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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin McKenzie who wrote (75448)	11/15/2000 11:10:24 AM
From: microhoogle!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Machines can't cheat either. It just seems like the exact opposite arguments were being made 20 or 30 years ago when we were migrating from hand-counted ballots to machine-counted ones. There's no way you will convince me that a hand count will have less margin of error than a machine count. Both are fallible, but machines are less fallible. Machines don't cheat. They are prone to error. Humans, however can cheat. But that can be eliminated by strict monitoring and penalties "in this case", where this case being very unique situation where the election is close. Human count with rigorous process can reduce, if not eliminate, errors. Most of the arguments are stemming from the fact that this should be done quickly, but I beg to differ. This should be done correctly. It is just like saying, let's move on and crown one of these guys who happens to be leading (not won) at this stage.