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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (3026)	11/22/2000 2:08:31 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

Yes, I've seen it; which is why I went looking for other items. You are correct that the FL Supreme Court does not mention the word "dimple". It refers to "did not completely dislodge". I'll come back to that phrase..... The court ruling that I apparently remembered was that of Broward County which ordered the reading of "dimples" and that is being challenged by the GOP. I suspect that your interpretation of "did not completely dislodge" implies that it must have been at least partially dislodged and hence a dimple does not qualify. I might even agree that such a position on the limitations of those words only in the decision is quite reasonable. [Surprised you didn't I?] But it is also important to acknowledge the first part of the same sentence where "did not completely dislodge" occurs. "These voters should not be disenfranchised where their intent may be ascertained with reasonable certainty, simply because the chad they punched did not completely dislodge from the ballot." I think it is clear that the main point of this part of the decision is "These voters should not be disenfranchised where their intent may be ascertained with reasonable certainty," I think it is possible for a person to argue reasonably, the second half "could" include dimpled ballots. Given the frequent absence of reasonable discussion on the thread, I'll yield on this point. An argument over the meaning of what is or is not included in "did not completely dislodge" would not be very exciting. But the second half of the sentence should be considered illustrative not a rule. It would have to be illustrative because the court did not address all the rules of counting. I don't think this is a poorly written section because of this. So, is it possible to determine ".... their intent may be ascertained with reasonable certainty," on a dimpled ballot. I've heard all of the rationale about why it can't, changed mind, etc. But, I have also seen "a dimpled ballot" where I thought the voter's intent was clear. So there are probably some dimpled ballots that the intent can be determined and some that can't be; I don't believe either of us could accurately assess how many dimpled ballots were clear or not clear. [I checked that I didn't have any links in the post, so we don't have to worry about that mistake.] Best Regards, jttmab