From: cdale@silly.techmonkeys.net
Date: Tue Nov 28 2000 - 13:29:39 PST
If the original counts are wrong, then how are they the only valid votes?
Why are there differences in the counts, if the machines are accurate
enough to count them? If they were 2 or 3 or even 50 off, no biggie, but
that's not the case. If the machines are bork, count em by hand. The
machines are obviously bork. Maybe this will make someone find the funds
for the new fancy machines that the other counties are using. Sheesh.
It's the Oh Ohs and we have machines that are so outdated that they can't
count the damned vote with any kind of accuracy. I'll loan em a bunch of
computers if they need, damn. (: I know one thing: if I lived in one of
those counties, I'd want a recount, even if I voted for Buchanan.
C
"A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point of doubtful sanity."
-- Robert Frost
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jeff Bone wrote:
>
>
> cdale@silly.techmonkeys.net wrote:
>
> > I didn't set up any rules, you dolt. I'm just sick of the kind of "facts"
> > that you cultists keep spewing, like "The votes have been counted and
> > recounted." THAT is crap.
>
> Actually, C, they *have* been counted and recounted. Mostly by *machines,* which roughly
> speaking should have the same margin of error across the entire state. I'd wager that there's
> NEVER been an election anywhere where every single vote was counted and tallied properly; but
> by having a near-universal "instrument" with which to measure, that's more fair than what is
> currently going on. This "selective sampling" of the vote dataset taints the results --- no
> scientist could ever publish anything based on a measurement technique like this selective
> hand-counting.
>
> > Sure, it's fact, but you're leaving the
> > important part of it OUT.
>
> The part that's being left out is that the original counts are the ONLY fair counts of the
> Florida vote that have been done!
>
> jb
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 13:34:57 PST