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.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TraderGreg who wrote (1647)	11/10/2000 10:24:48 PM
From: Roger Sherman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

TraderGreg, when you have a few extra moments... <ggg> As the a master statistician you are, perhaps you might peruse the following article (argument for keeping the Electoral College) with your undivided attention, and share your thoughts with the thread: 208.245.156.153 Roger PS. My favorite recent quote regarding the election I heard late last night (early this morning <g>) on CNN's Larry King's show. The venerable Sander Vanocur said (regarding the networks "predictions" on election night), "The media was guilty of Premature Exaggeration."

To: TraderGreg who wrote (1647)	11/11/2000 12:14:05 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

The challenge to the Palm Beach ballot isn't whether it's exemplary - obviously it wasn't. And the challenge isn't whether a small percentage of the voters were confused by it - obviously they were. There are two avenues of challenge - one is whether it violates the Florida directing how ballots shall be configured, and I assume you are aware that the Florida law concerning ballots to be counted electromechanically, as this was, provides that the boxes for checkoffs can be on the left OR the right, so that challenge will fail. The Dems are misdirecting your attention to the law concerning ordinary paper ballots, which this was not. And even then, the law only requires "substantial" compliance. "Substantial" means close enough to get the job done. The other is whether the ballot was so poorly designed as to deprive voters of their franchise. The test is whether a reasonable person, who was reasonably careful, could determine how to vote. The fact that 99% of voters had no problem demonstrates the answer.