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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (85690)	11/19/2000 2:17:41 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 132070

nadine, the pubs are in knee deep, no doubt about it.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (85690)	11/19/2000 1:11:42 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Nadine, My view that manual counts are not necessarily "better" than "flawed" automated counts has nothing to do with any of the republican's unsubstantiated accusations. It has to do with evidence of verified innocent human error throughout the country (misplaced ballots, double counting, wrong counts submitted etc...), lack of standards, and common sense. If we are going to do manual counts, clearly we have to do all 6 million. Anything else that has been suggested is open to so much bias I don't know how intelligent people can even be discussing it. 6 million is a HUGE number and might be open to innocent human error of a similar magnitude to the machines. The lack of standards is an issue. Some areas of the state may be biased in favor of their candidate in determining the standards for what counts. I question the ability of watchdogs to ensure that everything is square even if they are trying real hard. To me, it doesn't matter that other states (like Texas) are dumb/smart enough to have manual counts (with rules) or whatever. The only thing that matters is that we get as complete, accurate and unbiased a count as possible. That is not necessarily a manual count. It's also not necessarily an automated count. So the assumption that a manual count that favors Gore is more legitimate is flawed in my view. It's just what the democrats want. And the view that the two automated counts favor Bush, so he won, is also flawed. At this stage it MUST come down to the rule of law about which count will be used because neither is demonstrably superior. Wayne