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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (108573)	4/13/2009 12:04:34 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Respond to of 541925

As for winning by 500 votes fair and square, given the bumps we see in the process every time, I don't think you can have a certain victory by such a small margin. We will disagree here. If it is your man who won fair and square with 500 votes, you will accept a re-vote when the other guy wins? I think it leads to rioting in the streets. It is one thing for a win to be muddled - it is another to have a fair win taken away from you. I would have a mandatory re-vote with a difference under 1000 votes so the issue would come up if someone lost by 1005 Sure the issue would come up. What is at issue in Minnesota if not what votes are counted? Aren't they looking at the 400 challenged votes? If you thought you were entitled to the 400 votes, why wouldn't you challenge then just to get you to the 1000 vote threshold? You make things worse by increasing the unknown winner from 1 vote to 1000. You just change the place were the squabble and legal challenges occur - I'd be willing to bet big money that it also increases the number of legal challenges. So what happens when candidate A wins by 900 votes fair and square and then in a re-vote candidate B wins by 900 votes? latimes.com