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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (123642)	1/25/2001 1:27:11 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 769670

You are failing to comprehend the important distinction between a punched chad which the machine can't read and a dimpled chad. Gore would not accept the standard always used in Florida, that a chad wasn't counted unless light could be seen through the punch. As we all saw in Broward County, "divine" does mean "make it up." Your contention that the Florida recount statute states that the "clear intent of the voter" is the standard in a vote contest is inaccurate. During a manual recount during a vote PROTEST, the canvassing board determines "the voter's intent." Title IX Florida Statutes 102.166. As the US Supreme Court noted, the standards used by the county canvassing boards varied from county to county - which wasn't a problem because there had never been a demand for a manual recount in a statewide election before. The proper person to set the standards, unfortunately for Gore, is Sec. Kathleen Harris - but Gore did not want to ask her to set the standards, so he made his arguments directly to the county canvassing boards, demanding that they count dimpled chads for the first time in Florida history. Palm Beach and Miami-Dade refused - Broward agreed. This is exactly what triggered the Equal Protection argument, which prevailed. Bush v. Gore II was an appeal from a vote CONTEST - under IX Florida Statutes 102.168. The standard for a vote contest is as follows: >> (3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are: (a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election. (b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute. (c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election. << The only thing which Gore could argue, and it's the same thing that you argue, is that a number of legal votes sufficient to change the election MIGHT be there among the so called "undervotes," more accurately described as "no votes."