The machine's didn't error. One of the best lawyers in the world tried to proove they did, and he failed miserably.
If you're referring to the Sauls decision, the judge didn't rule that the machines were error-free; he ruled that the Dems had failed to prove that the recount would change the result of the election. Nor did he rule that the canvassing boards of Broward, Palm Beach and Dade counties had acted illegally when they did recounts.
Those standards were looser than ANY case in U.S. history, I believe.
Dimpled chads are counted by the Texas Standard. And court cases in Illinois and Massachusetts have done recounts that count dimpled chads. So there's some precedent. But as I said before, what I wanted was a statewide recount, not what Gore was suing for.
I have never said that Katherine Harris out-and-out broke the law. I have said that she interpreted the law in the most partisan way she could (personally, I think she would have been cleverer to make at least one insignificant decision in Gore's favor to use as cover). I have also said that the Florida election had massive irregularities and that an impartial SOS would have tried to rectify those that were rectifiable.
Let's a try a thought exercise: The Florida election happened just as before, but Katherine Harris was completely apolitical, with nothing to gain from either side's win. But she wished Florida to look like a competent place that was up to the challenge of a tied presidential election. So after the first count, she sent a letter to the canvassing boards saying:
"This is the closest election any of us will ever see in our lifetimes. We want to make sure to count the vote just as carefully as humanly possible when we do the automatic recount.
I was concerned to see very high percentages of no-vote ballots from some counties, in some cases over 15% of the total. It is possible that the difficulties of putting 10 presidential candidates on the ballots led to confusion. Nonetheless, the law tells us to look for "voter intent".
If any of you decide that a manual inspection of the over- and under-vote is needed, please try to complete it before the 7 day certification deadline. If you cannot make the deadline, let my office know in writing and I will grant 3 day extensions for amending the certified vote on a case-by-case basis.
For those of you who have already manually inspected the over- and undervote, thank you for your care in this difficult circumstance."
Now in your opinion would there be anything illegal about sending such a letter? Wouldn't it have been better for the SOS to express an interest in the most accurate possible count? There still wouldn't have been any statewide standard, of course, because Florida law didn't have one.
BTW, Check out the Washington Post series on the election. |
