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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (35882)	11/9/2000 6:40:41 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

CB, I am no lawyer, but my understanding is that the code specifies that the two principal candidates must be number one and two on the ballot. That was true for Bush and Gore on the left column of the ballot. But doesn't this also strongly imply that the punch holes for these principal candidates be number one and two too? Isn't that the key disputed point? Isn't the fact that the punch holes did not match the one/two mandate of the code what made people vote for Buchanan instead of Gore? Kyros

To: Ilaine who wrote (35882)	11/9/2000 7:05:00 PM
From: Sunny Jim	Respond to of 436258

<<if I were Al Gore I guess I'd be saying whatever it took. This does take American politics to a new low, but what do you expect from the Clintons and the Daleys>> From the fellow that gave us the "no controlling legal authority" crap, this would be right in character. After all the American people were given the chance to vote for an honorable person (an I'm not saying Gore couldn't qualify here), or a legalese weenie. Gore has the golden opportunity now to prove to the people what they really voted for.

To: Ilaine who wrote (35882)	11/9/2000 7:09:56 PM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

CB-- Saw a quote on TV from a FL election reg? law? which states ballots must be designed so that voters mark their choices to the right. Interesting...

To: Ilaine who wrote (35882)	11/9/2000 7:32:31 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 436258

<I just downloaded, printed out and read the pertinent parts of the Florida Election Code. I don't think the Palm Beach ballot is contrary to Florida law. It complies substantially with the sample ballot in the code, which is all the law requires. "Substantially" is a weasel word, though.> On the way home I got the NPR 'spin' which is that the butterfly ballot is invalid in the state of Florida, which calls for names on the left and marks on the right. Don't remember who the guy was... he believes it would make the whole county invalid, not just a bunch of yahoo's that claimed to have voted for the wrong guy. Seems to make sense, there is no way on gods green earth they would just award any portion of the Buchanan votes for anyone else in any case IMO. DAK

To: Ilaine who wrote (35882)	11/9/2000 7:37:43 PM
From: AllansAlias	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Blue, There are many issues about the Florida code, but it does state that the candidates of the two leading parties must be presented "above" the other candidates. This was not done. Mr. Buchanan is between the two majors. I do not want to get into an argument. I do not care enough. Just wanted to add this detail.

To: Ilaine who wrote (35882)	11/9/2000 7:51:09 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

CB - ...The code also states that any ballot which contains votes for two candidates for the same office is partially invalidated, as to that vote for that office only. The rest of the ballot is valid.... I believe that I saw some evidence that this was being done in the sense that some 3K to 4K votes were invalidated in the Senate race. There is a good sized background of error in all elections, if this is any indication. I assume that you have seen somewhere by now that the statistical arguments have been entirely refuted, unless the standard is to be who you wanted to vote for, rather than who you actually did vote for. Regards, Don