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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: williamvictor who wrote (6576)	11/18/2000 12:58:43 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 10042

However, Counties in various states did not want to spend the money to change their voting systems. Why give up on a good thing. Does anyone think accuracy of results is truly desired in election machinery? Afterall, if a machine is TOO accurate, then they can't make a case claiming only a manual vote is the most accurate. No party has an interest in eliminating the "human factor"... After all, manual counts are the ultimate way to win an election..... <VBG>

To: williamvictor who wrote (6576)	11/18/2000 10:12:30 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

<<: The National Bureau of Standards conducted a study of punch card balloting about 12 years ago. The Bureau concluded that this system was flawed and unreliable and should be replaced. However, Counties in various states did not want to spend the money to change their voting systems. As long as you have landslide elections, the inaccuracies in the system did not matter. But in close elections, punch card ballots are unreliable>> No how bad the machine no party will matter to the machine. The machine is blind justice. Hand counts must not be allowed in only the Democratic areas the later allowed in a few select Republican districts and then only when counted by Democrats.