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: Hawkmoon who wrote (8853)	12/13/2000 3:40:12 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Thus, the only way to discern clear intent is to count the next best standard to a legal ballot, namely a perforated or hanging chad. That makes sense to me. I think that a case could be made for dimples if all the votes on the card were dimpled. That would indicate to me someone who for whatever reason was unable to break the perforations. But I wouldn't go to the mat for it. Karen

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (8853)	12/13/2000 4:31:47 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Btw, that standard may be general stated, but the interpretation of it is not general. It states that there must be CLEAR INTENT of the voter.. Ron, there is plenty of room for reasonable people to differ within the "clear intent" standard. Say you have a clearly dimpled chad that shows the imprint of a voting stylus. Most standards say you don't count it, some standards say you do. I think reasonable people can disagree about it without fraudulent intent on either side. Because there is this room for different interpretations within the "clear intent" standard, I think the Supreme Court, in outlawing uneven treatment, just implicitly outlawed general "clear intent" standards. And as Karen so well pointed out, they did not make their reasoning very clear.