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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (3939)	12/28/2004 9:17:22 AM
From: tonto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361376

Outrageous plan. You only want responsible voterws who do not lose their card to vote? You are trying to stack the elections...(g) You know that will be the complaint...

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (3939)	12/28/2004 1:05:18 PM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361376

Deciding who gets to vote is one thing. Counting the votes is another. Getting on the ballot is a third issue. All three are subject to screwups, errors and court fights. It shouldn't be that way. Counting, though should be simple. How we can do three counts and come up with three results is criminal... considering that the same folks wo make voting machines also make ATMs - which always balance. From personal experience at a polling place, it amazing what happens. People show up and say "I had to register?" Or they move in the period before election day and are ticked off when we say they need to vote in their old district. Or there are the special cases - a person who plannned to vote in person but was hospitalized the day before and now wants to vote from the hospital... the list goes on and on.