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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (241)	12/3/2000 8:12:09 AM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 644

Hi Zeev - the local tv in my area actually did do a demo. Unfortunately, knowing where I am located, the local media mean little. While I am still using CNN [website] as my primary source, you are right about your case. Of course, if they decide to do so, some may think they are taking sides. Already, some people feel FOX tv has serious bias, considering Mr Ailes [sp?] is running the show. At this point, I think the dimple issue is a smoke screen. IMHO, the Bush camp's strategy is to run down the clock. cnn.com The Bush lawsuit says that if Sauls decides to grant the Gore campaign's request for manual recounts in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties then he should order hand counts in Broward and Volusia counties as well. IMHO, the likelihood of getting the legislature to do the bidding has increased. While the public may show election fatigue and go along with it, the real danger is a post mortem count [not sure if it is legal] vindicating VP Gore's position. GOP may lose FL legislature and/or the US House in the next election. best, Bosco

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (241)	12/3/2000 12:56:41 PM
From: Carl R.	Respond to of 644

Zeev, you are headed down the slippery slope. OK, you want to count dimples? How big a dimple is sufficient? Should we measure each ballot with a microscope? What about ballots with multiple dimples? Or some punched out and some dimples? Should each ballot be litigated separately in court with expert witnesses on both sides testifying as to the intent of the voters? I personally think that this would be the only fair way. There are only a few clear cut place to stop; one is with cleanly punched ballots, and the other is with partially detached ballots. Anything beyond that becomes totally subjective and unrealistic. The other argument against counting dimpled ballots is that the rules in Florida prior to this election were very clear, and they were that dimpled ballots will not be counted. The election rules were available to all parties prior to the election, and no one complained then. They were posted in every voting place, and voters didn't complain. In fact no one complained at all until it became convenient and even necessary for one candidate to win. The rules are clear - you can't change the election rules after the election. Why do we have this rule? So that you don't get this exact situation, where one candidate loses and then tries to modify the rules retroactively so that he becomes the winner. As to the national press not covering dimpled ballots, while I didn't see it myself, my understanding is that Diane Sawyer showed a dimpled ballot on TV. Like Bob Kerry, she had to admit that she couldn't see the dimple. Then she proceeded to compliment the counting teams for being able to see such small indentations. As I pointed out before, the Emperor has no clothes. Also, I note again in your post the perception that there is some "true" count. Obviously there isn't, especially if you start counting dimpled chads. When counts start getting totally subjective there would be no repeatability at all from one count to another. Carl