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 (3057)	11/22/2000 2:43:11 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

I have no problem with tabulating votes when the intent can be reasonably discerned, although I generally favor tougher rules, not looser ones, for a proper vote. I agree. However, the court made no ruling nor attempted to define how to discern the intent of the voter. Nor did it mandate statewide standards. These omissions make this decision nothing more than absurd politics. What you see as a weakness, I see as appropriate. I don't know how the court can make detailed "rules" that accurately equate to "intent". Sometimes the person there can make the best decision. Only a few things in life are black and white, was the ballot postmarked on or before 7 Nov. Yes or No...was their other evidence that reasonbly shows that the intent was satisfied...fuzzy logic. Though, again, it is possible for reasonable people to differ on this point. In addition to intent divining, another problem with counting dimples is the new overvote it creates in the already certified totals. I don't understand this point with respect to dimpled ballots; dimpled ballots would not have been counted by the machine at all; so it should not contribute to an overcount. If the ballot was dimpled and a candidate was punched out [in the chad sense] then the intent of the voter was clearly the punch out and wouldn't contribute to an overcount. Have I misunderstood your point here? jttmab