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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8867)	12/13/2000 4:58:08 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

Say you have a clearly dimpled chad that shows the imprint of a voting stylus. Most standards say you don't count it Well then, let's say the voter pondered voting for that candidate, but failed to penetrate the ballot before saying "screw it" I don't want either one of them!! You have no misrepresented the voter's intent by attempting to count his dimpled ballot as a vote for one candidate or another... Clear intent is derived by asking every reasonable question that would imply an alternative intent such as the one I provided above. If you can't do that -which usually is only possible through possessing a perforated chad- then the ballot is legal vote. This isn't rocket science Nadine... you simply look at the ballot, apply alternative logic as to why the voter did what they did... and if someone can provide a reasonable and logical alternative, you must disallow that vote. Clear intent, by its very definition, means there can be no reasonable doubt. Regards, Ron