by AgentR » Wed 01 Jul 2009, 13:37:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'W')ith Coleman every time they recounted it seemed like Franken GAINED votes. It was obvious that Coleman wasn't going to be able to manufacture votes out of thin air. He just kept appealing for the sake of appealing.
Old line, but very true... Past performance does not predict future result. It just doesn't. Sometimes the end result seems to imply that, but it is only a coincidental implication.
But again, my point is that the appeals should be made and were made, in both cases, even though the end result was already known. The appeals are good for the system and create only a negligible inconvenience for the elected body in question. I can't see any cost that outweighs the benefit of placing an election system under the microscope of tight margins and testing it.
To me, it seems the cost is minimal, and the benefit is absolutely huge.
We got the ******** in Florida because we didn't like testing our systems during live runs; when in fact we should have been taking every possible opportunity to test the results of the live runs.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.