Reply #10: Wrong! (reply to original poster)

[mirrera]

Just to clear something up... The Law is if 3% of the hand count matches the machine, you can use the machine to re-count the REST of the county. If the machine and the 3% hand count do not match, you must hand count the rest of the county. Either way the whole county gets re-counted.

I started another thread a couple of days ago wondering about whether or not they may have installed a sort of second stage vote rigging program that would run clean for the 3% and then go back to rigging as usual. I.E. 1 for you plus 1 for me equals 2 for me.

The reason I came have this thought is because the WHOLE county was going to be done. So if they just un-rigged the machine, the 3% test of the machine would match, but the count for rest of the county would also come out honest.

My next thought was hmmm how would they know how many votes to run clean? Different populations in different counties would mean the 3% would be varied.

That is easy, the B.O.E. said they weren't going to hand count any sample over 500 votes regardless of what 3% came out to be. That would make it easy for a program to be patched so it ran clean for 500-600 votes, allowing the 3% hand count to come out right, and assuring them of a machine count for the rest of the county. They wouldn't care if Kerry gained just a few votes.

That said, there is no proof of any of this yet! They may have not wanted to do the hand counting for the rest of the county because it is Christmas and they are sick of the election.

All we have is motive—not of the average election worker who knows nothing— but of Blackwell, and opportunity. They can't prove they didn't rig it at this point.

Let us also not absolve ourselves of this whole fiasco. We, US citizens, allowed computer voting to get to the point where election officials depend on these vote machine companies to carry on an election.

Anyone who works in an office that uses windows machines, usually has a tech crew. These election workers are probably relieved to not have to deal with the computerized aspects of the vote. They do not see any of this—technicians coming in and "helping"—as wrong or illegal. That is our fault for letting the system become entrenched in what is most likely illegal behavior.


Edit: I am such a slow typest that by the time I finished this the poster from the re-count, before me, appeared with a GREAT explanation!!