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: H-Man who wrote (123183)	1/22/2001 3:31:44 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

It is the lack of a standard, and the on the record testimony, which was uncontested, that similar ballots were treated differently Well, this case was obviously only about the recount, not the original vote. But it doesn't seem a big stretch to argue that without any statewide standard, similar ballots will be counted differently, not to mention the inherent differences in using punch-card machines with a 3% error rate in one county vs. touch-screen machines with a 0% error rate in another county. And it's already being argued in a number of lawsuits that have been filed in Georgia. If the USC meant by "present circumstances", any case where you count similar ballots differently, it would have been clearer to say so. That was not the meaning most reporters and lawyers took from it, nor the most straightforward English meaning, which understands 'present circumstances' to mean the circumstances at present, right now, in this case. Not other circumstances which resemble present circumstances in one way or another.