That's one of the most bogus and vile posts I've seen here on SI.
Come on, Ellen, I can't be the only one. You give more credit than credit is due. You soooooooo dramatic.
You initially contacted me via pm a week. . .
Yada, yada, yada. We've been over this before.
Here's the link to what was already posted here on this thread: Message 14872696;
Well, thank you. But why couldn't you have originally extended the courtesy to this link in the first place instead of ranting here like a bitch on wheels? The reason is obvious even before I read theses article. They DON'T SUPPORT your assertion.
chron.com
Well, in this article I fail to find the word "dimple" or dimpled" used even once. The article simply does not address the issue of dimple chads. The article states:
"In Texas, a vote may not be counted unless at least two corners of the chad are detached, light is visible through the hole or an indentation of the chad indicates a "clearly ascertainable" intent of the voter.
. . .
"The law also gives election officials discretion to decide voter intent in certain instances -- such as a handwritten indication of whom the voter intended to choose, said Ann McGeehan, director of the elections division at the secretary of state's office."
The first paragraph makes reference to Tex. Elec. Code §127.130(d). See capitol.state.tx.us. Clearly the basic rule in TX is to require at least two corners of the chad as evidenced by §127.130(d)(1) and (2).
The second paragraph makes reference to §127.130(d)(3) and (4) as well as §127.130(e), which includes BUT IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY LIMITED TO the dimpled chad. If you take a close look at §127.130(d)(3) you will notice the use of the word "and" joining the expression of "indentation" with the expression of "CLEARLY ascertainable." [Emphasis added.] In order to reconcile §127.130(d)(3) with the other parts of this code section, one CANNOT rely upon a dimpled chad ALONE as evidence of voter intent. There must be INDEPENDENT or SUPPLEMENTAL evidence of voter intent in ADDITION to the dimpled chad in for it to be accepted. Otherwise there would be no need for the word "and."
While I appreciate that you now have provided the link, it is clear why you didn't initially. It does not support the use of dimpled chads without EXTRINSIC evidence of voter intent as I originally postulated, and as reaffirmed by the Texas elections director quoted in the article. The EXTINSIC evidence the director cites by way of example is a "handwritten indication."
herald.com
The foregoing article refers to the instant case, and provides no basis that dimpled ballots are accepted OFTEN and THROUGHOUT the US. It is well-known by now that prior to November 7, Palm Beach County did NOT ACCEPT dimpled chads, but then chose to change that rule AFTER the election. Your premise to legitimize what was done is South Florida cannot be supported by evidence of the very the instance you seek to legitimize. This is circular reasoning. You can't assert that what South Florida is doing with dimpled chads is commonplace by referring me back to South Florida as evidence to support such an assertion. I'm almost laughing at this one.
cnn.com
Well, Ellen, even though this deals with the same Texas statute, it is the most creditworthy article of the three. But please understand, in my original premise I maintained that to interpret dimpled chads WITHOUT additional EXTRINSIC evidence is "ludicrous." Here, the Texas statute requires that the voter's intent be "clearly ascertainable" in ADDITION to the presence of a dimpled ballot.
Now, if you read the article quickly, you might come away with the impression that the entire hand recount that yielded 97 additional votes for one candidate and 109 votes for the other was based upon interpretation of dimpled chads. Wrong. The article states that "some ballots that were merely indented." We don't know how many, but I'd bet we're talking very few, perhaps one or two. And note that in the recount the candidate in the lead extended his margin over the losing candidate from 26 votes to 38 votes. The dimpled chads, though accepted based upon "clearly ascertainable" intent of the voter, were IMMATERIAL to the outcome. Had they been material, as such as the Gore campaign maintains, I'm fairly sure those dimpled ballots that were accepted would have received more scrutiny than a Supreme Court justice confirmation hearing.
The bottom line to all this BS, and all your ranting and raving, is that your assertion that dimpled chads are accepted "OFTEN" and "THROUGHOUT" the country is completely unsupported by your articles. You have been provided one instance in one state where dimpled chads were accepted, and there were most certainly accepted only upon additional evidence leading to clearly ascertainable intent of the voter. My dear, that is a far cry from "often" and "throughout" the US. |
