SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (262223)11/26/2005 2:52:31 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573925
 
LOL. What you are missing is that this is one case. That makes it anecdotal by definition.

However too, you also miss that when the Fla. court approved an unconstitutional counting method, it behooved the USSC to stop it, and they did. States just should never have the right to approve unconstitutional and unfair counting methods.

Are you saying the recount the GOP demanded in WA state was unconstitutional? Now you tell us. BTW it cost your party 6 million dollars. That's an expensive mistake.



To: Dan B. who wrote (262223)11/26/2005 3:28:12 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573925
 
"However too, you also miss that when the Fla. court approved an unconstitutional counting method"

Nonsense. There isn't an unconstitutional counting method. The states are free to use any method of choosing delegates they please. In fact, the states don't have to elect the delegates. Many didn't until the early 1800's. There is nothing stopping the states from choosing delegates by drawing straws, flipping of coins or anything else.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News