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: combjelly who wrote (445282)	1/6/2009 12:10:26 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1585564

Any time you have humans in the loop, irregularities occur. Obviously, internal control measures aren't your forte. When you have a system of internal control, no matter how simple (in this instance, a simple sign-in process to be balanced to the machine's voter total), and there is a discrepancy between them, you don't simply ignore it. You don't write it off to "Oh, someone made a mistake". You reconcile it. ALWAYS. If it cannot be reconciled it must be deemed to a variance. ALWAYS. That is the entire point of internal control measures in the first place. To have this occur in 25 precincts is an outrage and cannot be discounted under ANY circumstances. It is a tremendous gap in internal control procedures that they cannot now backtrack and establish the true numbers, but what we know is that more votes have been counted than the number of voters who showed up at the poll. IN this instance, installing Franken would be at best arbitrary, and more likely the direct result of voter fraud. As to how the state should deal with it, I haven't a clue. To me, the obviously CORRECT solution would be to have a redo of the election, but that's not going to happen. Failing that, they it seems to me the appropriate thing is to deny the election to the person who was the beneficiary of the fraud, which leaves Coleman the winner (much as beneficiaries under a will are typically denied bequests if they murdered the decedent -- same principle applies). Now, how do you account for the fact that if this is swaying the election, Coleman's people are keeping quiet about it? Why would they be colluding with Franken's people to let them steal the election? Honestly, I think conservatives tend to be too meek and assume that the legal process will work. I also think that's a stupid approach when your competitor is playing the media game, which Franken is.