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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jcky who wrote (652)	12/8/2000 1:41:34 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

Should Judge Saul have taken a look at the ballots for the sake of completeness? Probably. There was a sign outside my polling place. It said, "we are going to make sure we count your vote. Unless pragmatically, it is more practical not to, even though for the sake of completeness we ought to." J/K ... but if there was such a sign, would you raise a stink??? What could have been accomplished by viewing hanging, pimpled or dimpled chads? Probably nothing. With respect to the Dade County votes, I thought all we knew for sure about the 10,000 ballots is that the machine outsorted them for some unknown reason. I didn't think they had been inspected for dimples, etc..... I am not suggesting counting dimples and pimples and pieces of dust, I am suggesting a systematic examination of 10,000 pieces of evidence, just like goes on in courtrooms every day across the country. Similar ballots have already been reviewed thoroughly from the more experienced vote counters of the canvassing board of Miami-Dade County. Where was the sign outside my voting booth that said, "Thank you for your vote. If we find that your ballot looks similar to other ballots, we may choose, in our exercise of discretion, to have our experienced vote counters count the other, similar ballots but not yours. Thank you for coming, and have a nice day." The fact is, the machine said there was no vote registered on these ballots. The ballots are sitting together in a room someplace. I could count ten thousand pieces of paper by tomorrow noon with enough Diet Coke in my system. And really, couldn't the Gore camp have played the Devil's advocate even if Judge Saul had examined some of the ballots? Would examining 100 ballots be thorough enough? How about 500? Or maybe 1000? Look at them all, then. And wouldn't the actual event of examining the ballots potentially alter the status of some of the ballots Look at them carefully, then. In a murder case, is it inappropriate for a judge or jurors to not physically exam the deceased victim in order to ascertain the cause of death? Are photographs of the victim or testimony from the coroner sufficient? Judge Saul did hear the testimony of ballot counters and read their affidavits. I will admit to having been otherwise occupied this week and not following the news as closely. But I thought, last week anyway, that these ballots had not been counted at all, because the board decided if it didn't have time to count everything they would count nothing <correct me if I am wrong here, because I might be>..... The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, and there were never any allegations of physical voter ballot tampering. I guess my question is, the burden of proving what? That the ballots were not counted? Or that the ballots, if counted, would change or probably change the outcome? For me, it is enough that they were not counted. Every vote deserves to be counted, and demands to be counted....even the ones for Gore.