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: Dave Gore who wrote (104951)	12/7/2000 10:59:04 PM
From: Qone0	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Dave, This election was so close that counting the ballots after the election will not decide a winner. You have no standard on which to count them. The election instuctions said to make SURE all chads were removed or your vote would not count. How are you going to count them? Dimpled? scratched? Swinging door? Or the rule at the start of the election? The founding fathers of this country forsaw this event and THEY placed the power to decide the election with the state legislature. Not the courts. That`s WHY there are dead lines that can never be meet through a court action. The state legislature has the RIGHT and the POWER to pick the electors. These people have been ELECTED by the people of Florida already.

To: Dave Gore who wrote (104951)	12/7/2000 11:07:33 PM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

If Bush had agreed to as statewide recount in the first place, we would have been done 2 weeks ago! You started off well, but then the above Gorespeak came out. How many times do you have to be told that Gore's fake offer was not his to make!!! Statewide recounts would be a matter for Florida, not Gore! Or Bush!

To: Dave Gore who wrote (104951)	12/7/2000 11:19:38 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Dave, one of the main reasons machine are used in elections is because they are more accurate than manual counts. Not less. They are also an objective, unbiased measurement, where standards are in place to ensure uniformity. If the machines fail, then certainly manual recounts could be more accurate. However, such has not been shown to be true in Florida. No one is asserting the machines were in error. Machines simply don't count votes which don't meet the criteria set forth in the rules governing their use. (e.g. remove all chad materials.) When you have canvassing boards completely controlled by one party, (Democrats) and the canvassing boards have changed the standards at least three times during the count. Subjectivity and fraud can easily run rampant. We've had reports of ballots being dropped, chads popping out, chads taped over, chads eatin, and on and on. There is no way a process this tampered with can be more accurate than machines, which were tested less than a year earlier and found to have zero defects when voting standards were met. In Palm Beach County three Democrats were totally in charge of the process. Which by the way, is against local statutes. Palm Beach Democrats enforced the voter rules for a decade, they didn't manually recount one election in which an African American Republican lost by 11 votes, because they said it wasn't necessary or needed. Now, for their hero Al Gore, not only did they want to recount and recount, they wanted to manufacture votes and try and determine "the intent of the voter", where no objective analysis is possible. It was only during this election, when Al Gore was affected that they changed the standards to assist him and started counting dimples, one corner, pregnant and other type of ballots. Why?? The answer is obvious, in order to help Al win. In Miami-Dade county, Gore is saying "votes weren't counted". That is simply NOT true. As a matter of fact, it's a bold faced lie. Ballots were counted, twice. Some people simply didn't vote for President. That may shock and suprise Gore supporters, but it actually happens. People sometimes don't vote for either candidate. But instead of accepting that premise, Gore wants another ALL Democratically controlled canvassing board to look at the ballots by hand and manufacture more votes for Gore. This is not reasonable, objective, or fair minded. And anyone such as yourself who asserts otherwise and claims independence from either candidate, I believe, is either misinformed, or kidding themselves. Gore lost, he lost twice in the only objective measurement system possible under these circumstances. Do you think machines only favor Bush or something? Do you think (as the Gore team apparently does) that chad material ONLY clogged the poor Al Gore vote hole or something? It's preposterous, and flies in the face of objective reasoning. Gore lost, and what Texas law says or doesn't say is irrelevant. Even though it doesn't say manual recounts are preferred over electronic ones. Michael

To: Dave Gore who wrote (104951)	12/8/2000 12:29:13 AM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

When I think of hand recounts, I think of this. Remember Gunzburger. Message 14888086 Bush as the winner of the 1st and 2nd count would not logically want another count, hand count or otherwise. Your candidate made the fatal mistake of requesting re-counts in "cherry-picked" counties to "mine" some hand-counted votes. (see above). He's having trouble getting it and YOU claim it is Bush's fault because he would not agree to a statewide hand re-count. This is the way I see it. Gore was disingenuous at first and then tried to be magnanimous to hide this. Too bad. It is a loser's actions. Would you set down and play cards with this guy? Would you even play tennis or golf.? Gore really believes in "no controlling legal authority" You're right that he's trying to win. He's getting his day in court, many times over. I believe in the Republic so I could care less if he wins the popular vote. You will never prove he won Florida now, except maybe to yourself. Re-counting the 3 counties will create a two-tier voting system and the Supreme Court will frown on this. It is too late for Gore. It might be worth noting that there were 73,000 undervotes in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward. There were more than that in the rest of the state, 87,000. Guess Gore just overlooked them. Too bad he took the loser attitude in the beginning. I'm blaming him.

To: Dave Gore who wrote (104951)	12/8/2000 8:30:03 AM
From: mph	Respond to of 769667

<<That is why our forefathers put in the 2 month delay between the election and inauguration.>> The delay was not put in for contests. It was put in due to the rigors of travel and how long it would take people to get to the capitol. I made no "false" statements in my post. Based on your comments, you did not even understand what I was saying. My point is that there is no useful purpose to be served by all these news organizations, etc. purporting to do their own recounts by gaining access to the ballots under the FOIA. There are only two possible reasons for doing this, as I described. Now that you mention it, I think the end game of the contest/protest changed about a week or so ago as well. I suspect the Democratic party is going along with Gore because it aids their ability to de-legitimize Bush over the next four years, assuming he is seated in January. I've no doubt Gore would do anything to win, as you indicate. His party has a bigger agenda, though. As for the points you made concerning the popular vote, the fact is that Gore and Bush were in a dead heat. While a few votes one way or the other will likely decide who wins, the reality is that the nation was almost evenly divided. As such, a reference to Gore winning the "popular vote" doesn't much impress me. Bush got more votes than Clinton, who, btw, never got more than 50%. and please don't call me man<g> M