AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/25/2004 5:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/24/2004 2:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

Date: 10/24/2004 6:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

All that matters is
propertly counting the votes. This is much
more important than who wins for any particular
four year term.

yeah and it didn't happen.

Nor did Gore want it to happen.

What Gore wanted was irrelevent. He had no authority to act.

The correct way to perform any recount to determine
who wins a state's electors is by a statewide recount.

Legally the correct way is determined by the state officials. I would
say
that
in many cases a state wide recount is best and most fair. It is not
always
neccessary though. If there is a specific problem in a specific district
then
there is not neccessarily a good reason to make the whole state recount
their
votes.

Yes, there is a good reason , partial recounts are not equitable, not are
they legal.
A recount has to recount each ballot.

Depends on the reason for a recount.

I don't care who would have won.
Picking off selective recounts of particular
counties is unconstitutional,

What part of the constitution prevents states from picking specific
problems in
vote counting that happened in specific districts and going back and
correcting
those mistakes?

and flat out wrong
looking at it logically.

In some cases yes and in some cases no. In this case I agree that a
state
wide
recount was the best choice. Supreme court intervention was the worst
choice.

Well, Gore's proposed remedy was NOT a statwide recount.

Doesn't matter does it? He had no authority to act.

At the time I felt he made a big mistake in asking for
a partial rather than a total.he got greedy, and fished for his best
assumed statistical cahnce. His problem was that
he had a limited amount of time for legal maneuvering, and he
wasted it on that issue. If he poroposed a statewide, there
would be less to argue about, it would have put
the Reps ina less tenable position, and he probably would have
won the right to the recount. Instead he went for all
or nothing, and got nothing.

I agree that it was a mistake. I don't agree that it mattered or made the
supreme court intervention any less wrong.

You can't have a maix and match result constituting
a bunch ao partial counts slapped together.

But that is what we have. Balloting is not standardized in most states.
With
computerized voting would you say that any computer glitch would be
logical
grounds for recounting all noncomputer cast votes in any state along
with
recounting the computerized ones? I don't.

Iagree that uniformity within a state is preferable.

You didn't answer the question though. Does a state need to recount all
ballots
even if we are talking about a problem that could only affect computerized
balloting?

If what is done to the computerized system constitutes a recount, yes,
then there should be a statewide recount.
T

That would be a complete waste of time and money since noncomputerized ballots
cannot be affected.