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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Angels of Alchemy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wes Stevens who wrote (19773)	11/9/2000 7:59:30 PM
From: WhatsUpWithThat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24256

One thing that is being missed is that they used the same ballot for the last presidential election. They even had some the the same problems i.e. a high number of double punched ballots. No one said a word. Why do they have a right to demand a re-vote on this one? The ballot went through the legal process for approval - more then once. I think that's a telling point, Wes. Spoiled ballots were 50% higher this time, but still... Actually, it's a bit strange, isn't it? If it is the same ballot people have used in the past, you'd think if anything spoiled ballots would be lower, assuming people learn from past experience <gg> I know overall turnout was very high this time, of course; was it also 50% higher than last election? Is there a correlation there? Regards WUWT

To: Wes Stevens who wrote (19773)	11/9/2000 8:00:32 PM
From: lexi2004	Respond to of 24256

Wes, This isn't the link that I saw, but, this is further discussion... The claim part has the same info as what I read from a section of a page... ====== Claim:The ballot was illegal because Sec. 101.51 of the Florida Statutes provides that the box for selecting a candidate should appear to the right of a candidate's name. Since the square for punching the computer ballot for Buchanan appeared to the left of his name (he appeared on the right side of the so-called "butterfly" page), the ballot does not comply with Florida law and some legal redress should be given. Fact: Sec. 101.151 does not apply to the Palm Beach County procedures. Sec. 101.151 provides in pertinent part: "101.151 Specifications for general election ballot-- In counties in which voting machines are not used, and in other counties for use as absentee ballots not designed for tabulation by an electronic or electromechanical voting system, the general election ballot shall conform to the following specifications:......." "Electronic Voting Systems Act". This Act was first adopted in 1973 and has been amended frequently since then. 101.5609 Ballot requirements.-- (1) When an electronic or electromechanical voting system utilizes a ballot card or paper ballot which is distributed to electors, the ballot shall meet the following requirements: Section 6 (6) “Voting squares may be placed in front of or in back of the names of candidates and statements of questions and shall be of such size as is compatible with the type of system used...” ============ Best Wishes, Doribee

To: Wes Stevens who wrote (19773)	11/10/2000 1:16:53 AM
From: Exedous	Respond to of 24256

"Why do they have a right to demand a re-vote on this one?" -- Perhaps because this one makes such a difference. It's not usual that 300 votes out of 100,000,000 cast determines such an important election. Just a thought. -- "Exedous"

To: Wes Stevens who wrote (19773)	11/10/2000 6:13:58 AM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24256

<One thing that is being missed is that they used the same ballot for the last presidential election. They even had some the the same problems i.e. a high number of double punched ballots. No one said a word. Why do they have a right to demand a re-vote on this one? > wes.simply,because this time it is so incredibly close in a state who's electoral vote influences the entire world---miscounts,and flim-flams etc.,have been a part of elections through our history,but NEVER EVER in a situation as extraordinary as this----those who bring up Nixon/Kennedy are misinformed,or not being fully truthful--a recount/investigation in the Nixon case would NOT have changed the result of the election,as Kennedy's electoral lead was beyond a number that would have changed the result of the election by further re-count etc.. If the Republicans were to demand recounts in NewMexico and Iowa and Wisconsin---i would support their demand IF it would change the result of who wins. If Bush were to win WITHOUT a hand-count being made,there would be,forever a cloud over his election---and his legitamacy in question---this would be disastrous for him,imo. Bush,should,for the sake of the country let the hand-count occur---for by opposing it,he is implying,that he thinks he loses if that should happen--last count difference 326 in favor of BUSH,per AP.PaxMax