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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (118971)	11/22/2000 4:57:43 PM
From: Gary Ng	Respond to of 186894

Amy, Re: Yes, I definitely think following procudures should have happened - it is unfortunate the SOS decided to block routine election procedures by asking the boards to violate statute 106.221 You sound so similar to Scumbria :-) gary

To: Amy J who wrote (118971)	11/22/2000 5:55:19 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Amy: Florida law requires the SOS to certify seven days after. Not 19 days later. This procedure the court caused the violation. The boards violated that statute by not providing the resources required to finish it by the deadline. If they could not make it with their procedures, and they made up the procedure that they followed as they went along, they should have used a procedure that works within the time provided. That they did not use a quicker or more scalable procedure is their fault, not the SOS's One procedure that can be done in less than 10% of the time is a recount by machine and having the machines set aside those ballots with no votes for president, then hand count those. All of them did at least one recount where they could have set up the machines to eject those unreadable ballots at that time (but did not). This reduces the amount of ballots that would be disputed to less than say 1 to 2 percent (less than 20,000 ballots). Then they could have seperated further by how many corners was the chad attached by with disputed ones into the lower pile. This could quickly be done with a large number of teams. Then, the high piles could be counted for each candidate much faster leaving a very small amount where all the disputes lie (less than 2000 or so) for the canvas board to decide. All of this would take less than 1 or 2 days longer than the machine recount even in a high voter population county. Small enough for the recount to make it before the deadline, plus each stage could be sent up as soon as complete to get into the certified totals. Thus the less disputable groups of ballots will have a higher chance of making it. They just chose the wrong procedure. Any delay on their part is their own fault, not the fault of the SOS. Pete