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: Dave Gore who wrote (5727)	12/11/2000 10:09:12 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 6710

I think your proposed solution is very intelligent and reasonable. But no one will do it, each is going to go for all the marbles.

To: Dave Gore who wrote (5727)	12/11/2000 10:29:06 AM
From: chomolungma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

Your idea of categories would be fine if it included all votes cast - not just undervotes. There needs to be equal scrutinization of the overvotes too. We need to categorize these based on voter intent as well. It would be revealing to know what was on the rest of these ballots where two presidential votes were cast. This should be compared to other races to see whether there was vote fraud and double punching involved. There also needs to be a review of the registered voters to see if there was voting by illegals such as non-citizens and felons. It would only be fair. Once you begin to question the count, the areas you question will discriminate against one candidate. As a quick example, what if Bush had lost by 2,000 votes and demanded that all felon's votes be removed. Suppose he found a friendly judge to back him up and they took away 4,000 Gore votes. Would that have been fair? I think you'll find that there is no way to make this election perfect, especially given the narrowness of the count. It may seem fair to recount undervotes, but really this is just as unfair as using the original count.

To: Dave Gore who wrote (5727)	12/11/2000 10:42:23 AM
From: Valley Girl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

I'll echo CB, I think this proposal is very reasonable. It's too bad the FL SC didn't do this. My reading of the FL SC's decision was that they were trying to find a "fair" way out of this, hence the stretch to count all the undervotes, not just the ones that the Dems had placed on the table at trial. (Legality of both ideas open to question.) I think they might have gone the last step and set standards as you've suggested, but were afraid that if they did, it would be struck down by the US SC as legislating from the bench. The courts are caught between a rock and a hard place; whoever wrote that vague "voter intent" statute had better have his/her bags packed for Cuba! P.S. Reps are saying no previous election in Florida has counted dimples. If this is true, and there is previous case law, this would provide the courts a way out.