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: alan w who wrote (107607)	12/9/2000 12:13:30 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769667

Worth repeating: In a close race,the attempt to discover "the will of the people" is chimerical, since the actual vote could have turned on any number of random factors: the weather, news projections, whether a union local made a "get out the vote" commitment, and the like. Thus, with a very narrow margin, the other major candidate may have won the next day. The "will of the people" is not worth pursuing at this point. However, the integrity of the process remains important: the sense that the election is handled efficiently, fairly, and with due decorum. Since the "will of the people" is not worth pursuing, the winner is the person who got the most votes under reasonable conditions of verification, by a reasonable deadline. Now, although it is futile to try to determine the will of the people, it makes sense to preserve the sanctity of the ballot. However, preserving the sanctity of the ballot means counting every vote if there is no material reason to reject it. This was upheld in the cases decided today by Judges Lewis and Clark. It does not mean speculating on voter intent because there is no clear preference shown by the means provided at the polling place. That does not preserve the sanctity of the ballot, but constitutes tampering, substituting the conjecture of the poll worker for the ballot itself. Again, the circuit court judge, Sauls, comprehended this, and ruled correctly, only to be overturned by a clearly partisan state supreme court. Thus, the winner of the Florida vote, and hence the presidential race, was and will remain George Bush. It may be that he will "lose", but we will know that he won by the rules, and it will have repercussions.......

To: alan w who wrote (107607)	12/9/2000 12:16:59 PM
From: ecommerceman	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Uh, Alan, the verdict isn't in yet, is it? Gore would have conceded had the FL SC ruled against him yesterday, but they didn't. But, since Dubya is such a paragon of fairness, what do ya think the chances are that HE'LL concede if the manual recount of all of FL counties (both REPUBLICAN and Democratic) goes against him??? Just a wild, crazy guess, but I just betcha that no concession will be forthcoming--whaddaya think??? _______________ Gore lost the first 3 counts of the vote and he didn't concede.