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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bosco who wrote (335)	12/11/2000 9:25:43 AM
From: The Street	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

I think the butterfly ballot was a red herring: reagan.com

To: Bosco who wrote (335)	12/11/2000 11:03:48 AM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

At one point early in the election I was listening to Limbaugh (I rarely listen to him for long, actually) and heard him play a collage of different Democrat leaders calling Harris a "3rd rate political hack". I don't recall who they all were, but I know that Daley was one of them. I don't recall if Christopher was one but they were not low-ranking party members. Thus I'd have to say that your argument is in error. Punch card ballots should be eliminated, no doubt about it. However the attacks on them bringing question on the results do little good. That includes both the widely publicized Democrat attacks and the just-cited article on reagan.com that received little or no press. Interestingly an examination of the over-votes could reveal whether either of these scenarios was true (lots of Gore-Buchannan votes for the Democrat scenario, and lots of Bush-Gore votes for the Republican one), or whether the people in Palm Beach just can't vote properly. Since the votes were examined in the manual recount, and since the furor has largely died down, I'd guess that the evidence doesn't support either dark scenario and the real truth is that people in Palm Beach can't seem to vote properly, at least with punch cards. As for supporting the status quo, I have no opposition to change so long as it is done prospectively. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between making changes that apply to the past and ones that improve things in the future, and sorrier still that you feel it necessary to resort to personal insults to make that point. Carl