Just my two cents. There are so many threads already with so many carping partisan complaints, I thought it would be a good idea to enter my opinion in a new thread, with my name prominently attached.

I fully agree with Flint in his post under another thread, where he points out that the most important thing is that we follow the process as legally laid out and as butressed by existing precedents. To me, the existance of agreed upon, clearly stated rules and our keeping to them is FAR more important than the outcome of who is sits in the office for 4 years.

In that vein, I would say that each side requesting recounts is well within existing precedent. It is done in almost every close election. This one is exceedingly close. Recounts of votes cast on Nov. 7 are well in order. Even necessary.

Getting the courts involved and demanding new voting is a very different animal. It can only be justified, in my view, by the existance of a pattern of well-proven fraud undertaken with the intent to deny the election to one party or the other. This does not include a few instances of voting irregularity, affecting a vote or two, here or there. It must be a fraudulent election from top to bottom, with obvious abuses. Under that type of circumstances, a new election in the affected district is the only way to rectify the problem.

So far, I see claims that a ballot was confusing and might have led to mistaken patterns of voting. To me this is not sufficient to merit a re-vote.

I am entirely content to let each campaign request as many recounts as they deem necessary to clear up close states. I have no problem with that at all. In my opinion all those people who keep casting blame on Al Gore for not conceding yet are not even slightly justified. why shouldn't he do what is well accepted as the major, if not only, recourse for any candidate when the election ends in a photo finish?

But Gore, if he undertakes to throw this into the courts in an effort to get a new election in Florida, had better have a damn good case of fraud to argue, or he is shit in my view.

That's all.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 11, 2000

Answers

So far, I see claims that a ballot was confusing and might have led to mistaken patterns of voting. To me this is not sufficient to merit a re-vote.

I agree that a re-vote isn't warranted (too many people have been prejudiced one way or another and the temptation to *change* their original voing intention would be present) but I DO think that - as it's already been suggested as a possible compromise - that the numbers be adjusted statistically to be more in alignment with the registration/voting patterns in other areas of the State. We can't just sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist nor can we allow a slew of sundry lawsuits to drag this out.

-- Middle (OfTheRoad@compromise.com), November 11, 2000.

"But Gore, if he undertakes to throw this into the courts in an effort to get a new election in Florida, had better have a damn good case of fraud to argue, or he is shit in my view."

Perhaps in the next election it will be your vote that gets thrown out, and we'll see how you feel then.

This is an unprecedented incident in history, when the vote counts are so close that sloppiness of ballot design and countings can have a dramatic effect on the end result.

We are certainly technologically advanced enough to resolve these issues so they don't interfere with the need for the result to be an accurate representation of our actual votes.

There is no valid excuse for ignoring these problems as if they are not important enough to care about. EVERYONE has the right to have their vote COUNT!

-- (thats@shitty.attitude), November 11, 2000.

Recounts are no problem. I'd been involved in several of them when I was doing the computer end of the processing when I lived in Florida (NOT Palm Beach County, by the way). You want one, five, or ten recounts, fine.

But as far as having your vote COUNT -- in this case, I've read nothing in the Constitution that mentions "...but if you're stupid and you want to change your vote because you realized it after-the-fact, we'll give you another chance." These 19,000-or-so people were not stripped of their franchise, as some are trying to claim -- they were allowed to vote. You wanna vote, that's your right. You wanna vote with your head up your ass, that's your right, too.

(And before anyone jumps down my throat, I voted for Gore -- and yes, I KNOW I voted for Gore -- since Pat Paulsen wasn't on the ballot, and Pat Buchanan gives me the dry heaves...)

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), November 11, 2000.

Brian,

We have had disputes in the past, but I just want you to know that I love you man.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

"These 19,000-or-so people were not stripped of their franchise, as some are trying to claim"

I am a registered Democrat, and I accept the fact that "people were not stripped of their franchise." Only egotism combined with stupidity (IMHO) is the fuel behind the steam of ardent discontent.

Re-count, fine. But re-vote? NAY!

from Jay

-- Jay (here@home.com), November 11, 2000.

I agree. Well said. We need to get this behind us.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 11, 2000.

Yes. Some people are *always* going to disenfranchise themselves for one reason or another. There is no way to make voting so easy that some people won't screw it up. We have to accept this misfortune and live with it, because we'll never cure it.

Nobody is making the silly claim that Gore would try to throw the election into the courts, or have another vote, if he thought Bush would benefit. Those who are complaining about injustice aren't all Gore supporters by accident either. This partisan willingness to undermine the system for immediate short-term gain is straight out of Aesop's fables.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 11, 2000.

>> This is an unprecedented incident in history, when the vote counts are so close that sloppiness of ballot design and countings can have a dramatic effect on the end result. <<

Uh, no, it isn't unprecedented at all. Close elections happen every two years. I mean really close ones just like this. My congressional district is absolutely notorious for electing our congresscritter by an eyelash and needing recounts to determine who won. I think it was in 1994 that it came down to fewer than 300 votes and we had to wait for a week to know the winner.

Since the President (and VP) is the only office in the USA that is filled by a nationwide vote, it is much rarer for it to be this close. But look up the Samuel Tilden - Rutherford B. Hayes election and you'll see that even this year's outcome is not "unprecedented".

The system knows how to deal with close elections, if you let it. And it doesn't involve whining about how somebody might have cast a mistaken vote if they weren't paying close attention. At a certain point, you just have to count the votes and declare a winner. Period. Any other course of action leads to something even worse.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 11, 2000.