you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 6 hours ago* (1 child)

The word is cite, not site, and I already did: Palm Beach County, Florida. November-December 2000.

There are no US elections where anywhere near 100k votes are counted that way, because they are counted by precinct, and precincts are small. More proof you really don't know sfa about elections in the US. Or anywhere, for that matter.

In Palm Beach County in 2000, specifically because of the multiple problems and not as the usual course, the ballots were collected from the precincts and counted again. And again.

The problem was never the accuracy of counting. The problem was deciding definitively for each ballot what constituted a yes or no vote because of the pregnant and hanging chads. They even filmed it. We Americans watched it night after night on the news.

You ignored this. All of this is public record. Look the references up yourself. Start with the Wikipedia footnotes (I already linked the article and you ignored that too) and work outward. Or hell, you could start with just reading it.

But don't come back to me with more lies strung together to form a fallacy, because whatever I provide -- like the link above -- you won't even read. You have now exceeded your allotted time with me. Blocked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    YOU are the one that ass-u-med the 100,000,+ had to be at one location - I never said that.

    So you are just giving up your point it seems. I very well know of Palm Beach County, FL. Yes, they counted multiple times.

    My point was never about "how the chads hang" - that's an entirely different issue. The accuracy of the counting is what I am talking about. You can't give a reference for that because such a reference doesn't exist (that is to say, a reference that shows a substantial number of votes counted multiple times when the counts are the same each time).

  • source
  • parent