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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (8591)	12/8/2000 8:53:47 PM
From: Frank Griffin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

First, I question whether there can be a fair and honest "recount" when you start trying to decide, even though the chad is still intact and/or someone voted for two candidates for the same office, who the unknown voter really wanted to vote for. If you only count votes where the chad is dislodged I would have no problem. However, the machine has already made an accurate count of those. We are talking about "divining" what someone intended to do even though the evidence is nearly non existent. Your fingernail can create a vote the way they want to do it. We must resist that because it is nothing but a "third world" attempt to steal an election. Gore now reminds me of the guy Milosovich who everyone hated because he wouldn't concede nor go away. The people had to finally rise up to get him out.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (8591)	12/9/2000 3:28:56 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

Richard, let me put it to you this way. Florida's provisions for manual recounts never contemplated countings would take place only in places chosen for partisan reasons. The fact that both candidates had the chance to pick territory was not something that was put in place so that candidates could offset each others potentially gained territorial counting advantages- this would be preposterous. Our Supreme Court has held in the past that similar geographic counting advantages are unconstitutional, and certainly the notion that candidates would be allowed to seek and gain them at the whims of local canvassing boards was never intended either. Gore's attempt to gain such advantages are indeed reprehensible and against the model of American fair play. That Bush fought and refused to partake of such a silly and legislatively unintended game, puts him squarely on the moral high road. I believe this scenario, though perhaps loosely understood, explains why some 25% of Gore voters believe he should concede, while virtually all of Bush voters stick with Bush. Dan B