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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ellen who wrote (3091)	11/30/2000 2:46:22 PM
From: William Brotherson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

LOL, Spin away!! I'm just curious, do you get dizzy?? wb

To: Ellen who wrote (3091)	11/30/2000 3:09:34 PM
From: chomolungma	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3887

You wrote: A chad loose by at least two corners is not the only determination whether to "COUNT IT" or not. You are mixing up AND and OR. You think the law says OR while it clearly says AND. Specifically: A loose chad must be present. That is the first requirement. But, there could be cases where the chad was loose for reasons other than an intent to vote. (e.g. loosened from handling) That is why the law adds. (3) an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote; or (4) the chad reflects by other means a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote. So you see a dimple in the ballot is necessary to determine intent but the chad MUST also be loose on two sides with light showing through it. In other words, if the Texas law were used in Broward County, hundreds of Gore's dimples would NOT have been counted. Got it?