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: mst2000 who wrote (117921)	12/19/2000 7:11:45 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Implicit in the SCOTUS reasoning is that the "clear intent of the voter" standard is no standard at all, as exemplified by the widely disparate treatment given ballots hand-counted in Broward vs. Palm Beach County. One had a recovery rate of 25% of the undervotes (a la Susan Gunzenberger's uncanny abilities to decipher a voter's intent, partly because the voter chose predominately Democrat candidates in the other races on the ballot), and the other county had a recovery rate of 4%, using an entirely different set of rules. A "standard" that allows unfettered discretion and which cannot be objectively reviewed and duplicated is no "standard" at all, and anyone with a scintilla of intellectual honesty knows it. Further, if a post-hoc standard had been articulated and applied, it would have run afoul of the federal statute prohibiting a change of the rules after six days before the election. Finally, why should just a selective subset of heavily-Democrat counties be mined using this unfair process for veins of Gore-rich votes? Shouldn't everybody's vote count equally? Apparently not, from your position. Let's stop the sour grapes and get on with education reform and solving society's and the world's problems.

To: mst2000 who wrote (117921)	12/20/2000 8:50:33 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769670

And as I said, reasonable minds may disagree over the legal reasoning of the FL SC and the USSC. I happen to disagree with your analysis and agree with (a 7-2 majority on Constitutionality and 5-4 majority on remedy regarding the "recounts") the USSC. To me, the violation of equal protection seems more than clear. Nor do I agree that the nation is damaged somehow by a close vote. We are not as a nation in any sense "diminished" by a 5-4 decision on an important issue, any more than any other 5-4 decision on any other important issue. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The mix of politics and law is ALWAYS a volatile one. JLA JLA