All that may be true. If it is, it is taking place within the existing legal framework. How was having Telequest call those who had not yet voted any different from any other election-day turnout effort? And, regarding those who may have come out of the booth feeling like they had been screwed, what is wrong with diligent efforts to avoid being screwed out of your right to vote? It's not like they were urging armed action against the voting precincts.
Having said all that, this is how I believe it ought to be decided:
(1) A double vote (two clean holes) for president is properly thrown out. Period. Same for two partial detachments of the chad.
(2) A clean hole in the ballot for one candidate trumps a partial detachment of the chad for any other candidate.
(3) A partial detachment counts as a vote only when there is not a clean hole or a partial detachment for another candidate.
As I understand it, the 1990 policy that is being used in Palm Beach County is more or less similar to the above. What the other counties are doing, I don't know. This is reasonable and well within the discretion of the officials who are charged by law with determining the intent of the voters, something the mendacious Jim Baker (the Big Lies: "recount after recount," when the first recount is required by law: "machines aren't Republicans or Democrats," when that is not the issue, the intent of the voters is) can't seem to get past. The policies don't have to be the same in every state or county, that is another Baker canard. Do deadlines for the arrival of absentee ballots have to be the same everywhere? Is there a constitutional dimension there? Under the Roadkill argument, every single variable affecting the vote is constitutionalized. This is a "badge" of frivolity.
As to the manual recounts requested by the Democrats, the Republicans have (or had) the same opportunities, and they are getting one in Seminole County, at least. Maybe if they had been doing a little less posturing, and been a little less arrogant in their assumption of the high moral tone, they might have taken care of business better. And yes, I think they have (or had) the right, just as the Democrats did, because it is WITHIN THE LAW and it helps ascertain THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE.
BTW, this little tidbit from the article you posted:
The calls indicate that Democrats were concerned about
Palm Beach problems even before they knew Florida's
vote would end in a razor-thin margin, said American
University political science professor Candice Nelson.
"To the extent there have been accusations that
Democrats didn't cry foul until they realized Wednesday
that Bush may have won, this cuts the other way," she
said. |
