| Well, I am glad we are getting closer. My point in the little dissertation about "the will of the people" is that transient majorities are not especially important, and constitute a sort of lottery approach to the determination of public questions, but one that is widely perceived as more fair. Thus, we are pursuing nothing important in trying to determine "the will of the people" in close elections. Add to this misgivings about the very process of attempting a more accurate count, and latitude for chicanery or endless wrangling, and setting circumscribed standards for proceeding to a hand count, and demanding clear criteria for the counting of a ballot, seems eminently reasonable. All that is needed are clear rules for disposing of the matter in a reasonably fair way. Now, if there were allegations of actual misfunction, I would say that a hand count would be in order. Instead, there are concerns that some people may have done a poor job marking their ballots. You say that punching out a chad is hardly a condition of citizenship. Well, there is a concept of due diligence, failure in which one is held accountable for non- performance. I should think the due diligence would require minimal things of citizens seeking to exercise their right to vote, like arriving at the poll during the allotted period, registering in a timely fashion, and marking one's ballot clearly. Sorry, but anyone who cannot handle these minimal requirements deserves to have his opinion discounted........ |
