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 (132173)	3/16/2001 1:43:49 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Party spin aside, you can certainly conclude that the ballot was bad designed enough to confuse about 7% of the voters into spoiling their ballots or voting for the wrong candidate. Statistical analyses are only valid on the whole sample, not for individual voters. And that ballot was designed by, reviewed by, and approved by committees dominated by Democrats. Democrats claiming now that they were screwed by it and they want a new election because of their own errors is disingenuous at best. In terms of actual recounts, the only overvotes that should be counted are those where the voter managed to vote for the same candidate twice. I remember seeing an optical scan ballot from some Florida county where they listed the Presidential candidates by name, and at the bottom of the list said "Write In Candidate's Name: _________" Many voters thought they were asking for confirmation of the candidate they had voted for and wrote "Bush" or "Gore" in the space. These votes should have been counted but weren't, this being Florida. People dumb enough to do this are too dumb to be allowed to vote, this being the real world. I remember seeing an optical scan of the ballot and wondering what this was REALLY about; it certainly didn't look that bad to me. The rule is real simple: If you vote for the same office twice, your vote for that office is invalid. Period. Just keep it in mind when you go to the polls. This thing of providing space to write in a candidate's name is common. How else do you provide for write-in candidates? In other places this hasn't been a problem.