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.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (53183)	11/11/2000 7:10:05 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

John, the Democrats are only looking for a manual recount where it may have affected an outcome, and where that outcome may affect who occupies the White House. This seems quite prudent to me. As for accuracy, it is a fact that the mechanical counting is inaccurate. In fact, the more times you run the ballots (where are just 80-column computer punchcards) through the counting machine, the more loose chads (the rectangular scraps that get punched out) fall off. That is why more votes were found on the mechanical recount. In fact, if they were to do a few more mechanical recounts, Gore would probably win the election! The purpose of a manual recount is to examine just the ballots that showed two votes, or no vote, for president. They will find many ballots where one chad is indented or loose, but not open, and they may recount these as open. They may also find other ballots with two holes, where one is a loose chad but the other is actually open, and they may count these as a vote for the open hole. There is ample precedent for a manual recount. There's some Democrat in Massachussetts (I don't have the details) who lost his primary, but had the results reversed based on loose chads recategorized during a manual recount. Dave