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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (37895)	11/16/2000 9:02:45 AM
From: pater tenebrarum	Respond to of 436258

yes i know...i posted the link to the article you mention.

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (37895)	11/16/2000 2:34:39 PM
From: James Sinclair	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

First, lets make it clear that neither machine counting or hand counting is a perfect solution in this matter. The problems with accuracy in punch card ballots are well documented. The National Bureau of Standards tested the equipment way back in 1988 and found it virtually impossible to obtain an accurate count. They recommended that the punch card systems be replaced, but communities faced with spending a money on new voting equipment that only gets used once/twice a year or spending it on police/fire/schools have chosen the latter. Every year they continue throwing out a significant percentage of the ballots that the machine can't read and crossing that it won't matter. This year they got caught. The inaccuracy of the machine method of counting these ballots has been proved out in this very election. You run the cards through the machines twice and you get different numbers, by definition that is not an accurate system. The concerns about the accuracy and legitimacy of hand count results are valid, but there are steps that can be taken to minimize these concerns. Nobody is going to be able to 'steal' this election by manipulating a hand count with a huge media hoard standing over their shoulders watching their every move. Agree on a set of guidelines for what will and what won't count as a vote, apply those guidelines to all 67 Florida counties so their is no bias in the county selection, make sure a member of each party is included in each counting team, and let the chips fall where they may. Governor Bush said on television last night that all of the voters in Florida had already had their votes counted twice. All of the ballots may have been run through a machine, but that doesn't mean the vote has been counted. If a hand count can increase the number of ballots that are included in the final result, then it should be conducted.

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (37895)	11/16/2000 3:16:49 PM
From: John Lacelle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Keep, We had a recount experience here in Santa Barbara County about five years ago. Hanging in the balance was control of the county. The Demos lost by about 8 votes. A machine recount (these were punch ballots like in FL) put the Liberal up by 14. A hand recount (like in FL) ended up with about the same numbers but 16 ballots were either un-punched, or marked with a pen (???) or dimpled. The judge threw out 14 ballots and the right winger won by 2 votes! I think the lesson here is that this will be decided by the Courts and the Congress, not some hand recount or machine number. It is almost an exact replay of the Tilden (D) vs Hayes (R) race over 100 years ago where Hayes won the opinion of a special commission created to decide the race. If I was Gore or Bush, I wouldn't start packing just yet, Hayes won the election 2 days before the Presidential inaugeration! -John

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (37895)	11/16/2000 3:57:21 PM
From: Wayne Jackson	Respond to of 436258

they're all fuzzy numbers to w. too much coke and liquor or perhaps it's those beady little eyes not letting him see what's going on.

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (37895)	11/16/2000 9:39:26 PM
From: LoneTrader	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Dear Friend, Let's not forget Bush signed the hand count law last month himself in his own state. He has no moral standard and no principle? How can he be a president? As simple as that! If wasn't the 49,000+ vote were invalid, Bush would not have a chance anyhow!

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (37895)	11/16/2000 11:16:17 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

I could say someone stuck the stylus next to a candidate and decided not to push through for him/her. This may even be likley when considering the undecided folks standing there voting, but this argument may not be worth waging even if it's quite plausible. Best, is just to recognize that handcounting these things DOES recover votes, and like it or not, if the oversight is/was proper at all times, it's going to be fairly fairly done, perhaps. Best, is to consider that you can't rightly call such a vote recovery method fair when it is employed to the benefit of only one candidate, where the other candidate could benefit if the same method were employed on all state ballots. The Federal courts won't allow it, I think you can bet on that, and the American People can and will understand this. My Guess now is, the Federal courts will give the State the task of deciding whether the hand-count goes statewide, or the vote goes in to Congress as it is. Mr. Bush didn't want to drag it out, and that was easy to say because he was ahead, but Gore wouldn't concede. I won't blame Gore for that simple matter(I will for calling selected county counting fair for a week), this is close. But both appeared to stay within the law such as it is. Now Bush seeks to win under the law and the Secretaries certification. This is Ok too. Without the skewed partisan county results included, it's a level playing field. But a main thrust of his Federal case is to make the argument I've made here with respect to selective territories being accepted. Therefore, he has, for a week, been drawing attention to the inherent unfairness of anything less than a statewide hand-count. It's fair to say, the statewide hand-count has been what he's been saying would be relatively fair all along, though he feels the chad cards are innacurate and people who didn't remove their chads as instructed when they voted should be disqualififed. If it goes to the statewide hand-count one way or the other, the loser will concede when it's evident he's lost, just as usual. P.S. Because of this, when Gore came forward with his offer last night, he effectively recognized the guts of Bush's case in Federal Court, probably because his lawyers told him the Fed's would never allow selective counties to stand, and might in fact allow the count to go through as it is. It was a card Gore had to attempt to play. If Bush would agree, a court might well skip over the possibility of letting things go through as they are with the Secretary of state. Freedom Works, Dan B

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (37895)	11/17/2000 1:52:01 AM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 436258

Horrifying! Police Say Florida Democrat Had a ‘Votomatic’ in His Car Missing Voting Mechanism Recovered abcnews.go.com