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: TigerPaw who wrote (83968)	11/21/2000 6:50:16 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769667

That a voter was about to cast a vote, and then decided not to do so, perhaps??? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out... LoF

To: TigerPaw who wrote (83968)	11/21/2000 7:02:53 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

No, that was NOT my claim. I asked Flapjack if there was a way to PROVE that the intent of a voter who turned in a dimpled ballot was to vote FOR a candidate as opposed to showing a last-minute decision by that voter to NOT vote for a candidate (and thus, the dimpled ballot). One can make assumptions, and reasonable people can disagree about the validity of those assumptions. But, the fact remains that there is no way to identify most individual ballots (or the person who cast it). A dimpled ballot could indicate an intent to vote for a candidate. It could indicate a change of heart at the last minute. It could be the result of accidental mishandling by the voter or a precinct worker. It could be the unintentional result of some obstruction in the voting machine itself. Thus, we cannot KNOW. We can guess. We can argue that one thing is more probable than the next, but we cannot PROVE that any unidentifiable ballot in question is, in fact, a result of any of the above.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (83968)	11/21/2000 8:10:06 PM
From: Mark_H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

In the case of Palm Beach, it couldn't be interpreted. The voters have already indicated that the ballot was confusing. Right? So, how could someone interpret what a confused voter intended? Which ballots were cast by confused voters and which ones were cast by voters that weren't confused?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (83968)	11/21/2000 8:17:34 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

A dimple on a chad clearly indicates that a stylus was not pushed thru the chad and that a force far less than the weight of a grapefruit was applied. Yes the weight of a grapefruit 8 ounces, was not applied to the stylus. SO let's say that a chad is 1/8 by 3/16 th. .125 times .1875 is .0234 square inches. 8 devide by .0234 is 341.333 ounces per square inch or 21 lbs per square inch. Any of you all hefted a 16 lb bowling ball lately How much force is required to dimple a precut chad. I say about an once at the point of the stylus or force on the stylus of .0234 ounces. This indicates an accident far more than intent. This also to me is proof positive THAT .... Any 75 year old who can lift an 8 ounce grapefruit should be able to punch a ballot and that is contrary to the Gore associate Liar and fabricator Senator Kerry old folks fairytale. Tom Watson tosiwmee