At 8:03 PM -0400 14/11/2000, John D. Giorgis wrote:
>In other words, any legal decision which does not count the hand recounts
>elects George Bush as President. Any legal decision which allows the hand
>recounts likely elects Gore as President. What a situation.
Wait. Wait wait wait. How can you say that the decision "elects"? If it's a
case of eliminating error, then it's an elimination of error that gives a
clearer picture of the result of the PEOPLE voting Gore, isn't it? I mean
if all the rest of the post is true? Whereas, if there are enough Gore
votes that he would win, but the recounts are not considered, then the
decision simply countermands the people's vote for Gore and places Bush in
his place. I'm assuming the outcome as you say it, that is -- essentially,
I am saying that the decision seems separate from the election, as an
election is specifically the product of the vote ascertained as best as
possible -- the decision either allows or prevents that being ascertained
as best as possible (say, with multiple hand recounts if necessary). That
assuming a relatively high security and elimination of the possibility of
fraud as best as possible.
No?
Gord
