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: chomolungma who wrote (3097)	11/30/2000 3:21:43 PM
From: William Brotherson	Respond to of 3887

chomo, Thank you, I got tired taking to a brick wall and decided to eat lunch instead. One small thing that you left out, Miami/Dade and Broward also had those ballots that had no indention, dimple, or any other mark but because they voted party line on the rest of the ballot, Gore got the vote! I wonder just how many of them there were? Which takes us right back to my original post, make the rules totally fair and maybe everyone could agree to them. Nope forgot, that wouldn't work either, the Democrats keep changing the laws written because they don't like the dates that we thought were set in concrete. Little did we know ??????? I wonder if it is illegal to change Gore's Energizers with just regular batteries, he just keeps going and going and going and going!!!! wb

To: chomolungma who wrote (3097)	11/30/2000 3:40:02 PM
From: Ellen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Message 14915669 To: Ellen who wrote (3064) From: William Brotherson Thursday, Nov 30, 2000 12:45 PM ET Reply # of 3104 "If Bush is successful in blocking the counting of these uncounted ballots will history look back and say he was the President who won by suppression?" No, I think history will show, as it is now being proven, Gore is the Liar of the century, Gore's lawyers were using false testimony better known as "LIES" to distort the truth, that the ballots in question should not be counted as Ill Supreme Courts and others have ruled including TX. Under TX law, the chad must be loose by at least two corners otherwise "DON"T COUNT IT", if Gore would state that publically and with finality, they would probably get their way, "AND STILL LOOSE FOR THE 3RD TIME". Also lets at least keep the record honest, he is blocking the votes that have only been counted twice!! wb ------------------------------------- Message 14916377 To: William Brotherson who wrote (3078) From: Ellen Thursday, Nov 30, 2000 1:47 PM ET Reply # of 3103 > Under TX law, the chad must be loose by at least two corners otherwise "DON"T COUNT IT" < That is not correct. capitol.state.tx.us § 127.130. Manual Counting (a) Electronic system ballots that are not to be counted automatically and the write-in votes not counted at the polling places shall be counted manually at the central counting station. (b) If the automatic counting of electronic system ballots becomes impracticable for any reason, the manager may direct that the ballots be counted manually at the central counting station. (c) The procedure for manual counting is the same as that for regular paper ballots to the extent practicable. The manager is responsible for the manual counting of ballots at the central counting station. (d) Subject to Subsection (e), in any manual count conducted under this code, a vote on a ballot on which a voter indicates a vote by punching a hole in the ballot may not be counted unless: (1) at least two corners of the chad are detached; (2) light is visible through the hole; (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. (e) Subsection (d) does not supersede any clearly ascertainable intent of the voter. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 728, § 52, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. > Also lets at least keep the record honest, he is blocking the votes that have only been counted twice!! < That is not correct. Ballots that the machines cannot read have not yet been counted - most notably those in Miami-Dade County. They have not yet been counted even once. These uncounted votes are being referred to as "undervotes."

To: chomolungma who wrote (3097)	11/30/2000 3:51:18 PM
From: Ellen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3887

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. chomolungma, Oh, I see what you are saying. You are saying it has to meet conditions #1, #2 AND #3...OR #4. Am I understanding you correctly now? However, #3 says: (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 So, there could be an indentation without corners of the chad perforated. ? I do know that there have been recounts in Texas* that decided the results based only on indented chads, so that leads me to believe the statute means #1 or #2 or, etc * data already posted on thread