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 (112461)	12/12/2000 3:38:35 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Was there really hordes of people who come to just nudge at ballots and then leave. Please expand upon your hypothesis. No, just some that were incapable of following some very basic instructions. It is no surprise you think they were more likely to vote for Gore and that divining them would be a good thing.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (112461)	12/12/2000 3:45:58 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Pardon? There is little to expand upon. If the line was not voted, it was either deliberate, or an error. If it were deliberate, we have no right to impute intent, since the voter meant "none of the above". If it were an error, he has forfeited his vote on whatever line was not properly marked, just as he would if he had come to the polling place an hour after closing. Since there is a certain amount of spoiling, there is always provision to get a fresh ballot before final submission. If one does not avail oneself of that, it is perfectly possible that an error of intent will be misconstrued as an intent to vote a given line a certain way. Thus, any attempt to count undervotes is inherently conjectural. It also invites abuse, conscious or unconscious. Therefore, only in extreme circumstances, such as machine malfunction, should such expedients even be considered........