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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chomolungma who wrote (4570)	12/4/2000 12:48:45 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

Unfortunately for Bush, I think it may strengthen the Seminone County suit. If the ruling means that you go back to the Nov 7 rules with no flexibility, which isn't yet what it means but what the FSC may decide to make it mean, then the absentee ballot applications may have been in violation. But even if they were, the remedy isn't clear. Do you disenfranchise voters because they were unaware of a technical violatioin caused by another person with the authorization of the election officials? That's a pretty severe remedy. Or do you count the votes, ascertaining clear voter intent, but penalize the election officials and/or others for violations they may have committed if the court finds such violations? It will, I think, be hard for the FSC to reconcile a total rejection of all absentee ballots, since that would include some ballots that were given in response to complete and accurate applications. The interesting thing is that it would have been perfectly legal for the Republicans to have put the voter ID on the ballot applications before mailing them to the voters -- in fact, that's what the Dems did. So was it illegal to put the voter IDs on after they were returned? Interesting questions. But that suit is, IMO, the only one now that gives Gore any reasonable hope of winning in the courts.