Srexley,
Like all of us, you argue the law when you've got it and "fairness" when you don't.
If it was legal for Katherine Harris to rule that no extensions would be given for any recounts, or to rule before the election that absentee ballots needed postmarks, but to rule after the election that they were fine without postmarks, why isn't it legal for canvassing boards to rule that their machine's errors warranted recounts? The mess that is Florida's election law gives them the right to do so. Don't you think that Bush's lawyers, determined as they were to shut down any recount, wouldn't have sued them if they thought the recounts were illegal?
I do think it should be illegal for top elections officials to be working directly for any of the campaigns on the ticket. It stinks, and has imo generated lasting anger among Democrats.
I suggest that finding the 6,000 - 10,000 votes a reasonable person could expect to find in the punch card undervote is more accurate than ignoring them. It also shows a "best-effort" attitude towards counting votes. Most court rulings in contested elections have favored trying to count all the votes and to rectify inequities in the counting methods. They haven't said "tough noogies" as you do.
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.
Unfortunately, the USSC decision involved so many sudden departures from the majority's usual philosophy that believing it was openly partisan is not a ridiculous opinion at all.
Around New Year's, a major poll asked, "Do you believe that GW Bush won a legitimate victory in the election?" Only 19% of Democrats said yes. |
