[DMCForum] Re: Bush (Vote for handouts/tax breaks)

["Flavia" <frvianna@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't have the power to accuse anyone of fraud. But it is possible 
that the system flaws could have made it easier to cheat. According 
to the law, yes, of course, but is is still susceptible to errors 
that can or can't be tracked, either for the system's inneficiency or 
due to impatiality (read fraud). Everything is meant to be done 
according to the law that regulated it, but does it always happen? Of 
course not!
I hope that in these 4 years, it was possible to improve the system 
and make the upcoming elections better, I wouldn't saw flawless, 
unfortunately. Let's see what will happen.
Some votes were discarted, that is what puzzles me. Who knows what 
were on those votes? maybe those were crucial to Gore's winning, to 
make Bush's victory better or even for the votes to be even, LOL 
I don't know for sure, and who knows?
--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Katon, Robert" <robert.katon@xxxx> 
wrote:
> Oh, so it was professor Plum in the study with a candlestick?  
>  
> By your own admission, you don't know for sure.  One thing that is 
clear
> is that the votes were counted in accordance with the law and the 
system
> in place at that time.  It would have been more of a shame to try to
> implement a different system in order to get a different result.  
If the
> system is imperfect fine, change it, but to suggest that the human 
error
> always tipped in Bush's favor even when counted by liberal groups is
> also a shame.
> 
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: Flavia [mailto:frvianna@xxxx] 
>       Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 12:38 PM
>       To: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>       Subject: [DMCForum] Re: Bush (Vote for handouts/tax breaks)
>       
>       
>       What I am saying is that is absurd to not to be able to say
> who's the 
>       new president after a month, or whatever it took until it was
> finally 
>       stated that Bush won.
>       I don't think hand counting is that effective, human errors 
are 
>       possible and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is
> that it 
>       was such a tight victory that I just can't be sure it was
> accurate. I 
>       have no idea how much more votes Clinton had in his first and
> second 
>       terms, but I think it was an easier victory, so no one had
> grounds to 
>       suspect any miscount, fraud or whatever.
>       Honestly, after the second count, it was getting ridiculous. 
In
> my 
>       opinion, such episode was a shame for the country. What can we
> do?
>       No matter who recounted, it's not error proof. I won't state 
for
> sure 
>       that it was Gore and not Bush. I do believe we'd be better off
> with 
>       anyone, but Bush, but I don't have a time machine to change 
the
> past 
>       and see the future outcome :)

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.