SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (284958)8/8/2002 4:55:02 PM
From: G_Barr  Read Replies (1) of 769668
 
The systems in place had defined error rates and they could be tested with test ballots and certified to be within specification. When purchased the machines had to meet some specification. Some machine types were slightly less likely to not miss a properly marked ballot but they all meet verifiable specifications. All machines met specification defined and approved before the election took place. All machine errors rates were defined as acceptable for this election and all machines performed within specification.

I fail to see your point, other than calling names. Why would it matter if it performed within specifications or its error rate was approved in advance. No one approved it from a constitutional perspective to ensure that all legal votes were treated the same. Either all votes must be treated the same or they do not. If they do then it doesn't matter if someone approved the error rates in advance and such was not the basis of the court's opinion.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News