Re: "I say it's not. It's not unfair because the rules were published, available to both candidates, and followed. The rules say that the candidate gets to identify which counties he wants counted and the county gets to decide whether or not to comply. That's what happened. It's not unfair."
You've misinterpreted the rules, IMO. I did not mix apples and oranges, I was talking about exactly this, and the rules as you interpret them could NOT have been anticipated, because that GOREY(pardon, I'm getting heated)interpretation is not correct.
You seem to separate the Hand-counts being done in some counties out...but that's what I'm talking about- ONE subject.
Re: "I think a good case can be made that your change would make the rules fairer, but until it's changed, we go by the current rules and Bush wasn't treated unfairly under them."
I understand you, but I believe the current rules were not intended to be as you think they are- and that's important. Hence, what's happened is NOT according to current rules(Bush's case all along). The rules do NOT recognize the advantage to one candidate from employing hand-counting, and hence they do NOT say "therefore, the other guy gets his chance in this regard." The rules only anticipated voting machine failures adversely affecting a candidate, thus he'd be allowed a timely hand-count. I believe the rules have been twisted in meaning, hence Gore's version of them could not have been anticipated, and from an unbiased point of view(I do believe), I'm glad Bush is fighting this travesty.
Dan B |
