Reply #43: Round and round you go, TIA.

[Wilms]

It's been discussed ad nauseum. There's a pattern of you not answering questions and re-asking questions that were answered. I feel distracted when that happens.

Where's the large undervote rates showing the kinds of problems you imagined? They don't exist. You've got an imagined danger in search of a made up problem. What a distraction.

Of course computers are used for precinct aggregation--not for tallying votes. And with the precinct data you can verify it. Why don't you? Is it because you're too busy distracting people?

You can see if a machine has been manipulated. How many manipulated machines would it take to fulfill your fantasy? Calculate that TIA. And get back to us. We'd appreciate a break from your distractions.

You can test the machines before and after. And they do. And probably not enough. Do you participate in that? What are you going to do? Or do you just distract people?

Do they audit HCPB's? Shouldn't they? HUMANS, ya know. What are you doing about New Hampshire hemorrhaging HCPB precincts? Does it take ALL your time to distract people?

What have you done to get HCPB implemented in NY? What have you done to save the dwindling number of HCPB precincts in NH?

Why do think a strategy of distracting people, leading people astray, and generally acting like the court jester is in the best interest of election reform?