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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (22113)	12/11/2000 8:55:37 AM
From: fyodor_	Respond to of 275872

Scumbria: Were talking 0.001% at this point. Well, a few hundred over 6e6 is around that, I know ;). I'm claiming that even a difference much, much higher than that would be too small to determine with certainty. The ballot design obviously introduces a significant uncertainty, the varying degree of degradation of the machines introduces some more, etc. It seems that election equipment is paid for at a (very) local level, such that cities (districts?) that strapped for cash don't upgrade and/or maintain the equipment nearly as well. To me, as a(n almost) complete outsider, this seems incredible. There's a lot of talk about how local manual recounts increase the relative weight of the votes in that area (clearly true), but having poorer areas equipped with sub-standard voting machines also skews the result. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out before the next election. Hopefully, everyone doesn't just forget about it after 20 January... P.S. Sorry for the OT -fyo