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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (680)	12/8/2000 9:46:52 PM
From: mph	Respond to of 14610

OMD: I am frankly shocked by the opinion. The dissents did exactly as I projected. Since they agreed with me, I obviously think they are right. :-) Here is what the FSC did: 1. Held up the opinion until the market closed so that the public's reaction would not be so obvious. They also did this so that there would be a time delay in starting a statewide recount of undervotes. They only ordered an immediate recount of the selected undervotes Gore et. al targeted. 2. While giving lip service to the notion that all undervotes must be counted on a statewide basis, they failed to articulate proper standards, and did so anticipating that all the recounts could not be accomplished in a timely fashion. Based on their direction to include 300 some odd votes in Gore's favor, this suggests to me that they will expect to add to the count only as many of the newly "discovered" votes as could be found in time. So, in effect, they may be giving Gore the limited recount he wanted, while at the same time, causing a violation of law because not all of the recounts will have been accomplished. Remember, they expressly stated that all undervotes on a statewide basis must be counted. 4. They have paved the way for the President and Vice President to be selected by Congress, with Gore himself participating in the vote. These are just a few thoughts based on my initial read. What do I think will happen? The USSC and/or 11th Circuit are likely to get involved substantively. The FLA legislature is going to press forward. The stock market is going to tank. But, hey, at least the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. THAT is a promise. M

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (680)	12/8/2000 10:40:35 PM
From: PuddleGlum	Respond to of 14610

A recount is nothing more than a contest between Republican and Democrat "observers", each trying to do whatever it takes to make their candidate come out on top. That is NOT what I consider a "fair" event. It gives the nastiest and sleaziest individuals an opportunity to make a difference. So, I don't think it was right or smart to order a recount, regardless of the presence or absence of a standard.

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (680)	12/9/2000 9:22:43 AM
From: jcky	Respond to of 14610

MadDog, I have no problems with the Florida Supreme Court's decision to recount all undervotes. It was a fair decision, in my humble opinion. But the Florida justices did not address all the pertinent issues and specifically avoided the most difficult question of "what is a legal vote?" My dad use to tell me, "Don't ever start a half-ass project or job. It reflects poorly on you." Well, I'm not very impressed with the Florida justices' failure to articulate a standard for ballot counting. So which system provides more finality and an accurate result? An impartial machine count which is prone to undercounts or a manual count with no standard of conduct? This all seems pretty arbitrary to me (or is it political?). Maybe I'm getting a little more cynical every day but how has the court of law really resolved anything in this case? So has truth or justice been served? Regards,