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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (77874)	11/16/2000 12:16:05 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I'm sure you can do better than that. Keep trying.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (77874)	11/16/2000 12:43:00 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

All right, here is the longer answer. Your analogy is silly, at least if we are talking about the chad issue and not the mistaken Buchanan issue, which is not going anywhere in my view. So now the chad issue. If a voter accidentally punched out the chad for Nader instead of Gore (or in your analogy the losing number instead of winning number), there is no way the vote is going to be counted for Gore if the voter comes in after the fact and said oops I made a mistake. Of course, that is not what is going on the recount. Instead, a voter punched the chad for Gore, but it didnt completely fall out. The question is do you count that vote? For many years in many jurisdictions, including Texas, the answer has been yes. Like I said, I'm sure you can do better. But I have to go out for a while, so try out your examples on others, and I will check back with you later. Knock yourself out.