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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TigerPaw who wrote (83968)11/21/2000 7:02:53 PM
From: Constant Reader  Read Replies (1) of 769667
 
No, that was NOT my claim. I asked Flapjack if there was a way to PROVE that the intent of a voter who turned in a dimpled ballot was to vote FOR a candidate as opposed to showing a last-minute decision by that voter to NOT vote for a candidate (and thus, the dimpled ballot).

One can make assumptions, and reasonable people can disagree about the validity of those assumptions. But, the fact remains that there is no way to identify most individual ballots (or the person who cast it). A dimpled ballot could indicate an intent to vote for a candidate. It could indicate a change of heart at the last minute. It could be the result of accidental mishandling by the voter or a precinct worker. It could be the unintentional result of some obstruction in the voting machine itself.

Thus, we cannot KNOW. We can guess. We can argue that one thing is more probable than the next, but we cannot PROVE that any unidentifiable ballot in question is, in fact, a result of any of the above.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

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