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: Bull RidaH who wrote (82077)	11/19/2000 5:42:42 PM
From: RON BL	Respond to of 769670

Great post !!!!

To: Bull RidaH who wrote (82077)	11/19/2000 5:45:31 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 769670

Well said Bull, excellent analysis!

To: Bull RidaH who wrote (82077)	11/19/2000 6:03:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Bull, here is one additional points which should be made. The instructions on the ballot told the voter to remove the chad. Their failure to follow instructions cannot be used later as an excuse. Since Florida law does not have a standard related to manually recounting chads. The responsibility is solely on the voter to get it right. If the chads were punched correctly by the voter, they would be counted correctly by the machines. Changing the law after the fact, and now admitting the pregnant, half pregnant, scratched, indented or breathed on chads, is the same as making up the rules after the fact. (As you so eloquently stated). It was not a machine error, it was a human error, they did not follow the rules to remove the chad. Voters have a responsibility to understand and follow the rules in the voting booth. If they fail in their responsibility, they shouldn't look for the rules to be changed after the fact. If the rules are unfair, irrational, or just too hard to follow, they should contact their local politician and pass legislation to change them. Additionally, no one has suggested the machines were not working properly, or causing errors. If the machines were causing errors in tabulation, then they would have been tested against a known standard, and the results would placed before us. The last time the machines were tested, they produced no errors. Lastly, Democrats are making the case that Military personnel should follow the rules to the letter, yet are hypocritical in not applying the same standard toward civilian voters. Chads which were not fully removed, and thus not counted by the machines, should be not be allowed. If it's intent and not rules we are after, then every absentee ballot should be looked at with the same subjective 'intent' alalysis. If it is rules and law that we value, then chads which were not fully removed should be discounted, along with the military absentee ballots. Note: I hope the Secretary of State has tested the machines since election day, and will bring the results to court.