Ken Komoto wrote:
> 1. the monkey wrenching was being done by the people 'counting' the ballots;
Respectfully, I decent...
The "Monkey wrenching" was done by political operatives under the
instruction of both camps...
>
>
> 2. those 'counting' the ballots felt intimidated because they were lying and
> cheating and eating chads and didn't want observers watching them;
Wow!
The counters were doing a good job and counted as many for Bush as they
found for Gore! *I don't fault them, when clear instruction needed to be
at the head of the count from the Fla. Supream court. It was a failure, and
I don't buy that there isn't someone someway who will count the ballots for
history and delever a clear result.
>
>
> 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;
You got me there...so I guess the sailors who normaly don't postmark their
mail are not responsible to postmark it for meeting the rules of the absentee
vote? *You agree then they should be thrown out?
>
>
> 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.
They came up with a second count when run again and that got the
hand count going because of the closeness of the machine count...
The election had a provision for protesting both the count and the result!
That "provision" is ashure fairness of the election and that all the votes
were counted. *Did that happen? You say it did... but sadly now,
the vote dose'nt matter at all! the Bozo politicians steped in to "settle"
the dust.
>
>
> 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.
*I agree. but desent from the claim that the human factor was intent on
counting votes that were not there. I agree that a patchwork of instruction
does not meet the need of clear and uniform instruction to assure the count
is fair to all. That is obvious, but still the order could be to count the
ballots
again, under such circumstances that a fair assesment of the intent of the people
could be determined.
>
>
> 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.
*Fuzzy numbers, amigo<G>
If you had a contest where Nader and Bucannon were eliminated,
Gore would have had it in the bag...
If you had a contest where idiots didn't vote for the wrong person,
or get confused by the ballot instruction, GORE would have had the edge.
If all the ballots that had become "invalid" had been counted- GORE would
have had the edge.
Nationwide, the American people voted 50-50 down the middle, with
the minescule advantage of 400,000 for Gore.
*So it's no wonder Bush won.<G>
-=A=-
>
>
> ============================================================
> Kenneth Komoto mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Pioneer Commander Outpost 193 Phone: (530)752-7197
> Southpointe Christian Center Fax : (530)752-0329
> Sacramento, Ca 95828
--
��ࡱ�
_______
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm
http://rangernet.org Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
