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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lml who wrote (3166)	12/1/2000 12:11:29 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3887

What do you think about the latest Bush wrinkle? He filed a response claiming that Gore couldn't contest the election because he wasn't a candidate for election. Only the electors were being elected, so only they could contest the election. Interesting twist, eh? I suppose Gore would have to respond that his name was on the ballot, but if the statute says the person running for office and not the person whose name is on the ballot, that would be, at least technically, a losing argument. Then Gore could claim he was acting as agent for the electors. But what's the relationship here? I would say if there were an agency relationship, they would be agents for Gore, not vice versa. And can a principal bring an action on behalf of an agent? I don't know of any precedent for that! Of course Gore will argue that this is a hypertechnical reading of the law. But that's what lawyers are supposed to do. That's why laws are supposed to be carefully written! The actual statutes in question read: 102.166 Protest of election returns; procedure.-- (1) Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest. Well, Gore wasn't a candidate for election this time; he's not a candidate for election until Dec 18th. Then there's also the contest provision: 102.168 Contest of election.-- (1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively. This is even more clear. There was no certification of election of Al Gore, because he wasn't elected. He was not a candidate for any office for which an election was held. Cute, huh? I think the Dem judges in Florida will find some way around this, but it will take a few days, and every day is critical now!