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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (1712)	11/11/2000 4:59:52 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

In the very few cases where there has been a re-vote, I believe is was conducted for only the people that voted the first time; you use the prior ballots as a sort of a registration card. IMO, a re-vote for a precinct would be so closely scrutinized, it would probably be the only one that didn't have fraud. The butterfly ballot, the fact that the ballot was reviewed and approved would likely be the factor that would result in the "confusing" claim to be dismissed. The other potential, in which a machine may have not read the ballots correctly [completely] is a separate issue and IMO the most important one. If a manual reading of the polls results in a different one than the machine counted I would select the manual reading as the accurate one. Best Regards, jttmab