Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) Message Board

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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 166.17

-1.8%

2:46 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: dwight martin who wrote (87118)	11/12/2000 3:45:58 PM
From: kech	Read Replies (2) of 152472

OT - Dwight - The critical point in what you were saying is your criticism of Bakers position. " This is reasonable and well within the discretion of the officials who are charged by law with determining the intent of the voters, something the mendacious Jim Baker (the Big Lies: "recount after recount," when the first recount is required by law: "machines aren't Republicans or Democrats," when that is not the issue, the intent of the voters is) can't seem to get past. The policies don't have to be the same in every state or county, that is another Baker canard." You respond that it should be fine if votors votes in different counties are counted in different ways. If votes in democratic counties are counted in ways that votes kicked out by machines are counted "manually", and not in republican counties, any statistician can tell you what the result will be. This is not "equal protection under the law", which is Baker's point. The republicans chose not to take this path, which would have essentially condoned this fishing expedition for votes. To do so would have required them to accept an outcome where some number of republican counties are counted differently in the same way that the 4 democratic counties are being counted differently. While this is what "Florida law allows" it doesn't necessarily mean it should be condoned. Voters in the remaining counties are being denied "equal protection under the law". In addition, it is quite possible that the techniques for applying the "recount" are different in the republican counties than in the democratic counties - as the attempt to work out these "subtle" distinctions in your post suggests. There is a lot remaining for subjective decisions. I would suggest that the only way to count the ballots that guarantees equal protection is either a hand count of all counties with equal standards of interpretation applied or go to the original machine count. While "all votes" in a machine vote may not be counted, at least all counties will have their votes counted in an objective way without sample selection problems of some counties getting a greater weight. I think this problem is why machine counting was invented in the first place. Let's just use the machine count unless there is an obvious problem with the machine miscounting holes that were clearly punched. The latter is what the recount was intended to achieve, not the manufacturing of an intent of voters by looking at cards designed to be read by machines.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next