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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (86777)	12/13/2000 1:22:32 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

No doubt Bush had a motive to prevent a recount even if it could be done properly. No kidding. The Republican strategy has been to a) call recounts a zoo b) turn them into a zoo c) stall as long as possible d) say see? it's a zoo and it's too late. Worked like a charm. He already won on the unbiased votes. But don't you see? The slight skew introduced into the original vote by the higher error rates of Votomatic machines, which were mostly used by Democratic voters, was very probably enough to determine the outcome of this election. So the original vote was not unbiased. All voters were not treated the same, which is the heart of the equal protection argument. The 'heat of battle' and 'rules in place before the election' arguments, whatever their merits, don't IMO speak to the central issue of the equal protection argument, which rests on unequal treatment of voters.