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 : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sabrejet who wrote (8895)	12/12/2000 12:54:49 PM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

Hi Sabre! - thanks for the clarification. I think my rationale [not that it is official :)] still stands. These were votes [probably] rejected by machine but accepted upon human inspection. They may not be undervotes per se, but maybe they were rejected for other reasons. When the canvassing board deemed them worthy, then they should be included, since the manual recount should include them as part of the universe [a la set theory] So, when the board added these to the accepted pile and subject them from the to-be-inspected pile, it will be less work. So long as the overall ruling to manual count [really an inspection] all the questionable ballots remains in force. Not sure if it is a big deal unless people thought they would be double counted. best, Bosco