<I have deleted all but Greg Goodknight and Gerald Von Korff email addresses from the CC list>
> How many times should each vote be counted? Every Florida precinct has had > at least two full counts; some have already been counted four times.
Curiously, each time the stack was recounted, new votes were discovered. Apparently some of these ballots have NOT been counted four times, otherwise the count would not have changed.
> How has it been proven that the hand count is more accurate than the machine > count when the vote is contained on a paper punch card with no particular > features?
Having witnessed Greg Goodknight shill out propaganda of his own, why am not surprised to find him swallowing the Republican Party absurd propaganda? The idiocy of this question and its underlying assumption can be demonstrated very easily: remember Minnesota? remember New York? remember Indiana? remember Scotland? I am sure there were many more machine counting fiascoes (Harcourt paid back California how many millions of dollars for their testing errors?), but these four in particular stand out as monuments to the dangers of standardized testing and machine tabulations of scores. It is ironic that there is a link between Bush's stance on standardized testing and his stance on the vote recount (neither one is really Bush, but who is counting?!)
Greg, don't forget that the machines are designed by humans, programmed by humans and tuned and cleaned by humans. If errors are made along the way in machine design and maintenance, the result is an error of far greater proportion than anything a single manual counter can create. Besides, what would the "Founding Fathers" say? Did THEY have computers to tabulate their votes? (BTW, New Hampshire counts ALL its votes by hand and it has done so for the past century.)