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 : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (64)	11/14/2000 2:57:45 AM
From: Carl R.	Respond to of 644

Zeev, I wasn't referring to Democrats as "pigs", and I'm sorry if I came across that way. I was actually thinking of an individual when I wrote that based on his having expertise in the family, and not based on anything that I know him to have done. Thus I was rendering him guilty by association. I was on the road today, so I got to listen to the radio a bit. They had the head of the National Democratic Party on NPR along with Haley Barbour, former head of the Republican party, and it was an interesting discussion. The head of the DNC (I've forgotten his name) made the comment that he has seen a lot of confusing ballots over the years, that if no one complains before the election the election results are never overturned. He went on to say that if after all the "counting" is done, Bush has the lead, of course Gore will concede, and he also said that Bush was welcome to do counts in the Republican counties because it would be unfair to just add votes in the Democratic ones. I'm sure he expects Gore to end up on top (as do I), but it was reassuring to hear the voice of reason. As you know, I have mixed emotions about the manual counts because I suspect that they are less accurate than machine counts, and I know they are more subjective and more subject to fraud. My only real outrage was to the concept that after approving the ballot, they would come back after the ballots were counted and ask for a new election because they didn't like the outcome. That isn't the way the game is played. Vote fraud? That is a traditional part of the election process, unfortunately. As for an improved ballot process, my suggestion is a touch screen computer which won't allow multiple selections in the same race. Rather than dumping the votes to a central computer, my computer would then print a ballot in a form that was both human readable, so the voter could verify his selections, and machine readable so that the votes could be counted quickly. Although expensive, such a system should be both accurate and resistant to fraud. By the way, did you hear that the Russians offered to send representatives to make sure that our election was being conducted honestly? Carl