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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dan_oz who wrote (89727)	12/10/2000 10:27:00 AM
From: Peter J Hudson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

dan, >>" Peter, I think the only valid standard is to have the chad punched completely out of the ballot."<< This is not the standard the Florida legislature (or Texas) decided to use. Let's not forget the "rule of law" chant. >>"Any more liberal standard to this at best invites tampering and corruption and at worst denies a voter their right to not pick a candidate for president by divining a choice from a scratch on the ballot."<< Your statement is sound bite logic. How is counting a hanging chad "divining a choice"? Is there a possibility that you heard Jim Baker use those exact words time after time?

To: dan_oz who wrote (89727)	12/10/2000 1:03:11 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Dan oz, your simplistic argument that only cleanly punched chads should be counted is not as simple to implement as you suggest. The ballot counting machines actually count approximately half of all hanging chads (depending on whether the chad is hanging open or closed when it goes through the machine). Furthermore, a hanging chad can fall off, making sure the results of any machine re-count will not agree with earlier counts. Historically, a manual recount (using the intent of the voter) has been the only satisfactory way to decide close elections. How does a hanging chad come into being if the voter didn't push the voting stylus through the ballot? Bux

To: dan_oz who wrote (89727)	12/10/2000 1:59:09 PM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 152472

I think the only valid standard is to have the chad punched completely out of the ballot. State courts have repeatedly held otherwise. For example, even in case where the person has punched out the wrong candidate, then punched the write-in position, written in the correct candidate's name, and finally crossed out the name marked in error, several courts a have held that the voter's intent is completely clear even in the face of this being a completely machine unreadable ballot. You actually are not required to punch out anything at all - it is completely legal to mark a punch ballot with a pen or pencil. Read that in the machine. Of course it will probably just be tossed in to the "error" pool but if the error pool is large enough to make a difference in the outcome it must be hand processed. In, fact many states have not counted their absentee ballots precisely because they cannot possibly make a difference in the outcome. Save a buck here and there but count when you have too. Pretty simple, pragmatic logic at work here. Basically, the machine programs simple say, "Hey, I'm having a problem with this card - you'd best take a look at it" It could be a corner folded over, two cards stuck together, the card is upside down or backwards, a bent card from people standing in line so long, or a couple of dozen other reasons. This dimpled chad hysteria is such a trivial number of ballots by comparison it is hard not to perceive all the Republican whining and hand wringing as a complete smoke screen, spin job, or worse - election fraud. Yes indeed, the ballots are the evidence - no question about that as the manufacturer himself so testified. --fl