Date: Wed Nov 29 2000 - 16:38:41 PST
In a message dated 11/29/00 9:10:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, ThosStew writes:
In a message dated 11/28/2000 10:38:20 PM, Grlygrl201@aol.com writes:
><< and we still don't have manual recounts of the areas with the worst
> the ballots have not been counted and recounted. >>
>machines haven't yet been evaluated for "worseness."
yes they have: per this morning's NY Times, machines using punch-card
ballots, vs optical machines, had a rejection rate of about 4% vs 1%. By
coincidence, those older punch-card machines happen to be disproportionately
in poorer counties, which happen to have populations which are
disproportionately black, which happen to be disproportionately likely to
have [wanted to] vote for Gore. >>
the rest of my post referred to sauls, who has asked that sample machines be
brought to leon county for a look-see.
well and good that the margin of error is higher in the punch-card ballot
machines and that the machines are in poorer counties* but they were approved
for use in this election. it's too bad they weren't evaluated before-hand.
the only hope for redress, under harris' pronouncement, is to prove the
machines were malfunctioning (degree of worseness). i don't know if
"malfunctioning" means "4% rejection rate" or "catches on fire when turned
on." i guess that will be up to sauls.
big problem with this particular case - gore's team wants to argue law,
bush's team fact. fact considers evidence and testimony, and drags things
out forever . . . point for bush. but that might be exactly what's necessary
to get these votes in - evidence, not law.
(still don't see how pbc is a "poor black" county. i think it has one of
the highest tax bases in the state.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 29 2000 - 16:57:55 PST