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: Raymond Duray who wrote (5177)	12/8/2000 6:21:05 AM
From: James E Lynch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

"Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election." The medium of choice in those counties is a tabulating machine. If a ballot is rejected then it is not a valid ballot. End of story. In this case though it is not rejected ballots that we are speaking of, it's under votes. That's a different animal. On those ballots all votes were counted except for president.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (5177)	12/8/2000 9:45:15 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

JoeBob, we aren't playing brass knuckle politics on this thread. We are, I believe, playing at being armchair politicians, armchair lawyers, armchair historians. This is the place for genuine, thoughtful analysis like we are never going to see anywhere else but places like this and maybe graduate seminars. If Judge Sauls were operating in a vacuum, and the only thing he had to look at was the section of the statute that you bolded, then the fact that there might be doubt about the election would be enough for him to manually recount all the ballots, just to make sure. I will grant you that. But what you are ignoring is that he wasn't operating in a vacuum, he was operating within a statutory framework. So he had to look at that section of the code within the context of the entire statutory framework. And what he concluded was that the entire statutory framework gives the duty of counting ballots to the County Canvassing Boards, and it's not up to the judge to go back and redo what the County Canvassing Board did without a good reason. And he said that Gore didn't present sufficient evidence to give him a good reason. Sauls told Boies DAYS before the hearing that he didn't think it was a question of law, it was a question of fact. Sauls told Boies that he wasn't going to recount the ballots unless Boies presented evidence that gave him a good enough reason. Yes, there are probably dimpled chads in the 10,000 or so "undervotes." But it's not the law in Florida that you count only the "undervotes." If you are going to manually recount the county you have to manually recount the entire county, like Palm Beach and Broward did. So there had to be competent evidence that after the entire county was manually recounted the result would be sufficient to put the election in doubt. No such evidence was presented. I said after watching Gore's witnesses that Gore didn't meet his burden of proof. And Judge Sauls said that.