Zeev's Turnips 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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bosco who wrote (187)	11/28/2000 12:20:21 AM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) of 644

Bosco, here is the point. The Illinois case you cited says simply because the chad they punched did not completely dislodge from the ballot. Obviously the Illinois case permitted the counting of votes that were not machine readable. But an important question is, did this refer to swinging door chads? Pregnant chads? Or dimpled chads? The Democrats submitted an affidavit to the Florida Supreme Court stating that the Illinois case permitted the counting of dimpled chads. The person who signed that affidavit now says that Illinois does not permit the counting of dimpled chads, and that the cited case only supports counting partially detached chads. Illinois law does not govern Florida law, and Florida is perfectly able to set up its own rules that are completely different. Sometimes states look to decisions from other jurisdictions for guidance, though. Carl

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next