At 11:17 PM -0500 12/10/00, Robert Guerra wrote:
>In article <001c01c062e0$5db95fc0$0100a8c0@golem>, "Me"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> i dont see why any of these methods are inherently
>> better/safer/more accurate than those used in florida.
>
>Counting a "X"'s I would think is easier than counting chads on punch
>card ballots
Clue 1: Hollerith cards are not intended to be read by humans.
Clue 2: The first computer count, the second computer count, and in
some cases, the third computer count, gave substantially identical
results.
Clue 3: One party, seeing it was approximately 500-1000 votes behind
the other party, initiated a series of diversionary measures,
including folderol about butterflies and confused Jews. The diversion
lasted long enough for planeloads of New York shysters to arrive.
Then the focus shifted to "the will of the people must be listened
to."
Clue 4: Hollerith cards in banks and corporations around the world
are _still _ not read by human eyeballs.
--Tim May
--
(This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the
election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)
