Talk:ACCURATE

Article reads as ad for organization
This article currently reads like an ad for the organization, talking about the "disastorous" election and how "more" people feel a particular way about the issue. Article needs clean-up. Dugwiki 19:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "disastrous" is appropriate in this case. It doesn't matter who won the election in 2000 (as you may have been implying that "disastrous" refers to the Bush administration and is therefore a subjective term). The 2000 election was a disaster by any standards of elections just about anywhere in the world today. Electronic counting machines had been around for a long time and scientists had always been concerned about them. But after 2000, more scientists and more lay people are paying attention to election systems than before. This is because of the press coverage of the 2000 election and new media. This is an objective observation based on how much coverage this issue has received over time. Will change some of the tone of the piece, however. Chitopedia 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)