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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (86797)	12/13/2000 2:47:50 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Respond to of 132070

Nadine, >>The question is, does unequal protection somehow become legal just because both parties agreed beforehand?<< I understand your view a little better now. My guess is that no one felt strongly enough that there was a difference in the technologies to make an issue of it. They were mistaken, as are a lot of other states most likely. I can't see how they could have addressed that issue after the results though. >>As for the changing standards argument, I will always suspect that in an alternate universe where Bush was down by 300 votes after the automatic recount, the standards in place before the election -- local canvassing boards oversee the recount with observers from both parties -- would have been found acceptable and a statewide recount would have been negotiated with much less fuss. << I suspect that too. I hope that I (and the court) would have come down on Gore's side if that was the case. I didn't vote for either guy, but I became more and more partial to Bush as things went on because I preferred his position. I also dislike Gore for non-policy reasons. Wayne