When I voted my 20-30 times for W., I watched the totals for both guys. (Gore led 53% to 46%) I was at it for a couple three minutes and everytime I voted, W. gained 10-20 votes and Gore stayed at the same or maybe jumped up 1 or 2 votes. Gore's 'lead' was down to around 1700 or so (from over 2000). I stepped away for a couple of minutes and came back and voted again and suddenly Gore had gained a total of about 2000 votes and was back up by over three thousand votes (55% to 45%)
The letter was true in its entireity.
It follows:
Until reading your paper and seeing the bias in its headline about "Gore winning in 6 of 9 scenarios" and seeing your bogus, rigged, and silly on-line poll with about 56% (roughly equivalent to the frequency with which PBers voter for Gore over Bush, wasn't it?) of your on-line respondents saying "Gore won," when all of the scenarios under which Gore won would have involved "mind-reading," or hallucination by the vote counters, --- i.e., under-votes, or non-votes are not votes, while over-votes are where a voter voted twice and were therefore cancelled!
I WAS considering buying a fairly significant piece of real estate in Palm Beach County. Alas, the paper's and the voting population's IQ deficit may provide too much of a disincentive for owning property in PB, such bias, kangaroo court behavior, and apparent stupidity would been too much of an aggravation, I fear.