SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Knighty Tin who wrote (85457)11/14/2000 10:32:40 PM
From: BSGrinder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 132070
 
Aren't you guys jumping the gun here a bit? What if she refuses to consider the amended returns, using the reasonable discretion granted her by the judge's ruling? Doesn't that close the case in favor of Bush? Being a Bush partisan, why would she have to accept the amended hand count? Who can "make" her accept it? It looks to me like Gore is perilously close to being check-mated here, if she hangs tough, and she certainly will have the whole Bush team encouraging her. /Kit



To: Knighty Tin who wrote (85457)11/15/2000 8:56:35 AM
From: Freedom Fighter  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 132070
 
Mike,

So what results do we get if there is a manual count of the entire state?

By the way I agree completely that a manual count of the entire state is the fairest way to go (and always have,) but I have one reservation.

No one has demonstrated (at least to my satisfaction) that a manual count of 6 million votes done by partisan geezers (both parties) and without standards is superior to two automated counts.

There are several issues here.

Missing votes. Human Bias. Human error vs. Machine error.

It isn't clear to me, but the assumption is (at least at the NY TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, CNN, etc..) that a manual count is better. To me that's a much bigger debate than whether we should be counting or not. We should certainly be trying to get the best and fullest count possible.

Wayne