"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> The Bush campaign has not requested a manual recount in any county.
>
> The Bush campaign recognizes that manual recount opens each ballot up to
>interpretation as to the "intentions of the voter." As such, it would be unfair to
>only do this in counties that are Democratic. It would have to be done in all
>counties, in the interest of fairness.
The manual recount is in accordance with local laws. Republicans have harped
on how local people should be in control of their own business yet the first
time the locals have a law that the GOP doesn't like, they go running to the
_Federal_ court. Do we sense just a little bit of hypocrisy here? Requests
for a hand recount are part of the process and in fact George Bush signed a
law in his state authorizing a hand recount in cases such as this. It's OK
for Texas but they ought to do things differently in Florida? Do we detect a
bit more hypocrisy here?
> Unfortuantely with 6 * 10^6 ballots out there, this prospect is distasteful.
>Moreover, given the huge risks of human error and voter >fraud in such a process, the
>Bush campaign feels that both sides should simply agree to stick by the unbiased
>machine recount (which either >side might conceivably have won.)
It's to late, by law, to call for anymore recounts anyway. So unless a court
decision mandates them there won't be anymore. The deadline to request a
recount, by the state laws once considered sacrosanct by the GOP, was Friday.
The Republican party made a conscious decision not to request recounts in
heavily Republican districts.
>
> I am unaware of the reports that you site that Seminole conducted a manual recount.
>If, in fact, Bush benefitted by 91 votes from manual recount there, I suspect that
>Bush (as woudl I), would more than happily not count those 91 votes.
>
Kinda doubt it. The hand recount was authorized by the Republicans, I'm not
sure if it was requested by them.
Doug
