Counting chads, if done
equitably for both candidates(if that is possible given their nature), would give the only fair result other than
leaving the count with the machines.
It's too easy to over-simplify in the heat of debate and this is such a complex matter. People use the word "fair" a lot, but fair is one of the most slippery words in the English language. It's next to impossible to get people to agree on what's fair. The two most acceptable ways of being fair are 1) treating everyone exactly the same and 2)setting up rules and following them precisely. If neither of those is feasible, a secondary option is to find a place where you can draw a bright line.
Then there's the problem of fair to whom. In this case, there are the candidates and the voters. Of course, it's debatable if the voters are entitled to fairness. Fairness to them is certainly secondary to fairness to the candidates should there be a conflict. Still, lots of people are worried about fairness to the voters, especially when those voters are the much beloved military folks.
I think that RCMac's point was very well taken that counting the counties chosen by Gore is not unfair to Bush because Bush made the tactical choice, not once but twice, to not request further counting in the chad-deficient counties that would be more favorable to Bush. Bush and Gore chose different courses within the prescribed rules. One of the two commonly accepted criteria for fairness was applied, following the rules, so I think calling it unfair to Bush is in appropriate even though the other commonly accepted criterion, treating everyone the same, wasn't. Now whether of not it's fair to the voters of Florida and the rest of us is another matter, but I don't think Bush has anything to complain about.
Your approach speaks partly to treating everyone the same and partly to drawing a bright line. I agree that you do draw a brighter line, and you prefer the equal treatment approach to fairness. What you've expressing would also be fair, but that doesn't mean that what RCMac expressed wasn't. It's just not as beneficial to you and your candidate. That's different from unfair.
Karen |
