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 (105038)	12/8/2000 12:10:37 AM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I'm not falling for that one Dave. alan w

To: Dave Gore who wrote (105038)	12/8/2000 12:18:58 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Sorry, counselor, it is not your courtroom. I think that hand counts are inherently subject to conjecture and the danger of abuse, and therefore should not be used unless there is evidence of fraud or machine malfunction. Additionally, I do not think that evolving standards are the way to proceed on a hand count. Finally, I do not think that selective hand recounts, when there were close elections in several other states, suffice, but I also do not think that the need for such a process was sufficient to open up pandora's box. Thus, I would answer "yes", but not for the reason you gave. If it were merely failure to conform to a technicality, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. It depends on the gravity of the rule, in other words. But you are assuming that their error is obvious and easily rectifiable, and that is the part I dispute.

To: Dave Gore who wrote (105038)	12/8/2000 12:20:20 AM
From: sunshadow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Machine counts rule! That is my answer which in turn answers your question... Good night, David

To: Dave Gore who wrote (105038)	12/8/2000 12:25:16 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Dave, people all over the country have their ballots thrown out for all kinds of reasons. Including whether their chads were torn out fully or not. Let me ask you. Do you think it's fair that ALL those chads not torn completely out in the rest of Florida should be disenfranchised, and count less than the Democrat counties of Miami, Palm Beach, and other Gore places? Do you honestly NOT see how the statistics of the state could easily be changed if you ONLY count dimples, hanging, scratches, and pregnant chads in Gore only controlled counties? If Gore wanted to conduct manual recounts, he should have done it in a responsible way, where a standard was asked for across the state, and every county was recounted. He could have done this, he could have approached George W Bush, came to a consensus regarding chad standards and asked him to support a full manual recount on day one after the electronic recount. Instead, he threw out his swatt team of lawyers and tried to "clintonize" the process by selecting counties he knew would change the overal makeup of the Florida voters. Then he dispicably attacked the military overseas absentee voter, while waiting for chad court hearings to take place because he feared they would voter overwhelmingly for Bush. Which they did. If Gore had done what I recommended on day one of the recount dispute. He would be sitting on the moral high ground today, and the statewide manual process would be completed long ago. But you see Dave, Gore really didn't want that to happen. He knew the historical statistical processes rarely change when manual recounts take place across a 6 million voter population. One area's Gore votes, would have been offset by one area's Bush votes. That's why manual recounts rarely change the outcome of a statewide election. Gore wanted to steal the election Dave. He carefully chose a process which he knew would change the intended vote of Florida citizens. And he did it in counties he knew he had strongly partisan canvassing board members who would do whatever they could to find him more votes.