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: Dan B. who wrote (87810)	11/26/2000 3:38:33 AM
From: Scrapps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You have a good thought there, one I've not considered in the way you've presented it. It was a question in my mind of how a candidate is allowed to pick areas to be recounted within a state without the recall being automatic for all areas in the state. As we know county lines don't really represent demographics as claimed, there exist some bleed over into adjoining counties no doubt. To cut to the short of it. I see where voters who've not had their ballots recounted could claim they were in fact disenfranchise by the process. To be fair and to maintain an accurate vote count...all votes within a state should be recounted to assure us nothing in the process deprived anyone of their rights of a citizen. This would assure us all votes for those candidates being in question of winning are counted. But, also when one candidate calls for a recount he does so for all candidates in question while all voters votes remain as part of the process. Not just those where people failed to check if the ballots were punched correctly or that the chad was removed. The Federal laws and the Constitution only speak of the states...not of any entity below that if I'm not mistaken. Thus a recount for president would require a full state recount. Thanx for sharing your thought on thread. Regards, Scrapps

To: Dan B. who wrote (87810)	11/26/2000 9:45:13 AM
From: Mr. Whist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "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." Don't be so sure. What if the United States Supreme Court unanimously says: "Whatever the Florida Supreme Court says ... goes. This is a matter for Florida to decide, not the federal government" Then where does the Bush camp go from here? It is nonsense to think that the purview of the Florida Supreme Court did NOT include the right to mediate two conflicting laws, which is what it did here in setting a new deadline. Courts do this all the time, and this is hardly "legislating from the bench."