<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dave Sill via extropy-chat<br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>>…So you throw away the advantage of technology…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ja, along with the disadvantage: the public’s growing distrust of the technology.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>…No point in having the technology, then…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Understatement: point in not having it. The justification for the cost is far too weak.<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>>>…If quick results, just use the exit polls. …<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal>>…Notoriously inaccurate…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ja, so let us make sure the hand count is notoriously accurate.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>…Nobody is going to project a winner except in the most one-sided contests.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>-Dave<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>OK, no worries. We can live a week or two with vaguely projected winners. After the end of that week or two, we will know the good guys won. Now we can’t be sure they did. We reached this uncertainty quickly however, so we did accomplish quick uncertainty.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>