Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > "I already answered it a bunch of times and multiple people have replied to > my answer (look 2 posts up)." > > Didn't see any percentages. It's like a presidential debate. The moderator > will ask a question and neither candidate will answer. The moderator will > ignore this and move to the next question. Not here. Don't anser. >
Just to be clear: I am now an answering your question, "what amount of voter fraud is acceptable?" Here I am now answering your question that you asked multiple times and I have answered multiple times. Are we clear that I am about to answer your question? I just want to make sure since I've already typed this multiple times. Here is the answer to your question "what amount of voter fraud is acceptable?" GG: The amount of voter fraud that's acceptable is the amount that is less than the error in collecting, attributing, and counting the votes. How do I reach this conclusion? Eli Goldratt, Theory of Constraints, otherwise known as the "weak link" management paradigm. Basically your top problem in elections is the errors in collecting, attributing, and counting the votes. We've seen that many, many times starting with Bush v Gore. Thus Goldratt would tell us - with decades of validation to his theory - that we should work on that problem and only once we solve it can we understand the voter fraud problem. To be more clear, we CAN NOT KNOW IF VOTER FRAUD *IS* A PROBLEM until we apply the theory of constraints. QED bit ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:339552 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
