 | | Yaay Canada! Canadian Team goes for X Prize
|
|
(URL) whatever reason, this was binned into the Oddly Enough section on Yahoo (because Reuters did, I guess). (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "In order to do a proper count one has to know how many people voted in the first place."
|
|
(...) We've got Absentee Ballots, but they're primarily aimed at those who either can't be in their district on voting day (such as deployed troops), or can't reasonably be expected to travel to their voting place (such as the elderly or (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | "In order to do a proper count one has to know how many people voted in the first place."
|
|
(...) Postal votes have been used in the UK for yonks. However, they have been used recently as a tool to improve voter turnout. This has led to three problems: Party workers have been "assisting" voters with the paperwork. Within some ethnic (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I1zIBB.6M0@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) to (...) not one (...) party (...) door). The best ballots I have seen so far were in Wake County North Carolina. A very easy ballot where (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) I've been against e-voting from very first moment I heard about it, because the closer it gets to being done over the internet, the closer it gets to the point where either a hacker can directly tweak the results, or a timed virus can prevent (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Interestingly, it appears that the GOP has decided that e-voting is so unreliable that it's encouraging Florida Republicans to use their absentee ballots instead. (URL) this is all becoming less and less hypothetical as we go along. Hmm... (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Bush drags the US through the mud again
|
|
(URL) Red Cross says Tipton Three may have case: US abuse could be war crime> "Some of the abuses alleged by the detainees would indeed constitute inhuman treatment... but we can't comment on this publicly since this type of allegation is raised (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How about a glossary?
|
|
(...) No, only that it was intended to be taken in a humorous way. (...) Okay. You got the "joke" but decided to deliberately respond with hostility anyway. Fine. LUGNET just got a little less civil. JOHN (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How about a glossary?
|
|
(...) Well, that was my point. Last I heard, adding a smiley doesn't automatically make a statement into a joke, it generally requires some humour to be present. (...) Really??????? No kidding????!!!!!????? Ha ha ha. ROSCO (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How about a glossary?
|
|
(...) Well, that was the joke (hence the smiley). Your post was about 4 minutes after mine... (...) (URL) Lighten up, Francis.> JOHN (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
