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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (121499)	12/8/2000 7:12:24 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria, re: "The justices realized that it is better to get the votes counted now, than after Bush takes office. That could have been a catastrophic." I hope that isn't the motivation. I hope that their decision was based on state and federal laws. John

To: Scumbria who wrote (121499)	12/9/2000 1:37:40 AM
From: exhon2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria: re >>The justices realized that it is better to get the votes counted now, than after Bush takes office. That could have been a catastrophic.<< You must ascribe to the theory that if that specious argument is repeated often enough the majority of the public will believe it. The votes were counted scumbria, two and sometimes three times. The votes you are referring to are the "undervotes", the ones that registered no selection for president even after passing through the machine twice. In the initial manual recounts highly partisan canvassing boards tried to divine the intent of the voters utilizing a range of standards that are laughable. I'm sure if I counted the votes before or after the election Bush would still win. Likewise, if you counted them I'm confident Gore would win in a landslide.