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: JDN who wrote (122241)	1/16/2001 1:22:57 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

JDN, I'm no lawyer either, but if you just read the Florida statutes you can tell that some of them conflict and they do not make up a coherent whole. Where's the sense in certifying the election before all the overseas ballots have come in? There is definitely an option for the canvassing boards to select manual recounts at their discretion, which means you don't have to have a hurricaine to justify it. The fact that the two candidates are separated by 300 votes state-wide, and your county alone has 5,000 undervotes would suggest to reasonable people that it might be worthwhile to look at the undervote to see if there were any human-readable votes in there. Of course this problem would be much less if you had a better system than the old, cheap punch-cards (which btw are not used only in Democratic counties; check the record). The expectation of the law seemed to be that if you had such a close situation, the county and state officials would be working together to achieve the best count, not fighting each other. I don't think they intended to the 7 day certification rule (a silly thing anyway) to be used to forbid canvassing boards from doing recounts which other sections of the law clearly permit them to do.