[Fwd: Re: [E-voting] "Black box" irregularities in the House of Representatives?]

Craig Burton 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...
URL: http://lists.stdlib.net/pipermail/e-voting/attachments/20050801/da5e20f4/attachment.html

More information about the E-voting mailing list