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: jttmab who wrote (1714)	11/11/2000 5:52:46 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

re "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." Well, of course the ballots themselves don't have signatures on them, but there is the place in the book at the polls that you sign when you vote at the polling place. In itself, that would seem like a reasonable way to ensure only those who voted the first time to vote the second time. I've voted absentee ballot before, and that also has an envelope where you must sign. Of course, one would hope that those signed envelopes are all safe and secure somewhere, and that none would "disappear". However, the main problem in this particular election would be all those Nader votes. Granted that they voted (quite uselessly, IMO) the first time for Nader, but it's not fair to give them a chance to change their minds. Essentially, the entire Presidential race would be decided by who the Nader voters chose on their second trip to the polls. The idea of selectively allowing certain counties to having a re-vote, the result of which will decide the outcome of the Presidential election, is to me a bad idea. Furthermore, every county in the entire country has ballots that have to be discarded because of the same reasons as in Florida: multiple holes where you're only supposed to "VOTE FOR ONE", etc. I think the only fair solution is to proceed with what is being done, and that is to very carefully re-count the ballots, and that should be done under close supervision that consists of equal representation between Repubs and Dems. And if the hand-recounts that are about to be done end up with a different candidate getting the majority than the first time, then another hand-recount would seem to be the only way to confirm which count was more accurate (best of three). Or you could just use the NBA system of basketball play-offs, and make it a best of seven series. -g- As for that FL Judge that decreed that the Palm Beach vote count could not be certified until a hearing on the "ballot issue"; she's wacked out of her mind, IMO. It's one thing to decide what to do in the future, but for this election, the butterfly ballot was clear enough and approved.