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: Enam Luf who wrote (90168)	11/27/2000 1:55:23 PM
From: Qone0	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

c'mon you are being ridiculous... I could see how someone could argue against pregnant or dimpled chads, but if someone left a "swinging door" chad I think their intentions are pretty clear. If you can find me one real person who left left two corners only attached because they wanted to not have their vote count i'd be surprised. I hate to say it, but you are starting to play the same kind of stupid ass games as Clinton with his "depends on how you define 'is'" b.s. You think their intentions pretty are clear? You were not confident enough to say. I know their intentions. That`s why the rule at the time of the election is important. To check and make SURE the chad IS removed. That is the standard that was set to show intent.

To: Enam Luf who wrote (90168)	11/27/2000 1:57:42 PM
From: TripleT	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

>>I could see how someone could argue against pregnant or dimpled chads, but if someone left a "swinging door" chad I think their intentions are pretty clear<< Typical lame brain democratic response. Learn to read will ya. He said indented not hanging chad. Looks like it may be one of your votes that was not counted because of your lack of reading ability. Techie

To: Enam Luf who wrote (90168)	11/27/2000 2:02:46 PM
From: Constant Reader	Respond to of 769667

I would not argue about a detached chad either, but I do have an anecdote about my recent experience with chads and dimples. I admit I left one of each on the ballot I cast on November 7. It was an absentee ballot. I slipped and started to punch out the chad for one candidate for Superior Court Judge when I realized I was poking the wrong hole. Two corners were detached - it definitely could be called a "hanging chad" if the ballot were waved about. I stopped poking and went ahead and poked the hole for the right candidate. Later, on the same ballot, when I was voting on the propositions, I accidentally caused a dimple on what would have been a YES vote. No big deal - it happened because the paper clip I was holding was leaning on the ballot when I picked it up off the table, forcing the clip against that area. Since I wasn't all that concerned whether or not my vote for the judge was counted, I didn't bother to go to the registrar of voters to get a new ballot. I turned the ballot over, removed all of the other hanging chads from my ballot, smoothed the ballot out with the partial hanging chad tucked in its opening and mailed it off. In over a quarter century of voting, this is not the first time, and undoubtedly will not be the last time, that I have done something similar. It is just one of a number of reasons why I believe divining voter intent by examining dimples is impossible.