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 (77685)	11/16/2000 11:06:00 AM
From: w0z	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

Would someone please explain why a mechanical vote count is biased more toward one party versus another? At least a machine is brutally consistent which is more than one can say for any human being. The whole issue seems to defy any rational logic. If you can't win fairly...CHEAT! I guess that's what the Democratic Party wants to teach our children now that they've learned all about lying and oral sex from Slick.

To: Kevin McKenzie who wrote (77685)	11/16/2000 11:34:57 AM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

<< As much as I think it is an absurd proposition that manual recounts are "more accurate" than machine recounts ... >> I agree. I've worked with computer systems for years. We would never accept "one" error as being acceptable. The pundants are all saying how computerized systems have significant error rates. This is nonsense! The error rates in the punched card ballots are in the design and effectiveness of the machines and system, and not because of the automation and computerization. The public should be outraged that, up to 10% of voters ballots are rejected. What an awful system, and what a disgraceful slap in the face of the voting public.