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 (78723)	11/16/2000 7:50:03 PM
From: bigsablepoint	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

What is with you people? That's not the argument at all. A machine can only count as well as it was designed. In this case, the machines were not designed to count all the votes that were cast and that is why Florida law allows for manual recounts. Florida could have replaced all the machines with a more accurate system, but it was cheaper to just rely on human beings to verify the vote by hand in reasonably close elections. Even in areas with far more accurate areas hand counts are provided for by statute, Texas included. Texas law, that Bush signed, states that hand counts take precedent over electronic counts. Why did Bush sign this law if machines are more accurate. Moreover, in Texas dimpled chads, pregnant chads and hanging chads are all good votes. So, why is Bush refusing to accept these as accurate votes in Florida?