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: Jill who wrote (14592)	11/11/2000 3:40:51 PM
From: CAtechTrader	Respond to of 65232

Now what the heck do you do with this box? Out of official custody for 4 days? Disclosed at a NAACP meeting. Anyone have faith in the integrity of the votes inside? uk.news.yahoo.com

To: Jill who wrote (14592)	11/11/2000 5:25:30 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

My take is that a manual re-count might favor Gore because, apparently, this process gives the election judges authority to ignore instances where people failed to follow rules, and therefore might include votes where people didn't follow them. The unstated underlying premise is that they think more Gore voters didn't follow the rules which require voters to punch the tab for each selection. Example: somebody doesn't punch any tab at all, but the ballot shows a pencil mark next to Gore. A subjective value judgment is made by the judge, and that vote might go to Gore in a manual re-count. The machine count would have rejected it as no vote. Another is where there is an indentation next to Gore's name, showing that some pressure had been put on that tab on the ballot, but it wasn't punched out. It could be that the voter had previously decided not to vote for the office of president at all, but inadvertently rested the punch there for a moment; or even thought about voting for Gore, but decided not to, after re-considering, e.g., the possible impact on Israel from Gore's secret arms deal with Russia. Whatever the reason, sh/e might have decided to pass and leave the decision to others. Regardless, that ballot could be called for Gore under a manual re-count, merely because there's an indentation next to his name, purportedly supporting a claim that that "indentation" represent's a "voter's will." I reject that notion, without qualification. People were told what "act" they needed to take -- simply punch out the tab, and verify that you've done it -- and that's all that ought to count. To require less is to have no requirement AT ALL. The next lowest standard is simply mob rule. As to punching ballots correctly, those senior citizens have more experience than any of the rest of us at this, and my understanding is that WPB County has used that same type of ballot in the past. This is so much FUD, I can't believe it. The Chicago Daley machine has generations of experience of counting ballots over, and over, and over again until the Democrats win. Re-counts seem fair on their face, but if they get less representative of our system as a whole at every stage, and if just a little more bias is thrown into the pot at each stage, they become horribly skewed. If they're going to give Florida voters this special hand-count treatment, I think they ought to hold a hand recount for all 100,000,000 million of us who voted. We shouldn't have our vote diluted, disenfranchised, or subjugated to Florida's voters.