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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windseye who wrote (87856)	12/13/2000 4:46:47 PM
From: Andreas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Windseye; As is typical of the pro-Gore camp you engage in gigantic leaps of logic. The problem is not with your suggestion that manual counts are superior to machine counts. They may very well be. The problem is allowing hand and eyeball counts to occur without consistent standards applied equally in each and every county of the state. Indeed, standards varied within the same county! (an obvious violation of the 14th amendment). The problem is in the fact that the Fla supreme court called for a cut-off at 5:00 p.m. on the Sunday after thanksgiving and then reneged on their prior order and extended even further. The problem lies in the fact that the Fl supreme court ordered manual recounts in counties where no contest had ever been filed! The problem lies in the fact that the Fl supreme court ordered partial recounts rather than full recounts. Don't forget 7 justices were convinced that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was violated for each of the reasons set forth above and many more. The disagreement lies with the remedy not with the fact that the Fl supreme court issued an opinion you could drive a truck through.

To: Windseye who wrote (87856)	12/13/2000 4:50:29 PM
From: tonyt	Respond to of 97611

>machine counts and partial hand counts are considered >superior to personal eyeball examination by the official >trained ballot counters... a procedure in place for >hundreds of years Problem is, there is no such thing as 'official trained ballot counters'. And it is truly a pity that in a country that spent BILLIONS on last years Y2K 'problem', the leader of our county is seleted using 1960's punchcard technology.

To: Windseye who wrote (87856)	12/13/2000 5:15:57 PM
From: MeDroogies	Respond to of 97611

The SC did not absorb the time. Gore did that by continually arguing his points and, quite frankly, not making them very clear. Most people would've supported Gore at the start if he said 4 things: 1. a full state recount (took him a week to ask for that) 2. a standard of hand recounting that is consistent across counties (he chose to have his lieutenants alter the counting methods on a county by county basis, which hurt him in his court battles) 3. Dimpled chads were not clear intentions (as they clearly are not) 4. asked the private citizens to drop the absentee ballot suits He didn't. He fought a multi-front legal battle and dragged himself and the system through the mud. The SC was simply the final arbiter. You can't fault them for the time frame. They had to stop the recount. What is the point of recounting if the recount is then overturned as inconsistent a day later? It is a waste of time, effort and money. Don't blame the SC for Al Gore's legal teams' problems.

To: Windseye who wrote (87856)	12/15/2000 12:48:19 PM
From: tonyt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

The WSJ says the following regarding New Mexico's 'official trained ballot counters.' "If there's one key reason for the mess, it's the American tradition, going back two centuries, of delegating responsibility for running elections to the nation's 3,067 individual counties. Guided by few national standards, most of these local governments devote modest resources to elections and hire poorly trained staffs for the massive job of recording and counting a total of more than 100 million votes for president, as well as millions more for lower offices."