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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (1628)	11/21/2000 9:17:48 AM
From: lml	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3887

I would find quite surprising the Court's adoption of acceptance of the "dimpled" chad. Its possible, but IMHO unlikely, because one never knows how a court would rule, and I would view it as evidence of a biasness that would undermine basic principles of law. I ask anyone here to OBJECTIVELY argue why a dimpled chad should be counted as an affirmative vote for a candidate or proposition. Just because a chad is impregnated or dimpled does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that it was the voter's intent to vote for the candidate or proposition representing that unpunched chad. The argument in support of the chad is conclude that since the voter punched no other chad for that elected position or measure, he or she must have meant to vote for the candidate or position represented by that dimpled chad. But that conclusion is not necessarily correct since it is not, and never is conclusive that the candidate intended to vote for that elected position or ballot measure. I would argue that the voter may just as likely been indifferent between the candidate, indecisive, and when it came down to the actual act of voting could not bring him or her self to vote for either candidate. It is just ridiculous, and borders on the absurd to recognize an impregnated chad as a vote. But what is important here is obviously not opinion, but the Court's opinion. And I just think that the issue of an impregnated chad is SO SUBJECTIVE as to be adopted as an OBJECTIVE STANDARD for determining the outcome of ANY election to be so inherently flawed that no rational reasonable person could accept such a standard. In sum, I just can't imagine the Supreme Court of Florida adopting the impregnated chad as a standard to count a vote. In law, adoption of such standards are usually invalidated for vagueness as such standard would be applied. If the Florida Supreme Court adopted such a standard they would risk their ruling to then be subject to review by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional, with at least one claim being a violation of equal protection. JMO.