Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings 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.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: mph who wrote (653)	12/8/2000 1:47:46 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) of 14610

mph, I think your analysis of what issues the FSC will look at is correct, but my question is more fundamental: If 10,000 ballots were outsorted by a machine as registering no votes, and one of the candidates alleges that we should look at the ballots with human eyes to see if the machine might have been making a mistake, what more of a threshold showing do you need? How is he supposed to prove that looking at the ballots will change the outcome unless somebody looks at the ballots? Sometimes courts get too caught up in the verbal formulas and "tests" and "showings".... this is not the careful mixing of chemicals in a lab or the minute etching of a microchip.... it is simply an argument as to whether 10,000 pieces of paper say one thing or another, or nothing at all. And the best way to determine what a piece of paper says or means is to look at the piece of paper. I learned that way before law school. In law school, they tried to teach me that it isn't always so. I guess I didn't believe them. <g> OMD P.S. Who is fighting for truth and justice now??? LOL

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next