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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Barry Grossman who wrote (117278)	11/12/2000 5:09:36 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

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