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: E who wrote (87389)	11/25/2000 4:49:17 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

E. no person is attempting to suggest that there was any problems with these machines. If there was an ounce of truth in this, don't you think several dozen democratic lawyers would be yelling and screaming. The profound silence on this fact means that an examination of the machine has shown no wear on the machines in column 1. This would have been a legal way to request a manual count. So it makes no sense to argue this point. ToM Watson tosiwmee Sore unfit Investors Business Daily watman.com Sore unfit Investors Business Daily

To: E who wrote (87389)	11/25/2000 5:20:05 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I agree - the stipulation will not make any difference, but I really do think his numbers are off. Thanks for clarifying the point about pregnant chads. BTW, it looks like my sentence itself was unclear, although you understood my meaning. It should read: I personally oppose counting any vote unless* some part of the ballot has been punched through....* I feel sorry for anyone who screwed up their vote, and I don't think they deserve abuse. In most elections, it would not make a difference. This time it might, but that doesn't mean they require special treatment. About 12,000 of their neighbors made similar mistakes, noticed it, asked for and received new ballots and cast those ballots before leaving the polling place. This type of thing happens every election year, no matter how simple or complicated the ballot. It is the voter's responsibility to check his or her ballot for accuracy. The county provides every voter with a sample ballot so that each voter has the opportunity to familiarize himself or herself with the ballot. The voter may bring that sample ballot to the polling place. Ample safeguards are provided, but the state cannot force the voter to review his/her ballot or take advantage of the safeguards. The organized cries of distress immediately after the election are highly suspect. Anyone who says they KNOW they cast the wrong vote had the opportunity to correct that error before departing the polling place. Anyone who says they THINK they cast the wrong vote cannot prove a thing as almost none of the votes are identifiable. Either way, the state has no responsibility to correct these errors.