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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (8827)	12/13/2000 12:44:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

neither side explained itself well enough to be understood by anyone who was not predisposed to see things as they did. You are probably correct on that... People pick out the things they are looking for and often ignore those points that don't support their own beliefs. And try as I might to be objective in my opinion, I'm likely no different. That said, I think the whole premise that, in the absence of standards, election supervisors should be permitted to create arbitrary and subjective ones AFTER the election. Again, interpreting the concept of "clear intent of the voter" should, at a minimum, hold that reasonable parties should not be able to disagree about what that intent actually was. I was pretty much willing to accept "hanging chads" because daylight was visible and perforation took place. However, the "dimpled chad" standard was just irresponsible and completely arbitrary in nature. And assessing votes for one candidate or the other based upon such arbitrary analysis of the ballots dilutes and subverts the votes of those individuals who did follow instructions and properly cast legal votes. Had there been an existing precedent and standard for counting dimpled chads in Florida, then I might have looked differently on the issue. But there wasn't, and to create such a standard on flimsy evidence that Illinois once ruled and then rejected dimpled chads, is just beyond comprehension. Regards, Ron