[Fwd: Re: [E-voting] "Black box" irregularities in the House
caburt at alphalink.com.au
Mon Aug 1 02:49:44 IST 2005
I would have thought any important election would require a winning
margin of error of, say, 1%. If the tally falls within this, its a
draw. Do some more politicing and run it again.
It's a procedural issue, right?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [E-voting] "Black box" irregularities in the House of
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 02:24:37 +0100
From: Fergal Daly <fergald at gmail.com>
Reply-To: fergal at esatclear.ie
To: tim at birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
CC: e-voting at lists.stdlib.net
References: <42ECF8B0.5070600 at eircom.net>
<200507312211.51498.tim at birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie>
On 7/31/05, Timothy Murphy <tim at birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
> On Sun 31 Jul 2005 17:13, Catherine Ansbro wrote:
> > A major US int'l trade agreement just passed by 1 vote (CAFTA). And
> > guess what. One guy claims his vote was not recorded correctly. Even
> > though he objected at the time, the law has still passed.
> I realise this is not a very popular view on this list,
> but if an issue is that closely balanced,
> I don't think it matters too much if it goes the wrong way.
215 vs 217
Kerry vs Bush was 50.7 vs 48.2. another closely balanced issue that
didn't much matter?
E-voting mailing list
E-voting at lists.stdlib.net
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 28/07/2005
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the E-voting