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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (193121)	2/5/2021 9:43:28 AM
From: Lane3	5 Recommendations Recommended By bentway CentralParkRanger combjelly J_F_Shepard roto Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 362593

Let me make just two more points regarding "misogynist" and "paranoid" since both those words, which I have applied to you, are dependent on reasonableness. First, I'm taking your comments a bit personally on behalf of my fellows. I have never been a vote counter. But I know for certain that in that role I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever misrepresent a ballot. Ever. It's a matter of personal integrity. Even if I were registered to a party or had a preference. Given that only about half of the pool of potential vote counters are registered to a party and given that there does potentially exist personal integrity even among party members, where do you think all these cheaters come from? I will acknowledge that some might be inclined to seek those positions with the purpose of cheating and that selection criteria and processes for appointing them may not weed out all of the potential cheaters. But what are the odds that enough would-be cheaters get through plus find themselves with an opportunity to cheat to make a difference? The second point is about your notion of having Republicans looking over shoulders while the ballot is still in the envelope. You expressed concern that, once separated from the envelope, the ballot could not be reconnected, which is true. So what's the potential problem there that requires a shoulder observer? The worker takes an envelope off the top of the pile, examines the envelope to check the postmark, the registered voter list, and the signature, checks that person off as having voted, and puts the envelope in a stack awaiting the next step in the process. At that point the worker (or the observer) has no way of knowing for whom the voter voted. It might be possible to make a guess from the name in some circumstances but that's flimsy. So just what do you have in mind for the shoulder observer to observe? What's the point?