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 : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7603)	11/10/2000 1:43:34 PM
From: Bosco	Respond to of 30051

Hi Zeev - in light of this, the US should bring voting into the modern age. While it can't resolve the current impasse, how about assigning reg # upon registration, then, it should be used as part of an electronic signature. No confusion and no waiting for absentee ballot. If that happens, I need to find some hack proof security software cos <VBG>! best, Bosco

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7603)	11/10/2000 1:45:01 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 30051

Zeev, <<The right thing to do (but I am not sure this is the "legal thing to do") would have been to give half the votes each to each "punchee", since it is clear that the voter wanted either the first punchee or the second punchee.>> Well, I agree with you, and even Pat Buchanan this morning came close to agreeing with you--at least insofar as who the votes were actually intended for--but the Republicans will scream bloody murder. Double punched votes are thrown out, period, they say. It is not a little ironic that the election is coming down this way. W kept claiming throughout the campaign that he wouldn't merely observe the technicalities of the law, as he claimed Gore did, but he would honor the spirit of morality, and do what was right. Here his campaign is doing quite the opposite in order to win. Indeed, they want the Democrats to concede now without even bothering to count the overseas votes, as "everyone knows" that 70% of these will be Republican. Why bother counting them? Why bother indeed. Fascinating. Sam

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7603)	11/10/2000 1:49:26 PM
From: Jdaasoc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

Zeev: to give half the votes each to each "punchee", I thought that was eligent idea to give partial redress but then double punchee's lead to triple punchees in all permutations across all 67 counties of FL and any other state where they use paper ballots. I like the argument about proving that the will of the people was not carried out based upon the statistical significance of exit polls obtained by Voter Polling Service. Their head guy was on nightline Wed night and claimed that they were wrong only 5 times in 30,0000 elections over 30 years. I would like to know the confidence level of the sampling size used in FL. john

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7603)	11/10/2000 2:00:22 PM
From: Steve Lee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 30051

Zeev, would this ballot be fairer:? geocities.com I would say that whatever confusion there may have been should have been ironed out before the election. Looks to be a severe case of bad loser syndrome from Gore. And, having seen the ballot paper, I agree with the view that anybody who can't vote for the right person shouldn't be voting. If people punch two holes than it would be more in the national interest to ask them who they meant to vote for and subtract a vote from the intended recipient. Who with an ounce of understanding of any kind of affairs would punch two holes on a ballot paper where only one should be punched???

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7603)	11/10/2000 2:05:53 PM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 30051

Zeev, I think that 20,000 is the minimum, since 20,000 ballots were disqualified due to double "punching". Thanks for the clarification. Apparently that lays to rest the "it's too confusing" argument since these voters figured out that they had punched the incorrect selection before they left the voting booth. Apparently we just need to educate voters that you're only allowed to vote for one candidate <G>. I'd have thought that would be obvious, but maybe it's not. Maybe we just need big signs at voting places that say "IF YOU MAKE A MISTAKE, PLEASE TURN IN THE MISTAKEN BALLOT AND GET A NEW ONE". p.s. FWIW I've always thought that Californians should be required to answer a few basic questions about our Propositions before being allowed to vote on them to ensure that they have some clue of what they're voting for. As for financial matters, I'm mostly sitting on a bunch of SSTI, but I'm not confident enough to trade right now. Dave Another election p.s. - CNN just had a "man on the street" interview with New Yorkers. Many of them apparently said that the ballot appeared to be confusing, but virtually all of them pointed to the right spot when asked how they'd vote for Gore.