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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (46390)	12/11/2000 9:23:05 PM
From: Just_Observing	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

machines were counting ALL the votes. if these machines for some reason are prone to error, error should be distributed evenly among the candidates All machines are not created equal. *Florida's differing vote-counting machines resulted in more GOP votes* By SEAN HOLTON and JEFF KURTH, Sun-Sentinel Web-posted: 11:33 p.m. Nov. 18, 2000 “Machines are neither Republican nor Democratic. But on Election Day in Florida, the best vote-counting machines may have turned out to be a secret weapon for Republicans. And those machines could make the crucial difference that puts George W. Bush in the White House.” “>Pen-marked, precinct tabulated ballots: Producing by far the most complete results, this vote-counting system recorded votes for more than 99 percent of ballots cast. Because problematic ballots are kicked back from machines to voters immediately, they can be corrected or redone on the spot. Most of the 17,537 ballots with no votes in these counties were uncorrectable absentee ballots or those deliberately left blank, officials said. The 25 counties with this system favored Bush by 52.9 percent to 44.6 percent for Gore.” “>Punch cards: Counties using these systems recorded no votes for 3.9 percent of ballots cast, accounting for 144,985 of the unrecorded presidential votes. Problem ballots are not discovered until they have been run through tabulation machines at a central location. The 25 counties with this system included Gore's biggest strongholds, and favored him overall by 51.8 percent to 46 percent for Bush.” Statistically, that works out to be a loss of 6253 votes for Gore. sun-sentinel.com

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (46390)	12/12/2000 6:27:54 AM
From: PMG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Heinz, thanks... I only try to show that the case can be viewed differently.... <<<the court is however not supposed to make up laws of its own...which is what the comment was directed at. the article cites specifically what constituted the infringement...i quote from Epstein:>>> §168 of whatever piece of code gives a right to contest the certification. If successfully contested, it seems, this right may not be rendered useless by a deadline given before the decision about the contest... <<<<"...the most recent Florida Supreme Court decision represents an inexcusable flip-flop from its first decision. That case had stripped the discretion on allowing manual recounts from Katherine Harris, the secretary of state, and vested it in the individual canvassing boards. >>> As a matter of fact, if the state officials' certification is contested successfully (like a tax bill) they are supposed to correct it. <<<This decision, which was not explained or justified the second time round, was plainly at odds with Florida law, which orders the canvassing boards to finish any recount within a week, but allows the secretary of state to extend the period. The Florida Supreme Court twisted it so that the boards had the discretion to extend the count, but denied the secretary of state any right to interfere with their activities. And functionally, the 4-3 decision on Friday extended that deadline once more--again without any explanation. ">>>> again, the extension of the deadline is necessary and legal because otherwise any contest of the prior authorities' decision would be rendered meaningless. <<<i quote because i'm sure a professor of law knows more about it than i do....all i have personally very little doubt about is that the Fla. Supreme Court is a partisan and activist court with liberal leanings. that doesn't mean that their decisions regarding the recounts are necessarily wrong, only that they had to be expected. >>> don't know... <<<even Milosevic wanted a recount in Yugoslavia...it's a well-worn tactic, used by losers of closely contested elections all over the world...>>> are US courts criminal? in dubio pro reo! <<<note: one issue i have is that initially, machines were counting ALL the votes. if these machines for some reason are prone to error, error should be distributed evenly among the candidates, not favoring one over the other. it is quite a hoot that the recounts by hand are supposed to do just that... >>> This is a good idea as long as the error is evenly distibuted among all candidates. If so, a recount won't change results.