"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> At 08:07 PM 11/17/00 -0500, Doug wrote:
> >
> >JDG wrote:
> >
> ><<What most surprises me though, is why this skepticism and fear of
> machines? Why this inherent assumption that only *humans* can accurately
> count a ballot? I actually happen to like machine counts because they are
> fast, efficient, and completely unbiased. A uniform standard is applied to
> every single ballot, *without* question. >>
> >
> >But your last statement is patently false. The famous chads can act like
> trap doors if they have been punched through but are still hanging on by a
> corner or two. When the ballots are stacked together the "trap door"
> closes and the vote isn't counted. This accounts for the difference from
> one count to the next as the "hanging chad" has a tendency to losen and
> fall out. So a uniform standard is applied to only those ballots that
> don't have "hanging chad".
> >>>>>>>
>
> I think that "patently false" is awfully harsh here, Doug.
>
If ballots with hanging chad are not counted the way the voter intended and
the ones withoud chad are then the statement "A uniform standard is applied to
every single ballot, *without* question." is not true.
An article on voting machines. NY Times free subscription necessary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/17/politics/17MACH.html
Doug
