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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (123536)	1/25/2001 10:41:58 AM
From: H-Man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Where did SCOTUS address the different methods of counting vote per curiam The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. ... The question before us, however, is whether the recount procedures the Florida Supreme Court has adopted are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate. Breyer Dissent, Stevens, Souter and Ginsgerg Joining: The manual recount would itself redress a problem of unequal treatment of ballots. This of course, in addtion to Souters dissent addressing the different systems directly. Remember also that in Souters dissent, others dissenters joined, except Stevens and Ginsberg, regarding where Souter found equal protection problems of the recount. There are several other areas, where the different systems are discussed. Clearly the court has seen the disparity in voting systems and elected to leave it alone. There is absolutely nothing in the opinion, stating that differences in voting systems are a violation of equal protection. If you assert otherwise, I would challenge you to find something in the ruling where they state they do. But if one precinct throws 20% of its ballots into the trash while another counts them perfectly, that is NOT an equal protection clause violation because it's okay to count differently as long as you use different voting machines The reason there might be no violation, is that as long as counting those 20% ballots, would not make a difference in the election. (Since there is no irrepairable harm). No law ever requires a futile act. And from a common sense POV, Why count them if they don't make a difference ? If the counting of those votes does make a difference, i.e. the number of over / under ballots are greater than the margin of victory, clearly they must be counted, and evaluated the same way. You present three false characterizations, (1.) all working under one judge's supervision, (2.) interpret "clear intent of the voter" slightly differently during a recount and (3.)because it's okay to count differently as long as you use different voting machines. 1. The only counters under the judges supervision were the ones doing the Miami-Dade recount. All of the other recounts were being done in the county. The observers were not permitted to object to any ballots. Indeed the court addressed it's concern with this specifically. 2. The assertion of "slightly different" is refuted by the un-contested direct testimony in this case. Additionally, The difference in counting with one standard verses another in Mimai-Dade, shows a difference of 100 votes. Comparing both, how Broward and Palm Beach county performed the recount, as well as the results of the recount, also refutes the slightly different characterization. The court addressed this specifically as well. 3. The only issue is how you count a ballot that has not been properly registered in the machine, and then, only if counting them would it make a difference. There MUST be harm, for there to be a violation. The reason that different machines, in themselves do not present a problem, is that: There is no assertion in this case, (and indeed it does not make any sense to say), that a punch ballot properly punched, and properly read by the machine, is treated differently than a properly marked optical ballot. It is only in the rejects, that the issue arises. The fundamental question is whether or not, there is harm. If harm can be demonstrated, then you will have a violation. If it is clear there is no harm, then there will never be a violation.