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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (109249)	12/10/2000 10:04:05 AM
From: Jumper	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Scalia and Uncle Tom might as well hand the process over to the state legislatures. Strict Construction means using 1825 practice. Why have an election at all? It only produces the potential for irreparable harm to republicans and the right wing political court.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (109249)	12/10/2000 10:58:35 AM
From: James R. Barrett	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

The "controlling legal authority" <g> is the vote counts if there is a clear indication of voter intent. Please define in concrete terms the exact meaning of "clear indication of voter intent" regarding a punch ballot. How could someone possibly know if a voter started to vote for a candidate by putting a dimple on the ballot and then changed his mind and decided not to vote for a president. The voter would assume, and he would be correct, that the dimpled ballot would not count as a vote for president because the instructions on the ballot and signs on the walls say the chad must be completely punched out. Calling a dimpled ballot a legal vote is nothing more than a wild guess by the person counting the votes. If I accidently put a dimple next to Ralph Nader's name and some idiot counted it as a legal vote I would feel compelled to burn down Yellowstone National Park to redeem myself.