Gee, don't I get to have my jokes too? I am very tired, and rather sick of the wrangling, that is what happened.
I think that Bush should assume the presidency if he wins under the prevailing rules, yes. First, I have no idea if he has lost the national vote, not all votes have been counted. Second, even assuming he did, Gore was prepared to assume the presidency had he won the electoral college. Those are the rules that both operated under. Third, if you spoil a ballot and fail to catch it, it is invalid. There are no do overs once it is in the ballot box. Those are the rules. If a bunch of people had showed up after the polling place closed saying they wanted to vote for Gore, they would have been out of luck. Fourth, if one wants to play that way, there are allegations of irregularities elsewhere, and certainly close elections, and we can drag this out for months as Iowa, Wisconsin, et al to their recounts, and other allegations are investigated. Fifth, the number of spoiled ballots this time is not out of line with previous elections, and, in any case, I am not impressed with Pat's comments, as they are likely motivated by bitterness against the Republican Party for rejecting him. Sixth, Bush has more votes than Clinton did. Clinton assumed the presidency under a winner take all system, rather than being forced into a run- off, because those were the rules. Since I believe the Republican would have won had Perot been eliminated and a run- off forced, this is not a mere theoretical matter to me. Yet I accepted the result. I never doubted Clinton had won, because I accepted the rules. Seventh, even were Gore's lead proved out, it is unlikely to exceed a percentage point or two. Given the closeness of the election, and the sense that the early network call for Gore may have suppressed the Bush vote, I am not impressed with the argument that Gore should not lose due to a screw up.
I suppose I will leave it at that. |
