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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (285256)	8/9/2002 12:59:15 PM
From: G_Barr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

I conclude you are saying a properly marked ballot cast by a registered voter at his polling place is not a legal vote. Then you can't read. You are still assuming that a "legal vote" means only a vote properly marked and counted by a machine. This was not the ruling. IF one dictates that a recount to the accuracy of some fraction of a percent beyond the current well defined counting method. The ruling says nothing of the sort. The accurancy of the counting metrics is irrelevant until you defined what a legal vote is and if legal vote is defined by intent then machines with 100% accuracy would still violate the equal treatment the ruling dictates since they were not designed to count improperly marked ballots equally. The process dictated by the techno retards of the Florida Supreme court failed to define what improperly marked ballots still legally conveyed the intent of a voter. This may be true but is doesn't answer how if lagel votes are defined by intent, the old systmem satisfied the equality standard of the opinion. This really shouldn't be that hard. Please don't waste my time with more posts about the technology process for its simply not relevant.