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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (129587)	12/13/2000 12:53:54 AM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1570413

Scumbria Re.. The only fair solution would be to split the FL electors. But fairness is only important when it helps Bush. And the rules can only be changed when it helps Bush. <<<<< That certainly can't be done for this election because it is against the Fl. constitution. However I have heard on this board that one of the western states has such a system or was contemplating such a system.

To: Scumbria who wrote (129587)	12/13/2000 10:27:14 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570413

I wonder how the USSC would have ruled if the Florida SC had in fact created a standard for the recount, thereby really violating the statute, whose standard is the unstandardized determination of the intent of the voter. Little has been said about the ineptitude of the Florida(and Texas for that matter)legislature, for having written a statute so flawed and, not it seems, unconstitutional, a determination made after the fact, flying in the face of the Bush argument about changing the rules after the election. It seems that, in the eyes of this court, equal protection is more equal for the plaintiff, Bush, than it is for the 40K or so voters whose vote could have been examined, and was not. Al