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 : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bob who wrote (8772)	12/9/2000 9:08:54 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

Bob, I think that the reason they did not rule on what is the standard is because that would have been "writing" law, the legislature already determined this as the canvassing board responsibility to "determine beyond doubt" the voter intent from the ballot. Gov. Bush signed a law in Texas just in the last 24 months in which that determination includes "dimple ballots", but Bush lawyers are fighting his own definition. Nothing left bu to let the canvassing board each to determine for them selves. In my opinion they should classify the type of ballots they get into classes, those that are absolutely without doubt votes for a president (any tear in the chad from its original position) and those that are more doubtful, from impressions to dimple. Separate them, and if the "undoubtful" do not bring about a "clear resolution" of the election, namely that the margin from the "undoubtful" is greater than the sum of the doubtful votes, then you bring that smaller class of doubtful ballots to adjudication. In the whole state, I doubt that these will be more than few thousands, and a panel of Judges and possibly legislators from both parties should determine the fate of these votes. I include legislators, since one of their first tasks after the elections will be to come up with a voting system that will ensure such uncertainty will not recur. Zeev

To: bob who wrote (8772)	12/9/2000 11:47:16 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

<<I agree that a hand count would be in the peoples best interest if it were not for one thing. Not one court has guided the people doing these counts as to what is a vote (dimples, ect) and what is not. The FL-SC in it's wisdom felt that a recount was needed but dodged the real issue on how it could be done fairly by throwing it to the lower court. The lower court late last night decided that it also would throw the issue right back in the counters face and let them figure it out. >> Bob it is catch-22. The FL supreme court can not give guidance as to dimples, chads, etc etc.. because that would be making law. If they did, the Republicans arguing now arguing that "there are no standards" would argue that the supreme court was making law. They were very very smart to not make law. I believe the Florida statute is intent (and no legal definition of this was defined), so back to the individual boards to discern to their best, as to the meaning of "intent". Does anyone know whether Duval is heavily Republican or Democratic? M