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: ecommerceman who wrote (109878)	12/10/2000 9:31:38 PM
From: sunshadow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"This country is going to feel the reverberations of this ugly incident for a long, long time. " Only because the Democrats will make sure of it.

To: ecommerceman who wrote (109878)	12/10/2000 11:32:19 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

On the question of military ballots, yes. For one reason. As I understand it from my friends who were in the military and my father, military mail often doesnt HAVE a postmark. Same with overseas embassadorial mail which is shipped in diplomatic pouches. Quite simply, this mail would not have postmark. This is an issue of equal protection, not statutory compliance. There is a difference between exclusion of absentee ballots because of a US military convention concerning overseas active duty personnels' mail, and recounts not getting done in time for a deadline. For the deadlines, the rules are set and known by all, and apply equally and uniformly to everyone. If the ballots arent in, they arent counted. But in the case of absentee ballots without postmark, there is a case of the ballots being rejected due to a pre-existing condition that applies to an entire class of ballots - military and diplomatic, that makes any statute that rejects them descriminatory and exclusionary - ie against the law. That is my understanding of it, at least. Derek