SI
SI
discoversearch

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: mst2000 who wrote (110561)12/11/2000 1:07:18 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
The only manual examination mandated is of a small percentage of precincts, to determine if there is a problem, and what its nature is. There is no mandate for a thorough hand recount. But if there is a hand recount, it is supposed to be of all ballots in the jurisdiction, not just undervotes. Since the recount had no mandated standard, it is subject to challenge in order to clarify what the phrase "intent of the voter" might mean, and there is no obligation to count dimpled chads. In any case, taking the count out of the hands of duly appointed officers, and setting a novel timetable, requires that the court show a sufficient cause for such a drastic remedy. Judge Sauls ruled, correctly, that such there was no reason to compel manual recounts. The Florida Supreme Court overruled, but is itself subject to scrutiny.

You are wrong about Texas law, as well, which requires the agreement of the parties to standards for the manual recount, and can nevertheless subject contested ballots to judicial review. Texas is much more stringent. I will not bother to answer much more, since the gist is in error......



To: mst2000 who wrote (110561)12/11/2000 1:19:40 PM
From: md1derful  Respond to of 769670
 
Jeez...mst..your note started out with much hope of some impartiality....a "double blinded" approach to the tough legal issues..but your democrat-oid disintegration into political pandering and spin left me greatly disappointed...drats....well, you would agree the law says the legislature is to direct the "rules" of the election, no??
doc



To: mst2000 who wrote (110561)12/11/2000 1:22:10 PM
From: HH  Respond to of 769670
 
In a declaration prior to the election, the supervisor
of elections declared that dimpled ballots would not be counted...... then after the election Al gore( that worthless piece of ....) sued the counties (over their
own predetermination not to manually count) to start a
manual recount and to count dimples. Al Gore came soooo
close to stealing this election but he has LOST. He
is a disgrace and the democratic party has been damaged.

HH


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News