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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (123189)1/22/2001 4:30:32 PM
From: H-Man  Read Replies (2) of 769670
 
Regarding the different mechanisims used in voting, Souter addressed it in the dissent:

It is true that the Equal Protection Clause does not forbid the use of a variety of voting mechanisms within a jurisdiction, even though different mechanisms will have
different levels of effectiveness in recording voters'intentions; local variety can be justified by concerns about cost, the potential value of innovation, and so on. But evidence in the record here suggests that a different order of disparity obtains under rules for determining a voter's intent that have been applied (and could continue to be applied) to identical types of ballots used in identical brands of machines and exhibiting identical physical characteristics


Remember, even if ballots are counted differently, unless there is harm there is no foul.

And yes I know what some reporters have said on CNN and NBC probably others. I have heard Greta Van S, get it flat out wrong on facts and law many times. O well.

with regards to But it doesn't seem a big stretch to argue that without any statewide standard, similar ballots will be counted differently

I am not sure what your point is but I think I agree. No question that a standard way to count similar ballots is needed.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext