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.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: alydar who wrote (53109)	11/10/2000 2:47:40 PM
From: johnd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I also want another turn to vote, I didn't like my ballot. I may have astigmatism.

To: alydar who wrote (53109)	11/10/2000 2:51:02 PM
From: Wes Stevens	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

In 96 almost 15,000 ballot were rejected. With the large turnout this time 19,000 is actually a smaller percent. Why was the 15,000 ballots that were rejected in 96 not a problem??

To: alydar who wrote (53109)	11/10/2000 3:00:16 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Respond to of 74651

Re: Invalid ballots First, there is an excellent thread here on SI at Subject 37207 which is hosting a spirited and substantive debate about all aspects of the election. I encourage everyone with an opinion to move the discussion there rather than clutter stock threads with this important side topic. Second, the 19,000 invalid ballots in Palm Beach county are not statistically very different from the number of invalidated ballots in previous elections. For example, in 1996 on much smaller turnout some 14,000 ballots were discarded for similar irregularities. Voting by its nature is a type of statistical sampling which is far from perfect. It's just the best system yet devised to allow democratic choice. The reason election laws exist is because there is no such thing as a "perfect" vote or count, and the courts and all politicians know this despite whatever public rhetoric we may hear. Ironically, it is only when elections are very close, as this one was, that it becomes crucial for all parties to abide by the law to ensure orderly transfers of power.

To: alydar who wrote (53109)	11/10/2000 3:05:47 PM
From: Milan Shah	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

I think thats what a judge will impose. Good judges do not pick sides but make decisions that are supposed to be fair for all parties. I don't think so. Good judges don't make decisions that are fair to all parties. They simply determine what the laws say. The law specifies under what circumstances a revote must be held, and that is what the Judge can tell you. I am willing to put money on my assertion that there doesn't exist any law which says "under xyz circumstance, a revote of only those people that voted must be held", so your proposed outcome is totally unlikely. My assertion is based on the fact that there is no guarantee that those that voted will vote the same way. This is an especially relevant fact - I know of several people that wanted to vote for Nader, but decided to vote for Gore instead, purely based on their environmental policies. How will you guarantee that those Florida people won't do the same? Another aspect of this whole situation is that whatever is screwed up in Florida is screwed up pretty much across the country. How do you know that a similar screwup didn't happen in Illinois' Cook county, except that the screwup is hurting Bush there? As far as I can tell, unless there is evidence of fraud, the law says that, imperfection and all, the vote stands. That's the law. As people on this thread are acutely aware, the law seldom has any relevance to fairness on a case by case basis. Milan

To: alydar who wrote (53109)	11/10/2000 3:22:35 PM
From: Thunder	Respond to of 74651

"will of the people" It's a Pandoras box, Blisenko. What was the "will of the people" in the pan handle by potential voters (in line at polls who turned away, in traffic on there way to them who went home, at home who decided not to go etc.), the rest of Florida, or the rest of the country, when the state was called, prematurely by the media. What was the sober will of some of the homeless who were given packs of smokes and ushered to the voting booth for their vote. Was that fair, was that right or legal, and how far should it and we go? They willfully accepted the ballot before the election according to Florida law (as best as I understand it), voted, and thereby reflected their will on Nov. 7th (imperfectly as it may be; as in other areas of the country). It can go on and on down THAT slope. For our Nation's sake, let's don't.