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 : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (21764)	12/4/2000 2:02:23 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

Very well said JC. I might add one point. Every Votomatic had clear instructions that told all voters to check their ballot & ensure that all the chips (chad) were completely removed before placing the ballot in the ballot box. I must say I do agree that......... "these "votes" were counted, and were assigned a value of zero, which is exactly what they were worth." We the people should not be assigned the responsibility of determining the intent of another who has failed to ensure that their vote was clear & unambiguous. Ö¿Ö

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (21764)	12/4/2000 2:28:16 PM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 65232

In my view, a careless attempt to cast a vote forfeits the right. A number of court rulings around the country have specifically stated to the contrary. In fact, a number of states, including Florida, have statutory requirements to count optical ballots even if they are marked with some instrument (pen, pencil, etc) other than the authorized device. You can circle your choice rather than fill in the bubble and it is a legal vote in many (most? all?) jurisdictions. So, although what you say makes a pretty good bumper sticker or a tee shirt, it ain't necessarily so. --fl