I believe that he (Boise) did try to prove that the machines could error. And if he did not, then what are you basing your assessment that they can fail on? This is an example of why it IS hard to argue the law, because every one puts in what they feel. Do you feel that the machines did error? If so, how did they error?
"Nor did he rule that the canvassing boards of Broward, Palm Beach and Dade counties had acted illegally"
I never said or implied that he did. I was answering your assertion that "reasonable" people should be allowed to go ahead with a recount. Two groups of reasonable (imo, and in Judge Sauls' opinion) tried to do what they thought was best, and Al Gore SUED them. I didn't say Broward did something illegal, but as a "reasonable" person I found their standards to be very, very unreasonable.
And I do know that dimpled chads have been "considered" for counting as a votes in some instances. Correct me if i am wrong, but Al's team was asserting that dimples "were" votes. There is a big difference between "considering" them, which PBC and Judge Burton definately did, and "counting" them as sure votes. The latter seems unreasonable to me. Not sure if you watched as much of the trials as I did, but this is a HUGE point to me. Al wanted them counted (fair enough) AND he wanted them counted per his lawyer's standards. This is where I will bring fairness into this. DOES THAT SEEM FAIR TO YOU? It does not to me, but I am just an unreasonable repub, I guess.
Your thought exercise is interesting and it does allow me to see how you justify your position. Some thoughts from the other side:
1) I think that Al threw the "nuclear bomb" of hand counting his 4 democratic regions before she made her pronouncements.
2) The ONLY way imo to FAIRLY and LEGALLY handle this close election was to go by the counting method that was on the book that does not favor one candidate or another. That is with machines. The threshold of malfunction, acts of god or foul play were not met. This means that they DID measure the "voter intent" as fairly and accurately as the laws, equipment and procedures permitted. Measuring it more does not make it fair. Al Gore got what was on the books at the time AND MORE.
While doing this he tried to supress other votes (military ballots) and maximize his (picking the 4 counties, sueing people that did not use their discretion the way he would like, even thought they were democrats.
Last of all - The FL SC made one decision that was rejected (remanded) by a 9-0 vote. The FL SC chose not to address that situation (no respect, imo) and built upon it and came up with another plan that was rejected by a 7-2 vote. All the news media jumps all over the 5-4 vote. I will explain what that was in case you are not sure. That was a vote as to whether to give the FL SC a THIRD chance to address situation. By a 5-4 vote (I'm surprised it was not more lopsided) they said, in essence: There is NOT ENOUGH TIME TO DO IT A THIRD TIME. That's it.
Respectfully,.
Scott |
