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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (1983)	11/12/2000 2:03:28 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

I don't think an extrapolated vote count is legal. Either they go with what they've got or finish the county-wide hand count by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday.

To: jttmab who wrote (1983)	11/12/2000 4:29:47 PM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

jttmab, I must point out that you are totally and completely confused. << But did you notice that for the machine recount that Bush requested, Gore picked up more votes than in the manual count and Bush actually lost votes in the machine recount that he requested. The county might be forced to use the machine recount that Bush requested...extrapolated out. Gore wins by a greater margin than the manual re-count would have gained him. >> They did a total recount of the county by machine and yes, it picked up more votes for Gore than it did for Bush. Obviously this is because this precinct is heavily weighted for Gore. They did a manual count on just 1% of the votes and again it picked up votes for both candidates, more for Gore than Bush. Obviously if they used this method to count 100% of the votes they would find revise the vote count more than when they manually counted 1%. Note: Every time a card goes through the machine additional pieces of chad fall off resulting in more votes for each candidate. This is not an exact process.