On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:55:12 -0500, kelley wrote: > >>> but would have lost under the Florida Supreme Court's rule that >>> there had to be a statewide recount. >> >> i am not familiar with the ruling that there was to be a >> "statewide recount." did i miss something? > > intent of the voter standard there ac ole boyo. i understand the florida supreme court's commitment to the *clear* intent of the voter, no argument there. but i am not sure where "there had to be a statewide recount" came from... > even if they'd gone with the least controversial ways of > designating intent and not those *horror**horror**shock**shock* > dimpled chads.... > >>> Another irony is that most of Gore's votes apparently did not come >>> from "chads" in punchcard systems but actually came from >>> "overvotes" in optical systems, the supposedly more accurate >>> system. >> >> the two normal sources for the supposed greater accuracy of the new >> systems are the vendors who sell these kinds of voter technologies >> and the supervisors of elections, who promised their county >> commissions that these new technologies would improve accuracy in >> order to get the funds to purchase them... >> >> afaik (as of 1998), there was no independent study of the new voter >> technologies vis-a-vis their accuracy... > > yippee! maybe we can watch a face of between opposing party hacks. you would like that, wouldn't you!!!! ac <--- who used to do political consulting for *money,* not ideology ''' (0 0) ----oOO----(_)---------- | the geek shall | | inherit the earth | -----------------oOO---- |__|__| || || ooO Ooo ------------------------------------------------------------ FREE EMAIL from AUSI at http://ausi.com