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. Why is this such a bad way of
ascertaining the results?
Because the bias may exist which the machines cannot count. If all things
were equal (as they would tend to be in a national election) then machine
counts would be fair but if there are more unvoted ballots in one region than
another than issues of prevalence become important statistically. If the
method of balloting in a heavily democratic county produces 10,000 unreadible
(by machine) ballots out of 1,000,000 in a dem area as opposed to 1,000 per
1,000,000 for a rep area the machine system will not provide an accurate
result.
Deciding voter intent is something that a machine cannot do but it is
something that a human can do. There of course can be bias and cheating but
by and large this seems not to occur in hand ballots. Rep propaganda to the
contrary this is not really a difficult issue with most ballots from what I
have read. Humans are capable of subjective judgements that are fair. The
vast majority of people doing the counting are honest and ethical. They will
make the "correct" decision.
JDG
_______________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Now is not the Time for Third Chances,
It is a Time for New Beginnings."
- George W. Bush 8/3/00
******************VOTE BUSH / CHENEY 2000 *******************
>>
