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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: globestocks who wrote (5986)	12/12/2000 7:26:00 PM
From: chomolungma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

The legality of the recount is not being questioned, only the standards applied and the process of going about it. How can you possibly separate them? I don't think there is a constitutional way of doing a hand recount under present Florida law. In my opinion, the machine count will be the final one.

To: globestocks who wrote (5986)	12/12/2000 7:31:54 PM
From: tekmon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

The appeal was filed by Bush. You are correct, the Appeal is legal. We'll have to see what the outcome of Mondays arguments. "irreprarable harm" probably refers to the fact that the votes were counted twice per Fla. law and then counted partially again and then ordered to count again after certification, which, even according to Fla. Cheif Justice, would cause a "constitutional crisis". There is where the "irreparable harm" comes in play.

To: globestocks who wrote (5986)	12/12/2000 7:33:07 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 6710

well, actually recount law isn't a due process issue. Due process only applies to legal proceedings, not to participating in elections. That's more an equal protection issue. The Courts have a basic principle -- when a case comes before them and letting matters proceed during the time they're hearing it will irreparably harm the appellant, they will put things on hold until they can consider the merits. I'm not saying there weren't political considerations at issue here, on both sides of the Court. But what they did was nothing unique. The other issue I didn't mention was the issue of ballot degradation. If O'Connor is right in what she asked, the standard for counting a vote might wind up being "did you comply with the instructions for casting a valid vote? if yes, it should be recounted. If no, it's your own fault and quit griping." (that's not the legal language, but it's what she was suggesting.) In that case, the manual recounts should ONLY be looking at fully punched out chads. But every time the ballots are handled they are degraded. So if they are hand counted now counting dimples and hanging chads and the like, and the USSC says okay, you can recount, but you can only count fully punched chads, the first handcount will have the danger of having converted some hanging chads into fully punched out chads, which changes the vote and is irreparable because you can never know which ballots those clouds of chads on the floor came off of, so you are no longer counting the ballots as they were cast by the voters. (Not to mention the Democratic operative who was running around with a ballot punching machine in his car.) Doesn't matter whether it's getting the Presidency or eating the last piece of candy on a plate -- when it's gone, it's gone. That's the irreparable harm. Not to say there aren't political considerations (by more than just Scalia). But his arguments weren't legally unreasonable.