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: Bosco who wrote (187)	11/27/2000 4:12:44 PM
From: Logain Ablar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 644

Bosco: I don't know if its wrong or right. I just know that the attorney in IL, contacted by the Democratic legal team, reversed himself after he had a chance to go back through the records. Or at least this is what was shown on CNN. I assume this is the case and I assume there is more too it than your quote. I didn't know Baker picked up on it. We'll find out Friday whether FL SC exceed its authority. I agree with these two points 1) To invalidate a ballot which clearly reflects the voter's intent, simply because a machine cannot read it, would subordinate substance to form and promote the means at the expense of the end. Florida law allowed the manual recount but they put a time limit on it which the FL SC extended. 2) Whatever the reason, where the intention of the voter can be fairly and satisfactorily ascertained, that intention should be given effect. How can one determine intention is the major issue. Its my understanding there were guidelines set b/4 the election for PB County but not sure about others. I can guess the Gore team feels every vote for Gore and the Bush team will feel the did not intend to vote for Gore. We live in an imperfect world. Tim

To: Bosco who wrote (187)	11/28/2000 12:20:21 AM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

Bosco, here is the point. The Illinois case you cited says simply because the chad they punched did not completely dislodge from the ballot. Obviously the Illinois case permitted the counting of votes that were not machine readable. But an important question is, did this refer to swinging door chads? Pregnant chads? Or dimpled chads? The Democrats submitted an affidavit to the Florida Supreme Court stating that the Illinois case permitted the counting of dimpled chads. The person who signed that affidavit now says that Illinois does not permit the counting of dimpled chads, and that the cited case only supports counting partially detached chads. Illinois law does not govern Florida law, and Florida is perfectly able to set up its own rules that are completely different. Sometimes states look to decisions from other jurisdictions for guidance, though. Carl