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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (86536)	12/10/2000 10:38:22 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Having the requests mailed directly back to the Democrat campaign headquarters gave the Democrats something they didn't have before - the last four digits of the voter's social security number, which isn't on the public records. If we want to conjure up or imagine tampering with ballots by the Democrats, this makes it much easier for them to do so. I think it's far worse than what the Republicans did. But I still wouldn't throw out the votes! -g-

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (86536)	12/10/2000 11:36:17 AM
From: benwood	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Don, I have also listed to incessant GOP tripe. So I am not trying to get a corner on the BS. I don't see how one could ever produce evidence of dimples caused by jammed chad unless you confiscated the machine when it happened (your turn to think about it). The fact that the Dems could not prove it in court does not mean it did not happen, as you should know. Of course, that does not mean it DID happen either, as I do know. If the electoral college were gone, then there would be a 200,000 vote majority and the incessant recounts would not have occurred, unless your prize fighter would drag us through the ditches (surely not!). Whatever, only a few states are pawns of one party or the other, perhaps only Jeb for his brother, so I suspect you are wrong on how most states would behave. Original intent of forefathers... need I really rebut this statement? Are we letting women vote yet? Are blacks more than 3/5th of a person yet? The amendments since then? The forefathers original intent was to modify the Constitution as warranted. They knew that they wouldn't be creating a document that would live unchanged for 200+ years without the modification procedure, and they were right. Didn't you just vote directly for a senator? The forefather's didn't design that -- the first time that happened was early this century, do to a change (don't know how the change was made). Regardless, state's would still control their own voting (or should) and it's only Florida that is such a mess. What other state can use it's legislatures (or has shown a willingness to do so, not once, but twice) to vote in a president regardless of the will of the people. There's an easy solution to the recount phenomenon, and it's used in Washington State. Except for the first mandatory recount if the margin is < 0.5 the candidate must pay for it. We have a state law that specifies that ballots can only be handled twice (I think that's after the original vote). Gorton could have paid for one additional recount, but that would, by law, be it. Frivolous or impeding court action would probably harm a party. If the voters get even, the party would respond to being spanked. We will see how this plays out in 2 years. Most of the rest of your argument is along the lines of "we just know the democrats must be committing voter fraud, because why else haven't we heard about this or that?" I can think of a lot of prosecutors who would love to have you on the jury! If you need evidence of the votomatic problems, they why not elsewhere, even if inconvenient? BTW, I didn't know that the ballots were mailed to party headquarters. I didn't realize that the Floridians were open to such fraud, and now I realize how that Miami Mayor candidate had such great opportunity. In Washington State, I request my ballot from the precinct, and it gets returned to election headquarters for my county. I don't even have a party affiliation, nor want one. (It's a shame that Ralph Munro is retiring, he has been great for our state.) A lot of people have good imaginations and can envision a world without the electoral college, at least in its current form. If the college had been abolished in 1999, then the election this year would have been OVER on election night. In other words, if the college were ALREADY gone, this mess in Florida and hence your reason NOT to abolish it would not exist. To somebody that works in logic for a living, that might sound like a logical reason to abolish it now! <g>