Author: Graham Laight
Date: 15:42:07 11/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
Makes sense to me. The votes HAVE been counted - by machine. If the ballots are designed to be counted by machine, then that's the fairest way to count them. The definition of the vote is what the machine determines it to be. How can a human be expected to be impartial in determining what the machine would have counted? The real problem is the USA constitution. I never tire of explaining to Americans that the UK system is better because the head of government (Tony Blair) is different from the head of state (the Queen). Over there, Slick Willy does both jobs. If there was a close election in the UK, the Queen would pick for Prime Minister the MP she believed would have the best chance of running a government. Everyone respects this. The USA depends utterly on Slick Willy being a reliable man - as both head of state and head of government (many Americans I've spoken to are not even aware of the two different roles). -g
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.