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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Selectric II who wrote (32227)	10/27/2004 9:47:13 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I read the first few pages, which show that he uses a model full of assumptions, including but not limited to votes for Senate. It's an old argument with more holes than an overvoted paper ballot, and has already been argued and put to rest. In the 31 pages he covers a lot of issues. Only one of which is the issue of overvotes where the person voting selects a candidate and also writes in the name of the same candidate. That particular type of overvote happened to both Bush and Gore, though there was a net gain in favor of Gore that would have swung the election in the other direction. It's funny that he condemns a system as flawed that doesn't "warn" voters when they've voted for both candidates. Next, I imagine he'll call for a "warning" system for voters who have voted for someone not in their own party. lol As noted above, you're not accurately representing his position. He does have a point. In today's world, it's reasonable to expect a system should be able to tell the voter of a discrepancy on a submitted ballot. Ambiguous acts, like overvoting, cannot be deciphered after the fact by looking at outside evidence and concocting models that can magnify small statistics into tens of thousands of votes. One simple change in the formula could swing things the other way. What would be ambiguous about selecting "Bush" and then writing in "Bush"? You asked for supporting evidence to this specific claim: where the voter both indicated the candidate and wrote in the very same candidates name. Katherine Harris had these rejected as overvotes even though the intent of the voter was clear. That alone was sufficient margin for Gore's victory. The paper addresses that specific claim. jttmab