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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: s-words who wrote (45882)	12/10/2000 8:47:09 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Looks like we have a difference of opinion.

To: s-words who wrote (45882)	12/10/2000 10:17:33 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

The Florida standards for vote counting are extremely low. Even the NBA has higher standards than the pols. Their optical ballot scanning machines for the NBA all-star ballots, according to the latest SI, require at least 50 percent of a hole to be visibly pierced by light. No dimpled chads and no pregnant chads would be admissible.

To: s-words who wrote (45882)	12/10/2000 5:04:34 PM
From: yard_man	Respond to of 436258

Scalia is obviously correct on that point and the subsequent one -- if there is going to be additional recounts, extended to include "undervotes" which are really no votes at all -- there has to be one standard -- otherwise the whole thing is manipulated whether consciously or unconsciously Consider the worst situation: SC lets the count proceed with no set standard for the undervotes. A count is tallied for each county; Gore or Bush wins -- then it is later decided that one county's standard was legally "wrong"; the SC could be viewed as rewriting the tally to suit their whim -- the majority wanted none of this and for good reason ... It is the Fla SC that fcked up. They should have answered the supreme court first on their clarification for extending the deadline ... The minority on the US supreme court is way out of line. They look only to the "ends" and fail to understand that the electorate does* grasp that these additional counts are simply a re-examination of "undervotes." It can still be done if it is in fact legal to do it ...