From: "Glenn Meadows" 

I agree with that, for sure.  My point was the article leads one to believe
that the only bias is toward Republicans, when it's most likely, random in
both directions.  It appears that they never tested the other side of the
equation, someone who voted all Republican, now many times it picked
Democrats.

In either condition, it's totally wrong.

--

Glenn M.
"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
news:859fk25fcl99c3jhf7kchfa4rvulehsavg{at}4ax.com...
> No matter.   Broken is broken and election results from those machines
> can't be trusted.
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:08:39 -0600, "Glenn Meadows"
>  wrote:
>
>>Notice how they didn't try the opposite, if selections for Republicans
>>brought up random Democrat selections, or even if they tried that test.
>>It
>>could be a total screw up in both directions.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Glenn M.
>>"RobertB."  wrote in message
>>news:rb28-5DA8DD.12024031102006{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> In article ,
>>> /m  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/br
owar
>>>> d_county/15869924.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> "Several South Florida voters say the choices they touched on the
>>> electronic screens were not the ones that appeared on the review screen
>>> -- the final voting step."
>>>
>>> That nicely sums it up.
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5