1. the monkey wrenching was being done by the people 'counting' the ballots;
2. those 'counting' the ballots felt intimidated because they were lying and
cheating and eating chads and didn't want observers watching them;
3. American citizens who can't be bothered to vote correctly shouldn't get
treated with special care and handling when the other 99.9% can do it
correctly;
4. The network forecasting machines did indeed have a problem. The machines
that actually counted the vote did not. They simply counted what they were
given to count.
5. The humans doing the counting bent over backward to count ballots that
shouldn't have been counted. And the Supreme Court took note of this when
they mentioned that one county had a disproportionate number of revised
votes for the population difference between two counties.
6. Another problem that couldn't be resolved was this question: If we are
going to use a standard for counting the 'undervotes', why doesn't the SAME
standard get applied to votes that were already counted by the machine? If
there is a definite punch, but there is also a secondary 'punch' that would
be counted by the 'undervote' standard, then the ballot should be tossed
because two votes in the same race is an invalid vote.
============================================================
Kenneth Komoto mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pioneer Commander Outpost 193 Phone: (530)752-7197
Southpointe Christian Center Fax : (530)752-0329
Sacramento, Ca 95828
_______
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm
http://rangernet.org Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
