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: Dave Gore who wrote (392)	11/14/2000 3:37:38 PM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Respond to of 3887

Dave, How do you know the ballot is not a systematic error that can be detected only by human vote counters? Do you then wish to argue all day long that magnitude of this systematic error was smaller than the systematic errors of the machines? By your statement then I take it you would now like to average in the hand counts with the machine counts? If so how many hand counts would you like to run in order to have a degree of certainty? V

To: Dave Gore who wrote (392)	11/14/2000 5:10:52 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

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. This not the law, Dave. See Florida Elections Code Sec. 102.66, in particular §102.66(4)(a) and (c). §102.66(4)(c) states that "[t]he county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount." Emphasis added. Yes, a candidate can request a manual recount, but the canvassing board is NOT OBLIGATED to oblige that request. Whether they conduct a manual count is completely within their discretion. I recall reading an article relating to this issue where Ms. Rogers, one of the PBC canvassing board members, denied a candidate's request for a manual count by responding, and I paraphrase, "we only do that when the margin of victory is in the single digits." Second, you erroneously assume that just because a state's election statutory scheme provides for a manual count of ballots that it is the expressed belief of the legislature that a manual count is more accurate than a machine count. This is not the case. More likely, the legislature provides for a manual count WHEN in the discretion of the local canvassing board, it is believed that a manual count would the most effective method to root out a particular irregularity in the machine canvass of votes. It is an option; it is a tool; it is available but should be used ONLY WHEN deemed appropriate. The statutes provide OTHER REMEDIES that is available to the local canvassing board besides a manual count. I suggest you read the statute before forming your opinion as to what is right, what is wrong, who is right, who is wrong. So far, the only one wrong here is you. You are wrong to believe that a manual count guarantees are more accurate canvass of the votes than a machine count. You are wrong to believe that a local canvassing board must perform a manual count at the request of a candidate.