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: mst2000 who wrote (111375)	12/11/2000 10:32:23 PM
From: d.taggart	Respond to of 769670

My god you people march in lockstep.read The Floriduh laws for the correct information,I say we need to clean out some courthouses while Jesses fans are getting new microwaves,lol

To: mst2000 who wrote (111375)	12/11/2000 10:35:07 PM
From: KZAP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I wouldn't mind to see them recount the entire state of FL! But use the "same rules", the current rules. The FL Supreme Court has made a stupid mistake. How did they get to be Supreme Judges anyway. They are making a fool of themselves just like Goreites. <g> KZAP

To: mst2000 who wrote (111375)	12/11/2000 10:38:42 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

mst2000, <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.> Reading non-penetrating dimples involves judgment in a spacial orientation which is three dimensional: length, width and height (or depth). How is anyone able to discern a "dimple" from a digital photo which is two dimensional in nature? You can't be serious.... Regards,

To: mst2000 who wrote (111375)	12/11/2000 10:46:04 PM
From: zonkie	Respond to of 769670

I have always thought dimples should count for whoever's chad was dimpled. The republicans have made very good political hay with this matter, almost as good as they did with their erroneous contention that Gore had an agenda to throw out legal absentee ballots. They almost had people up in arms over that one and never mentioned once all of the veterans that had their ballots sitting in those big piles of undervotes that they have fought so hard to suppress. As far as the amount of people that voted but left the presidential race unvoted I would say it would be very very close to the percentage of voters that didn't vote for president in counties that used optical ballots. Bush and his lawyers claim that the percentage of people that didn't want to choose a candidate in punch card counties is 3 or 4 times higher than counties with other ways of voting sounds like something Baker made up.

To: mst2000 who wrote (111375)	12/11/2000 10:51:02 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

It's like this: (You're obviously a greenhorn hunter but eventually you'll understand what I'm talking about.) It's your first day out. You sit down and glass the hillside, looking for a big whitetail deer. You look low, you look high. You look near, you look far. No buck. Pretty soon you see a foot, you see horns, you see a really BIG one right over there! You lift up your rifle and through the scope you can see the big buck is just a shadow and the horns are just the branches of a tree. You want to see a deer so bad that your mind creates one for you. Hopefully you don't shoot, because everybody in the whole world is watching. Same principle with ballots. After looking at 45,000 of the damn things, you'd be seeing a dimple behind every chad. But then you're just a greenhorn. If you were a hunter you'd know a vote when you saw one. They're the ones with the little rectangular holes.

To: mst2000 who wrote (111375)	12/11/2000 11:01:40 PM
From: JLIHAI	Respond to of 769670

Without an objective standard to count the undervotes, any post mortem analysis would be meaningless.