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: Ilaine who wrote (123628)	1/25/2001 12:25:16 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Thank you for clearing that up. Can we get that published somewhere?

To: Ilaine who wrote (123628)	1/25/2001 1:01:09 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

A vote which is improperly case isn't a LEGAL vote. The voter has to comply with the rules and the rules are clearly stated. Punch the chad all the way through. So simple a child can comprehend it, but apparently not a Democrat Cobalt, the Supreme Court court have said this -- just ignore rejected ballots, if the machine can't read them, too bad. They did not. It would have overturned a number of precedent cases where courts have ruled that in a close election, officials should make an effort to do a hand count of machine-unreadable ballots to divine the intent of the voters (btw, "divine" does NOT mean "just make it up"). And the "clear intent of the voter" was the statutory standard in place for doing a recount of contested elections, as set by the Florida Legislature. SCOTUS said that hand recounts are constitutional, but this recount was flawed. They fixed that by preventing it from being done at all. Other courts will have to resolve the logical inconsistencies between being so very scrupulous about the equal protection clause requirements for recounts, while not addressing in any way the equal protection clause requirements for elections in general.

To: Ilaine who wrote (123628)	1/25/2001 3:22:40 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Actually it's a little more complicated that I've made it here - the difficulty lies in the language of the XII Amendment - what happens when neither candidate gets a majority of the Electoral votes? The House of Representatives chooses the President from the three candidates who got the most Electoral votes if neither got a majority - I was thinking that the Senate would have to ratify but they don't. The Senate picks the Vice President. But the problem is, what would have happened to Florida's votes if the Florida vote contest was still ongoing on December 18? Would Florida's Electoral votes have been counted towards determining what was a majority or not? If not, Gore would have won by default - because he had more Electoral votes not counting Florida - the Constitution is not clear about this at all. I think given the makeup of the House, it would have picked Bush rather than Gore.