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: William Hunt who wrote (89763)	12/10/2000 3:42:00 PM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Respond to of 152472

Art is right in his view that the sunshine laws will permit some one or some group from gaining access to the undervote (or the entire election returns) at some date in the future. And in gaining access, these individuals may, in fact, do their own complete vote count, including a count of all the undervotes. However, what Art doesn't say is that the "count all the votes" people will still face the same problem when they gain access to all the votes that vote counters face today: they will still be forced to "divine" voter intent and from their own particular biases. In other words, the future vote counter will be as prone to error as today's vote counter. He will have to utilize subjective criteria in ascertaining voter intent. Therefore, his counts and conclusions in the future will be open to the same kind of taint to be expected during the past few weeks as well-meaning vote counters pass the magnifying glass back and forth in search of a sliver of light behind some dimple. The US Supreme Court, in its wisdom, knows that the only reliable vote count is the one already available: the count immediately after the election enhanced by the mandatory recount. All other individual counts must be viewed as one would view any other data based on individual subjective analysis. These counts are the result of the viewer's particular bias and his subjective analysis. So, let the sunshine in. And let the future vote counters count. And let them post their results. And let each of us remember that the results of future counters will be no more nor no less valid than present day counters. We know the results of the only count that matters: the count that each of the 50 states conducted immediately following election day. PS: You know, don't you, that in all of the 50 states, it is reported that more than one and a half million undervotes were recorded? If we count the Florida undervotes to determine the outcome, should we not also insist that all of the other 49 states also count their undervotes? Such a count might swing the electoral votes of New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, etc., into the Bush column. Such a count might also show that Bush won the popular vote and not Gore. Perhaps, indeed, Bush won not only the electoral college but also the popular vote. Such a view is as tenable as the view that the undervote in Florida contains the evidence of a Gore victory in the electoral college.