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 (86787)	12/13/2000 1:49:44 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Nadine, >>The Republican strategy has been to >>a) call recounts a zoo<< They obviously were. >b) turn them into a zoo<< They weren't in control of the different and/or changing standards or the cherry picking. > c) stall as long as possible<< Absolutely. >>d) say see? it's a zoo and it's too late.<< Absolutely. But #1 and #2 make #3 and #4 moot. Uniform and unbiased standards were never really attempted until it was way too late. And it's my view they are simply impossible after the election is over and it's clear who would benefit from what. >> The slight skew introduced into the original vote by the higher error rates of Votomatic machines, which were mostly used by Democratic voters, was very probably enough to determine the outcome of this election.<< I absolutely agree with you that this is a possibility if not probability. The difference is that these machines were agreed to by all parties prior to the election. That is the key. It's a problem that needs to be addressed in the future (as do many others) But there was no bias in the machines that was intended by one side "and not agreed to" by the other as would be the case in manual counts. Wayne