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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (24859)	1/5/2005 8:50:41 AM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Machines count ballots objectively, applying the same standards to all. Standards that were established BEFORE the election. People involved in the election process are subjective by nature. The Democrats have been notorious for changing the rules in mid-game when they don't like the outcome. FL 2000 is a great example. But it isn't simply a matter of interpreting voters' intent on disputed ballots, which is bad enough. "Finding" "lost" ballots after the first count is one very convenient means of out-and-out chicanery. If that can happen, so can switching one batch of valid ballots for a cooked-up batch of the same total number. If ballot security is so bad that they can be "found" in odd places after not having been noticed as missing, they can be switched, too. In such a case, you have to go with the initial count, where the evidence is least spoiled. quivis.com