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: Mr. Palau who wrote (87699)	11/26/2000 12:51:42 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Mr Palau, Your reading of the statute lacks one major element, the preference applies only when (1) two or more parties are requesting the recount and (2) the parties requesting the recount note in their application for a recount pursuant to section 214.042-A difference in the type of recount requested. In these cases, a manual recount is not chosen for accuracy or anything of the sort. It is chosen due to the fact that Texas law limits to one recount in which "only one method may be used in the recount." Since Texas law allows for only one recount, multiple recounts cannot be conducted. Therefore, the law has to make a distinction on how to recount if multiple parties request a recount using different recount methods. The same statute also provides that "an electronic recount using a corrected program shall be conducted in preference to an electronic recount using the same program as the original count." Electronic counts with amended programs are always given preference to regular electronic counts. The manual recount preference only applies in cases of the above circumstances, Texas law provides in Section 214.042 of the election code that an electronic recount be conducted by default unless the application for a recount specifically requests otherwise. Section 214.042 clause C notes "Unless a different counting method is requested, the ballots shall be counted electronically using the same program as the original count." capitol.state.tx.us In other words, the explicitly stated standard for recounts by Texas statute is an electronic recount. Not a manual one. As to who signed the laws... The law, was passed into law under Governor Mark White in 1986 and later amended in a procedural measure for the purpose of closing a loophole under Bush in 1997. The only change that can be tied to Bush on manual recounts affected the procedure in requesting a manual recount. A strong argument can be made that the Bush law from 1997, actually limited manual recounts, instead of making them mandatory as the preferred method. Mike p.s. I'll leave the chad issue alone. I may have been confusing our discussion with what I've been hearing on the talking head shows.

To: Mr. Palau who wrote (87699)	11/26/2000 2:54:44 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 769667

Here's confirmation from an independent source. Article...Texas Truth Squad... Dems have wrongly been calling Bush a hand-recount hypocrite. nationalreview.com By Kathryn Jean Lopez, associate editor---lopezk@ix.netcom.com It's the top entry on all liberal talking points of the past week: In Texas, George W. Bush signed into law mandated hand recounts. Unfortunately, comebacks are hard to find. Most conservatives just avoid the question and change the subject. They shouldn't. According to state representatives in Texas, this Dem contention is a falsehood. "It's just totally untrue," says very frustrated Texas state representative Jerry Madden, a member of the house committee of elections since 1993. Madden continues: House Bill 331 had only one thing to say about manual recounts. What we had previously in the law was an equipment checking statute, which said that anytime after the election, the election administrator, or county clerk, would run a verification of their equipment, and they would do that with a manual count of three precincts or 1 percent of their precincts, whichever was a larger number. We changed that in 1997 and George [W. Bush] signed it, which stopped three precincts being checked in their entirety. The new law says just let the secretary of state check three elections within those precincts and that's all you have to check manually. You don't have to check the entire ballot and everybody on it. What we are interested in verifying is that the equipment is not malfunctioning. The whole point is equipment verification; to make sure that the equipment itself or the software in the computers hadn't been monkeyed with. That's the thing I worry about the most — the software portion. That someone would write something in the program that said that on 7:05 on election night, change the numbers so that 5 percent of candidate 1's votes would go to candidate 2. No one would know that happened without a verification check. The Texas law definitely prefers that you use the same system in a recount as you used for the first count, as you can read here. "We do have a provision in there that says if you have two different candidates who request the recount be done two different ways, you do it manually," explains Madden. Texas Republican state representative Rick Green knows this provision well. He was elected to office in 1998 by a slim margin. His county is one of only 14 (out of a total 254) counties in Texas that use punch cards, and the ballots were recounted - by hand - before he was announced the winner. What you won't hear from most news accounts or commentators is that, as Green explains, "the law does not say that we prefer manual recounts over electronic recounts. What the law says is that when two different people ask for two different recounts — one wants a manual and one wants a computer — in that scenario, we're going to go with the manual because you don't want a manual and a computer recount. So it's very different than saying that we prefer manual recounts in Texas." And, as Green points out, "you only get one shot in Texas." "You can't say 'I want a computer recount' and then if that doesn't go right, that 'I want a manual recount,' and than if that doesn't go right you try osmosis or something else," says Green, reasoning that the more you handle the ballots, "the more flawed the data become." And, if a candidate wants a recount in Texas after a test has been run successfully, he has to put down a deposit to cover the cost of the recount. If the results aren't different in the end, the candidate who requested the recount will pay for the recount and pay the difference if the cost exceeds his deposit. So, if the likes of Paul Begala suddenly think Texas law is so great, why don't they have Hollywood contributions pay for the Florida recounts of the recount? "We are not keen on recounts of any kind," Madden explains. "The system works pretty well. What you get into with recounts, especially manual ones, is what you are seeing down in Florida. Different people are going to interpret the same things differently. It's not as accurate." No kidding.