Philip, your post over on the AMAT thread is all quite reasonable, but the devil, of course, is in the details.
There are undervotes in all of the counties in Florida (and throughout the land, for that matter), though the percentages differ.
it has already been established that the undervote rates in these counties are exceptional, and in particular, the error rates related to the butterfly ballot were statistically off the charts-five times higher than those resulting from other equipment.
You could have a thousand hand recounts; each will provide a different result.
Not if performed by the same person using a single standard, which is what I take to be what the Dems are asking of the court right now.
The voting system used by most of the counties in Florida is antiquated and provides plenty of opportunity for error and mischief.
Yes, and that "error and mischief" includes 40 years of using the law and technicalities to deny voting rights to selected groups of people, including in this election.
One thing we can agree on, I don't see Gore being the nominee in 2004. That would be demo suicide, IMO. OTOH, I don't know where people are getting the wild idea that Hilary will be running in 2004. That also would be suicide.
But let me get to the main point: The part of the law that Republicans should be really concerned about is not the technicality of filling in voter IDs but whether that act "corrupted" the process. If Goard had offerred the same service to Democratic absentee applications that she rejected, there might not be a case here. But if it is shown that she did not do so, well....... |
