"If this wasn't possible then the whole section on manual recounts in Florida Election Law is moot because you can't recount a large county in 4 or 5 days"
Sorry Nadine, but your statement is false. It is also an example of the democratic spin that sounds good to many people on an emotional level, but has NO BASIS IN FACT. Where do you get the information that supports a count cannot be done in 4 or 5 days? Of course it can, but it is difficult. Bigger counties, more counters. I would support an extension of this deadline if ANY of the three conditions that supported a hand recount were met, but they were not. Why is that so hard for so many to understand? Also, whose fault is it that he chose to do the re-count so late in the game? I believe he could have had at least five days to do it, but he waited right up until the deadline to make the decision. If you can change your position to "it is hard to do a count in 4 days" instead of stating as fact that "it cannot done" my view may seem a bit more realistic.
"I just have a big problem with her being state chairwoman of Bush's campaign"
Maybe there should be a law to outlaw such a situation. If you are expecting politicians to be nice and polite in situations like this you are a bit naive.
"margin of victory: 0.01%"
You highlight another one of my peaves in this case. Are you suggesting that the handcount procedures with no standards have a margin of error smaller than .01%? You are incorrect in a major way if you believe that to be true. Let's say Al got all of his advantages (time extension, forcing M-D into a recount, changing PB & M-D's legally set standards, etc.) and won by 10 votes. Would you have accepted those results as fair? If so (even though your position is very well thought out) I would say that you would be naive in that regard. I would love to hear your answer regarding this. How many votes would have made this legitimate for Al Gore? 1 or 10 or 100 or 1,000? I am curious.
"what would have been illegal about allowing the 4 counties that decided to do recounts to complete their recounts quickly and include the results in the final count?"
I think we will keep going back and forth on this, but I do not think they were legal recounts. They didn't meet the requirements that we discussed earlier (act of god, etc.). In addition to them being illegal they are not fair. That is what bugs me the most. You darn repubs are jerks for not allowing a re-count that is not called for in law to go forward with Al Gore and David Boise setting the rules (and changing them as they go along) is the message I get. Very troubling.
"Most of Gore's vote was counted on Votomatics. Most of Bush's vote was counted on OpScan machines"
That sounds like something the democrats should address before the next election. After seeing the whole episode unfold my feeling is that the greater inaccuracy comes more from voter error than bad machines though. This is not GWB's fault in any case. I feel strongly that people need to take responsibility for their actions instead of blaming others. Another reason I am glad repubs are in charge, because they share this point of view.
"The first lawsuits have already been filed, in fact. Should be interesting"
This is a very troubling aspect of our culture that I hate. Let's sue the bastards that stole this election from Gore. Let's sue everyone. GWB, his lawyers, the US SC, the republican demonstrators, everyone. I do agree however that it will be interesting. I just hope justice is served, like it was in the FL vote (barely). By the way, who is going to pay for these lawsuits?
Closing comment: I mentioned before that Boise is one of, if not the best lawyer in the world. I believe he is better than Ted Olson. Just like Ted said on tv during the inauguration when he was complimented on the case. Thank you for the compliment, but there are many lawyers who could have done it because the law was on our side (paraphrased). Your position could only be supported by believing that Boise was tricked by a better lawyer (because the law was on his side, right?) or that the US SC is corrupt. Both of those premises seem ridiculous to me.
Respectfully,
Scott |
