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 : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (14559)	11/11/2000 2:39:12 PM
From: Catcher	Respond to of 65232

thanks for stating my position so succinctly

To: abstract who wrote (14559)	11/11/2000 2:44:25 PM
From: CAtechTrader	Respond to of 65232

agreed abstract, we want the same...what I don't ever want to get into the ballot process in this country is subjectively deciding the "intent" of double marked ballots. THAT would forever subvert the integrity of the process. Double voted ballots are by definition invalid ballots. That is a well accepted principle. To add any "subjective" element to counting ballots leaves us just another Banana Republic. The point of the lawsuit today is that the Florida Statute is hopelessly vague on what standards are to be applied in accessing the "intent" of a ballot. That IS a Federal Issue. Vague State laws in many different areas are thrown out all the time by Federal Courts. Our constitution does not allow for laws so vague that they cannot be uniformly enforced or evaluated. From Jim Baker's statement: "The manual vote count sought by the Gore campaign would not be more accurate than an automated count. Indeed, it would be less fair and less accurate. Human error, individual subjectivity, and decisions to, quote, "determine the voters' intent," close quote, would replace precision machinery in tabulating millions of small marks and fragile hole punches. There would be countless opportunities for the ballots to be subject to a whole host of risks. The potential for mischief would exist to a far greater degree than in the automated count and recount that these very ballots have already been subjected to. It is precisely, ladies and gentlemen, for these reasons that our democracy over the years has moved increasingly from hand counting of votes to machine counting. Machines are neither Republicans nor Democrats, and therefore can be neither consciously nor unconsciously biased. There are not even any procedures or standards to govern this third and selective vote count. A manual recount permits the electoral boards in each county in Florida to determine the intent of the voter, without setting forth any standards at all for deciding that intent. One electoral board may decide to count votes that are not fully punched; another may not. One electoral board may decide that a stray mark indicated an intent to vote for a particular candidate; another may not. One electoral board may try to determine the intent of voters who marked multiple candidates on a ballot, and another may not. If this new selective recounting process proceeds, the votes in some counties will be counted in a completely different and standardless manner from the votes in the remaining counties. At this point, a changed result would not be the most accurate result; it would simply be the most recent result." That sounds vague and unenforceable to me.