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: E who wrote (80377)	11/17/2000 9:32:29 PM
From: Louis Cornell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Well, in a perfect world, we could have a consistent and honest interpretation of the votes. Sorry bud, wrong planet. I'll take machine error over human error any day. regards, Louis webcolumnists.com

To: E who wrote (80377)	11/17/2000 9:33:35 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Now that I think of it, Governor Bush has shown his perspicacity on the issue of the superiority of the hand-count in a close race, hasn't he? At least I assume this based on his having signed legislation to that effect in Texas. But maybe speed is more important than accuracy. One thing I do know, a desire to win the gold ring has nothing to do with either candidate's views about hand-counting of ballots. In Gore's case, he above all values accuracy, and in Bush's, he merely understands the great importance of finality. Incidentally, did anybody notice this mystifying sentence in that article?: And that is under the most favorable conditions, with the machines perfectly maintained and whisked free of all those bits of loose paper known as chads. Hey! I should think whisking loose chads away would be a terrible thing, since it's a terrible thing if the loose ones (the ones that were punched but not dislodged by a perfectly maintained machine that would whisk them out) fall out. Go figure.

To: E who wrote (80377)	11/17/2000 9:53:41 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

All of what you said may be correct. But the probability of the missed votes not following the trends of the voting distribution is at 99.9999% So the likely error is a minute percent of the 3000??? whatever errors. Tom Watson tosiwmee