Bear in mind that manual recounts are not mandatory in the first place. If they were essential to a fair election
and thought to yield the most accurate outcome, they would be mandatory in all instances.
I think it is more appropriate to focus not on what the rule is but on whether the counting method, whatever it is, yields an accurate result (defined as counting the ballots correctly). You are talking about whether the vote counters had "discretion" to do this or that and whether manual recounts are "mandatory" or not. IMO that's the wrong question. The question should be, who did the voters vote for?
The assumption that the method which will yield the fairest outcome is already in place is somewhat belied by the chain of events in Florida.
Consider:
1. The machine "recounts" are rarely coming up with the same numbers twice in a row. I heard a quote from someone connected with the manufacture or design of the machines to the effect that the machines will count the votes differently 7 out of 10 times. Can that be accurate? If you program your desktop PC to add up 6 million number ones, it will get the same answer every time. If it doesn't (as briefly happened about five years ago), there will be a public and profuse apology from Intel followed by rapid fixes in the hardware and software.
2. In a race this excruciatingly close, random error could very well determine the election. Recount No. 1 left Bush with a lead of less than five votes per county.
3. There are accurate ways to do hand counts. For example, you can have two sets of two people each count each stack of 100 ballots. If they come up with the same answer, that's the count; if not, resolve it before moving on. Or if that's not safe enough, have four sets of two count each stack, and only move on when all four groups of counters get the same answer.
4. After doing that, you would undoubtedly have a few leftover ballots that were truly contested (dimpled chads, pregnant chads, chads with ears bigger than Ross Perot's, etc.). Those, if there were enough of them to determine the outcome of the election, should be subjected to a strict test of whether they show clear and convincing evidence of voter intent. If they do, count them; if they do not, they are disqualified.
5. Giving discretion to members of political parties in this situation is ludicrous. It is absurd for Ms. Harris to pretend to be exercising objective discretion when she chaired Bush's Florida campaign; it is equally absurd for Democrats in South Florida to be inventing their own standards for what constitutes clear evidence of voter intent. If I sue you, am I going to let your law partner be the "impartial" judge of our dispute? No way.
To me the real problem is in the court of public opinion
and how all of this will ultimately be spun to undermine
whomever is ultimately declared the winner.
That is a real problem, and it is being made worse by the imposition of arbitrary deadlines and the use of standardless interpretation of ballot intent.
JMO.
And there may be no FINAL answer here. Just a winner, who will also be a loser. |
