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: Qone0 who wrote (90089)	11/27/2000 1:22:04 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Robert, what is your statistical estimation as to how many others would have voted in the manner you suggested you had voted? Now compare your estimation to the statistical likelihood of tens of thousands of votes never counted at all. I dare say, your estimated number pales when compared to votes which never got counted at all! And, further, I submit your estimated number would pale against the number of voters who voted the fourth punch-hole in Palm Beach County, thinking they were voting for Gore who was listed as number five, but whose name was second in the lefthand column? Have any of you yet figured out why Bush was number three, Buchanon number four and Gore number five? I suspect it's because of the error-prone nature of the machines which frequently jam up in the top positions. Will someone astute among you, please inform me who number one and who number two were on the illegal Palm Beach County butterfly ballot? Ah, you don't have an answer. Well, then ask yourself: Why was there no number one and no number two? Importantly, why would you be opposed to the Florida legislature, in a reflection of the will of the Florida voters and as a good faith effort to end the dispute, assigned 12 votes each to Gore and Bush?

To: Qone0 who wrote (90089)	11/27/2000 1:24:13 PM
From: lawdog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I doubt that it occurred so it's really a non-issue. There are limitless unlikely hypotheticals that we could construct where a person's vote is misinterpreted by machine or by hand recount. It is far more likely that a dimpled chad is representative of a person’s valid attempt to vote and marks their intended choice. The goal of the counting process is to arrive at the most accurate result possible, not a perfect result. Good question. What if your chad fell out on it's own during the machine count and was counted for Gore by the machine?