Re: Fwd: CA_50_Exit_Poll_Ver_1_1_[1].0_11_09_06

From: Charlie Strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Sat Nov 11 2006 - 00:34:27 CST

Pardon me, but this seems like much ado over nothing. A perceived
slight if you will.
The jist of the document enclosed is that the clerk chose to count
the -ballots first, report those, then count the paper ballots
second. Somehow this is interpolated to mean the paper ballots are
second class.

Oh come on. they all get counted. pragmatically, it's obvious one
should be done before the other so one can be closed out and all
attention focused on the next tax rather than having multiple balls
in the air at the same time. And It's a no brainer that it's
technically easier to assemble the results of an all electronic vote
more quickly (easier when it all goes glitch---not better however)

So what's the big deal here? please correct my ill informed intuition.

On Nov 10, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Jerry Lobdill wrote:

> <CA_50_Exit_Poll_Ver_1_1_[1].0_11_09_06.doc>

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Thu Nov 30 23:17:07 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 23:17:19 CST