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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cAPSLOCK who wrote (65260)	11/9/2000 2:47:26 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769667

A very lucid presentation of the matter......

To: cAPSLOCK who wrote (65260)	11/9/2000 7:01:17 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 769667

cAPSLOCK--I agree with you that the "hey, I marked the wrong candidate's name" shouldn't count. However, the situation in Florida is different. It's not a matter of someone's simple complaint. One significant difference in the South Palm Beach voting irregularity confusion is the clear fact that poll supervisors felt it necessary to print a leaflet warning folks that the ballot was confusing and that it was possible to make a mistake. This warning was issued after many, many ballots erroneously were already submited. Obviously, the 19,000 or so ballots marked both Gore and Buchanon were not Buchanon ballots. They were Gore ballots and Gore should have gotten those votes. Had Gore gotten 'em, there'd be no recount and he'd have been declared the victor of Florida's 25 electoral college votes. [NOTE: The sample ballot sent out for review prior to use, did include the punch-hole marks. In other words, those reviewing the sample did not have a sufficiently clear view that Gore, the second name on the list, would actually be the third punch-hole. It's been reported that the punch-hole mark confusion also caused the Socialist candidate to get more votes in that particular county than anywhere in the nation.] And there were several other voting irregularities which should also receive due consideration. Thus, I think your comments are premature cAPSLOCK. At this point, it sure looks like it'll get resolved in the courts.

To: cAPSLOCK who wrote (65260)	11/9/2000 7:25:04 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

CORRECTION TO PRIOR POST (correction in brackets): "...The sample ballot sent out for review prior to use, did[n't] include the punch-hole marks. In other words, those reviewing the sample did not have a sufficiently clear view that Gore, the second name on the list, would actually be the third punch-hole. It's been reported that the punch-hole mark confusion also caused the Socialist candidate to get more votes in that particular county than anywhere in the nation."