Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (128059)	11/10/2000 4:16:31 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 1571038

Dear Scumbria: It is far more likely that voting machines were used in those counties. It is very hard not to get good repeatability in those cases. Probably those counties (and some went for Gore that had exact recounts) have a better staff who took care during the initial tabulation. Good systems -> good results, Good people and OK systems -> good results, and not so good staff and not so good systems -> bad results. Since those systems are in Democratic Counties, they have only themselves to blame for not getting a system similar to the ones in those counties that can repeat exactly a count. One nice thing about voting machines and/or computerized on the spot tabulators, errors can be quickly spotted and or removed before the voter leaves. With a machine, you can not vote for two candidates at once. With a computerized ballot, you can have it checked before the ballot disappears into the box (you mean they do not have a private area for ballot check?), and then you can fix it till it finds it acceptable (you probably need a new ballot but, you can ask for one if, you mucked it up). Too bad they did not use one of these this time. Pete