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 : G&K Investing for Curmudgeons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tekboy who wrote (7972)	11/10/2000 12:04:36 AM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 22706

It seems to me that, however unfortunate it is that some people's obvious intentions were not reflected in the actual Palm Beach vote totals, that's ultimately their fault for not taking the time or care to make sure that the ballot was marked correctly. I do not agree with you. I think these people actually thought they had marked the ballot correctly - "Hmmm, that's odd...two holes...oh I see, two names here...OK, one punch for Gore and another punch for Lieberman....good." Everyone knows you cannot vote twice for president and virtually no one would have submitted such a ballot. --cfl@probablythinkingihavetwoholesinmyhead.com

To: tekboy who wrote (7972)	11/10/2000 2:36:45 AM
From: EnricoPalazzo	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 22706

Well, I too am a pragmatist, and not a lawyer, so I guess like minds can think unlike. I would agree with UF's take on Emulex, personally, but I think this is different. First of all, the design was clearly flawed (and afoul of laws designed to prevent confusing ballots). As someone who designs user interfaces for a living, I must say, this was a monstrous usability bug (as design guru Jakob Nielsen commented: "The Florida ballot clearly had usability problems, caused by the attempt to map a two-column set of labels onto a one-column action area.") I simply loathe the term 'technicality' as it is commonly used in legal discussions--well, sure this violated the law, but that's just a technicality. The law is the law, and must be enforced fairly and faithfully. To suggest otherwise is to undermine the very underpinnings of our society. If you think the relevant law is lame, change the law. Secondly, I don't think most people appreciate just how difficult this ballot was. In fact, many people who punched the Gore hole had serious problems with it--they just solved the puzzle eventually. First of all, when marking the ballot, they weren't looking at it at 90 degrees. It was sharply angled against them, and thus hard to see. Second of all, these were people who were used to voting the same way for decades (they were used to voting this way because florida law stipulates that it's the way ballots must be designed). Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, most people don't realize that there is a five-minute time-limit on filling out your ballot in Palm Beach county. There were plenty of referenda and other measures on the ballots--users had no choice but to rush through it.

To: tekboy who wrote (7972)	11/13/2000 2:50:17 PM
From: red jinn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 22706

tb: <<The people in question didn't bother to do the latter, and thus disenfranchised themselves.... this doesn't affect the point about the legality of the ballot under FL law, but given the stakes in question that strikes me as a technicality that should not, in the end, determine the outcome. But then, I'm a pragmatist not a lawyer... >> i am a lawyer (who voted, but not a main party candidate), and i say if you don't want judges deciding every close race, i hope they go by the count and not "reenfranchise" disaffected/disappointed/lazy/ignorant/careless voters. now folks know that voting is important, which is/sd galvanize and be a boon to democrats going forward b/c republicans tend to have a higher percentage of party members voting. (note, barely half of eligible voters voted.) it is rare for judges to overturn or question a political decision other than determining whether a ballot was, for all intents and purposes, fraudulent, which isn't the case here. although, i understand there's a florida case that has a lower standard under which a judge can question the results of an election. it's interesting that now we actually know (as opposed to trying to imagine) how, depending on your point of view, ben tilden or rutherford b. hayes felt in 1876, the most cited time when the popular and electoral votes differed. gore's probably sorry he invented the electoral college. :) best, red jinn@whatiffloridadoesn'tdecidebydecember18?.org