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.

Technology Stocks : Identix (IDNX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rappin1 who wrote (19436)	12/13/2000 10:48:23 AM
From: stockman17	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26039

Rappin1, You seem to miss the point. It is not whether Gore would have had more votes, it is the fact that those votes were not counted. Bush fought to have them not counted and the Supreme Court seems to have machined things to not have them counted. I would have been very pleased to have seen some decision about a standard arrived at based on precedent in Florida and other states. The Supreme Court could have provided more guidance the first time they remanded the case, for example, and enough time would have remained for the job to have been done correctly. If Bush had not fought the manual recounting of the votes it would not have gone to the Supreme Court for the reason it did in the first place. Now that I hear so much about how it wouldn't have made a difference and that Bush would have won anyway, it strikes me that his position is even less defendable than before. Why wouldn't you work together with the other side (one of the big selling points of his campaign, BTW), enfranchise as many people as possible, and keep this out of the courts as much as possible? The question is rhetorical, obviously. The answer is that he wanted to ensure that he won, and he saw foot-dragging as the best way possible. Again note - I am not defending Gore here. He wanted to win just as badly as Bush did. I am just pointing out the correct solution as I saw it, and the part Bush played in preventing it and in causing the so-called damage that was done.

To: Rappin1 who wrote (19436)	12/13/2000 10:50:58 AM
From: DCBEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26039

..I don't get how anyone (DCBEN, Gore would win BIG?), could determine one side or the other would definitely win. .. My point was not that Gore would have won the recount that was underway, or any new recount with a defined standard. My point was that if "equal protection" were afforded every voter there could not have been such variations from precinct to precint in the voting machines. Palm Beach couldn't have had the Butterfly Ballot and poor and predominately black precincts wouldn't have had statistically greater undervote rates than areas using optical scanner techniques. The Miami Herald study indicates quite clearly that Gore would have "won big" in that case. I beleive that's right. You may disagree. Ben