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 : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Juli who wrote (35171)	11/14/2000 10:19:43 AM
From: Troutbum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

<It is obvious that the machine counts were off quite a bit in Bush's favor.> I think your perception of machine count is off. Machines count the votes of ballots that were properly punched. If a ballot is not completely punched (chad removed), or if more than 1 chad is partially or fully removed, the vote is not counted. Hence the high number of unattributed votes is a result of improper voting. Now the question is, can a hand count ascertain what the voter's intention was, without the ballots being damaged by handling? I think maybe it can, IF there are a set of standards used to decide what is or isn't a vote. It is this non-standard, subjective hand counting that I don't like.