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: zonkie who wrote (111360)	12/11/2000 10:18:07 PM
From: KZAP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I can't see how a metal, pointed stylus, wouldn't punch out a pre-scored chad. Dimpled? I find that very unusual. Same rules for Bush or Gore voters. If it didn't punch thru, too bad. The rules are the rules. Don't make changes after the contest. It's that simple. Changing the rules is what is actually happening. Now, it's too late. It's time to quit already! Deadlines were set, deadlines were extended. Contest over! I'm sorry, it was close, real close, but it's over. Change the rules now for the next election. Give Gore his second chance then. KZAP

To: zonkie who wrote (111360)	12/11/2000 10:27:49 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (8) \| Respond to of 769670

If you look at 45,000 undervote ballots one after the other, and you see 30,000 true "no votes" (no markings of any kind) 5,000 ballots with varying degrees of perforation, and 10,000 ballots with dimples for a single candidate (either Bush, Gore, or another candidate, but only one), you realize very early on that the dimples DO reflect voter intent, that they could only be there because the voter tried to vote but was frustrated by the mechanical aspects of the machinery, and that the notion that the voter changed his or her mind a millisecond before completing the perforation is complete BS. This notion that reading "dimples" on these ballots is some form of democratic voodoo mindreading is a fraud on the public, perpetrated by Republicans more interested in Bush's securing a victory than his doing so under circumstances where there is integrity to the victory. When digital photos of these ballots are released into the public domain, as they no doubt will be at some point, the extent to which they clearly reflect votes (and the extent to which the GOP argument that they don't is wrong) will be known to all. It will be a tragedy if that happens only after the election is decided, and it reveals that Bush lost not only the national popular vote, but also lost Florida. And too bad Dubya is unwilling to apply the exact same standard in reviewing these ballots that he signed into law in Texas on this very issue. Under that law, any indentation sufficient to show intent of the voter is counted. There is no requirement of a perforation. And that law has been utilized in recounts conducted this year in local Texas races. Where I come from, that is called hypocrisy. So much for restoring dignity and honor to the White House. MST

To: zonkie who wrote (111360)	12/11/2000 10:32:39 PM
From: Tommy Hicks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Well, that's where problems can enter. One of the Bush arguments concerned Palm Beach County. They'd previously disallowed dimpled chads until this election. I can't find any evidence that any Florida county has ever considered dimpled chads until this election. A standard must somehow have existed prior to Nov. 7, 2000. "If it was up to me I would say single dimples should count for everyone providing there isn't another chad for the same office fully punched out (then count the one fully punched out) or if the voter didn't write something on his ballot to indicate he wanted to vote for someone else besides the dimpled chad" th