Well, Tim, maybe I'm just part of a huge conspiracy to piss you
   off.

   Or maybe you utter lots of theoretical purity of process without
   being the least bit accomodating to the fact that often times, in
   a large distributed process, things don't go as smoothly and as
   perfectly as you would prefer.  You really should try managing a
   large organization or process and try to be able to claim that
   you can make it perfect.

   And, of course, to get to YOUR point ...

   What is different this time?  Will their evil twins to be doing
   the voting?  What?  What is the problem?

   It's the same damn vote.  One for one.  If someone does not feel
   like "fixing" his/her vote, he shouldn't have to.  If the second
   pass is a clean slate, then he/she can vote the same damn way
   again.

   I really don't get it.  Do they get TWO votes this time?  Are
   they now FORCED to vote even if they did not the first time?

   Let's face it, if there are "forces", then they'll be there this
   time around as well.  These people weren't objective one day,
   and the next day, they were suddenly sheeples toppled over by
   political ads.  So what's the difference?

   Just spit it out, Tim.  You just aren't talking substance, but
   you love insulting me ...

   What a way to communicate ... but maybe that's not your goal.

   Ern

   -----Original Message-----
   From: Tim May [[1]mailto:tcmay@got.net]
   Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 9:28 PM
   To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
   Subject: RE: A successful lawsuit means Gore wins!

   At 8:57 PM -0800 11/8/00, Ernest Hua wrote:
   >  > There cannot be a re-vote of the County, or even of the entire
   State,
   >>  as this would distort the forces acting on the electorate in a way
   >>  never seen before. The Palm County voters would know _they_ would
   be
   >>  electing the next president. Billions of dollars would be spent
   >>  trying to buy each and every voter.
   >
   >"distort the forces ..."   Lord!  No!  Don't let them do that!
   >
   >Geez, Tim.  What happened to personal responsibility?  Who gives two
   >bits what "forces" will be upon them.  They will ultimately still
   >have to cast a vote which they were casting just days earlier.  Who
   >cares if idiots spend billions to sway a few thousand votes.  That's
   >THEIR problem.  It's free speech, as you have claimed in the past.

   You're a complete idiot if you don't understand this point.

   I made my points, briefly, above. This would not be a matter of the
   same voters simply recasting their same ballots. Think about it.

   (I'm not convinced you can, Ernest. In reading hundreds of your posts
   I have concluded that you're just part of Vinge's "Slow Zone.")

   --Tim May
   --
   ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:-
   ---
   Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital
   money,
   ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms,
   zero
   W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information
   markets,
   "Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.

References

   1. mailto:tcmay@got.net