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: HighTech who wrote (95282)	11/30/2000 9:11:50 AM
From: The Street	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Agree-- the question would be when the Counties certified their results-- NOT THE STATE. That is what the porblem was with aLgORE's offer-- many counties had already certified. Also, this is language talking about the PROTEST period-- i.e. before Sec Of State Certifies. Also, note is does NOT say that the counties HAVE to manually recount. Just says it is an option. In (Miami) Dade they did the 3 precincts just as the law said. They were in the MOST Democratic precincts. Contrary to what the media says, Dade is about 50/50 split. We are now in the CONTEST period. As an interesting side note: Those statutes disappeared and then reappeared about a week ago...

To: HighTech who wrote (95282)	11/30/2000 9:48:19 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

The mandated manual recount is merely a sampling for purposes of determining whether there is a problem sufficient to warrant further action, and can be accomplished in the given time, certainly considering the actual filing. After that, there are three options: automated recount, verification of software by the Secretary of State, or full manual recount. The full manual recount is not mandated, and there must be sufficient cause to choose it over the other options. Since there was no positive allegation of machine problems, but,instead, allegations of voter error, there was insufficient cause to move to option 5(c), especially in the light of the automated recount that had already transpired, and therefore, if the counties chose to take on the burden of a manual recount, there was no reason to afford them an extension to complete it, as it was superfluous......

To: HighTech who wrote (95282)	11/30/2000 11:21:00 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Judicial activism is only half the problem. Over the course of the past 250 years, we have accumulated such a vast collection of, for the most part, badly written laws, that lawyers and courts have free reign to do anything they want. Pick any position, ANY CONCEIVABLE POSITION, and with sufficient research, a good lawyer can come up with laws and precedents to support it. Presented with two equally supported cases, a judge can flip a coin or follow his prejudices and pick a side. The Law profession is aware of this problem but likes it since it gives them a powers over their fellows not unlike the priests and shaman of earlier societies. The general population is oblivious and just thinks this is the way of the world.

To: HighTech who wrote (95282)	11/30/2000 1:51:57 PM
From: HighTech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Question To All: The important issue in front of the US Supreme Court is whether the FLA Supreme Ct. over-reached its authority in changing the deadline date. Dems say they were just interpreting the law and resolving a conflicting statute, which is what courts do all the time. Repubs claim that they had no right to change the deadline and the rules after the game. I have, up till today, agreed with the repub side, and obviously so does the Bush legal team. I came across a section of the Florida Law dealing with this issue and show it below. Now I know there is probably a greater context that may or may not impinge on the language of the statute shown but it seems to me, and I want to take off my partisan armour for this purpose, that there is a conflicting statute. What I am interested in is this: Anyone please care to present how this very apparent conflict is not a conflict and if not, on what basis. Here is the statute: Title IX ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS Chapter 102 Conducting Elections And Ascertaining The Results View Entire Chapter 102.166 Protest of election returns; procedure.-- . . (4)(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot,or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested. (b) Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or(Emphasis mine) within 72 hours after midnight of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later.(Emphasis mine) (c) The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. If a manual recount is authorized, the county canvassing board shall make a reasonable effort to notify each candidate whose race is being recounted of the time and place of such recount. (d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts. (5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall: (a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system; (b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or (c) Manually recount all ballots. In item 4(b) above, where I have bolded the text, it seems apparent that the request for manual recounts are allowed just prior to the certification, not necessarily 72-hours after the election. If so, isn't it unreasonable to allow someone to make such a request just before certification and then not allow sufficient time to complete it, assuming the request was made the day of the certification? I would appreciate input, especially from attorneys. HiTech