Re: "The manual recount is proceeding according to law........a law that GW
signed in Texas BTW"
In fairness, in Texas, the typical ballots do NOT have chads to count, and are a far more clear to hand-count MARKED ballot(they have minimal chad territory). So, you are comparing apples and oranges.
I want the true number of votes to be counted...and so does Bush, in my estimation. The objection here is to Gore's "fairness" ploy to have only his own chosen area's count. The other objection, which may not bear enough weight, is that by seeking a more complete count, you'll get cheating, corruption, and a huge ugly mess. Machines aren't dishonest. To avoid a morass of delays, and considering the ultimate uncertainty beyond the beyond that's likely to result from hand-counts anyway, perhaps denying these hand-counts altogether is the right thing. Myself, I'd like to see it done, and assume it'll be done fairly well on the up and up. But I'll never blame Bush for trying to inject ultimate fairness into the process. Yes, that's right, think. It is essentially fair either stopping at a full machine re-count or going on to a full state hand-count, only. Bush'll go with a full statewide hand-count, if neccessary, and he'll call it done, if not biased by the counting process, but it'll be done. Hey, you might not admit it, but most will admit these are serious issues.
Dan B |
