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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (40160)	11/30/2000 7:49:49 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

OT RE: "...there was no fraud and a fair count under existing rules." I don't believe there was a "fair count." The first count gave Bush a 1784 vote lead and the second a 327 vote lead. The difference between counts was 4.5 times the difference between candidates. I would not stop counting until the difference between counts is LESS than the difference between candidates. If a machine count fails to register a vote twice, the ballot has not been counted. A hand count is obviously required when the difference between candidates is less than 1000 and 26000 ballots have no vote for president. Some people don't like the appelation, ARCH BITCH of FLORIDA. I have never seen nor previously ever contemplated such a shameless, partisan abuse of office.