Hi Nadine,
"the time frame was not absolute"
Where do you get this? It was absolute. There was one provision that said "shall", and a newer statute that said "may" certify the results. "Shall" is not too hard to understand, and the "may" provision was the one with conditions regarding machine failure, acts of god, and foul play (sorry, I am forgetting the technical term for foul play). My argument may be faulty if the above is not correct (please correct me if I am wrong). If it is correct, what part of her discretion can change those circumstances to include voter error? I have trouble with that. It is a disappointing way (for democrats) to learn that vote-amatics are not the most accurate machines on the planet, but all evidence suggests this was known for quite some time. One of the very best lawyers (if not the very best) tried to show in a court of law that these machines did (or could) malfunction, and he was laughed out of court by the honorable Judge Sauls. I don't think the law is written that it must be "gross" malfunction. Any mal-function at all would have done. There was NO evidence of ANY (much less gross) mal-function.
"Secondly, Florida did an absolutely horrible job of counting the vote"
So what. That is "sour grapes" in my opinion, and is not GWB's fault.
"Third, the Republican officials and lawyers fought delaying actions all the way, so that the elections officials could not finish recounts on time."
GWB did what he could to preserve his lead, and Al Gore did what he could to take the lead. That said, their actions did not slow down the vote count (please specify where they did slow it down). In fact the FL SC agrees with you so they gave him 13 more days. Of course their illegal action was remanded by the US SC by a 9-0 vote, but that does not seem important to most dems. In fact, it seems to make them feel that the US SC is a sham that is not worthy of the integrity of the FL SC. THAT is funny and sad at the same time, imo.
"The GOP then chorused, "It's an undervote because it's got no vote!""
The votes were counted exactly the same way for both candidates. I don't see how you (or anyone) can feel that it is fair to recount these votes in a way that favors the dems. If you don't think Al wanted them counted in a way that was advantagous to him, then why did he sue the two democratic canvassing board that had different (and very fair, imo) standards than Al wanted. The canvassing board's discretion was backed by FL law also, wouldn't you agree?
If you can make one point super clear to me, explain why Al was justified to sue Judge Burton's canvassing board. What did Judge Burton do wrong?
"How about when a state chairwoman of the Bush campaign (in line for a nice political appointment) gets to make 8 or 9 critical decisions about handling the vote count in the Presidential election"
The law is the law. If FL does not want the secretary of state to have those responsibilities, then they NEED TO CHANGE THE LAW! Again, it is probably a bummer for dems to be shackeled with a pesky republican in office. That said, show me where she broke the law.
What I have learned throughout this election and aftermath is that democrats appeal to emotional issues and republicans are more logic and law oriented. You seem to feel there should be quite a bit of leeway to change rules after the fact if something seems unfair. I do not. Fortunately 7 out of 9 US SC justices agree with the side that is easier to understand (for me, at least).
Scott |
