The whole issue is that had there been fraud, we might well not know. I am sure there was in New Mexico; what I don't know is whether it involved the machines and/or affected the outcome. I did see that New Mexico has a total finally, but I haven't had a chance to read the news stories yet.
But the point is, what's wrong with a secure and accurate election next time? I don't see why anyone of good faith would oppose this. Dana On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:28:24 -0600, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If widespread electoral fraud occurred affecting the outcome of the 2004 > election, it should be investigated by the proper authorities. > > It is your argument that evidence exists that suggests this is the case? > I've seen quite the opposite. > > Keeping in mind that honest accidents, slip ups, snafus, minor glitches, > etc....do NOT comprise intentional fraud, and tend to wash out in the end. > > > > > I don't subscribe to that train of thought. Whether or not online > petitions > > are worthless are a separate issue. > > > > Today's Washington Post had an interesting column on the subject today in > > the Metro section. (Especially given that yesterday's post had an article > > calling all the people who were voicing problems with the system > conspiracy > > theorists). > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:135793 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
