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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (122171)	12/11/2000 7:47:19 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

John, We won't need to have elections in the future. We can just award the presidency to the majority party on the USSC. Scumbria

To: Road Walker who wrote (122171)	12/11/2000 10:40:01 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

RE:"The only legislative Florida standard that I know of is either the "intent of the voter" or the "clear intent of the voter". All the rest I think is county stuff, made up after the fact. I really think it's up to the locals to decide, per the legislative scheme" I think the USSC freaked out when they herd that. If they realize that because of various voting methods were used and no real standard can be applied across the state...they may well say an accurate hand count cannot happen statewide and say..the Nov 7 result stands....fix it next time. OTOH, the 1990 standard on chads on PBC was two corners, OK. Less than that or dimples don't count. Broward had a standard but changed it three times during the hand recount. The USSC won't take kindly to that evidence either under equal protection. I believe they finally accepted dimples. Jim

To: Road Walker who wrote (122171)	12/11/2000 11:16:32 PM
From: deibutfeif	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

John, re:...It will have a chilling effect on all future elections... I think it very far-fetched that people's decisions to vote or not will be influenced in the future by fear that the Supreme Court might get involved. This situation is 1-in-a-million (well, I'm sure someone will argue that). Just happens that we get 50-50 split on the electoral vote. Just happens that the swing state is exactly 50-50. I guess I'm just not worried about a repetition, especially since I bet a lot of things will be cleaned up before 2004. ~dbf

To: Road Walker who wrote (122171)	12/11/2000 11:33:48 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

John, The only legislative Florida standard that I know of is either the "intent of the voter" or the "clear intent of the voter". Palm Beach county had a rule for the county that said no dimples. I believe only chads with 2 corners detached could be counted. BTW, I think the primary legacy of this election will be that the US Supreme's got involved. It should NEVER have happened. It will have a chilling effect on all future elections. It wouldn't have happened if you, the local folks, didn't have out of control state supreme court. BTW, you didn't answer my previous question: Is it fair for Gore to cherry pick 4 Democratic counties with 4 Democratic canvassing boards, making up rules about dimples as they went, to decide the close elections? Please, answer this question. Joe