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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MasonS who wrote (5467)	12/12/2000 1:05:28 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

Why is it so difficult for the Democrats to understand that selective counting no matter who requests it is basically unfair. The Florida law provides for it. There were no standards set in place before the election that would ever make it fair and meaningful. Which is the way the Florida legislature made it. Florida like most states decentralizes the election system allowing for individual districts to make their own decisions. I have a similar conundrum. After all this, why do people still hold on to the illusion that there ever were standards that were consistent and fair. It was a plausible illusion when we were at a distance and ignorant of what was really going on. But the ballots are different and of different types, the machines are different; absentee ballots are handled differently than normal ballots; some district polling places stay open later than others; other states have counted dimples; some have not. Nor can I understand why people have so much difficulty with "intent". Intent, vaugely defined is inherent in many legal processes. For example, there is no list of criteria [or detailed standards] within a state to establish "intent to murder"; each jury uses their judgement to arrive [or divine, if you prefer] at a decision. While I would say that standards were lacking preventing the selective counting to be consistent...I don't see the argument for preventing fairness or being meaningfull. It seems far easier to argue that while it may not be consistent, it approaches fairness to manually review the ballots than it does to toss them all out. It has not been fixed...it is a mess. Agreed. I saw that Maryland is going to have a review of the Federal election criteria/laws/system. Perhaps the first state to attempt to fix the system. Reason to be hopefull. jttmab