• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rather than trying to ascertain the "will of the voter", why not do this . . .

XMan

XMan

Lifer
Call the people and ask them who they intended to vote for! The ballot I used in Indiana had to be signed and have a Social Security number on it . . . surely we can use the dang white pages and find some phone numbers?

I would be willing to bet that quite a few of the people with "dimpled" chads did not intend to vote for Gore in the first place.
 
I'm quite serious, actually. If you want to know the "will of the voter", ask the voter, rather than trying to read ballots like they're tea leaves.
 
I wouldn't trust it - most likely they would get all flustered and hit the wrong button on the phone, and then sue the phone companies for making them vote for Buchanan.
 
OK, now that the Florida Supreme Court with 7 Democratic judges has ruled in favor of Gore (what a surprise)... we're going to have a WAR.

Don't be surprised if the stock market crashes tommorrow.
 


<< The ballot I used in Indiana had to be signed and have a Social Security number on it >>



Xerox,

Are you serious? Right on the ballot itself? I was under the impression that this was a Constitutional no-no. Is Indiana run by democrats?

Here, we sign in with the applicable information, but the ballot itself has nothing on it but the votes.

Russ, NCNE

 
Yes, that's nuts because the Constitution affords us an anonymous vote.

As to the original post, there can be no re-voting. That's even more absurd than this selective recounting business. If one person gets a re-vote, we all should. I'd also submit if one county gets a recount, all counties should but somehow only hand-picked democrat counties in one state are so priviledged in the hear-and-now.
 
If you asked those people who they voted for, because their original intent was unclear, it opens the door to people changing their minds to reflect the biases they have picked up in the days since the actual election. Maybe they are sick of Gore and decide they &quot;originally intended&quot; to vote for Bush (or vice versa). There is so much error in this whole process I still am amazed it has gone this far.

The fact that politically motivated judges, sec. of states, and voting commisioners are making these decisions just floors me...but no one else seems to mind.
 
Xerox,

Okay, that explains it. Absentee ballots also require that here. It's a compromise to help ensure the integrity of the ballot since there is no verification by an election worker.

Russ, NCNE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top