<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alaric520:<BR><BR>Under ohio law, if the sample does not match the reported results a wider examination is conducted. It looks like those election officials sought to avoid that and you have to ask why? <BR><BR>In fact, it suggests that the election results would have been changed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It suggests no such thing. A county-wide recount is conducted regardless of how the 3% audit turns out. If you had <I>read the article</I>, you would have seen that what they were trying to do was avoid an extended and laborious hand recount, instead of a machine recount. Now, you argue that those 3% were throwing the election for Bush, but the fact that Bush took Ohio by 118,000 votes, and the fact that the Cuyahoga (a heavily Democratic county) recount only shifted the numbers in Kerry's favor by 26 votes, seems to suggest otherwise.
