🚀 go-pugleaf

You know not of what you speak!

MWSmith wrote:

> On 29 Nov 2000 05:33:37 GMT, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> >MWSmith (mws@wt.net) wrote:
> >: On 26 Nov 2000 00:22:17 GMT, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> wrote:
> >
> >: >     But Florida (and Texas) law require that a ballot be counted
> >: >if it is clear what the voter's intent was.  Nobody is trying to
> >: >read the voters' minds, just count a ballot when the intent is
> >: >clear but the machine rejected it.
> >
> >: Bullshit, Merlin.
> >
> >: If the voter does his or her job correctly, the machine will count
> >: their vote correctly; every time.
> >
> >     To paraphrase somebody or other, "Depends on what the
> >meaning of 'correctly' is."  If you make a nice clean punch,
> >and make sure nothing is hanging on the back of the ballot,
> >the odds are pretty good that the machine will count it
> >correctly.  But not 100%.
>
> If the person loading the cards in the machine does his/her job
> correctly, then it is 100% that the machine will count it correctly,
> IF the voter did their job correctly. This is due to the machine being
> checked twice before it makes a count and once after it makes a count.
> If it passes the tests, it is accurate. (and the machine MUST pass the
> tests with NO errors, to be considered accurate) If it does not pass
> the tests, the counts are nullified, and another machine capable of
> passing all tests is used to re-count those votes.
>
> > And nowhere in the voting
> >instructions does it say to check that the back of the ballot
> >is clear.  (But it will from now on...)  If you don't make a
> >clean punch and don't check the back of the ballot, then the
> >machine may reject your ballot.
>
> The instructions have been posted all over the place, and it does tell
> the voter to check the ballot for hanging pieces of paper and remove
> them.
>
> >Thus a manual count is
> >always at least as accurate as a machine count, and may be
> >more accurate.
>
> Not even close. Have you been keeping up with the news out of Florida,
> recently? There is NO way any of these manual counts can be more
> accurate than the machine counts. It is obvious that the manual counts
> are highly subjective, but, of course, that is the ONLY way Algore,
> Jr. can steal this election.
>
> You are buying into the fallacy that Algore, Jr. needs you to believe
> in, in order for him to have a shot at ripping off the American
> public, and stealing this election.
>
> Mike Smith