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 (80623)	11/18/2000 12:23:10 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You didn't answer the question though. Do you believe it? Do you believe after reading that NY Times article that hand counts are more accurate than machines? (Given the accuracy estimates you cited earlier)

To: E who wrote (80623)	11/18/2000 12:53:06 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769667

E. Texas uses mark sense ballots and not punched ballots. Mark sense are less accurately scaned and a human can make out a marking sometimes a machine can't But decerning punched holes is very error prone when done manually and punched machines in Florida's other counties that produced counts within 10 of hundreds of thousands does indicate to me that your sources BROWARD 386,518 386,561 177,279 177,323 variance Gore: 43 Bush: 44 PALM BEACH 268,945 269,732 152,846 152,951 Gore: 787 Bush: 105 Oh yeah no cheating going on here. E, I'm and engineer and I've done this kind of stuff most of my career. You can search and find articles and cut and paste out the data you want to prove your point. The number on the recount page add up to only one thing. It's just about sex. Bill never lied. Bill never had sex with that Woman. Gore went to Texas with and visited.... foxnews.com Tom Watson tosiwmee

To: E who wrote (80623)	11/18/2000 1:37:18 AM
From: Scrapps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Okay it's time to be honest and straight about the recount. Disclosure: I'm a Rep. who voted for Bush. Now.... I concede a manual recount is the absolute best way to recount if certain criteria are met first. A) The very first recount is by hand. Not the second, the third, the forth or any time after that. B) All ballots get recounted not those picked by the apparent winner or loser. This means state wide in a case such as Fl. when the winner was called early and incorrectly...who knows how many times. C) Multiple recounts are not allowed since it's possible to spoil ballots by re-handling them, thus rendering the will of the voter void. D) The canvassing boards are re-adjusted on recounts to assure the voter that NOT only two people are in charge on recounts. Or that all ballots that are questionable are moved to another group of 7 people to judge separately. _______________________________________________________ The Bush camp is not really against the hand recounts IMO, it's that the hand recounts are coming as the third or forth count and the more the ballots are handled the less accurate they become. It gives the appearance that the more they are counted the more they are manipulated.