<ot>Hi Carl - to be fair, I am not necessarily against the including of th 4,700 ballots, based on my personal preference. However, I simply want to point out the inconsistencies some of the GOP operative [not you :)] might have, when they selectively use the letter of the law to their advantage. Personally, I am equally distressed by the dems tried to disregard some of the oversea ballots simply b/c they didn't have a proper postmark. I mean, if they arrived reasonably on time, the postmark is quite irrelevant!
Well, FL SC did seem to spend a lot of time to question the timing issue. Indeed, this is one practical constraint no one [interested party] should ignore! So, to an extent, I think your concern is valid.
With regard to the status quo, I can't argue with you of your preference. "Taste" is a hard nut to crack [sorry for the mixed metaphor :)!] I mean, there are people [not me] who may argue the linkage of popular votes with the electorial votes in such a tight contest. But clearly, it is a preference not allowed under the current law.
Finally, I think all of us are against fraud, regardless of party affiliation. However, fraud prone is actual fraud are 2 separate issues. Why, if a person is deemed having an antisocial tendency, should we preempt the potential problem by executing the person 1st, even if the crime doesn't fit the punishment?
best, Bosco |
