🚀 go-pugleaf

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