Ian MacLure wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in
news:yYFJc.67$fB4.59@lakeread01:

[snip]

The big question is why we talk about the popular vote as if it's
actually fully counted.

That is the ideal for which the system strives. Its never
going to be 100% error free ( thats a shyster's fantasy )
but we should be able to make it pretty darn close.
However no matter how idiot proof we make balloting we'll
always find ourselves one step behind the really cutting edge
idiots.

That's all fine and good, but when we are noticably, and preventably far
from that idea, we've got to question the value of any conclusions drawn
from that idea. Votes that were overwhelmingly for one side in the election
were discarded, and legally so, in order to save time an money. While that
is perfectly acceptable for the given conditions, it greatly limits our
ability to draw other conclusions from the election, and invalidates the
popular vote.