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 (123194)	1/22/2001 4:40:47 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

>>>No question that a standard way to count similar ballots is needed. Paraphrasing Sandra Day O'Connor, who said it best in her rhetorical question: Shouldn't people just follow the instructions? I mean they're plain enough. If it ain't punched through, then it ain't a vote. None of this having others - Dem-others in this case - substitute their preferred intent for voters.

To: H-Man who wrote (123194)	1/22/2001 4:46:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

H-man, The question is, did the USC implicitly declare that Florida's entire voting procedure (& that of a lot of other states, as well) violated the equal protection clause? I'm not sure, but I think we will see it argued in court. Whatever "in present circumstances" turns out to mean. re: "even if ballots are counted differently, unless there is harm there is no foul" -- you can make a circumstantial case that if the entire state of Florida had used OpScan machines, the exact same voter intent would have resulted in a different result for the Presidential election. Doesn't that qualify as "harm"?