The Difference between Canada and the United States.

[Fleet 500]

Maybe he did but just not the official count

No, Gore lost the 2000 election. He didn't get the 270 electoral votes needed to win; Bush did.

[Vindesh17]

I know that you're a strong bush supporter and I respect that but you know what I mean.

[targa]

No, Gore lost the 2000 election. He didn't get the 270 electoral votes needed to win; Bush did.

Technically, Gore got more votes than Bush did. So in any other democratic country in the world, he would have won, but thanks to some *great* help from the Supreme Court, and someone half-hatched idea that is the Electoral college system, Bush was given the 2000 election.....thanks friends of daddy

[targa]

I was gonna say the Grass.
The grass is so much greener in BC.

There is an article in the newest RollingStone that says the grass is alot danker in BC, too.

[Fleet 500]

Technically, Gore got more votes than Bush did. So in any other democratic country in the world, he would have won, but thanks to some *great* help from the Supreme Court, and someone half-hatched idea that is the Electoral college system, Bush was given the 2000 election.....thanks friends of daddy

The supreme court put an end to the illegal hand recounts. It was illegal for several reasons... the Democrat-controlled Florida Supreme Court extending the certification for no legal reason. According to Florida law, hand recounts shall only be done for 3 reasons. 1) Obvious fraud; 2) Machine breakdown; 3) A natural disaster such as a hurricane.

7 of 9 Supreme Court justices (even ones that weren't friends of Bush's daddy) said they had a problem with the way the votes were being counted. They rightfully put a stop to the ridiculous way of hand counting the ballots (like holding them up to the light and trying to determine how a voter cast their vote).

The electoral college is not a half-hatched idea. The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. In the electoral college system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population so that each state's power if representative of its population.
This way, the 4 or 5 most populous states don't decide the elections.

[SlickHolden]

The supreme court put an end to the illegal hand recounts. It was illegal for several reasons... the Democrat-controlled Florida Supreme Court extending the certification for no legal reason. According to Florida law, hand recounts shall only be done for 3 reasons. 1) Obvious fraud; 2) Machine breakdown; 3) A natural disaster such as a hurricane.

7 of 9 Supreme Court justices (even ones that weren't friends of Bush's daddy) said they had a problem with the way the votes were being counted. They rightfully put a stop to the ridiculous way of hand counting the ballots (like holding them up to the light and trying to determine how a voter cast their vote).

The electoral college is not a half-hatched idea. The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. In the electoral college system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population so that each state's power if representative of its population.
This way, the 4 or 5 most populous states don't decide the elections.

WE count votes by hand here nothing stupid about that till John Howard got in.

[Fleet 500]

WE count votes by hand here nothing stupid about that till John Howard got in.

It has been found that machine counts have a higher accuracy than human counts. Also, machines show no bias. That's the main reason it was brought in as the official way to count votes.

[SlickHolden]

It has been found that machine counts have a higher accuracy than human counts. Also, machines show no bias. That's the main reason it was brought in as the official way to count votes.

But machines can brake down and also count 2 instead of 1.
And humans don't make mistakes when they get $250 for 5 hours work

[Fleet 500]

But machines can brake down and also count 2 instead of 1.
And humans don't make mistakes when they get $250 for 5 hours work

Again, tests have shown machines to be more accurate. And if a machine breaks down, another one is used in its place.
No matter what humans are paid, they can be biased... machines are not. They can also count much faster (with less errors) than humans.

[crisis]

Also, machines show no bias.

Yeah, its impossible to rig a machine!

[Fleet 500]

Yeah, its impossible to rig a machine!

Very unlikely that would happen. They are checked and inspected all the time.
Rigging a machine would be a serious federal offense with certain jail time.
And remember... it was through machine counts that Clinton was elected two times. No one complained about machine counts when he won!

[Matra et Alpine]

No, Gore lost the 2000 election. He didn't get the 270 electoral votes needed to win; Bush did.

man you really work hard to avoid the point made even when it's in humour !!!!!

[Matra et Alpine]

It has been found that machine counts have a higher accuracy than human counts. Also, machines show no bias. That's the main reason it was brought in as the official way to count votes.

chad ? worn machines ?? All have cast doubt on machinery !
And new comptuer-based ones are beign harangued in the industry for their lack of audit and proof.

Can you post evidence of research PROVING a real machien inteh real world is "more accurate" ?

WHat HAS to be remembered though is that with a population of hundreds of millions the time and COST to count all by hand is prohibitively expensive ( unless the government has a VERY good balance of payments ) and so there really is little choice for larger nations.

The UK has a hand vote system for all election and referendum.
Continues to work fine, if a very busy night for the vast number of countin, recountign and chekcing staff.

re FLorida comment, Fleet, the 3 points were fine until their was evidence that the choice to eject punched cards for various reasons even when it was clear the voters INTENTION was the bsais of much of the "rigged" claims. You can't avoid that the system WAS flawed in it's treatment.

[Matra et Alpine]

But machines can brake down and also count 2 instead of 1.
And humans don't make mistakes when they get $250 for 5 hours work

In the UK the counting system is setup up to cope with the reality that they sometimes WILL make mistakes. Just so 'others' dont' get too confused I'd have thought you guys woudl use the same system of counting the 'good' ones twice - sometimes three - and the uncertain ones discussed and counted many times more. AND that the candidates have the RIGHT to ask for a full recount or a partial recount and all candidates have to agree before the count is confirmed. Over hear it means sometimes recounts can mean days going by with no result and many recounts, but it happens very seldom and the view seems to be that getting it right is better than getting it early

[Matra et Alpine]

Again, tests have shown machines to be more accurate. And if a machine breaks down, another one is used in its place.
No matter what humans are paid, they can be biased... machines are not.

WOW, you really have no checks and balances ?
I find it an odd reason, given that many other democracies the world over can employ and trust workers !!! Are you suggesting corruption is or was once that rife ??