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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (129636)	12/13/2000 5:34:59 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574260

OT -I've developed a voting machine based on speech recognition tehcnology. You tell it your favorite TV shows and it is able to divine who you would vote for. #1=PBS ==> Socialist Workers party #1=60 minutes ==> straight Democratic #1=700 Club ==> split Republican and Reform party etc. DOUBLE OT - did the Fla. Senate ratify the electors this morning? Petz

To: TimF who wrote (129636)	12/13/2000 7:01:37 PM
From: TGPTNDR	Respond to of 1574260

Tim, Re: Usually I am more for flexability and having things decided more by the states (or local government or individuals) then the federal government but perhaps a uniform standard would be a good idea here. This isn't really necessary, IMO. The Feds set the voting power of each state(In the constitution). Each state sets the method of figuring out it's usage. Some states choose proportional vote, some choose all votes to the winner. It's states rights. The states vote, as they are empowered to decide, to elect electors for the presidential election. So long as the standards are consistent across the state for each voting method, don't "unreasonably" discriminate (except against criminals or other undesirables that you wouldn't want voting anyway ( ;o))), & aren't diddled with after the fact it's ok with the FEDS. And that's as it should be. If the legislature of a state can ram some dopy scheme through(without violating other laws which reign higher in the heirarchy of laws) -- so be it. As an example, I would guess that a law which said ~~ 'The governer of this state will select all electors in presidental contests' would most likely be upheld. And now I'm REALLY done on this subject. tgptndr