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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lml who wrote (380)	11/14/2000 3:19:27 PM
From: Dave Gore	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3887

lml, your last post is much better in tone and content but a couple points. First, under Florida law a candidate can request a manual recount and the county will then do a 1% count to see if a whole recount is deemed worthy. Hey, let the county decide. It's the process and the law. Whatever they say goes. Again, it's the law and let's follow it. Second, again it is not me, but the states that feel that a manual count in addition to a machine count is most accurate. Not perfect, but MORE accurate. Here's why. The humans eyes of the bi-partisan counters can easily detect MOST problems that the machine cannot. So, they separate out the 96% or so of the cards that are not bent and properly punched. They let the machines count those. The other 4% or so that the machine cannot, did not, or may not have counted correctly are examined manually. If the chad is hanging and at least 2 different groups agree on intent then it can be removed and then recounted by the machine. Thus the only cards not counted by the machines are the ones that were double punched or bent. I agree that while both systems taken independently have their shortfalls, taken together the combination of machine and properly monitored human counts is significantly more accurate.