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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (22072)	12/9/2000 4:49:36 PM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Scumbria: "The only reason to stop the recounts is to keep the truth from being known." Maybe, maybe not...Three major obstacles from my perspective in putting too much stock in any recount...1)No guarantee that ballots haven't been doctored since the election(i.e. exceedingly high stakes and consequently nothing would surprise me)...2)No single standard can guarantee consistent interpretation... 3)No way to reconcile unequivocally that "interpreted" result is consistent with the originating voter's intention... The game was played and the results were posted on Nov. 7, 2000...To me it seems like the overtime rules are not at all consistent with those in place during the game...sorta like having the football players in a close match determine the outcome not on the football field but in the pub after the game has been played...As no predetermined mutually acceptable rule set was in place to cover off Overtime play, a strong case can be made for abiding by the Nov. 7, 2000 results...Not the greatest decision point, but possibly better than the one that is currently evolving which seems may be polarizing the nation as it runs its course...no matter to me who is president, I'm just uncomfortable with my perception of a "shifting" rule set that seems to be evolving since Nov. 7...I still maintain that the preferred path (i.e. the best for the most, in the absence of a mutually agrred upon predetermined rule set was for Mr. Gore to concede on Nov. 7, 2000 not for any other reason than that it was fairly obvious at that time, as you pointed out, that the other pathway would ultimately end in the USSC...

To: Scumbria who wrote (22072)	12/11/2000 7:02:18 AM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Scumbria: They will go to court on Monday and argue over the probability that recounts will change the election, instead of having the real data. I think the sad fact is that it is just not possible to determine the result of an election with the current system in Florida to within a couple of percentage points. Someone needs to admit "We're just not able to determine the results accurately enough to guarantee that the right winner will be found in an election this close. Sorry guys, but Bush won the coin toss." EDIT: If you want to increase the accuracy in the future, you need to introduce a much simpler ballot that is consistent (at least) across the whole state. -fyo