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: anandnvi who wrote (89780)	12/10/2000 5:41:48 PM
From: mightylakers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Agh, that really reminded me of my GRE test. In one of the verbal sections, I somehow mismarked into wrong number and got everything messed up from that point on. I don't know how much that cost me, but if I can recount, the result should be better than the 2090 I got.

To: anandnvi who wrote (89780)	12/10/2000 6:00:31 PM
From: waverider	Respond to of 152472

>>>As an analogy, consider the SAT/GRE or any standardized test - if you do not color the entire oval on the exam sheet, the machine will not recognize your intent, and you know this before you take the exam. Whining after the fact that your half-colored ovals should be examined to divine your intent is not playing by the rules - it's attempting to change them<<< LOL...yes, but that hasn't stopped the "I am not responsible for my actions" crowd to sue the various testing boards when they didn't do well on exams. I am not sure how this attitude became so prevelant in our country, but fortunately in places it matters...like for the guys in the missle silos and pilots in jet fighters...if you don't cut it you're OUT! Rick

To: anandnvi who wrote (89780)	12/10/2000 6:21:43 PM
From: brian h	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

"""As an analogy, consider the SAT/GRE or any standardized test - if you do not color the entire oval on the exam sheet, the machine will not recognize your intent, and you know this before you take the exam. Whining after the fact that your half-colored ovals should be examined to divine your intent is not playing by the rules - it's attempting to change them"" The analogy is flawed. In general voting, those ones do not read English that well or do not have a 1st grade education but still US Citizens can vote and rely on some assistance to vote. The question is how do they do their votes. Who help them to vote?

To: anandnvi who wrote (89780)	12/10/2000 6:43:40 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Only those votes that were read by the machines should be considered legitimate since that was the premise of the election. If a voter cannot make her intent apparent to the machine, her undervote by definition does not qualify - it is not merely a matter of human subjectivity entering into the picture when such votes are counted. This is absolutely untrue. -fl

To: anandnvi who wrote (89780)	12/11/2000 2:23:32 AM
From: Bux	Respond to of 152472

I must congratulate you for staying focused on the big picture but I wish you would provide a reference for your opinions that aren't self evident. Only those votes that were read by the machines should be considered legitimate since that was the premise of the election. It was?....What is your basis for this sweeping claim? In fact, there is nothing in Florida law or U.S. Federal law that mandates a preference (let alone a total reliance) of machines, over the people, to count the votes. If a voter cannot make her intent apparent to the machine, her undervote by definition does not qualify - it is not merely a matter of human subjectivity entering into the picture when such votes are counted. We have heard sworn testimony that some of those machines had not had their chads removed in over 8 years. Not only were those machines used for federal, state and municipal elections, they were also used for union elections. Since the machines are quite slim, a buildup of chads could affect the ability of voters to obtain a clean punch-out of all the chads, particularly those chads under the presidential candidates if the chads were slid toward the top of the voting machines before they were set down in certain precincts. In this case many votes for president would only register as a strong dimple, not a clean punch. If one assumes the 8 years worth of chads may have blocked some voters honest attempts to register a vote, counting strong dimples would result in a more accurate determination of who actually received more votes. If state or Federal law said only cleanly punched ballots would be considered valid, then you would have a valid argument but as it stands, the law is quite clear that the intent of the voter is what determines a vote, not a cleanly punched ballot. Your argument that standardized academic tests are judged on a stricter standard is inconsequential and irrelevent. The history of electing our government officials pre-dates standardized academic testing and has a completely different set of applicable rules and case law. Those rules recognize that a hand count is preferred to a machine count in close elections. Any challenges to the way the votes were counted can come after all the votes have been counted, not before. Anything less is obstructing the natural and historical way that close elections have always been decided in the U.S. Having said that, it is painfully obvious our voting system is in dire need of an over-haul. Outdated computer punch ballots need to be replaced with modern equipment and clearer standards need to be developed. Until then, votes should be counted under the current legal standard which says any vote in which the "clear intent of the voter" can be determined, must be counted. Bux