tb:
<<The people in question didn't bother to do the latter, and thus disenfranchised themselves.... this doesn't affect the point about the legality of the ballot under FL law, but given the stakes in question that strikes me as a technicality that should not, in the end, determine the outcome. But then, I'm a pragmatist not a lawyer... >>
i am a lawyer (who voted, but not a main party candidate), and i say if you don't want judges deciding every close race, i hope they go by the count and not "reenfranchise" disaffected/disappointed/lazy/ignorant/careless voters.
now folks know that voting is important, which is/sd galvanize and be a boon to democrats going forward b/c republicans tend to have a higher percentage of party members voting. (note, barely half of eligible voters voted.)
it is rare for judges to overturn or question a political decision other than determining whether a ballot was, for all intents and purposes, fraudulent, which isn't the case here. although, i understand there's a florida case that has a lower standard under which a judge can question the results of an election.
it's interesting that now we actually know (as opposed to trying to imagine) how, depending on your point of view, ben tilden or rutherford b. hayes felt in 1876, the most cited time when the popular and electoral votes differed.
gore's probably sorry he invented the electoral college. :)
best, red jinn@whatiffloridadoesn'tdecidebydecember18?.org |
