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.

Technology Stocks : JDS Uniphase (JDSU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Howard S. who wrote (14273)	11/16/2000 12:36:32 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

Do you think Gore would consent to a manual count if it was done entirely by registered Republican election officials? I don't. He would think that would be biased and unfair. That's the answer to your question. Come on. Both are politicians. One appears to have won and will go to any means necessary to keep that count and the other appears to have lost and will go to any means necessary to change that count. Everything else, the "machines are more accurate," the "will of the people," the "where will it end," the "pregnant chads," etc, is PR. Regardless of whether recounts are right or wrong, I have serious problems with "pregnant chads" being cast votes. How can they say that an un-punched ballot is a vote? Are they going to invalidate any ballot that has a clean punch and a "pregnant chad"? It would seem they must if a "pregnant chad" is a vote. What if a person almost punches the wrong candidate, stops (but after knocking up the chad) and then punches the right one? Is this expressing "the will of the people"? I imagine that you can find at least one person who will honestly swear that he changed his vote in mid-punch and submitted his ballot when he made sure the hole wasn't punched. The "pregnant chad" interpretation wouldn't be expressing his will but instead negating it.

To: Howard S. who wrote (14273)	11/16/2000 4:06:14 PM
From: uu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24042

Dear Howard: > Do you think Gore would consent to a manual count if it was done entirely by registered Republican election officials? I believe you misunderstand the whole process of recounting by hands (thanks to the Republican propaganda machine). The recounting is done in bacthes. Each recounting batch takes place by 3 people, 1 (supposedly non-partisan - but it does not really matter) who counts, 1 (a die heart Republican) and 1 (a die heart Democrat) oversee what the counter is doing and on top of that there is someone from the Sherief department standing watching the whole thing (never mind the CNN, and the rest of the circus watching carefully - not because of their good heart but to catch any wrong doing so their ratings can go even higher than what it is now!). Also to ask you the same question, do you think Bush would have done anything differently than Gore is doing if the situation had been reversed (especially with the co-chairman of his political campaign in Florida also acting as the person who decides selectively which votes to accept and which ones to reject)?! Regards,