From: ThosStew@aol.com
Date: Wed Nov 29 2000 - 06:10:09 PST
In a message dated 11/28/2000 7:33:05 PM, jbone@jump.net writes:
>Until I see the hard data, though, I am having a hard time believing your
>assertions. A machine, at least, doesn't have the same susceptibility
>to preferential measurement that a partisan human (from either camp) might
>have. You're telling me that, for some reason, in the disputed counties, the
>machinesended to discount votes particularly and disproportionately when the
ballot
>in question was for Gore?
>
>Why in the world would that be?
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/29/politics/29MACH.html:
<<the majority of the state's black voters, Vice President Al Gore's most
reliable voters, stalwart supporters, cast their ballots on punch cards
that are more prone to voter error and miscounts.
<<Across the state, nearly 4 percent of the type of punch-card ballots
most widely used in Florida were thrown out because the machines read them
as blank or invalid. By contrast, the more modern, optical scanning
systems rejected far fewer votes — only about 1. percent of those cast. ...
<< 64 percent of the state's black voters live in counties that used the
punch cards while 56 percent of whites did so. ... that small
difference, the analysis suggests, could have had a decisive effect on an
election decided by only a few hundred votes out of nearly six million.>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 12:55:47 PST