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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (104810)	12/7/2000 7:53:09 PM
From: Frank Griffin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I honestly believe Bush would have conceded if he would have been down any number of votes after the second machine count.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (104810)	12/7/2000 7:55:08 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Florida can't change the law after the election, and the parties can't agree to disregard the law at all. The law isn't for their benefit. Finally, your third question is irrelevant. It's Gore's conduct that's occurred since then, repeatedly, that is abhorrant.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (104810)	12/7/2000 8:08:19 PM
From: BishopsChild	Respond to of 769667

and you would of course also asked for a recount if you where ahead.......?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (104810)	12/7/2000 8:19:02 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Respond to of 769667

A statewide recount could have been ordered only if both candidates agreed. Really? By what authority? Please be specific.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (104810)	12/7/2000 8:26:31 PM
From: oldbox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Nadine- You seem an honest person. Where in the election code of Florida that a recount is allowed after the 3 day period expires? Gore's offer to Bush was after this period. It is my understanding that once the request period is over, its over, unless some court orders one.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (104810)	12/7/2000 11:07:59 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Well, since I suspect it, I'll say it. Definitely maybe. Nadine, sure, Bush would have seen Chadded ballot hand-counting as his chance to get another chance. But because this amounts to a vote-recovery method where machines couldn't read voter "intent" where marks,dimples, etc. may appear on otherwise apparently un-voted ballots, I suspect he'd have quickly recognized that if he sought such counts in territory partisan to himself only, he would have been pilloried by the press, as has been the case perhaps, for Gore. Therefore, I believe he'd have attempted to get a full count in all counties where these "chads" come into play- something Gore has not sought by his actaul actions within the system(indeed, his lawyers continue to argue why we shouldn't have to count anything but Gore's chosen territory). I further suspect he'd have lost in court in his quest to get it done. The bottom line here, in my mind, is as Justice Parientte put it today. If we count these "undervotes" in a few counties leaning toward Gore, mustn't we count them in all counties where applicable? The answer is, OF COURSE! A few have told me Fla. law allows candidates to make requests for these counts, Bush didn't, that's fair and that's all. However, I'm quite confident that the Fla. Legislature never intended that candidates would seek counting advantages by appealing to the whims of County Canvassing Commissions. No state has ever intended that. No constitution ever intended that. We shouldn't want that. The Fla. law actually states that counties which choose to use these machines should be expected to accept the known error rates inherent in their use, save in the event of machine failure. This rule, whether by design or luck, serves to prevent a candidate from acquiring territorial counting advantages by simple request and claims of uncounted votes. But whatever the case, what I call County Grubbing, was never planned nor anticipated by the Legislature, you can bet...and it simply isn't cricket. I still am hearing Gore backers proclaim "there are 14,000 votes that have never been looked at by humans...this could change the result." But the fact is there are tens of thousands more chadded "undervotes" than just those 14,000. 14,000 is a seriously incomplete number. Counting only those, from Gore's best territory, tells us nothing. If you can see a reason why what I'm telling you here wouldn't become the lasting and putrid knowledge languishing in the American collective mind, should Gore win by counting only those ballots he's chosen, I'd like to hear it. I've been spouting this for nearly a month. Now, the plain truth of it is showing up in the words of several Fla. Supreme Court justices...Judge Sauls...Fla.'s Democratic Attorney General...CNN's Bernard Shaw...rabid Liberal Susan Estrich(constitutional law professor) as far back as two weeks ago(she said Gore could be in trouble with the public with time and reflection, if he were to win on just his counties)....reference in US Supreme Court cases to "two-tiered" counting systems(ruled against). I felt it predictable from near the start, even without much knowledge of the cases and opinions I've now learned of. What more can I say save, Freedom and fairness Works? Dan B