http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...io-error_x.htm
:rolleyes:
http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Vi...oVotingMachine
Printable View
MCVIV
Computer's have no place in voting.
Does it matter at all, since Kerry conceded? Could the President be "recalled" and the vote run through again (with a paper, a pencil, and an X? ;))?
:shuriken:
Apparently, the fact he conceded has no legal bearing...
Of course, like the Gore exception in 2000... they could make this the Kerry Exception. :rolleyes:
Very odd. I suppose it's more of a showmanship thing then.
Wonder why they don't audit the votes...
:shuriken:
If the errors and the votes that require verifying negate GW's 120,000 or so lead (I believe they had about 150,000 to check) would GW lose the electoral college votes and the election? It all seems a bit mad to me.
If Kerry won Ohio, then he would have won the election, as the electoral seats would be Kerry 272 and Bush 259.
:shuriken:
Whhn cmopertu vtgni si atditde yuo gte teh smae rseluts thta yuo intiailly rceidve.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicNakor
:dry:
That's the beauty of computer voting if you want to cheat.
The audit would be checking the votes counted against how many voted. That first article has 3,893 extra votes showing, as only 638 people voted.
If that same mistake happened repeatedly, then shouldn't the vote be run again...without the computers?
:shuriken:
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicNakor
What's weird is that I thought just votes would be changed, not something as glaring as numbers of votes/number if voters being mismatched.
They wouldn't rerun it. It admits the entire system is fucked.
Also if it were a real malfunction, wouldn't malfunction for Kerry too.
I'm sure that will be added in the future as an alibi.
:dry: