SI
SI
discoversearch

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: TigerPaw who wrote (83860)11/21/2000 5:42:34 PM
From: SecularBull  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Perhaps vote fraud was the implied allegation?

I certainly would not rule that out, would you?

LoF



To: TigerPaw who wrote (83860)11/21/2000 5:52:59 PM
From: Constant Reader  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Once again, you are twisting words to suit your own agenda. My first statement asked if there was any way of knowing whether a pregnant chad indicated an effort to cast a ballot or a change of heart on the part of the voter. Since ballots are not generally identifiable, there is no way to prove one contention over the other beyond a shadow of a doubt. Each is possible. One may or may not be more probable, but each is a legitimate explanation (among others) for the existence of the pregnant chad.

You have distorted my point.

In response to my remarks, you aver that I changed my story. I did not. I replied to your asinine suggestion that the only reason anyone goes to the polls is to vote for President. That argument is demonstrably false.

As I said, people vote for many reasons. According to Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of Los Angeles County, 2,720,067 registered voters cast ballots on November 7. Of that number, 2,647,187 voted for President. 72,880 (2.68% of the total) did not record a vote for President. I guess my "ridiculous assumption" was based on something as unstable as cold, hard fact. So sorry! Please, don't let the facts get in your way.