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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: globestocks who wrote (6259)	12/14/2000 3:14:30 PM
From: chomolungma	Respond to of 6710

I still disagree with the argument because I can and believe it was politically motivated. Why would Breyer and Souter concur with the equal protection violation? How were they politically motivated? I guess you shouldn't have fallen asleep.

To: globestocks who wrote (6259)	12/14/2000 4:20:39 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

Hi globestocks, Re: The GOP of Florida has lacked the leadership to bring ballot and voting systems to an equal level throughout the state. Here's a prediction for you. There will be no reform of the system in Florida that has much of any significance. It will be introduced in the Legislature and it will die there. Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties may be driven into new systems by court rulings and the voters will most likely be willing to pay up for a bond issue to modernize. But not in time for the 2002 elections. There will be no effort on the part of the U.S. congress to address either electoral or campaign reform. Because it is demographically challenged, the GOP will do everything in its power to stymie better voting systems for the less affluent areas of the country. McCain will be put in a box. -Ray

To: globestocks who wrote (6259)	12/14/2000 5:38:27 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

>>The USSC cited equal protection, but was hypocritical by disenfranchising thousands of voters.<< Maybe, maybe not. But it was Gore and Boies who said that 12/12/00 was the deadline to have the contest complete, and so did the Florida Supreme Court, and so did the Florida Legislature. The alternative was to risk disenfranchising 6 MILLION Florida voters. A far more unacceptable prospect. >>The GOP of Florida has lacked the leadership to bring ballot and voting systems to an equal level throughout the state. How can equal protection be guaranteed when some citizens are given greater margin of error than others.<< Good point, but there was nothing to do to remedy the situation after the fashion. >>And how is it that the Supreme Court decided a recount violated due process, when Florida law permits such a practice?<< The majority opinion stated that the recount procedure set up by the Florida Supreme Court violated the law - 3 USC 5 provides that Electors shall be appointed by the means the legislature set up 6 days prior to the day of the election. The Florida Supreme Court did not adhere to the letter of the Florida law but changed it around. That can't be done in a Presidential election. Further, anything less than a full recount of the entire state using standards set by the Florida Secretary of State would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Any questions?

To: globestocks who wrote (6259)	12/14/2000 5:52:16 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 6710

And how is it that the Supreme Court decided a recount violated due process, when Florida law permits such a practice? Come now. You may fancy yourself an economist, but you're no lawyer. Number one: the USSC did NOT say a recount would violate due process. They said a STANDARDLESS recount would violate equal protection. Number two: states frequently -- well, more often than occasionally, what's between occasionally and frequently? -- pass laws that turn out to be unconstitutional. Just because Florida passes a law making recounts the law does NOT mean that that law is constitutional. That's one reason why we HAVE a Supreme Court. (Otherwise, abortion would now be illegal in about half the states.) The Florida legislature is fully entitled to pass a recount law. But it has to be a Constitutionally valid recount law,and their current law ain't, according to the Court. Heck, all you need to do to see the fallacy in your statement is assume that Florida passes a law saying no member of the Democratic party may run for office in any election in Florida. Just because Florida passed such a law, would you be upset if the USSC said "now, now, boys, you cain't do that"?