Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: L. Adam Latham who wrote (116006)	11/8/2000 10:19:02 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Amy and all: RE: "A judge, who apparently use to be a Dick Gephardt staffer, issued an order to keep the polls in St. Louis open....Anything like this happening elsewhere?" Adam ------------------ Hi Adam, According to my friend (who was one of the higher up volunteers for organizing the voting polls in her local area for an Election Day that was held in the late 80's), she was unable to get more polling stations for her area, even though it was clear they wouldn't have enough polling stations (and this was based upon a sample local poll they took prior to Election Day which estimated the number of people that were going to the polls). So, some type of committee declined their request for more polling stations. She said certain members of some type of election committee were essentially "blocking" her process in getting more polling stations for her area. This disturbed her because her area was politically at opposition with the members who blocked her. I won't mention the Party involved, because it doesn't matter. What matters more is: this (not providing enough polling stations) seems to be a potential tactic that can be used to "shut out" votes by a group of people who live in an area that is known to be of a certain political preference and are in opposition of members who are involved in the election process (which is State controlled, according to the individual who managed our polls). Her prediction was correct, and indeed, her area did not have enough polling stations as she had predicted. People were walking away from the polls and the polls closed before they could get everyone's vote. So, they contacted a Judge to extend the polls and they expressed their complaints that they were not given enough polling stations even though they had requested for them in advance. Even though they could reasonably prove this, the Judge (who was not in political favor with her area) did not extend the polls for her area, so some people in her area were not able to vote, even though they wanted to. I think it's pretty clear the Judge should have kept the polls open in this case, since she could reasonably prove that her area was being shut out. Unfortunately, she didn't pursue this issue after the election, but I think she should have, in order to fix it. When I asked her why she didn't fix it, she talked about the horrible effort it would take to fix it and said it was beyond her. I think faulty systems can be fixed. Most people - of all Parties - want a fair process, so plugging this hole would be wise in order to avoid this type of tactic. I am of the opinion, based upon her information, this type of tactic (not providing enough polling stations for a particular area) needs to be removed so it can't be used to shut out certain type of voters. Regards, Amy J