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 : Stock Attack -- A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jack T. Pearson who wrote (37770)	12/9/2000 11:24:59 PM
From: sandeep	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42787

Jack, I agree with almost all your points. You make the following point. 3. The standard used to count the votes by hand should not materially affect the relative outcome in any subset of votes if it is applied equally to all cards reviewed in that sample. Check this out with your statistics guru. I believe that not all undervotes are going to be counted by the same standards. The duplicity of the Fla supreme court is exemplified by the fact that they are keeping the Broward county count, the palm beach county count and the partial count while asking for a new recount of all the remaining undervotes. This flies in the face of your rule 3. I personally agree with all your points and claim that a reasonably strict standard be applied to counting of EACH undervote. This is my suggestion: 1) Machine count all the votes in FLA again. 2) Take all the undervotes and recount them using the Palm Beach standard. 3) Declare the resulting winner as the President.