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: JBTFD who wrote (107886)	12/9/2000 6:26:45 PM
From: penuts	Respond to of 769667

Yo, Mark, there has been no such thing as a fair hand count in Florida. Many votes have been "double-counted" when going through these. Surely there is no such thing as alternating double counted votes from one candidate to the other since no one knows who the first of the double-counted vote went to. Separating undercounts to be manually counted is not fair either. In the first count there was 795 undercounts in one county. These undercounts were then mixed in with all the other counted votes. When separating these undercounts, there will be a different number. That in itself will be an inaccurate count because some may be counted again for a candidate when it was counted as a vote in the first machine count. One county did not count dimple ballots, another did. That in itself certainly is not conditions for a fair count. One county used a standard of counting the dimple only when dimples in other races were present on the same ballot. Another county did not. That is not a fair count. The "count every vote theme" will not produce a more accurate or fair result than did the first machine count. Use your brain instead of practicing "count every vote" chants.