-- freedomfighter (, November 13, 2000


Until Al gets the number he wants...

-- it would be funny (if it w@sn' sad), November 13, 2000.

Hopefully it will last as long as it takes to make sure that every single vote of the American people is counted.

-- (patience@is.a.virtue), November 13, 2000.


The votes have already been counted. Many of them twice. Some of them three times. We aren't waiting until they are all counted, we are waiting until we count to the desired result. As we have learned, getting the result you want is an extremely slow process, *especially* when you don't have the votes to begin with.

-- Flint (, November 13, 2000.


Apparently you haven't heard about the error rate of using machines, up to 5%. Do your homework, then come back and speak.

-- (machines@not.reliable), November 13, 2000.

Well, Flint,

The rest of us who voted absentee would like to hope that our votes would, indeed, be counted. Since we know for a fact that absentees in our state are STILL being counted FOR THE FIRST TIME, why don't you believe that the benefits of our democracy should be extended to us as well?

It is pathetic and sad that Bush supporters will abrogate not only the law, but the freedoms of their fellow citizens, to bring on the coronation.

-- Just another feminist (, November 13, 2000.


Sorry to belabor you with facts, but we all watched 67 Florida counties get machine counted twice. Not even the very largest difference was as much as 5% or even 2%, and most of the counties had differences of less than 0.1%. About a third of those counties had the exact same count twice, despite having >20,000 votes in some cases. That's ZERO difference in 20,000 votes. Your 5% would be 1,000 votes different. Where did that happen?

In a way, that second count was worthwhile. If Gore's count is WAY different, you know something very fishy is going on.


Yes, we should wait until all absentee ballots are received and counted before any vote can be certified. I have no problem counting any vote for the first time. I have a BIG problem with recounting selected districts by rules made up on the fly, in order to change the outcome and for no other reason, especially when nobody has suggested any foul play at all.

-- Flint (, November 13, 2000.

Sheeez Flint, no offense, but if that isn't dumb I don't know what is. How could they possibly determine the error unless they counted the same ballots by hand and compared it to the machine count?

This HAS been done in the past, and most machines have a PROVEN error rate that usually varies from 2 to 5%.

Lately you're just not nearly as sharp as you used to be. Voting for Bush, okay, I can accept the "lesser of two evils" thing. But now you don't even seem to be able to process simple reasoning. Hope you get that edge back soon.

-- sincerely (miss@sharp.flint), November 13, 2000.

I think he must have run out of his Y2K coffee.

-- (@ .), November 13, 2000.


I don't have time to teach you a course in basic statistics. You will just have to try very hard to understand that to calibrate the variance of machine error, you count the same ballots with the same machines over and over, noting the range of variation.

This gives you the *precision* of the machines, but not the accuracy of the machines. That is, the machines could conceivably produce the same incorrect number over and over. What we found was that the machines are very consistent, much better than a 2% variation, which is what Hawk was talking about. We have adequate data to make this determination. Hawk's 2% number was a reference to the range of difference between one machine count and the next, of the same ballots.

Now, the only factors that might introduce *inaccuracy* (rather than imprecision) is a systematic bias on the part of the machine count. This could be some kind of fraud, but nobody reports any. It could be a programming error common to all machines (remember y2k?). But nobody has suggested anything like that either.

The whole point is that when the total counted difference is .005%, we have a flat tie within the limits of error of ANY conceivable count, no matter how it's done. And this means that ANY recount has a 50-50 chance of picking a different "winner", no matter how it's done. Both parties are VERY WELL AWARE of this. Bush "won" the first counts pretty much at random, and Gore could "win" any subsequent count also at random. When you have a tie within any possible error limit of measurement, the result is random BY DEFINITION.

Do you see the problem here?

-- Flint (, November 13, 2000.

Okay Flint, I'm not convinced that you REALLY did your homework, but alll that technical stuff sounds pretty good. If you're not correct, you're a pretty good bullshitter, so you get an "A" for Ambition.

But what about the chads? Machines REJECT chads! Not fair! Wouldn't it be more fair and in the true American spirit to allow those poor little chads to be counted? :-)

-- (machines@not.trustworthy), November 13, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ