OT:Bosco (geez, I wish this would go away --- I'm sick of getting my fingers burnt on each small excursion and waiting on the sidelines),
If there are differences in the count from two runs, perhaps the input on the two batches were different and include new ballots.
Or (more problematic) some chads can be loosened on repeated feeding to the machine.
Or (even more problematic) someone took some of the 'no-punched-chad-for president' ballots, stacked them up, took a long wire and stuck it through a certain area on the ballots when people weren't looking.
If the whole machine count is as faulty as you say, then there is no doubt that a manual recount statewide seems to be the only solution --- but the process must be seen to be completely tamperproof with documented and taped video of every ballot as they are being counted. Until this is a certainty, I don't believe that given what is at stake, everyone will act honestly in this case --- you already know that neither of these camps are honorable people.
Perhaps some good can come of this, and some future entrepreneur can come up with an internet based nationwide voting application that does not rely on mechanical 'analog' technology (witness the 1/4. 1/2, hanging, dimpled chads) and provide clear tamperproof-encrypted (digital 0 or 1) voting technology. Such a system will give the same count total no matter how many times you recount them, and it will take a few seconds everytime! :)
Say, NT seems to have gone above my exit price --- oh well. That's life.
SbH |
