OMD---
I certainly agree that, in a perfect world, the accurate
counting of the vote should be the paramount concern.
The problem is that we are in an imperfect situation
where there is simply no way to guarantee 100% accuracy
no matter how many times the ballots are folded,spindled, mutilated, spyed through magnifying glasses, seen through backlights, with or without horn-rimmed glasses, mulled over, prayed over, divined or processed through a ouija board.
That is the reality of the situation.
So while I wholeheartedly agree that it would be wonderful
to assure 100% accuracy, that every single vote is counted regardless of the IQ of the voter, his or her ability to follow directions, perceived difficulties with the ballots,
machine glitches, acts of God, or other manner of problems, it just ain't possible, and this is true even if the deadlines were extended to inauguration day in January.
I'm sorry to have to say it, but I believe this to be the case.
The remedy is not to drag this process out unnecessarily. The remedy and proper focus is to address these problems so that they will be minimized in the future.
I am, at heart, a pragmatic person. While there are certain values which should be held dear, and which I do hold dear, such as the right and privilege of voting, I cannot agree that the methods being employed in Florida, even if they were given until the cows come home to complete them to the satisfaction of all, would ever be 100% accurate
or not flawed in some manner.
As for the counting method and vesting of discretion, you can't change the rules after an election. For better or worse, they are what they are. What you think might be a reasonable approach to the method might not be deemed reasonable by all.
Who did the voters vote for? sounds like an obvious and facile question, but the way to get there is the problem.
JMO
M |
