Quick point: I think you missed the point of the article, which was that
there should be run-off for the entire state of Florida, not just for Palm
Beach county. The theory here is that under the electoral system, states
elect presidents. If you set procedural arguments aside, then we know for
a fact that we don't have an accurate measure of the will of the Florida
electorate as things currently stand. Therefore, the thing to do is to
hold a run-off with all candidates removed from the ballot save Gore and
Bush. That way we're not leaving it up to Palm Beach--we're saying to the
state of Florida: Ok, it's up to you: choose. For the purposes of all
the normal election statistics, votes to third parties and so on, the
numbers from the first election stand.
It's the only way I can think of that takes the decision out of the hands
of the courts and which will give us a solid decision based on an
electoral process. Runoffs happen all the time in this country in smaller
races, so I see no reason not to do it here.
A few other things...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, John D. Giorgis wrote:
>
> The dirty little secret of the American Electoral Process is that it has all the
>accuracy of measuring a first down with the "chains" in a football game. We would
>like to think that we can tally our elections to the nearest ballot, but the truth of
>the matter is that even in recount after recount our vote tallys represent the true
>wishes of the voters only within a margin of +/- a couple thousand votes. In other
>words, all this recount stuff has all the validity of sending Al Gore and George Bush
>to Tallahasse, and conductin a coin flip with Bush calling it in the air.
This is not a dirty little secret, just a fact of life. Another fact of
life is that national elections are almost never this close, far less
often than 3rd & inches calls made by football referees. But this isn't a
football game, and common sense dictates that if the measurement you need
to make is too fine for a ruler, then bring in some calipers or something
more accurate.
> The central point, however, is that we all agreed beforehand that a recount would be
>the final arbiter of the count of the election. That recount, according to the AP,
>is completed, with Bush the victor by 327 votes. Barring a shocking Gore upset in
>the overseas ballots (I find it very difficult to believe Gore will carry a group of
>people that voted 54%-44% for Dole over Clinton), Bush should be the President-elect
>of the United States.
The AP isn't the, er, controlling legal authority in this case. Sorry. I
agree Bush will probably win. But I believe that assuming he will, under
these circumstances, is unnecessary, unjustified, and undemocratic. And
if your guess is as certain as you believe, then the GOP should be content
to wait for the sake of propriety if nothing else.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
