thanks, H-man.
The MiamiHerald was doing a straightforward extrapolation of the undervote. The chief point was, most of the undervote came from Democratic precincts and if even a small percentage contained votes, it would likely have changed the result of the election. It's a hypothetical conclusion but its assesment of the undervote is correct, as far as I know.
If you begin counting votes not cast, you'll never stop: the last 10 minutes of the Panhandle vote, felons who voted, non-felons who were thrown off the rolls by mistake, Palm Beach county voters who voted for Buchanan by mistake, etc.
So, net net, If you have different mechanisms that count votes, you do not need to do anything about it, unless the margin of error is greater than the margin of victory. Then, when initiating a recount, you must make sure that what you do at least addresses fundamental fairness.
If leaving the recount decentralized and in the hands of county officials fails to address fundamental fairness, how can it be okay to hold the original vote the same way? What safeguards were in place on the original vote, to count similar ballots similarly? Did the state oversee the programming and tuning of the counting machines?
"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes"
What could "present circumstances" possibly mean except the Florida 2000 Presidential election? And doesn't that equate to a 'one time only' clause? How else could you interpret it? |
