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: The Duke of URL© who wrote (3171)	12/1/2000 2:16:36 AM
From: lml	Respond to of 3887

Agreed, Duke as evidenced by earlier post to Chris Message 14921910, which made reference to an earlier analysis I performed upon the statute on behalf of Ellen. You analysis appears to mirror my analysis and the argument I was making that a dimpled ballot ALONE is not sufficient to have a vote counted. What is important to add to this discussion that we have beaten to a pulp, despite its irrelevance to the issue in Florida, is the language of §127.130(e). §127.130(e) provides "*Subsection (d) does not supersede any clearly* ascertainable intent of the voter.**" Such language underscores the importance of the need of the counter to ascertain (make certain) the intent of the voter in a CLEAR fashion (with ease). Without such clearly ascertainable intent of the voter §127.130(d) is rendered meaningless by the language of §127.130(e). For example, notwithstanding a chad with 2 loose corners, a voter could have also punched a second hole for a second candidate along the same column on the ballot, so as to render the voter's INTENT UNascertainable in a clear fashion. If on the other hand, the voter taped the fully punched chad back onto the ballot card, and left a hanging chad remaining next to another candidates name, a reasonable person could "clearly ascertain" the intent of the voter. Obviously the point to make here, and the point so evident in the statute, if one knows how to read a statute, is that the ability of the counter of a manual re-count to ascertain the INTENT of the voter MUST BE determined with CLARITY and CERTAINTY. It is indisputable that a dimple chad ALONE cannot achieve this standard. Now, let's move on, Texas law is irrelvant. The only law that is relevant here is Florida's law, and Florida's law has no standards with respect manual counting of votes, leaving discretion with each local canvassing board to establish their own standards. And, in accordance with 3 USC §5, the policy in place in Palm Beach County prior to the November 7 election was no dimpled chads per a statement by Ms. Lepore. The fact that Ms. Lepore's statement is 10 years old is of no relevance. For dimpled chads to be counted, the County Canvassing Board should have announced a change in the policy along with a standard BEFORE the election, not afterwards.

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (3171)	12/1/2000 11:25:47 AM
From: Ellen	Respond to of 3887

> Parsing the statute, thusly, would, of course, mean that Ellen has, infact, preserved her otherwise unblemished record of incorrectness. < So, therefore, you choose to parse it, whether that is it's true intent/meaning or not, right? To 'keep' yourselves, cough, 'correct' at any cost, right? Kind of like Bush is doing. At least when I thought chomolungma was correct and I was not, I asked him if I was correctly understanding him or not. You guys are the ones who consider yourselves never wrong. And accuse others of that attribute. Why is that so prevalent among you Republicans? You and Christopher both have a problem in thinking that disagreement with another's views constitutes incorrectness or inaccuracy. Why is this so prevalent among Republicans? If you choose not to believe what is so, that is your problem, not mine. It just makes you guys feel better to blame someone else or something else when you don't agree with them or it. That's obvious and pitifully sad. Not to mention obdurate. And, please do, point to what I have been incorrect about.