Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (87327)11/25/2000 3:01:32 PM
From: Lazarus_Long
   of 769618
Apparently not all the counties originally named in the suit have agreed to count the military ballots. The Bush campaign said it reserves the right to sue those that don't.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (87326)11/25/2000 3:10:55 PM
From: Lazarus_Long
   of 769618
Yeah, our schools here are just wonderful- -not.
The teachers unions claim it is because the funding is so low. What they can't explain is anomalies like Utah- -4th from the bottom in funding and close to the top in achievement.
During my lifetime, school funding has steadily increased; achievement has dropped. If there is any correlation, it is NEGATIVE.
How about other things are involved, like: bloated school bureaucracies; teachers unions; lack of parental involvement and supervision.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (87329)11/25/2000 3:11:58 PM
From: gao seng
   of 769618
Judge Had Absentee-Form Problem Too

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (87326)11/25/2000 3:12:03 PM
From: Shadow
   of 769618
I work in a small machine shop in Southern CA.
Over the years we have hired a half dozen young
high school graduates. All were totally ignorant
in simple math. Several were unable to do math WITH A
CALCULATOR. Most were unable to read beyond comic book
level and a couple were functionally illiterate.
A friend has his daughter in a local elementary school.
She is the only kid in a class of 35 who speaks English.
The education system in SOCAL is near collapse.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (6)

To: MKTBUZZ who started this subject11/25/2000 3:18:07 PM
From: portage
   of 769618
This stuff about Gore stealing the election is a sham mantra from the hypocrites !

Gore won the popular.

Gore likely won Florida.

Gore had his butterfly and uncounted votes stolen.

Gore plus Nader votes shows a clear preference in America for the Democratic/progressive agenda.

Republican hoods had a near riot in Miami to stop a legal process !

Republicans are desperately grasping at straws !

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (6)

To: Shadow who wrote (87332)11/25/2000 3:18:28 PM
From: Ron Pratt
   of 769618
Your experience and mine in contracting with hiring young people may go to their 'drive' rather than education. The one thing I found most annoying was their inability to follow directions. Not being able to follow directions on a ballot somehow didn't surprise me.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: MKTBUZZ who started this subject11/25/2000 3:18:54 PM
From: E
   of 769618

Its subject is: just how ridiculous is the attempt to discern "intent" of votes that didn't remove the chad, but only made it bulge.

My position is that there is a good argument on each side.

I also am praying, in my way and for my own reasons, that Bush will be declared the victor.

My defense of the Bush position is that on the face of it, "intent" is designed to be discerned via clean holes, not by bulges, and that the intrusion of subjective (by definition) human beings into this objective process is fraught with slippery-slope dangers, as a precedent, even if both sides are involved in the determinations.

My thought experiment explains why I don't think the rejection of "dimpled" or "pregnant" chads should be done in a spirit of high dudgeon, but rather with deep regret for the possible frustration by faulty technology of the democratic will. And why I don't think it is productive to call those who support the counting of bulges "thieves," and why I think they have a case the Bush supporters would be making were the situations reversed.

Assumptions of Thought Experiment:

1. That it is the case (as was stated by both an election official and by the inventor of the voting machine that failed to count thousands of presidential votes because the chads were only hanging or pregnant and not removed,) that the first line, the one pierced by the stylus for the presidency, has been known to work defectively (ie to not remove the chads in an unacceptable percentage of cases) due to overuse of that line over the years, and has, because of this, not even been used in municipal elections.

2. That the Yale statistician was describing the situation approximately correctly when he compared the pattern of the failures to register, on the ballot, a presidential vote in the county in question to that in other counties, and determined that the rate of omission of presidential votes registered on those particular machines was 500% higher than the rate of omission of presidential votes on the ballots processed by any other machines. IOW, that many of those people who have been insulted and ridiculed for senility and stupidity were taking an inadvertently "rigged" test of intelligence.

Further, that the statistician was correct in saying that the chance of this 500% increased occurrence of success-in-voting-on-the-other-lines-but-failure-on-the-first (worn) presidential line, being a "chance" event is less than that of his being struck by lightning five times.

Well, I've learned that people hate long posts and the preliminaries took so long that I'm going to post my thought experiment separately.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: MKTBUZZ who started this subject11/25/2000 3:19:01 PM
From: E
   of 769618
Part Two, my little THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

All else is equal. The voters were equally stupid or not, etc. There is only one change in the situation that resulted in those thousands of lost votes.

The only difference this time is that when a special stylus is thrust through the hole in the number one, presidential, line, the machine is designed, when working correctly, not to remove a chad from a hole but to stamp on the ballot, with an inked stamp, either "GORE" or "BUSH".

And then the machine scans the ballots, registering the name "BUSH" or "GORE" by detecting and reading the ink stamped on the ballot.


Because the inked stamp pads on the first line on some voting machines have been so frequently used, they don't work perfectly. (The inconsistency of the readability (by the machine) of the printed name has been noted in the past, and so in municipal elections that line isn't even used.)

Unfortunately, although in most elections this problem doesn't affect the outcome, a very close presidential election is held while these imperfect stamp-pad machines are still in use.

It turns out that thousands of voters stick the stylus through all the lines thinking they are participating in their most sacred citizenly rite, not to mention right, but something untoward occurs.

The stamp pads don't pick up much ink on the first line, the one for president. In some few cases, not enough ink to be read by the machine.

So the machines' tabulation says that 500% more of these citizens made no presidential choice than did the citizens anyplace else.

But this is highly unlikely! And the citizens learn what has happened as they tried to vote, and are upset.

So in spite of their being ridiculed and insulted and mocked as stupid and uneducated and senile, the citizens say they want the ballots viewed by human eyes to see whether there WAS a stamp saying "GORE" or "BUSH" on their ballots, as they intended there to be, but that it was merely more lightly inked. Visible, the way, say, the third or fourth impression you make with your own address stamp is, but just not as dark and bold as is the stamped address on the first impression -- and not dark and bold enough to be scanned and counted by the machine.

But hey, open your eyes and look!, they say. There is the proof right there on their ballots that they voted for their man! Look! "GORE". "BUSH".

Faint, but visible enough so that their effort, their INTENTION to vote for their man can be discerned by a bipartisan group of human beings.

Sure, there will be disputes. Some of the ballots will have inky smudges that could have gotten there accidentally, or a bit of dirt, or four letters will be there, but which four letters are they, it's not clear. Those must be discarded, of course.

I believe that if what we had were not bulges indicating GORE or BUSH, but faint, yet legible to the human eye, letters spelling out the name, there would be more sympathetic understanding of the distress of those who feel they voted, and that their votes are there on the ballots for the human eye to detect, and yet they are to be ignored... and to add insult to injury, those unfortunate voters are treated with contempt, accused of being stupid, senile, of trying, by getting their ballots counted, to steal an election.

In principle, I see no difference between a bulge agreed on to be there by bipartisan witnesses and a faintly stamped "GORE" or "BUSH".

With more sensitive technology, faint ink could be read by a machine, and bulges could be read by a machine, thus answering the objections of those who feel machines should do the scanning.

So what is so ridiculous, aside from the terminology used to describe it, about a bulge? Would ink, legible to the human eye but unreadable by the machine in use, be ridiculous?

Why are those citizens contemptible?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: PROLIFE who wrote (87258)11/25/2000 3:20:47 PM
From: hdl
   of 769618
i don't know. in a deposition or a trial, an attorney cannot coach a witness

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Mr. BSL who wrote (87328)11/25/2000 3:20:57 PM
From: sunshinestate
   of 769618
Reference Transcript..CORRUPTION
This is BS and Real Americans know it.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.