I'm burned out on election stuff other than to say this: It's amazing how the media is trying so hard to be impartial, lest they be accused of (gasp) swaying the public towards one candidate or the other! I mean seriously, if there was a dispute in a local election, and one candidate was against hand-counting because they said it was less accurate than machine counting, the media wouldn't use kid gloves and say it's an equally valid opinion. If it was public knowledge that that candidate actually signed in a law stating that hand counts were more accurate than macihne counts, then took the opposite position when it was the only way to win an election, we'd see the word 'hypocritical' in the press, but not when so much is at stake. Nobody wants to run the risk of alienating half their readership, after all.