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: Neocon who wrote (111514)	12/12/2000 1:15:48 AM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Neocon - First, I cited two full sections of the statute -- the ones that apply to manual recounts. The situation you describe as unique to Texas is, in fact, exactly what took place here - Bush wanted to rely on the machine recounts, Gore wanted to conduct a manual recount. Under Texas law, Gore's preference for a manual recount is preferred by statute. And let's be clear about this -- Candidates only go to a manual count (in either state) if somebody asks for it in the context of a complaint about the machine tabulation. The person who is ahead at that point ALWAYS says "no need for a manual recount, the machine recount is good enough". That's why the conflict arises and why the Texas statute resolves it. And it is EXACTLY what we have here. Nobody is suggesting that we START with manual recounts -- only that we end there. There is NOTHING revolutionary about that idea, incidentally -- its been a part of Votamatic machine tabulation for 50 years -- this is the first time it came up in a Presidential election. Ordinary situation, extraordinary circumstances. So what does Bush do? He basically takes the position that recounts are inherently corrupt; he uses his campaign co-chair in an official state position to try and shut them down through erroneous interpretations of how limited the recount right is (standards which the FSC ruled unanimously were erroneous), in what can only be described as a flagrant abuse of power and conflict of interest; and then authorizes his operatives to fight an unprecedented "going to the mattresses" legal battle to prevent them from ever happening. There have been strenuous and even bitter election contests fought in Courts nationwide for decades. I suspect this is the first time ever that a politician fought the right to have a manual recount that is expressly provided for under State law all the way to the US Supreme Court before it even took place. Ever hear of prior restraint in first amendment jurisprudence? It is almost always improper. What Bush is doing here is an especially offensive variation of prior restraint -- of the voter's (and the voters') right to know what ballots show in a manual recount. Regardless of what standard the referee should apply, the right to know and the right to vote (and to have your vote be counted) are hugely important rights to a free society and Bush has flipped democracy the bird (soon he'll be doing high fives over it). Don't think for one moment that anybody looking at this from the perspective of the plurality who voted for Gore over Bush will ever forget this -- not a chance. By the way, on the "signed into law part" -- the Texas standard is Texas law -- when he signed the amendment, he essentially placed his imprimatur upon it. I guess what's good for Texas is NOT good for the rest of the country after all. I guess his campaign pitch was a big lie. MST