At 10:06 PM 11/14/00 -0400, Gord wrote:
>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?
Correct. No.
The reason for this is that you suppose that the hypothetical "true
intentions of the voters" is a measurable quantity which exists. When you
are counting 6 * 10 ^ 6 ballots over and over again, it is unlikely that
you will ever get the same result twice. Ballots get fatigued, lost, or
mishandled. For example, when I voted in Maryland, I nearly voted for the
wrong candidate and create a small "dimple" under Al Gore. I then voted
for Bush. How many times does my ballot get handled before the "dimple"
becomes a "chad" and my vote is invalidated? These are the sorts of
circumstances that affect an incredibly close election.
This is especially true for "hand counts." This process is exceedingly
tiresome, requiring hundreds of hours of work, and human error and fatigue
becomes a factor.
Thus, the law provides a certain set of statutes for "officially"
ascertaining the results - even with the knowledge that no two recounts
will produce identical results. Those are the results we go by. As it
is, these "official" results have a margin of error for the "true
intentions of the voters" of at least +/- a couple thousand votes.
Bush finished election day with a 1,700 vote lead. After recounting all
the counties, Bush had a 300 vote lead. This includes counting Palm Beach
County *twice.* The Gore campaign, however, wants hand recounts in
Broward, Dade, and yes, Palm Beach County.
The machine recount in Broward County added only three votes to Gore's
margin. A "test" hand recount in Broward County added only 4 votes to
Gore's margin, and county officials deemed this insignificant and abandoned
a hand recount. The Gore campaign of course, finds this decision to be an
outrage, and is going to court to force a hand recount of the entire
county.
In Dade County, the automatic machine recount added a mere 26 votes to
Gore's margin. Again, hardly significant. (A "test" hand recount is
pending.) Still, is it surprising that Gore would insist upon hand
recounts in two heavily Democratic counties, with Democratic-controlled
election commissions, and at least one of which has a long and storied
tradition of voter fraud?
Palm Beach County, admittedly, has added some 682 votes to Gore's margin.
This means that Palm Beach County alone accounted for HALF of the ground Al
Gore made up between the initial tally and the recount. Still, Palm Beach
County *has* been recounted twice already.
At what point do we say that more recounts are pointless? There has to be
an end, and at some point there has to be a loser. As it is, we have laws
for that, which ensure an outcome to our elections. In my opinion, it is
arguable that machine recounts are quick, fair, and unbiased and fulfill
the election statues of the State of Florida.
JDG
_______________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Now is not the Time for Third Chances,
It is a Time for New Beginnings."
- George W. Bush 8/3/00
******************VOTE BUSH / CHENEY 2000 *******************
