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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (458)	11/27/2000 5:51:54 PM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

How about saying that the people who incorrectly filed their ballots are responsible for not having those ballots counted? It seems to me that these "uncounted" ballots were all cast incorrectly for 1 reason or another. Once cast incorrectly since we can't find who these people are, how can we know their intent? I would bet my entire net worth that these counters could not come close to duplicating a number on just say 1000 of these questionable ballots. As a matter of fact if they can sit by without help other then the 3 counters and come up with the same number twice on these 1000 ballots I'll say let them have at it. But from what I saw of the methods on TV there is not a chance in hell that they could get the same number twice. If they can not get the same number twice then they are divining votes and not counting votes IMO. I'm also of the opinion that Miami/Dade stopped counting because they never wanted to start in the first place. Jeff

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (458)	11/27/2000 6:52:54 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

Either they had the discretion to engage in the hand count or not. If they chose not to go forward, I would think that would be it. Bear in mind that manual recounts are not mandatory in the first place. If they were essential to a fair election and thought to yield the most accurate outcome, they would be mandatory in all instances. Doesn't this make some sense? To me the real problem is in the court of public opinion and how all of this will ultimately be spun to undermine whomever is ultimately declared the winner. Where is Regis when you need him. Is this your FINAL answer?<g>

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (458)	11/27/2000 7:07:21 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

MadDog, Have you ever heard of Kenneth Arrow? Kenneth Arrow is a Stanford economist, who proved in 1951, that given two or more voters, and three or more choices, then there is no unique way to determine the preference of the group by examining the preferences of the individuals. How you combine the preferences (i.e., how you count the votes, what voting system you use) can change the outcome. Thus, choosing a voting system is itself a declaration of values. This is known as Arrow's Impossibility Theorem for which Kenneth Arrow received the Nobel prize in 1972. Bush, Gore or Buchanan in Florida? sa.ua.edu Here is a link with a copy of his proof. It is stored in a pdf file so you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to access the site: socrates.berkeley.edu There will always be an element of uncertainty in the Presidential election of 2000. Regards,