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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (193668)	7/9/2004 6:19:28 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1572505

We're not talking ones or twos......it was enough that it could have cost Bush FLA. It wasn't one's and twos but it also wasn't in much greater numbers then many other states. A lot of states try to avoid taking away the vote from people who should be eligible by not purging the rolls to frequently or thoroughly. Then you get the problem where people who shouldn't be able to vote can decide elections, either people who formerly had the right to vote in a certain location but moved or where convicted of a felony, or people who never should have had the right to vote like illegal aliens. The percentages are normally low, but with millions of people on the rolls a small rate of mistakes (probably well under 1% for people purged who shouldn't have been and only a few percent of voters not purged who should have been) gets you a lot of ineligible votes counting or legally eligible people not being permitted to vote. In an election as close as FL the error rate even without any malfeasance (and both sides have been a accused of malfeasance in the 2000 FL election) is higher then the difference. If it was just a poll you probably should call it a tie, but in a real election they are supposed to pick a winner. Tim