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 (252)	12/3/2000 11:12:54 PM
From: Carl R.	Respond to of 644

I have no problem counting partially detached chad, but I vehemently oppose counting dimpled chads because they are simply too subjective, and too easy for a counter to create in the process of handling the ballots. According to what I know, no state has ever allowed dimpled chads to be counted. Bois presented an affidavit before the FSC that Illinois allowed the counting of dimpled chads but the person who signed it later admitted that in fact Illinois had specifically decided that dimpled chads could not be counted. You can't just create new rules for counting votes because you don't like the outcome. Carl

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (252)	12/4/2000 1:30:41 PM
From: SBHX	Respond to of 644

Zeev, the accidental "dimpling" simply because handling accidents should not affect democratic dimples more than it does republican ones --- Wow, a site dedicated to the magnificent turnips. I stand in awe. Respectfully of course. There are lots of possible reasons for this : 1. The 3 counties are all heavily DEM voters, there are more Gore holes in them all. Hence more Gore hanging chads, hence a greater probability of the hanging chads making impressions on the Gore unpunched chads. 2. The conviction of Gore supporters could be much weaker, meaning the chance of someone changing his mind after inserting his stylus but before he punches through is higher. Note that because he sees the warning about chad punch though, he thinks he has not voted and does not ask for a new ballot. 3. The position of Gore's chad is such that it is the most likely place for someone opening the ballot to grab the ballot on. I actually think Judge Burton's reasoning is quite sound (if not exact -- who can be exact in an analog domain?). He feels that a single dimple in the presidential race could be caused by accident (or other reasons) when all the other races have punch throughs on chads (if the voter has a problem with punching chads, then he should have problems with at least one more chad --- a single dimple you can't tell). I can think of cases where this doesn't hold, but it certainly contain some logic behind it so can be defended somewhat. Note also that any chad with a hole through the middle is counted. The stylus is supposed to be sharp! So dimples that don't have a sharp pin prick at least in the centre is doubtful ---. But this is what happens when there are no rules right? SbH