<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Old News, but a Great Quote</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.iddream.com/2005/03/15/old-news-but-a-great-quote/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.iddream.com/2005/03/15/old-news-but-a-great-quote/</link>
	<description>Welcome to I'dDream.com, est. Nov 1999.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:17:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Randy Bishop</title>
		<link>http://www.iddream.com/2005/03/15/old-news-but-a-great-quote/comment-page-1/#comment-485</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy Bishop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iddream.com/plete/?p=201#comment-485</guid>
		<description>Because the Justices on our great Supreme Court are partisan.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because the Justices on our great Supreme Court are partisan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeff</title>
		<link>http://www.iddream.com/2005/03/15/old-news-but-a-great-quote/comment-page-1/#comment-484</link>
		<dc:creator>jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:18:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iddream.com/plete/?p=201#comment-484</guid>
		<description>That is what they were doing, but because they weren&#8217;t all doing it under the same set of guidelines the recount violated equal protection.&#160; So in the end the recounted votes were not considered and the original vote count determined the winner.


The question is, why is the procedure of vote counting a fundemental right but determining the intent of the voter not?


Also, if recounting by hand does not provide equal protection,if different guidlines are being used, how can the use of different voting machines with differnt levels of error be Constitutional?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is what they were doing, but because they weren&#8217;t all doing it under the same set of guidelines the recount violated equal protection.&nbsp; So in the end the recounted votes were not considered and the original vote count determined the winner.</p>
<p>The question is, why is the procedure of vote counting a fundemental right but determining the intent of the voter not?</p>
<p>Also, if recounting by hand does not provide equal protection,if different guidlines are being used, how can the use of different voting machines with differnt levels of error be Constitutional?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Randy Bishop</title>
		<link>http://www.iddream.com/2005/03/15/old-news-but-a-great-quote/comment-page-1/#comment-483</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy Bishop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iddream.com/plete/?p=201#comment-483</guid>
		<description>Really?&#160; I had this all wrong.&#160; I thought counting all those hanging chads, etc&#8230; was an attempt to &#8220;guess&#8221; the intention of the voter.


What the heck were those poll workers doing then?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really?&nbsp; I had this all wrong.&nbsp; I thought counting all those hanging chads, etc&#8230; was an attempt to &#8220;guess&#8221; the intention of the voter.</p>
<p>What the heck were those poll workers doing then?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
