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: TigerPaw who wrote (112404)	12/12/2000 3:08:56 PM
From: H-Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The instructions are plain and in the voting booth. No need to be an expert, just look at the back of the ballot per the plain language of the instruction on the booth, which is in bold red letters. Not wrongo at all. That does not mean that an authority cannot look at the ballot, but if you fail to meet basic responsiblilty, and not give the ballot the care that the solemnity of the occasion deserves, well dont expect people to feel sorry fory you either.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (112404)	12/12/2000 3:22:46 PM
From: Knight	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

<deleted> Duplicate of later message

To: TigerPaw who wrote (112404)	12/12/2000 3:28:31 PM
From: Knight	Respond to of 769670

I agree that counting all the votes in the same way would be the best way to add legitimacy to the election (at least from a PR point of view). I would add, however, that the standard must be stated in an objective way and must meet the Florida standard to count the vote "when the intent of the voter is clear". This standard requires (at minimum) the following rules: 1) A chad where no corners are detached (e.g. a "dimpled" or "pregnant" chad, or a "tri-chad") shall not be counted as a vote unless the ballot contains a pattern of dimpled chads. (If the voter punched chads all the way through in some races, they demonstrated that they knew how to properly vote; hence, you cannot assume that they intended to vote in the presidential race if they didn't punch it all the way through. The voter's intent was not clear.) 2) The only exception to the above is the case where the voter clearly specifed by some other method (e.g. via writing something on the ballot, etc.)how they intended to vote. Note: Since even the above voters failed to follow the clear instructions given to them (e.g. a prominently-displayed sign at the voting booth which instructed them to punch their ballot all the way through and check the back of the ballot to ensure that there are no hanging pieces of paper), this would be, very, very, generous. Any recount that allows the "relaxed" standard used by Broward county would not be helpful in adding any legitimacy (which is why I believe the Supreme Court was right to stop the recount this weekend). Any counting that uses highly suspect, subjective standards or a multiplicity of standard brings no closure whatsoever; rather, it compounds the legitimacy problem.