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: Rob Preuss who wrote (114212)	12/13/2000 11:14:31 AM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769670

It's OK Rob. Everything will be alright. Breathe deeply, and let it all go... LoF

To: Rob Preuss who wrote (114212)	12/13/2000 11:20:52 AM
From: H-Man	Respond to of 769670

Not at all. It is a question of harm. In a broad margin of victory, the ballots are not, in practical terms, treated any differently. The question of harm always comes into play in constitutional matters. If the margin of victory was large, even though the votes may be counted differently and thus might be considered discriminatory, there is no harm since counting them the same would make no difference. In this case, the narrow margin of the election creates inequities, not only in the manner in which they were counted but what votes were counted (Undervotes not overvotes) and the nature of the technologies used. And since this creates a diference of hundereds perhaps thousands of votes to one candidate or another, there is harm and thus the constititutional issue. Harm is a longstanding gauge in constitutional law. It is why GWB original lawsuits on the matter were tossed if you recall. re: most of the ballots across the entire nation should be thrown out