Hello Thurston,
The problem with the Boise argument remains simple. He's defined a set of votes to contest as having not been counted. He claims contests commonly look only at the votes in question, and I'm sure that is sometimes so, so far as it goes. However, by definition, in this statewide election, the type of problem ballots he defines in fact exist across the state. Therefore the Bush argument holds. Such problem ballots, if indeed they are so, would have to all be looked at, i.e. ALL the undervotes across the state.
Mr. Boise, in his close, eloquently argued why he feels there is no legal requirement to count all the votes, at some great length.
I've been saying it all along- Gore never asked the system for a fair count- and now his lawyer clearly, forcibly, and wrongly argues against doing so, in open court.
Dan B |
