Paul Schmehl wrote:I disagree. Until the research is credible and vetted, investigating is premature. Many people don't seem to understand, investigating supposed discrepancies in the vote costs millions of dollars. The recount in Ohio will cost the state $1.5 million. That's money that could pay for other things. So you don't run off on wild goose chases just because some "researcher" says, "Oooooo, look at this. This looks really unusual."
Even *if* they are correct (which is at least debateable) the 130,000 vote discrepancy they argue for won't overcome Bush's lead of 380,000, so this is, at best, an academic exercise.
If they are even possibly correct a discrepancy that large must be investigated to make sure it won't happen in a future election which might be a lot closer.
*If* the research is credible and stands up to scrutiny, *then* you spend whatever is necessary to get to the bottom of it and determine if there is a problem. In this particular case, their "research" is laughable and doesn't merit followup, much less the expenditure of millions to get to the bottom of a nonexistent problem.
Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas AVIEN Founding Member http://www.utdallas.edu
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
