American vs Canadian efficiency

[Kevin E. Ramsey RPT]

I think that the main objection to the hand recounts, at least in the minds
of the Republicans, is the potential for voter fraud. The person they chose
to be in charge of that effort was Mr. James Daly. He is the son of the
former Chicago Mayor. I remember charges of massive voter fraud in his
district in the 1960 election. I think that alone would be enough to scare
anyone. Perhaps they could have fielded someone else.
    Another thought. The whole reason they originally went to a machine
counting method was because it is much more accurate than counting by hand.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Moody" <remoody@midstatesd.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: American vs Canadian efficiency


>
>
> >
> > >   In the Fla. recount  Bush's lead is
> > >now down to 500 votes from 1,500.  So with 10,000 votes uncounted,
(ones
> the
> > >machines rejected for whatever reasons)
> >
> > Those ballots were counted twice by machine, and votes for other offices
> > recorded.  Many had no vote for president.  I submit that, had there
been
> > the choice, "non-of-the-above" would have won by a landslide.
> > Conrad Hoffsommer
>
> With a only 500 vote difference and 10,000 votes (I think this is only two
> counties) unable to be counted by machine what is the big deal about
> counting them by humans?  But if not counted manually it will ever be on
the
> minds of millions, did Bush really win?  Bush could have said, "count
those
> votes, if I am to win it must be clear and decisive".  It would take a
very
> bold leader to say this but what else can an effective "moral" leader say?
> By opposing recounts he appears to be impeding the democratic process thus
> begging the question; "Is he afraid to face the truth"?
>
> >I submit that, had there been
> > the choice, "non-of-the-above" would have won by a landslide.
>
>
> There is no need for "non of the above" to be on ballots because that is
> exactly the vote of those who do not show up at  the polls.
>
>
>
> >
> > The whole election will be a moot point, anyway.  Both houses are pretty
> > evenly divided, and now extremely polarized by this post-election
> campaign.
> > Whoever wins will never be able to lead a gridlocked congress.
> > Conrad,
>
>
> IF the perception prevails that the election was finally won fair and
square
> then I think the country will be behind the President.  The US Supreme
Court
> is supposed to rule tomorrow.  They can say it is up the the States to
> control the elections, or they can say no law,  person or process can
impede
> the casting  or the counting of ballots.  ---ric
>