SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (209098)10/28/2004 2:24:36 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574661
 
Ted,

re: Based on the measured differential in vote loss between paper and computer systems, the fifteen counties in Florida, can expect to lose at least 29,000 votes to spoilage—some 27,000 more than if the counties had used paper ballots with scanners.

Given the demographics of spoilage, this translates into a net lead of thousands for Bush before a single ballot is cast.


More Republican fraud.

John



To: tejek who wrote (209098)10/28/2004 5:33:24 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574661
 
Ted, from the push piece you posted,

Although the computer rigs cost eight times as much as paper with scanners, they result in many more spoiled votes. In this year’s presidential primary in Florida, the computers had a spoilage rate of more than 1 percent, as compared to one-tenth of a percent for the double-checked paper ballots.

What BS. If your ATM messed up your transactions 1% of the time, it would be useless.

Now think about how the idiot author came to the conclusion that voting machines are off by more than 1%. Poor training, late openings at polls, and voters turned away as a result. That's not vote spoilage; that's user error. If anything, it could point to a failure in the training process, but the author already jumped to the conclusion that voting machines are highly unreliable and thus dishonest.

Tenchusatsu