Good morning, Nadine. I understand your hypothetical situation with the voting machines, but feel strongly that your point is mute. All evidence suggests that this discrepancy is not some new phenomenon that was just discovered. You can't fix that HYPOTHETICAL situation in a super heated days after a close election. You need to go with the remedies on the books to be fair to all parties.
Some comments on your points:
"In this case the different error rates of the voting systems were sufficient to change the result of the election and thwart the will of the voters"
You keep saying that the machines erred. People erred. This is a major problem with your position, imo. I am a bit of a "tough noogies" (as you would say) type of guy in that the methods, instructions and the responsibility to check your ballot fall on the voter. I don't think you should get two chances to cast your vote. If you did it wrong it is YOUR fault, and that is how life works. Sorry if life is not always polite and doesn't always give you a chance for a do-over. As the Sauls case pointed out through the questioning of Boise's statistician a lot of things can effect why the error rates are different. Not a scrap of proof provided that it was the machines that erred. In fact if they did error, I would be on your side most likely.
"I say in this case that the machines favored the Democratic candidate"
See my previous comment. MACHINES DON'T FAVOR ANYBODY. If the dems truly believe that vot-a-matics favor republicans then they should be working VERY HARD to ELIMINATE them from the entire country. The election in FL was close, so this kind of an anomaly is quiet hard to take for the loosing side. Just because some of Al's lawyers spotted this "anomaly" in 4 counties that were heavily democratic does not mean those 4 counties should decide the election. AGAIN - You have got to go with what is on the books, and fix it for next time. We'll see how the politicians do with this issue.
"Would you argue that the machine count was fair and favored neither side?"
Yes. I have and will argue that strongly. Al Gore's lawyers found 4 counties that they felt would aid them, so they took advantage of a law that they thought they could use. As a non lawyer, I think that acts of god, machine MALFUNTION and corruption (tell me the word I can't come up with) are self explanatory. Laws are supposed to be interpreted with the most obvious meaning. I cannot justify machine malfunction to mean the same thing that Boise tried to teach us it meant (that is to include varying error rates between machines as a malfunction).
"In the USC decision, the court ruled that similar ballots must be treated similarly in a recount, or it violates the equal protection clause"
OK, I am with you so far.
"In the Florida count certain counties, who all used the same OpScan ballots, treated them differently. Some counties manually counted machine-unreadable ballots and some did not"
You are talking about the MANDATORY recount, right? If so, I believe that there is some discretion given the individual canvassing boards as to how they completed the recount. If there was discretion allowed by FL law, then I don't see your point. I will also speculate that if there was something fishy (illegal, unconstitutional, etc.) that at least one of Al Gore's 75 lawyers would have brought it up. Someone needs to bring it up for a judge (any judge) to rule on it. Could that be another error by his legal team?
"To invalidate only the recount while permitting the count amounts to permitting the greater violation of equal protection"
Am I missing something? Did anyone contest either of the machine counts other than the 4 hand picked areas by Al Gore's lawyers? If not, I can only assume they were ok with the results. Al picked the 4 places where he (and his lawyers) thought they could pick up the most votes. I guess you are suggesting they should have contested more counties.
"The behavior of the FSC tells me that they believed a specific standard would be overturned"
It can be tricky to speculate what someone "believed". I happen to share your view that they thought it would be overturned. But that is because it would have been UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, not because the US SC is a group of political hacks, as you assert. I know you havn't said "hacks", but that is what you are saying when you state that their ruling was political (ie, not based on law).
"I don't think there's anything ridiculous about considering the SC's opinion political"
I have asked you point blank and will do so again:
1) Which of the 9 was political when they mandated the 1st FL SC decision?
2) Which of the 7 was political when they ruled on the 2nd FL SC decision?
3) NEW QUESTION - How was the FL SC's DEMOCRATIC chief justice's decision politically motivated when he issued a BLISTERING assessment of the majority's decision? |
