"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 05:10:36 +0000, Mr Wizzard wrote:


Why fix whats not broken? Think about this here.... Florida, right? In
*each* one the the recounts, Bush came out ahead. This alone tells you
the
system works. You take multiple readings of something and your always
gonna get different readings. If you take multiple readings, and
multiple
recounts, and if in each time they are more that the other, then
stastically that one has won, thats basic stats. Been different if at
LEAST one of the recounts went the other way.

Not broken? Multiple readings? Would you use a bank that counted your
money the way this country counts your vote? I wouldn't, but hey, it's
your money. Speaking of banks, I'm sure you have heard of ATMs. They
are
apparently secure, mostly reliable, and give a receipt (paper trail).
Why
couldn't our elections offer something comparable? They have had more
than enough time.


Indeed, the ATM approach is a good one.

As long as there's a retinal scan to keep fraud down amongst your ilk.