Greg,

> > I voted this time, and I know my vote counted.
> How do you know this? How do you know that where you voted, there were no
> irregularities? And, do you mean counted as in "was tallied", or counted
as
> in "made a decisive difference" (now that's a close race!).  Normally, the
> difference in votes exceeds the margin of error, but there can still be an
> acceptable margin of error.

My ballot passed through a check which proved its validity, and the number
of
ballots turned in from the precinct where I voted matched the number of
voters
recorded as appearing on election day.  My vote was "tallied".  And, if I
did not
feel as though my vote made a decisive difference, I wouldn't vote.

> >   - I want to know that the person who wins this election is in fact the
> > person who received the most votes in the states awarding him electoral
> > votes,
> I thought that candidates won regions of some kind, and whoever wins the
> most regions wins the state, but I could easily be mistaken on this point.
> Is it simple majority in the states?

Already covered by Wirt.

> >     - I want to know how many votes were cast in Florida and for whom
they
> > were cast, to the best ability of a machine OR human, to determine.
> We do not know quite how these humans are making their determinations.
Were
> the counters professional auditors, practiced in adhering to known
> standards, we would probably all be more comfortable. But it seems that
> judgement calls are having to be made, and there are questions about these
> judgement calls, and whether these judges made the same judgement calls
last
> week as the week before.

We do know how they are being judged to some extent, and why more than one
pair of eyes has to be used.  Regardless, the ballots must be reviewed using
whatever
standard can be agreed upon, not simply left aside.  Otherwise the bitching
will never
be silenced.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/images/chad.jpg

> >    - I want to know that our new president actually won the election,
> It is unfortunate that we cannot seem to leave the responsible parties
alone
> to do their jobs, but once one side begins legal maneuvering, the other
has
> little choice but to respond in kind out of self defense.

Agreed.

> >    - I want an authoritative voice to explain why getting accurate
counts
> > of all votes is not more important than meeting arbitrary deadlines, be
> they
> > legislated or not;
> There is the suspicion that the longer things drag on, the more
opportunity
> there is for "mischief". Now, suppose that your employer told you that
they
> had made a less than one percent calculation error in payroll, and that
you
> were going to have to wait until some group finished reviewing things
before
> you could get paid. And suppose that they audit team looked suspiciously
> like Larry, Moe, and Curly... "The rule of law" has been invoked. There is
> something to be said for just doing what the law requires. It sound like
no
> reasonable amount of counting is going to provide the same count twice
> except by accident of chance.

Regarding additional mischief, agreed, but not a very good analogy, and off
the point.  I am saying that if more time is necessary to prove to nay
sayers
that all votes have been counted the winner is person X; then, that time
should
be taken.  Failing to address the concerns (some valid, some not) of the
parties in question, leads to more division and more problems.  We know
the country is split and that Florida is deciding the election.  We just
can't
get everyone to agree that ALL the votes have been counted.

But to use your analogy.  If my employer paid me for 35 hours of work,
and said that there were concerns about the punches on my time card for
the other five hours, and that additional personnel needed to be involved
in deciding whether or not I should be paid for that time; then, yes, I
would
be concerned.  It's not quite the same, though, as the hours I work are
known, and are not provided secretly around the state.

The voters who cast the "questionable" ballots cannot come forward and
say "that vote was mine and it went for Bush", etc.

> >     - I want Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to explain why
> her
> > boss (the candidate's brother) recused himself to forstall accusations
of
> a
> > conflict of interest, but she did not feel that her participation as a
> > principal in GW Bush's campaign was reason for her to recuse herself, as
> > well.
> I'm sure she answered this question somewhere. Most of the people involved
> are involved because of political affiliation, and it seems to go against
> human nature for very many people to be able to say that they have no
desire
> one way or the other for a particular result. I wish I could remember the
> name and station of the principal in the Gore campaign who is also
involved
> in FL. I think that Jeb recused himself because he was GW's brother, not
> because he had close ties to GW's political party.

If so, I can't find it on Google, AltaVista or MS; and it has been a point
of
concern.  She wasn't "affiliated".  She was a official in his campaign team,
though
my only source seems to show that as being from his primary runs.
Nonetheless,
she was entirely too far in to be viewed as other than biased and should
have
recused herself.  There are others in her staff who (while obviously also
Republicans), were not part of the campaign to that level, and would not
be viewed as being as biased as she.

> Greg Stigers
> http://www.cgiusa.com
>