Were works of poetry under judgment I would give great weight to your line of reasoning. We of course do not judge poetry, but mere marks on a ballot. Determining whether such marks were made for Buchanan, Gore or Bush is, for a human, about as subjective and arbitrary as determining whether a person is blond or brunette. I do not think such determinations are as easy for a machine. Analogue to digital conversions are not as foolproof, in all contexts, as some would have us believe. So I think it quite possible a computer might overlook a ballot, due to some small ballot irregularity, that most humans would never overlook. Apparently, manual recounts have in the past been done precisely for this reason.
As to the question of how we tell whether a chad has failed to be counted, I assume the chads are coded and therefore easily flagged as processed or skipped. If not, then they certainly ought to be. I think this question is nevertheless somewhat irrelevant. It but addresses a potential technical problem, not the question concerning the fairness of the manual recount. The technical problem is possibly solvable. But if it is true that ballot machines cannot make determinations as well as humans, then in this Florida case employing the machines will perhaps not accurately determine the will of Floridians.
Machines are excellent for determining the obvious, whether a shape is round or square, for example. But they cannot tell, as well as humans, the manifold properties and fine characteristics of objects. Where votes are concerned, machines are excellent in helping us readily determine obviously selected candidates. But when the vote is very close, as it is in Florida, I do not think machines can, as accurately as humans, evaluate ballots to render a judgment that takes the finest valid issues in consideration.
Concerning the 5pm deadline, I do not know Florida law, but I don't think this deadline was reasonable in these particular circumstances. It seems to me if the Legislature determines a manual recount enhances the fairness of the election, the Secretary of State should have supported the will of the legislature and allowed the recount to proceed to completion. Her deadline was such that a full recount would have been impossible. The simple reason that there was not enough time to finish the legally supported recount ought, without question, to have been sufficient enough to allow Floridians to take an extension for granted. But it seemed the Florida Secretary of State would force the 5pm deadline except for the most serious of reasons, such as the Second Coming of Christ, perhaps. I think she contradicted the spirit of the legislature and the purposes of the recount. Her deadline should have been reasonable, allowing a practical interval of time for all recounts to be finished. I think she, especially in view of her political biases, should have bent over backwards to be reasonable when faced with the will of the legislature. I will need to review the law to see if she was compelled by it to issue her particular deadline. But from my admittedly limited vantagepoint it appears she used the leverage the law affords her, to thwart the will of the legislature. Tricks of these sorts are acceptable in most cases, but not in the election of a president.
I agree with you that someone with prior allegiances was going to be on the hot seat. Unfortunately that is not the issue. I think the Secretary of State allowed her allegiances to cloud her judgment, impairing her ability to be reasonable according to the will of law. You are exactly correct that her allegiances put pressure on her to bend over backwards to effect impartiality. This is one reason she should have given a reasonable deadline. But I think she did not much yield to the pressure. She did not bend over backwards, but was ruled by her politics. |
