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: Knight who wrote (112547)	12/12/2000 3:55:35 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You seem to be misapplying that benchmark to undamaged ballots.

To: Knight who wrote (112547)	12/12/2000 3:58:33 PM
From: monu	Respond to of 769670

(I have yet to see posted a credible argument to them.) That's because there isn't any. If you heard the exchange between the liberal Souter and Bois, you noticed even they had trouble with it. How come Gore and Jesse don't?

To: Knight who wrote (112547)	12/12/2000 4:22:37 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

It's really this simple: Florida law leaves it up to the canvassing boards, in the "protest stage" of a manual recount, to determine the intent of the voters on ballots which the counters can't agree on. As many votes as you guys claim were given Gore by Broward's supposedly loose standard, probably 2 to 3 times as many were taken away from Gore by the unduly strict per se rule which was used in Palm Beach County despite Judge LeBarga's ruling that a per se standard was inappropriate. Remember, the dems objected to 3,300 ballots counted as no-votes by the PBC canvassing board. Blow all the hot air you want, but that is the law Florida's esteemed legislature gave us. They created a sysytem that has only a general standard ("intent of the voter") and leaves it up to Boards to make subjective determinations of what that means. But what we know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY is that the only per se standard that is demonstrably inaccurate is one where you don't bother to look at all. That fact is why SCOTUS may disappoint the GOP and uphold the principle that manual recounts are not unconstitutional in a presidential election and that the rights of voters to vote and have their vote's be counted supersedes the fear that the method of deciding the count may be less than perfect. What is already known by all is that variations in the type of election machinery used from County to County in Florida alone has resulted in severely unequal treatment of voters, and imperfect results, in Florida. This has to be the first time that the fear that a judge sworn to uphold the law and a constitution might achieve an imperfect result, albeit a far more accurate result than the one achieved so far, is viewed as a sufficient basis to accept a far less accurate result forced on us without ever even inspecting 9,000+ contested ballots to see what they show. Nobody said it would be perfect or easy -- but the alternative (never looking and ignoring clearly legal votes) is far less perfect and far less accurate -- even the guy who invented the machine (and testified for Bush before Judge Sauls) has said that repeatedly.