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: Alcona who wrote (23368)	12/8/2000 7:27:44 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

>>"but when that many votes are rejected by a 30-year old machine....I, in all fairness say, let's look at them visually, and let the result speak for itself....fairly simple logic....."<< These machines were used nationwide, though not in every precinct. I assume that your opinion is to have every ballot run through these machines in every state to have an outside chance of being in compliance with the Rule of Law?? One significant problem here is that these machines have been determined to be in working order. Another problem is that if you determine these machines are defective, then how can you determine these defective machines accurately threw out ALL of under votes? If they are defective, then how do you determine these defective machines accurately counted the ballots the machine actually read & have already been certified? If the machines worked properly, then THERE ARE NO UNDER VOTES. If the machines are defective, then NONE OF THE BALLOTS CERTIFIED FROM THESE MACHINES CAN BE DEEMED TO BE ACCURATELY CAST VOTES. Hmmmmm.... Either way, the FL SC goofed up, 'eh? Ö¿Ö