Hi Barry, is the Washington Post's article wrong? There appears to be an error:
RE: "by means of a third round of manual counts."
Did they really do two rounds of manual counts?
I had read, they didn't.
Can any Florida residents confirm or correct what I had read:
There was one machine count on Election Day, and then one machine re-count, and they are now asking for one manual count.
i.e. so, the statement, "by means of a third round of manual counts" appears to be incorrect and misleading.
It appears it should instead say, "by means of a third count, in which case the third count is the first manual count."
RE: "manual counts would not be more accurate than the automated counts"
Has Bush suddenly changed his original opinion about the accuracy of manual counts?
Bush signed legislation which endorses or forces manual counts if an election is close, I believe. So, I do not understand why he's suddenly changed his opinion.
Only manual counts can detect certain errors, which is why, I believe, Bush passed the legislation for manual counting in Texas.
The filing sounds either inaccurate or misleading, if all other reports are accurate. Possibly someone from Florida can track this down? i.e. have they actually done 2 manual counts already, as this filing claims?
Regards,
Amy J |
