----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 8:37 AM Subject: RE: FAHAT
> And it turned out the court was wrong. A full recount of the entire state > would have given the election to Gore. > > xponent > Read It In The Paper Maru > rob > > Me: > Which paper, exactly? The Washington Post and New York Times (those > conservative bastions) both said that this was too close to call, even after > recounting every ballot. And _Gore himself_ refused a full recount of the > state - presumably because he thought he would lose it and he was more > interested in winning than "counting every vote." Actually, Gore didn't refuse a full recount, he just didn't ask for a recount in every county. My best understanding of that was that he expected Bush to ask for recounts in counties that favored Bush, and for it to end up as a full recount. Also, I'm tracking the progress in changing the discrepency in voting machines between districts. AFAIK, very little is being done to adress this in Texas. To first order, we'll have the same difference in inherent error rates in '02 as we did in '00. I also remember that the Supreme Court specifically stated that their ruling about the inherent inequity in different counting rates was not to be applied outside of the specific case. In other words, people from a district with machines/systems that have an inherent undercount/overcount of 2% cannot sue to get a system that has an inherent undercount/overcount of 0.5%, even if a neighboring district has them. Dan M.
