under the silly impression that to rewrite Florida law you had to not only be in Florida, but actually be a member of the Florida State Legislature. And I was under the bizarre understanding that federal law stipulates that a presidential election is illegal if the rules that determine the winner are altered and applied after the election occurred. I was under the psychotic impression that three people in Broward County were supposed to actually physically look at a ballot on the recount and determine after they had actually physically observed it, who, if anyone, the voter voted for, rather than ask the person sitting next to them what the intention of that voter was and then adjudicate the voter's intention by proxy. Please explain to me in simple English how you, a private citizen of some other state, propose to rewrite federal and state law after the fact, and then determine a Florida "vote" based on a proxy who fails to observe that the ballot contains some possible suggestion of some subjective intention by the voter in question. Thanks in advance.