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: TigerPaw who wrote (105477)	12/8/2000 12:05:27 PM
From: BishopsChild	Respond to of 769670

Message 14974056

To: TigerPaw who wrote (105477)	12/8/2000 12:18:55 PM
From: HH	Respond to of 769670

Tigerpaw, I think you are absolutely dead wrong. Hand recounting may be useful and potentially not objectionable if 1. there is enough time and 2. there is a pre-agreed standard on what should count as a vote. The problem in this situation is that the votes did not register as a vote because the punch was not conclusive. The ballot however was counted. HH

To: TigerPaw who wrote (105477)	12/8/2000 12:20:27 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769670

A hand recount may be initiated, among three options. It is generally used when there are allegations of fraud or machine error, as a last resort. It was under closer scrutiny in this instance, because it did not merely involve local races, but the choosing of a state wide slate of electors for the EC. The controversy was in the propriety of a hand recount, the cherry picking of counties, and the evolving standards. Subsequently, there were added issues like this: could Gore force a hand recount? Did the counties have time to finish them, assuming that they had the discretion to begin them? Did the Secretary of State have the discretion to confirm without amendment the results as submitted on the deadline? I genuinely believe that the hand recount should not be triggered without allegations of fraud or machine malfunction, voter error is insufficient. I also believe that if there were a hand recount anywhere, there should have been one in every state where the vote was close, not only throughout Florida. Finally, I do not think that dimpled chads should be counted, and that hanging chads should be counted only by narrow criteria mutually agreed upon by the parties, like that the rest of the card was voted consistently for a certain party. As to the added issues, even assuming county discretion in pursuing the hand recount, I do not think that Gore can force them to do it. I believe they did have time, and that the failure to meet the deadline was a failure of will on their part, not attributable to Republican measures. After all, Volusian did it. Had the bigger counties hired more people, and been on the ball, they could have done it. On the discretion of the Sec. of State, yes, I think she was within her discretion, as did the Democratic circuit judge, since the hand counts were not mandatory, and the counties had not made every effort to meet the deadline. I hope this is clear enough.......

To: TigerPaw who wrote (105477)	12/8/2000 12:51:15 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 769670

TigerPaw, Yes, Gore had the right to ask for a recount, but asking for a hand recount after the official recount put him at odds with the Florida law due to the time frame. They knew there was a strict time limit to be imposed when all the counts had to be completed regardless of method. Well, in spite of the help of the FSC that unlawfully extended the time, he still lost. Now, he is trying to get votes thrown out after lying regarding the counting of all the votes. Plus, he still wants the FSC to allow him to create votes for himself. He has no interest in fairness, but what do you expect from a habitual liar. Is there any wonder why many Democrats are switching parties?